CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Prop 8 Overturned!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Prop 8 Overturned! - Page 2

post #51 of 145
8/5/10 at 8:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by HBarr
But hey, if you're talking gross dollars Texas is pretty friggin close
If by close you mean only needing to add 50% more to their GDP to catch CA, then... well, no, that's not close.

To move more on-topic, when does anyone realistically expect Texas to legalize gay marriage (in any form for any amount of time)?!? My personal guess would be when the national government forces them to.

The reason this news is such a big national story is that historically California acts as a political frontrunner and indicator of future policy for the rest of the nation. Getting this issue settled in a positive way in CA is the biggest hurdle towards settling it for our society as a whole.
Reply
post #52 of 145
8/5/10 at 9:35am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HBarr View Post
This has me worried (and quite a few gay brothers and sisters too). The Supreme Court is leaning decidedly right. An unfortunate ruling from them could set the cause back years.
As right as they leaning, there's no way the current court would overturn this decision.

Well, never say never I guess, but I think it's pretty clear that the majority of the Justices would feel the same way as this Judge Walker, who also happens to be fairly conservative himself. He was no lefty.
Reply
post #53 of 145
8/5/10 at 10:10am
He was given the seat by Reagan and re-elected by George HW, so yeah, definitely not too leftist
Reply
post #54 of 145
8/5/10 at 10:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dranbon View Post
That was fast! Here is CitizenLink's (Focus on the Family) response to the ruling:
Read that response, then read excerpts from this argument:

Quote:
... is not a right. It is a privilege that may or may not be granted. Politics is no place...consequently the privilege should not be granted....

The courageous, chivalrous, and manly men and the womanly women, the real mothers and home builders of the country, are opposed to this innovation in American political life. ...

... has been proven a failure in states that have tried it. It is wrong. California should profit by the mistakes of other states. ... On the contrary, statistics go to show that in most equal ... states, Colorado particularly, that divorces have greatly increased since the adoption of the ... amendment, showing that it has been a home destroyer.

Keep the home pure and all will be well with the Republic. Let not the sanctity of the home be invaded by every little politician that may be running up and down the highway for office.
Arguments and points sound familiar?

These were points taken from an argument written by J. B. Sanford, Senator, 4th District of California...in 1911...expressing his displeasure over the passing of Women's Sufferage--the right for women to vote.
Reply
post #55 of 145
8/5/10 at 11:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martianman
These were points taken from an argument written by J. B. Sanford, Senator, 4th District of California...in 1911...expressing his displeasure over the passing of Women's Sufferage--the right for women to vote.
And look how badly that turned out!

Just imagine how awful the opponents' lives will be when they have no one left to discriminate against! The horror!

Well, they'll always have the poor.
Reply
post #56 of 145
8/5/10 at 12:28pm
The most important thing about this case is not the decision itself, but the fervor and analysis of the decision. It's not a half assed wishy washy argument. It's well thought out and it repudiates everything about the anti-gay marriage screed.

It's a remarkable decision. This guy had to have aced law school.
Reply
post #57 of 145
8/5/10 at 12:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martianman View Post
Arguments and points sound familiar?

These were points taken from an argument written by J. B. Sanford, Senator, 4th District of California...in 1911...expressing his displeasure over the passing of Women's Sufferage--the right for women to vote.
And there are still better, more substantive arguments there than we're hearing from the homophobic crowd.
Reply
post #58 of 145
8/5/10 at 1:09pm
As for Olson, It is damn refreshing to have a republican actually stand for personal freedoms.

I do wonder if this is Olson getting back for not being put on the Supreme Court? j/k
Reply
post #59 of 145
8/5/10 at 7:06pm
I've been sending this to all my Republican friends.

Reply
post #60 of 145
8/5/10 at 8:01pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompoussory Estoppel View Post
The most important thing about this case is not the decision itself, but the fervor and analysis of the decision. It's not a half assed wishy washy argument. It's well thought out and it repudiates everything about the anti-gay marriage screed.

It's a remarkable decision. This guy had to have aced law school.
Yes. Absolutely, yes.
Reply
post #61 of 145
8/5/10 at 8:03pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diva View Post
I've been sending this to all my Republican friends.
Awesome. Even better than this Meat Loaf one.

Reply
post #62 of 145
8/6/10 at 12:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather View Post
CHUD Republicans are so much better than regular ones.

Except Snaieke, obviously.
Is Snaike a homophobe too? Wouldn't be surprising, but I've never seen him say anything about it.
Reply
post #63 of 145
8/6/10 at 4:14am
Didn't realize the judge was gay. Not that it matters, it doesn't, rights are rights, but it's kinda interesting.
Reply
post #64 of 145
8/6/10 at 5:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cameron Hughes View Post
Is Snaike a homophobe too? Wouldn't be surprising, but I've never seen him say anything about it.
Not that I know of. Just an asshole compared to Pomp et al.
Reply
post #65 of 145
8/6/10 at 7:02am
Just came back from swimming in the sea of bitter tears over at Free Republic. It was so great, especially in a day as hot as today. I never would have guessed but swimming in tears is much like swimming in mineral water. It tingles the balls in a most pleasant manner.
Reply
post #66 of 145
8/6/10 at 8:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuddL View Post
Didn't realize the judge was gay. Not that it matters, it doesn't, rights are rights, but it's kinda interesting.
Oh, and the hay that wingnuts are trying to make out of this, too. I guess only Straight White Males are capable of rendering unbiased decisions.

This guy was a Reagan appointee, fer chrissakes...
Reply
post #67 of 145
8/6/10 at 8:54am
You mean a Reagan FAG, Jacob.
Reply
post #68 of 145
8/6/10 at 11:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather View Post
Not that I know of. Just an asshole compared to Pomp et al.
Pomp is not a Republican, he is a Libertarian. At least that is what he claimed when he came to the board.

http://www.chud.com/forum/showthread...an#post2350575

http://www.chud.com/forum/showthread...an#post2350628


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompoussory Estoppel View Post
Coming from a Libertarian standpoint and knowing a lot of other Libertarians just like myself, I can tell you that our dislike for this Republican Party has to deal with:

The ties to the Religious Right
The ties to Big Business and the ignoring of small business growth
The ties to the military-industrial complex
The ties to deficit spending and the lack of control of government spending
Reply
post #69 of 145
8/6/10 at 12:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeypants View Post
I wonder how much this will actually serve as a galvanizing rod for the republicans in November, though. This'll give them a real rallying point.
Something to keep in mind. Maddow did a story last night on how very few GOP stars had said word one about the decision. Considering that the whole "Family Values" thing is one of the major wedge issues, I have to assume that they're loading the artillery for a major barrage closer to November.
Reply
post #70 of 145
8/6/10 at 1:26pm
Whenever they make the movie, Xander Berkeley for Judge Walker.


Reply
post #71 of 145
8/6/10 at 2:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post
Oh, and the hay that wingnuts are trying to make out of this, too. I guess only Straight White Males are capable of rendering unbiased decisions.

This guy was a Reagan appointee, fer chrissakes...
Not only that, his nomination was opposed by Democrats because they claimed he had a history of "insensitivity to gays and the poor."
Reply
post #72 of 145
8/6/10 at 2:45pm
The opposition knew he was gay and didn't file a request for the judge to recuse himself due to a possible conflict. Tough shit on them.
Reply
post #73 of 145
8/6/10 at 4:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
Pomp is not a Republican, he is a Libertarian. At least that is what he claimed when he came to the board.

http://www.chud.com/forum/showthread...an#post2350575

http://www.chud.com/forum/showthread...an#post2350628
I was a Libertarian in theory only, but I never registered as anything but Republican. The problem with conservative politics today is that there are too many wing nuts that define themselves as everything under the sun, so when I do define myself as Libertarian, Republican, etc... I really can't claim that moniker cause it's been absolutely discredited by said wing nuts.

When Libertarians suggest that Abraham Lincoln was the worst president in US history and that they want to repeal the 14th Amendment, I can't say I'm a Libertarian. Those ideas are not only totally asinine, but they fly in the face of everything I know and believe. Fuck those people. And... just to keep this thread from derailing - fuck anyone who disagrees with this ruling.
Reply
post #74 of 145
8/6/10 at 7:46pm
To take from a previous ruling:

Quote:
It is emphatically the providence and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.
Marbury vs. Madison 1803
Reply
post #75 of 145
8/6/10 at 8:00pm
So has anyone else read the decision yet? I'm really digging his wording and such. This thing is tailor-made to get cleared by the current Right-leaning Supreme Court.

I also love that parts of it read like a love letter to Anthony Kennedy.

Walker really did try to leave very little to chance with this baby.
Reply
post #76 of 145
8/6/10 at 9:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompoussory Estoppel View Post
I was a Libertarian in theory only, but I never registered as anything but Republican. The problem with conservative politics today is that there are too many wing nuts that define themselves as everything under the sun, so when I do define myself as Libertarian, Republican, etc... I really can't claim that moniker cause it's been absolutely discredited by said wing nuts.

When Libertarians suggest that Abraham Lincoln was the worst president in US history and that they want to repeal the 14th Amendment, I can't say I'm a Libertarian. Those ideas are not only totally asinine, but they fly in the face of everything I know and believe. Fuck those people. And... just to keep this thread from derailing - fuck anyone who disagrees with this ruling.
Also, those aren't mutually exclusive identifications. One is a party affiliation, the other is a political philosophy. You can be a market anarchist and a Republican, just look at Ronald Reagan, Alan Greenspan, and Ron and Rand Paul. All that is required is a basic ignorance of/contempt for the history and traditional ideals of the Republican Party, total ignorance of how a modern state works, and something close to a complete divorce from reality.
Reply
post #77 of 145
8/6/10 at 11:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulain View Post
Also, those aren't mutually exclusive identifications. One is a party affiliation, the other is a political philosophy. You can be a market anarchist and a Republican, just look at Ronald Reagan, Alan Greenspan, and Ron and Rand Paul. All that is required is a basic ignorance of/contempt for the history and traditional ideals of the Republican Party, total ignorance of how a modern state works, and something close to a complete divorce from reality.
If people were better informed they would stop saying that as it's pure apples and oranges right there. True free market advocates have nothing but contempt for Greenspan. His organizing the rescue of LTCM is considered the opening of the bailout floodgates. Not to mention his repeated use of inflation.
Reply
post #78 of 145
8/7/10 at 12:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
If people were better informed they would stop saying that as it's pure apples and oranges right there. True free market advocates have nothing but contempt for Greenspan. His organizing the rescue of LTCM is considered the opening of the bailout floodgates. Not to mention his repeated use of inflation.
It's not apple and oranges, really. Every single person I listed completely violates his market anarchism at one point or another. Reagan tripled the national debt largely by engaging in truly insane amounts of completely unnecessary defense spending--not a great way to shrink the government--and the Pauls' inconsistencies could fill volumes.

There is a reason for this: market anarchism is just completely incompatible with a large state that exists anywhere other than inside the mind of a market anarchist. You have to be suffering in a state of permanent cognitive dissonance if you subscribe to that worldview and aren't living on a rural private lot of land, drinking collected rain water, bartering for all your needs with livestock and precious metals, and shooting trespassers. Greenspan is right at home. They're all delusional hypocrites.
Reply
post #79 of 145
8/7/10 at 2:53pm
Yeah, I have a hard time believing you can come up with a market anarchist who was actually able to uphold those principles in practice. It's a convenient posture, nothing more.
Reply
post #80 of 145
8/7/10 at 3:20pm
Let gays begin marrying, Schwarzenegger urges
Reply
post #81 of 145
8/7/10 at 4:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulain View Post
It's not apple and oranges, really. Every single person I listed completely violates his market anarchism at one point or another. Reagan tripled the national debt largely by engaging in truly insane amounts of completely unnecessary defense spending--not a great way to shrink the government--and the Pauls' inconsistencies could fill volumes.

There is a reason for this: market anarchism is just completely incompatible with a large state that exists anywhere other than inside the mind of a market anarchist. You have to be suffering in a state of permanent cognitive dissonance if you subscribe to that worldview and aren't living on a rural private lot of land, drinking collected rain water, bartering for all your needs with livestock and precious metals, and shooting trespassers. Greenspan is right at home. They're all delusional hypocrites.
Is there a difference, in your mind, between those who support free market principles and market anarchists?
Reply
post #82 of 145
8/8/10 at 4:45pm
Louis C.K.: 'What Better Place to Put a Dick But a Man's Ass? It's Perfect' / Queerty
Reply
post #83 of 145
8/8/10 at 9:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diva View Post
I've been sending this to all my Republican friends.
This about covers it. Gays have the right to be as equally miserable as married straight people.
Reply
post #84 of 145
8/8/10 at 10:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
Is there a difference, in your mind, between those who support free market principles and market anarchists?
A "free market" is, by definition, market anarchy. I suppose, if I were desperate to make a distinction, it would be the following:

A person with "free market principles" somehow believes that you can achieve market anarchist ends without sacrificing the creature comforts of a modern state. They're the members of Reagan's something-for-nothing movement.

A pure market anarchist is someone who realizes that his batshit insane economic ideas have radical social and political consequences. However, he fails to make the genius leap towards recognizing those consequences make his dream unattainable. Almost nobody enjoys paying taxes, even fewer people want to live in a world resembling Somalia or a Mad Max film.
Reply
post #85 of 145
8/8/10 at 10:49pm
What would you label a person who supports free market principles while at the same time realizing that a certain amount of effective regulation is not only necessary but also advantageous?

I only ask because most free market supporters (smart folks that I know of) fall into that category.
Reply
post #86 of 145
8/8/10 at 10:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
What would you label a person who supports free market principles while at the same time realizing that a certain amount of effective regulation is not only necessary but also advantageous?

I only ask because most free market supporters (smart folks that I know of) fall into that category.
I think there is absolutely no utility in labeling your beliefs "free market" if you recognize the need for external regulation of the market. It's like saying that you have stateless society/pure anarchist ideals but recognize the utility of things like governments, armies, and jails. They;re both cases of wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
Reply
post #87 of 145
8/9/10 at 11:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
What would you label a person who supports free market principles while at the same time realizing that a certain amount of effective regulation is not only necessary but also advantageous?

I only ask because most free market supporters (smart folks that I know of) fall into that category.
These same people also shriek like little girls whenever someone mentions possibly thinking about looking into the suggestion that a new law could be passed.
Reply
post #88 of 145
8/9/10 at 11:33am
Nice to see a thread about the striking down of discrimination devolve yet into another political pissing contest.


Good work guys!
Reply
post #89 of 145
8/9/10 at 11:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devildoubt View Post
These same people also shriek like little girls whenever someone mentions possibly thinking about looking into the suggestion that a new law could be passed.
Okie dokie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdHocken
Nice to see a thread about the striking down of discrimination devolve yet into another political pissing contest.


Good work guys!
Probably my fault. Moth to a flame and all that. Let's get back on topic.
Reply
post #90 of 145
8/9/10 at 12:23pm
Newt Gingrich got all high and mighty about preserving the sanctity of marriage. Then people started posting on his site asking which of his three marriages he held sacred. His webmaster took the comments down, sadly.
Reply
post #91 of 145
8/9/10 at 12:34pm
Back to the subject...

I went to a same-sex marriage this weekend. I'm happy to report that it was just as boring and banal as all the other hetero marriages I've been to. I consider this progress. Gays and straights now have the equal opportunity to bore their friends and family with a reading from Paul's letter to the Corinthians.

Of course, the DJ playing Dancing Queen at the reception was a little too on the nose for me. But since the wedding was New Hampshire gay, it was a nice break from the Keith Urban.
Reply
post #92 of 145
8/9/10 at 12:37pm
The attendees were probably better dancers too.
Reply
post #93 of 145
8/9/10 at 1:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Closer View Post
The attendees were probably better dancers too.
You'd think that -- hell, even I thought that -- but you'd be wrong.
Reply
post #94 of 145
8/11/10 at 12:21am
http://atlantapost.com/2010/08/10/is...esnt-think-so/

Quote:
And just yesterday, a video of Alveda King, the conservative activist niece of Martin Luther King Jr., surfaced of her speaking at the National Organization for Marriage rally in Atlanta this weekend, in which she had not only equated gay marriage to a genocide but also stated that “marriage between one man and one woman remains the guard against human extinction.”

In an interview after the rally in which a teary-eyed interviewer asked Alveda whether or not Coretta’s views on gay marriage would have mimicked that of the late King Jr., Alveda remarked that her views come from God and the natural law and that “She (Coretta) was married to him (Martin Luther King, Jr.). I’ve got his DNA. She doesn’t. She didn’t. She’s passed.“

Does anyone else note the irony of Alveda, a divorcee herself, critical of Coretta for “only being married” to MLK Jr., while campaigning for the sanctity of marriage?
Impressive.
Reply
post #95 of 145
8/11/10 at 12:32am
I guess she doesn't quite "get" her father's concept of the Beloved Community or the fact that it's a secularized version of Christ's Kingdom of Heaven. Why is it so fucking hard for these people to recognize that Christ was one of the most radical proponents of social justice in human history? Honestly?

It's the entire fucking reason his message had power. In a political and religious system that told the poor, the sick, the foreigners, and the outcasts in general that they were worthless because of accidents of birth, Jesus had a simple message: what determines your worth is not who you are but what you do. It's the reason his movement was so large. He took the worst off in Judean society and empowered them. He's even made fun of by his enemies for doing that in the fucking Bible. How is this fucking hard to understand?
Reply
post #96 of 145
8/11/10 at 12:48am
These are people who yell at their kids when they don't pray at the dinner table yet spit at homeless people they pass on the street.

If there is a God, I imagine he's going "How the fuck..."
Reply
post #97 of 145
8/11/10 at 1:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syd View Post
These are people who yell at their kids when they don't pray at the dinner table yet spit at homeless people they pass on the street.

If there is a God, I imagine he's going "How the fuck..."
My girlfriend once saw a homeless guy get on the bus while it was parked, ask for money, get rejected by everyone he asked, and as he was leaving some guy yelled out after him "You need to find Jesus!!!" (with an annoyed tone), and promptly went back to talking on his cell phone.

*sigh*
Reply
post #98 of 145
8/11/10 at 2:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulain View Post
I guess she doesn't quite "get" her father's concept of the Beloved Community or the fact that it's a secularized version of Christ's Kingdom of Heaven. Why is it so fucking hard for these people to recognize that Christ was one of the most radical proponents of social justice in human history? Honestly?

It's the entire fucking reason his message had power. In a political and religious system that told the poor, the sick, the foreigners, and the outcasts in general that they were worthless because of accidents of birth, Jesus had a simple message: what determines your worth is not who you are but what you do. It's the reason his movement was so large. He took the worst off in Judean society and empowered them. He's even made fun of by his enemies for doing that in the fucking Bible. How is this fucking hard to understand?
Nobody actually reads the Bible. They just know bits and pieces from TV.
Reply
post #99 of 145
8/11/10 at 3:51am
Mexico Gay Marriage: Supreme Court Orders All Mexican States To Recognize Weddings Performed In Mexico City

Quote:
MEXICO CITY — Mexico's Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that all 31 states must recognize same-sex marriages performed in the capital, though its decision does not force those states to begin marrying gay couples in their territory.

In a 9-2 decision, the tribunal cited an article of the constitution requiring states to recognize legal contracts drawn up elsewhere.

It did not specify what degree of recognition must be granted to same-sex couples.

Mexico City's same-sex marriage law, enacted in March, extends to wedded gay couples the right to adopt children, to jointly apply for bank loans, to inherit wealth and to be covered by their spouses' insurance policies. Some of those may end up applying only in the capital.

The Supreme Court ruled last week that same-sex weddings are constitutional – though it is holding separate discussions this week on the adoption clause.

One of the justices, Sergio Aguirre, argued against adoptions by same-sex couples Tuesday, saying children might suffer discrimination as a result.
Reply
post #100 of 145
8/11/10 at 8:38am
Quote:
And just yesterday, a video of Alveda King, the conservative activist niece of Martin Luther King Jr., surfaced of her speaking at the National Organization for Marriage rally in Atlanta this weekend, in which she had not only equated gay marriage to a genocide but also stated that “marriage between one man and one woman remains the guard against human extinction.”
Sweetheart, it ain't lack of people that's going to cause our extinction.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Prop 8 Overturned!