View Full Version : DOMA is DEAD!!!!!
5-4.
DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.
YES!
Prop 8 too! Wahooooooooo!!!!!!!
It's an interesting decision. The Federal Government should have never been involved in a state issue, I'm happy that the Supreme Court has, in theory, reminded the Feds of that fact.
Now, it would be more interesting if the same concept were applied across the board, removing Federal influence from all state legislation, but somehow I don't see that type of uniformity coming about.
5-4.
DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.
YES!
Prop 8 too! Wahooooooooo!!!!!!!
Rebecca, I was just taking a walk with a neighbor and grumpily told her, "Does anyone actually think that THIS court will strike down DOMA?"
I have never been happier to be wrong.
I was pleasantly surprised - they did kind of duck around on the prop 8 ruling, but they whacked DOMA right between the eyes.
It's an interesting decision. The Federal Government should have never been involved in a state issue, I'm happy that the Supreme Court has, in theory, reminded the Feds of that fact.
Now, it would be more interesting if the same concept were applied across the board, removing Federal influence from all state legislation, but somehow I don't see that type of uniformity coming about.
Yes, it is a very conservative court. Looking forward to the midterms, so we can elect those who will pass a reintroduction of VRA! Having grown up with a conservative atty father, I have always been fascinated by the dance of states rights/ fed rights.
I was pleasantly surprised - they did kind of duck around on the prop 8 ruling, but they whacked DOMA right between the eyes.It is important to note that there is a relevant ruling vis a vis Prop 8: It was the district court ruling from the district of Northern California. With today's SCOTUS ruling, the appeals court is ordered to reverse their decision to consider the appeal, leaving the lower court ruling intact.
That ruling held, essentially, that banning same-sex marriage violated both equal protection and due process constitutional protections. Once the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted, that will again be the law of the land in California. The challenge, going forward, is establishing essential ruling that more broadly.
poetry_writer
6-26-13, 12:56pm
Didnt California vote NO on the gay marriage issue? So is this the govt saying....sorry, your vote is for nothing? We the GOVT over rule your vote...?...........Not commenting one way or another on gay marriage , just asking ..is this what happened?
Yes, it is a very conservative court. Looking forward to the midterms, so we can elect those who will pass a reintroduction of VRA! Having grown up with a conservative atty father, I have always been fascinated by the dance of states rights/ fed rights.
What would you 'reintroduce' into a Voting Rights Act? As I understand it, the '65 VRA stands with the exception that all states will now be treated alike, fulfilling the long standing federal pledge of 'equal treatment under the law'.
Didnt California vote NO on the gay marriage issue?A voter initiative attempted to apply a discriminatory standard to the institution of marriage. That was struck down by the district court for the district of Northern California (where Sacramento is located) as a violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the US Constitution.
What would you 'reintroduce' into a Voting Rights Act? As I understand it, the '65 VRA stands with the exception that all states will now be treated alike, fulfilling the long standing federal pledge of 'equal treatment under the law'.Personally, my solution to that matter is to apply the same standards that have been applied to those several specified states to all states. The federal government should monitor all states compliance with fair election laws. The states are becoming increasingly corrupt in that regard, necessitating broad federal oversight.
The '65 VRA strikes me as outdated mainly due to the requirements that certain rules only apply to certain southern states.
Back on track, I'm glad DOMA is gone from both a state's rights and a personal perspective. There is no reason my brother and his long term partner should not have access to the same benefits of marriage that my wife and I do, assuming they are willing to take the same legal steps. I'm still more of a civil union supporter when it comes to government, but progress is progress...
What would you 'reintroduce' into a Voting Rights Act? As I understand it, the '65 VRA stands with the exception that all states will now be treated alike, fulfilling the long standing federal pledge of 'equal treatment under the law'.
I would reinstate the federal scrutiny of those states that continue to engage egregious practices barring people, particularly people of color, from is registering to vote &/or voting. I view enforcement of the 15th as a federal role. In other words, reinstate Sec. 4.
poetry_writer
6-26-13, 1:47pm
[QUOTE=bUU;146528]A voter initiative attempted to apply a discriminatory standard to the institution of marriage. That was struck down by the district court for the district of Northern California (where Sacramento is located) as a violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the US Constitution.
So, is that a yes? They did vote against gay marriage in California but the federal govt said we over ride your vote?
I would reinstate the federal scrutiny of those states that continue to engage egregious practices barring people, particularly people of color, from is registering to vote &/or voting. I view enforcement of the 15th as a federal role. In other words, reinstate Sec. 4.
So, without evidence that any specific states are engaging in "egregious practices barring people, particularly people of color, from registering to vote &/or voting", you would rather that specific states be treated differently under federal law?
Isn't that belief diametrically opposed to your stated relief that DOMA has been repealed?
A voter initiative attempted to apply a discriminatory standard to the institution of marriage. That was struck down by the district court for the district of Northern California (where Sacramento is located) as a violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the US Constitution.So, is that a yes? They did vote against gay marriage in California but the federal govt said we over ride your vote?Your characterization projects a faulty and indefensibly prejudicial premise. I was very deliberate about characterizing what happened in a non-political manner, expressing the actuality of what happened, fully integrating the Supreme Court's decision. Please respect that, and do the same.
poetry_writer
6-26-13, 1:57pm
Your characterization projects a faulty and indefensibly prejudicial premise. I was very deliberate about characterizing what happened in a non-political manner, expressing the actuality of what happened, fully integrating the Supreme Court's decision. Please respect that, and do the same.
Buu its a simple question. It has a yes or no answer. You have already announced me a prejudiced person........really?......AGAIN i ask you, did the voters of California vote against gay marriage and the federal government override that vote? YES or NO?
Buu its a simple question. It has a yes or no answer.You are wrong. It is not a simple question.
I have already answered your question. For a third time: A voter initiative attempted to apply a discriminatory standard to the institution of marriage. That was struck down by the district court for the district of Northern California (where Sacramento is located) as a violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the US Constitution.
There is no simplifying the matter. Any attempt at simplification is explicitly and attempt to obscure the truth. I'm sorry that you're apparently upset about the truth of the matter.
You have already announced me a prejudiced person.No I didn't. Read my message again. I wrote, "Your characterization projects a faulty and indefensibly prejudicial premise." With respect, it appears to me that you don't know what those words mean.
So, without evidence that any specific states are engaging in "egregious practices barring people, particularly people of color, from registering to vote &/or voting", you would rather that specific states be treated differently under federal law?
Isn't that belief diametrically opposed to your stated relief that DOMA has been repealed?
Dude, there is plenty of evidence.
poetry_writer
6-26-13, 2:03pm
You are wrong. It is not a simple question.
I have already answered your question. For a third time: A voter initiative attempted to apply a discriminatory standard to the institution of marriage. That was struck down by the district court for the district of Northern California (where Sacramento is located) as a violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the US Constitution.
There is no simplifying the matter. Any attempt at simplification is explicitly and attempt to obscure the truth. I'm sorry that you're apparently upset about the truth of the matter.
No I didn't. Read my message again. I wrote, "Your characterization projects a faulty and indefensibly prejudicial premise."
I will take that as a YES. The federal govt said up yours to the voters of California. Your vote doesnt count, we can simply over ride it when we want to. Am I the only one who finds this disturbing?
Dude, there is plenty of evidence.However, I think we can find evidence of the same in some of the northern counties of California, just as a for-instance.
I will take that as a YES.Then you're deliberately choosing to arrive at a false conclusion.
The federal govt said up yours to the voters of California.Incorrect.
Your vote doesnt count, we can simply over ride it when we want to.Incorrect.
Am I the only one who finds this disturbing?You're the only one here, I hope, who is working so hard to delude yourself into thinking something happened that actually did not happen.
For a fourth time: A voter initiative attempted to apply a discriminatory standard to the institution of marriage. That was struck down by the district court for the district of Northern California (where Sacramento is located) as a violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the US Constitution.
Incidentally, it is not uncommon for states to try to pass laws that are unconstitutional. On June 17, 2013, Arizona's voter registration law was struck down because it violated the US Constitution.
poetry_writer
6-26-13, 2:07pm
Then you're deliberately choosing to arrive at a false conclusion.
Incorrect.
Incorrect.
You're the only one here, I hope, who is working so hard to delude yourself into thinking something happened that actually did not happen.
For a fourth time: A voter initiative attempted to apply a discriminatory standard to the institution of marriage. That was struck down by the district court for the district of Northern California (where Sacramento is located) as a violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the US Constitution.
You have answered YES. i get it. nothing more to say. Voters may as well toss their cards, the govt can over ride when the see fit.
Do not presume to tell me how I answered your question. It is very rude of you to do so.
I have a question for you: Why do you find it necessary to ignore the actual truth? How does acknowledging it harm you?
I found this list of almost a thousand state laws that have been struck down as violations of the US Constitution:
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/047-state-laws-held-unconstitutional.html
It's over five years old so the total is probably close to or perhaps even over a thousand by now.
Many of the cases I recognize (obviously, from the lower portion of the list) were cases where the states passed laws based on irrational emotion rather than based on the rule of law, and the courts stepped in to preclude mob mentality from prevailing.
However, I think we can find evidence of the same in some of the northern counties of California, just as a for-instance.
Unfortunately, one can no longer take this evidence to the Feds for scrutiny. A huge loss for us all.
Now, with Pride weekend upcoming, it is time to party!
You have answered YES. i get it. nothing more to say. Voters may as well toss their cards, the govt can over ride when the see fit.
I believe there is a bit of a confusion here. What buu is trying to tell you is, some in California tried to pass laws regarding marriage that WERE IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
Another court, IN CALIFORNIA, said no go, you can't do that. This is what SCOTUS decided on. They said that the court, IN CALIFORNIA, was right.
So, some Californians tried to discriminate, and other Californians said nope. SCOTUS looked at the discriminating laws, then looked at The Constitution of the United States, which is after all their job, and agreed with the Californian court.
One, it is the job of the SCOTUS to uphold the Constitution of The United States whenever there is a dispute regarding it. Since our country is made up of many states, the disputes are going to come from one state or another.
Two, state law can not trump US law.
and Three, we don't let states decide/vote on civil rights. Otherwise there would be slaves in the south and sweatshops in the Northeast. And women would be voting only in maybe a handfull of states.
Now, I'm sorry you are unhappy with this ruling. No body can get everything they want, but at least in this you can simply not marry a gay person, or go to a gay wedding, and you can shun any gay relatives. And you can certainly join the Westborough baptist Church and protest all you want cause that's another civil right that will be protected and defended by the SCOTUS, even though I'm sure plenty of states would love to outlaw that!
Unfortunately, one can no longer take this evidence to the Feds for scrutiny. A huge loss for us all.
Now, with Pride weekend upcoming, it is time to party!
It is time to party!
we don't let states decide/vote on civil rights.
I know we've had this discussion before, but it bears repeating whenever this claim is made regarding marriage. No one has a civil right to marry anyone they choose. There are multiple restrictions and those restrictions are legislated on the state level.
I believe there is a bit of a confusion here. What buu is trying to tell you is, some in California tried to pass laws regarding marriage that WERE IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. Thanks peggy.... A couple of clarifications though: The court that found the California law unconstitutional was the United States District Court, Northern District of California. The judge happened to be Vaughn Walker, who's been a Californian for over fifty years, having gone to college there in the mid-to-late 1960s, having worked there for many years, and of course, serving there on the US district court, appointed by George Bush (the elder) in 1989.
Also: Even though the appeals court upheld the district court ruling, the SCOTUS determined that the appeals court erred in even considering the appeal. So effectively, the appeal never took place, because the appellant didn't have the right to appeal.
I know we've had this discussion before, but it bears repeating whenever this claim is made regarding marriage. No one has a civil right to marry anyone they choose. There are multiple restrictions and those restrictions are legislated on the state level.However those restrictions must honor the equal protection clause. If they're structured specifically to benefit some people (read: heterosexuals) leaving out other people (read: homosexuals) with regard to the fundamental nature of the benefits the right affords, then the resulting restrictions are unconstitutional, as per Perry v. Schwarzenegger.
Dude, there is plenty of evidence.
Actually, no there isn't.
When the VRA was instituted, nearly 50 years ago, there was evidence of racial discrimination in many southern states which resulted in under 10% voter participation among minority groups. Today, there is no evidence of racial discrimination and the voter participation among those same minority groups are on par with majority groups.
Some of those states have admittedly been accused of racial bias through their efforts to legitimize the ballot box through identification measures, although those voter ID efforts are non-discriminatory as they apply equally to everyone. If my own county/state had better identification criteria in effect, perhaps the local poll worker who was convicted of voting 8 times in the 2012 Presidential election (twice under her own name and six times under the names of friends/relatives) would have a clean record and no one would question the integrity of a close outcome.
So evidently the close federal scrutiny is therefore necessary nationwide.
I will take that as a YES. The federal govt said up yours to the voters of California. Your vote doesnt count, we can simply over ride it when we want to. Am I the only one who finds this disturbing?
This also happened to some southern states in the early 60's for different reasons - was that also disturbing?
Added: that the federal government could determine state law to be unconstitutional was not even a question here.
So evidently the close federal scrutiny is therefore necessary nationwide.
No, not at all. What is required is allowing states the freedom to place prudent measures in place to diminish fraud. The SCOTUS decision on the VRA is a step in the right direction.
That's a rationalization for giving the states free reign to engage in the kind of abuses you yourself noted with impunity.
Trust, but verify.
That's a rationalization for giving the states free reign to engage in the kind of abuses you yourself noted with impunity.
Only if you consider that allowing someone the privilege of driving a car is giving them free reign to engage in speeding. In a free country we are held accountable for our actions, not our possibilities.
Alan, I'm sure you'll try to marginalize other people's rights whatever way you see fit, without regard to the fact that this is as important to them as the things you value are important to you. The reality is that without federal scrutiny, people - generally people who aren't white men - are going to have their rights abridged. And that's an important issue, even though it doesn't affect you personally.
Alan, I'm sure you'll try to marginalize other people's rights whatever way you see fit, without regard to the fact that this is as important to them as the things you value are important to you. The reality is that without federal scrutiny, people - generally people who aren't white men - are going to have their rights abridged. And that's an important issue, even though it doesn't affect you personally.
Bicker, I'm not trying to marginalize anyone. I'm suggesting that everyone be treated exactly equally, although that is admittedly often seen as marginalization by those who would rather see preferential treatment, or conversely by those who truly want to marginalize others.
So evidently the close federal scrutiny is therefore necessary nationwide.
I'm suggesting that everyone be treated exactly equallyNo Alan, that's not what you're suggesting, because what I wrote earlier would treat everyone exactly equally, and you still objected to it. What you're trying to do is rationalize lax enforcement of voting rights, and you're simply trying to present it in such a manner that that isn't obvious, in an attempt to try to defend your perspective from the weakness in it that I pointed out.
Your patently obvious attempt at distraction, away from the discussion, is underscored by your petulantly juvenile insistence on referring to me by my original user name, which as I pointed out to you earlier, was a family name, so your use of it is not only inane, but actually counter to your apparent childish intent. Stop using my original user name.
You have answered YES. i get it. nothing more to say. Voters may as well toss their cards, the govt can over ride when the see fit.
The SCOTUS ruled the plaintiff had no standing in the case (Prop 8) quite a narrow ruling. But yes, the government can--and should--override where civil rights are concerned.
LOL bicker, that's a crock, and you know it.
Your argument is for an increase in federal authority, for no other reason than it usurps that authority from local governments. As you might say, many reasonable people disagree with you and you, predictably, don't like it.
LOL bicker, that's a crock, and you know it. Have you noticed that whenever your perspective has been sufficiently repudiated you throw in vacuous exhortations like this?
Again: Stop using my original user name. I'll be taking this up with the moderators, since I now consider it as a flame. Let me say it again for good measure: Stop using my original user name.
Your argument is for an increase in federal authority, for no other reason than it usurps that authority from local governments.That's a lie. The reason for my argument is to protect voting rights of people who aren't white males. I'm very disappointed that some folks don't care enough about such people to value protecting their voting rights as well.
poetry_writer
6-26-13, 4:19pm
I believe there is a bit of a confusion here. What buu is trying to tell you is, some in California tried to pass laws regarding marriage that WERE IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
Another court, IN CALIFORNIA, said no go, you can't do that. This is what SCOTUS decided on. They said that the court, IN CALIFORNIA, was right.
So, some Californians tried to discriminate, and other Californians said nope. SCOTUS looked at the discriminating laws, then looked at The Constitution of the United States, which is after all their job, and agreed with the Californian court.
One, it is the job of the SCOTUS to uphold the Constitution of The United States whenever there is a dispute regarding it. Since our country is made up of many states, the disputes are going to come from one state or another.
Two, state law can not trump US law.
and Three, we don't let states decide/vote on civil rights. Otherwise there would be slaves in the south and sweatshops in the Northeast. And women would be voting only in maybe a handfull of states.
Now, I'm sorry you are unhappy with this ruling. No body can get everything they want, but at least in this you can simply not marry a gay person, or go to a gay wedding, and you can shun any gay relatives. And you can certainly join the Westborough baptist Church and protest all you want cause that's another civil right that will be protected and defended by the SCOTUS, even though I'm sure plenty of states would love to outlaw that!
I dont think there is any confusion at all, just a dodge of the question asked. No where did I say I was unhappy, in fact i said I wasnt discussing the issue. I simply asked did California vote NO to gay marriage? They did. Did the govt over ride their votes? Yes. So your voting rights in the country are worth basically nothing. The obvious fanatic ranting and recommending i join Westboro are childish and useless and end any real discussion.
poetry_writer
6-26-13, 4:20pm
The SCOTUS ruled the plaintiff had no standing in the case (Prop 8) quite a narrow ruling. But yes, the government can--and should--override where civil rights are concerned.
What if they over ride what you consider civil rights? then what?
What if they over ride what you consider civil rights? then what?
If they override something based on constitutionality I would think one would then need to change the Constitution? 14th Amendment might be a good example.
I dont think there is any confusion at all, just a dodge of the question asked.On the contrary: You received the correct, accurate and comprehensive answer to the question you asked. You evidently didn't want that, but instead apparently wanted to dictate both the question and the answer so as to feed into something which you wanted to say regardless of the facts of the matter.
No where did I say I was unhappyI cannot imagine any other reasonable explanation for rejecting the correct, accurate and comprehensive answer to the question you asked except that you were unhappy with the answer provided. As I indicated earlier, I'm very much interested in what other explanation there might be regarding your motivation for the approach you've taken concerning this issue.
Did the govt over ride their votes?No. If you're willing to do with more than a one word answer, I'll be willing to provide it to you, but if all you're willing to accept is a one word answer, then "No" is the answer to this question.
Do you see, now, why dumbing things down so badly only results in lack of understanding?
So your voting rights in the country are worth basically nothing.False. Again: I'll be happy to provide a correct, accurate and comprehensive answer to the question you asked, but you insist on single word answers, this one is "False".
The obvious fanatic ranting and recommending i join Westboro are childish and useless and end any real discussion.While I agree that recommending you join the Westboro Baptist church is silly, the end of any real discussion came far earlier, when you refused to accept the correct, accurate and comprehensive answer to the question you asked and instead insisted on the answer to your question being what you wanted the answer to be, instead of the actual answer.
Your patently obvious attempt at distraction, away from the discussion, is underscored by your petulantly juvenile insistence on referring to me by my original user name, which as I pointed out to you earlier, was a family name, so your use of it is not only inane, but actually counter to your apparent childish intent. Stop using my original user name.
A family name? I had no idea of that and was literally almost certain it was just a hobby. I'll refrain from using the name you originally provided for yourself if you wish.
Now, if we could perhaps agree to disagree without all the drama?
A family name? I had no idea of that and was literally almost certain it was just a hobby. I'll refrain from using the name you originally provided for yourself if you wish. Thank you.
Now, if we could perhaps agree to disagree without all the drama?Always. Want to shut me up? Just say that: "Let's agree to disagree." No need for all the drama such as your saying that you're in favor of treated everyone exactly equally in opposition to my actually outlining something that would have treated everyone exactly equally. Just say we disagree and leave it at that. Please do try that in the future.
LOL bicker, that's a crock, and you know it.
Your argument is for an increase in federal authority, for no other reason than it usurps that authority from local governments. As you might say, many reasonable people disagree with you and you, predictably, don't like it.
One is left wondering, though, if they don't intend to gerrymander and discriminate with impunity, then why this fight? Why get all spun up over a law that was reaffirmed just a short while ago my a vast majority of congress, and presumable doesn't even affect them, them not planning to discriminate and all. This sudden interest in this most benign of laws (since discrimination is all but gone, according to SCOTUS) doesn't really pass the smell test.
The only reason a driver wants to eliminate the speed limit is because he wants to speed. Now that this 'speed limit' has been eliminated, watch how fast states rush to gerrymander districts. Is that the kind of equality you are talking about? I'm guessing Texas will start with Wendy Davis' district.
It's more than just voter ID.
It's gerrymandering.
It's moving poll places to some far off inaccessible spot.(but only for the poorer, less mobile districts)
It's not manning polling places in 'darker' districts with enough people making folks wait hours and hours to vote.
It's trying to say students must vote in their home state.
It's saying you need several forms of ID, including valid birth certificates, to vote, where many don't have a 'valid' birth certificate.(however, if you want to buy a gun, no problem! No id required)<how f***ed up is that!
So, you see, saying it's just a simple ID and everyone is treated equally is false, and a misdirect. The republicans can't win on message, so they must cheat and lie to win.
On the other hand, I say to the democrats, and anyone else who sees these people for what they are and what they are doing to our country, unless you do whatever is necessary, jump through whatever hoops needed to vote these people out, you have only yourselves to blame.
It's like Wisconsin, and now Texas with it's anti-women abortion bills. Unless you vote them out, you might as well lay back and spread 'em.
We have the power. We must vote these republicans, all republicans, out!
I'm guessing Texas will start with Wendy Davis' district. Good point. The reality is that a lot of people are very angry that the world is moving on around them, and they're working very hard to not only tie humanity down but drag it back to the dark ages. This isn't a new phenomenon. The term "Luddite" came from actual Luddites - 19th-century English textile artisans who protested against newly developed labor-saving machinery - essentially people who objected to automation and mechanization. They wanted the world to remain manual. And that's just one of many other earlier examples. Heck, Martin Luther was a progressive, moving Christendom forward after centuries during which the "Romish clergy [reduced the minds of the people to] state of sordid ignorance and staring timidity ... for the aggrandizement of their own Order". [Source: John Adams, Second President of the United States.] There are always people trying to impede improvement of the human condition because they personal benefit or think they benefit from such impediment.
gimmethesimplelife
6-26-13, 4:57pm
I have to say as a gay man I am absolutely floored that DOMA was struck down _ WOW! Talk about major change that I thought I would never see in my lifetime. I was up to 6:30 AM this morning working on some ideas I have to make money and finally fell asleep right before the Supreme Court rulings were released so I just work up a half hour ago and googled it and then of course I had messages from a few friends about it on my cell phone. So I am late to this discussion. All I can say is WOW! I will have health care as of January 1st, 2014 and DOMA was struck down, decisions that have come down within the space of the last two weeks. I never thought I would say this either (never say never is starting to make sense to me now) but I almost feel human - I seriously thought I was going to have to leave the US to have that. For someone like me who has struggled for so many years, to actually have insurance in the not too distant future and to have DOMA struck down - I'm kind of dazed and my brain is not taking it all in just yet. I'm gathering this is now going to be a state by state affair, getting gay marriage legal in more states but here we have the US Supreme Court taking a gay positive stand.....My mind reels. I am truly humbled. Rob
I dont think there is any confusion at all, just a dodge of the question asked. No where did I say I was unhappy, in fact i said I wasnt discussing the issue. I simply asked did California vote NO to gay marriage? They did. Did the govt over ride their votes? Yes. So your voting rights in the country are worth basically nothing. The obvious fanatic ranting and recommending i join Westboro are childish and useless and end any real discussion.
It is because you appear to be arguing with the logic of an adolescent.
Perhaps you think that a popular vote in any state is sacrosanct? Because if the majority decides, then they MUST be right, and what they're deciding MUST therefore be right and fair and constitutional, and must remain unchallenged by any government State or Fed, because the People (in their wisdom) have spoken?
If that means that "voting rights are worth nothing" then I personally invite you to cease voting here and now.
No, seriously.
My mind reels. I am truly humbled. Rob
Was thinking about you this morning when the news came down, Rob, smiling. Now if you're waiting for Arizona to pass gay marriage....well....you may not wish to hold your breath. But baby steps, baby steps.
poetry_writer
6-26-13, 5:08pm
It is because you appear to be arguing with the logic of an adolescent.
Perhaps you think that a popular vote in any state is sacrosanct? Because if the majority decides, then they MUST be right, and what they're deciding MUST therefore be right and fair and constitutional, and must remain unchallenged by any government State or Fed, because the People (in their wisdom) have spoken?
If that means that "voting rights are worth nothing" then I personally invite you to cease voting here and now.
No, seriously.
Why do you consider it adolescent? other than you think you disagree with me? you dont even really know what i think......childish put downs do nothing to furthur conversation about the issue
gimmethesimplelife
6-26-13, 5:09pm
One is left wondering, though, if they don't intend to gerrymander and discriminate with impunity, then why this fight? Why get all spun up over a law that was reaffirmed just a short while ago my a vast majority of congress, and presumable doesn't even affect them, them not planning to discriminate and all. This sudden interest in this most benign of laws (since discrimination is all but gone, according to SCOTUS) doesn't really pass the smell test.
The only reason a driver wants to eliminate the speed limit is because he wants to speed. Now that this 'speed limit' has been eliminated, watch how fast states rush to gerrymander districts. Is that the kind of equality you are talking about? I'm guessing Texas will start with Wendy Davis' district.
It's more than just voter ID.
It's gerrymandering.
It's moving poll places to some far off inaccessible spot.(but only for the poorer, less mobile districts)
It's not manning polling places in 'darker' districts with enough people making folks wait hours and hours to vote.
It's trying to say students must vote in their home state.
It's saying you need several forms of ID, including valid birth certificates, to vote, where many don't have a 'valid' birth certificate.(however, if you want to buy a gun, no problem! No id required)<how f***ed up is that!
So, you see, saying it's just a simple ID and everyone is treated equally is false, and a misdirect. The republicans can't win on message, so they must cheat and lie to win.
On the other hand, I say to the democrats, and anyone else who sees these people for what they are and what they are doing to our country, unless you do whatever is necessary, jump through whatever hoops needed to vote these people out, you have only yourselves to blame.
It's like Wisconsin, and now Texas with it's anti-women abortion bills. Unless you vote them out, you might as well lay back and spread 'em.
We have the power. We must vote these republicans, all republicans, out!
Peggy, I want to say this is no attack to anything you have said here.....I just wanted to say that the world to me seems to be changing very rapidly - in some areas in very good ways, it's not all negative by a long shot. I never (never say never once again ) thought that I would support a Republican in any legislative action in my lifetime - but I have to say I really respect Arizona governor Jan Brewer for standing up to and going against her own party to get Medicaid expansion passed in Arizona. My hat is off to the woman - seriously - and she is one of the more critical Republican governor voices against the Obama administration. Nevertheless, she stuck her neck out a bit and did what was in the best humanitarian and financial (1.6 billion Federal dollars will be flowing into Arizona now as result of passing Medicaid expansion) interests of state. I'm no great supporter of the GOP but I also believe in giving credit where credit is due. This is one Republican I have a great deal of respect for. So they are not all 100% bad in my book.......this one really surprised me and in a good way. Rob
Why do you consider it adolescent?For my part, I already explained this: Your insistence on refusing to accept the correct, accurate and comprehensive answer because it didn't fit the rhetoric you wanted to post in response.
Nevertheless, she stuck her neck out a bit and did what was in the best humanitarian and financial (1.6 billion Federal dollars will be flowing into Arizona now as result of passing Medicaid expansion) interests of state. I'm no great supporter of the GOP but I also believe in giving credit where credit is due. This is one Republican I have a great deal of respect for. So they are not all 100% bad in my book.......this one really surprised me and in a good way. RobTo be fair: That which you cited as foundation for respecting Brewer is precisely the foundation that many Republicans use to accuse her of not being a Republican (http://www.dailypaul.com/289314/az-rino-gov-jan-brewer-rams-obamacare-medicaid-expansion-down-our-throats-video).
poetry_writer
6-26-13, 5:32pm
[QUOTE=bUU;146584]For my part, I already explained this: Your insistence on refusing to accept the correct, accurate and comprehensive answer because it didn't fit the rhetoric you wanted to post in response.
You seem pretty impressed with yourself. Especially considering you have no idea what i think on this..........SO if you say it, it must be correct? LOL...nah
You seem pretty impressed with yourself.You're working very hard to avoid the things people are saying to you. My comment had nothing to do with whether or not I was impressed with myself. It was specifically about your insistence on refusing to accept the correct, accurate and comprehensive answer. Instead of trying to come up with some way of deflecting away from that, why not address it directly, and explain why you are doing it?
Especially considering you have no idea what i think on this.You've been asked a few times to provide more compelling explanations than those others have reasonably concluded based on the available information.
gimmethesimplelife
6-26-13, 5:51pm
Was thinking about you this morning when the news came down, Rob, smiling. Now if you're waiting for Arizona to pass gay marriage....well....you may not wish to hold your breath. But baby steps, baby steps.Puglogic, thanks for thinking of me.....lol I know this more than likely will take some time to pass in Arizona.....if I ever get tired of waiting, I could go next door to New Mexico, where the general climate tends to be more liberal - I bet it passes there much quicker. But I gotta say in the past few years, Arizona has surprised me. We have Medicaid expansion coming soon and within the past year, there are gay rights protections in the city ordinances as to housing, lodging, and employment - and Bisbee, down in the SE corner of the state, legalized civil unions.....Change is in the air and I don't know that there's any going back on that now. I do have hope for the future in some ways.....Rob
I was thinking about you too, Rob. If the trend continues you might have to reconsider gaining ex-pat status in the future!
Overall I think its been a good day for the US. Anyone care to take a shot at what the actual impact of the SCOTUS ruling(s) will be? As positive as I feel about the moral and social implications I have to wonder if the economic impacts might be a little less positive.
***MOD HAT ON***
I'll be taking this up with the moderators...
Please folks, the mod position is antiquated and only exists these days to provide a level of comfort for our most gracious hosts, NRM. Intelligent, articulate individuals, such as the collection of characters gathered here, can do just fine without a playground monitor. Let's try to avoid behavior that would lead NRM to believe moderation is actually needed.
(It was kinda odd/fun to bang the old 'mod hat' gavel just once for old times sake! More like a flashback than a memory.)
I have a request: I would appreciate it that when any one of us feels the urge to start a sentence with the phrases "You (verb) (assumption &/or accusation)..." that this sentence ends in a question mark, or is framed as an inquiry into the meaning of the person to whom one is responding.
I have leveled accusations with the best of us, and get the desire to be emphatic. Nonetheless, in the spirit of a community forum and good communications, please consider this. Thanks!
ApatheticNoMore
6-26-13, 6:59pm
will take that as a YES. The federal govt said up yours to the voters of California. Your vote doesnt count, we can simply over ride it when we want to. Am I the only one who finds this disturbing?
but doesn't everyone realize that when voting for a state proposition anyway? That certain propositions will be likely to meet constitution challenges. I have a hard time imagining this exactly being news to state proposition voters.
You have answered YES. i get it. nothing more to say. Voters may as well toss their cards, the govt can over ride when the see fit.
If it's any consolation, the consensus is that gay marriage would pass today in California, making the popular vote and the legislature's match.
treehugger
6-26-13, 7:58pm
but doesn't everyone realize that when voting for a state proposition anyway? That certain propositions will be likely to meet constitution challenges. I have a hard time imagining this exactly being news to state proposition voters.
That is definitely my biggest problem with the proposition system and why I never sign the petitions to get them added to the ballot any more. I *do* vote on the ones that make it to ballot, but I think, overall, they do our poor, beleaguered state more harm than good. That said, same-sex marriage was already legal in California when that clearly unconstitutional proposition was added to the ballot by groups funded by wealthy out-of-state interests that used an exclusively negative and fear-mongering campaign to get that proposition passed. Talk about saying "up yours" to Californians.
Kara
Agree with Rob and others that this is a good day. The other reason that federal recognition and enforcement is good is so that citizen's rights should not change depending on who happens to be in power in their state.
Example: our former Dem Gov. Napolitano signed a law giving benefits to partners of those gay state employees who were in civil unions. When she left to join the Obama administration, the Rep. Governor rescinded those rights. Talk about whiplash.
Enough already.
I was curious how the military would respond, and there's already an answer:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2013/0626/DOMA-Military-spouses-to-see-benefits-as-soon-as-possible-Hagel-vows
With the Supreme Court decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the Pentagon will move “as soon as possible” to make all the same benefits available to all military spouses, regardless of sexual orientation, the nation’s top defense official announced Wednesday.
This will include burial for spouses of US troops at Arlington National Cemetery, as well as survivor benefits and identification cards that will allow them access to base gyms and grocery stores.
Same sex partners will also now be eligible for health care and be factored into housing allowances, two of the biggest sore points for many gay service members who came out when Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was repealed in 2010.
ApatheticNoMore
6-26-13, 9:30pm
That is definitely my biggest problem with the proposition system and why I never sign the petitions to get them added to the ballot any more. I *do* vote on the ones that make it to ballot, but I think, overall, they do our poor, beleaguered state more harm than good.
I like the proposition system. What it is designed for ultimately is circumventing unaccountable government which does not represent the people's will. I think that need exists now every bit as much as it ever did when such a system was implemented in this state. I dont' favor giving the last vestiges of the people's power to our often corrupt so called respresentatives (granted the scale of corruption of politicians on the state level is nowhere near approaching that of the Feds).
Of course the people's will may violate individuals rights and be unconstitutional and it's kind of obvious which propositions will meet an obvious constitutional challenge (though I suppose there are non-obvious challenges to make). It should have been overruled on the grounds of equal protection (which I initially thought it was). That's pretty solid ground, just ensuring equal protection under the law. But it wasn't, and the way it was overruled (standing) may not turn out to be so great depending on how else it is applied.
I dont think there is any confusion at all, just a dodge of the question asked. No where did I say I was unhappy, in fact i said I wasnt discussing the issue. I simply asked did California vote NO to gay marriage? They did. Did the govt over ride their votes? Yes. So your voting rights in the country are worth basically nothing. The obvious fanatic ranting and recommending i join Westboro are childish and useless and end any real discussion.
What if the California voters had passed an initiative stating that non-whites could not own property in the state? Assuming that it made it to the supreme court the decision would likely have been the same as teh prop 8 decision today. Would you still decry that as the federal government stomping on the will of the voters of California?
Puglogic, thanks for thinking of me.....lol I know this more than likely will take some time to pass in Arizona.....if I ever get tired of waiting, I could go next door to New Mexico, where the general climate tends to be more liberal - I bet it passes there much quicker. But I gotta say in the past few years, Arizona has surprised me. We have Medicaid expansion coming soon and within the past year, there are gay rights protections in the city ordinances as to housing, lodging, and employment - and Bisbee, down in the SE corner of the state, legalized civil unions.....Change is in the air and I don't know that there's any going back on that now. I do have hope for the future in some ways.....Rob
I was looking at a map today of gay marriage status by state and NM was about the only one that has not passed either gay marriage or marriage is one man/one woman statutes, so I would agree that they are a likely candidate to pass gay marriage at some point in the forseeable future. However, while looking at that map I also noted that you could also move one state in the opposite direction...
poetry_writer
6-26-13, 10:03pm
What if the California voters had passed an initiative stating that non-whites could not own property in the state? Assuming that it made it to the supreme court the decision would likely have been the same as teh prop 8 decision today. Would you still decry that as the federal government stomping on the will of the voters of California?
Well that isnt what happened. so your point is moot.
poetry_writer
6-26-13, 10:07pm
Basically ...even if the majority of people in California voted No to gay marriage, which they did, the govt can come in and change it. Which they did. Many who call for tolerance for all are the most intolerant of all. It will be interesting to see how it goes, when we can vote for something and simply have the govt say.....er, sorry, no, we are going to change things. Sorry bout your vote. You can like it or not....that is what happened.
poetry_writer, it's obvious that you don't see the point that the SCOTUS considered prop 8 to be discrimination against a certain class of people. Multiple posters have attempted to point that out to you and you choose not to see it. I guess this portion of the conversation is done.
***MOD HAT ON***
Is it made of tinfoil? :D
And I too will be interested in the economic repercussions of this (good) decision. Interesting times we live in.
gimmethesimplelife
6-26-13, 11:23pm
I was looking at a map today of gay marriage status by state and NM was about the only one that has not passed either gay marriage or marriage is one man/one woman statutes, so I would agree that they are a likely candidate to pass gay marriage at some point in the forseeable future. However, while looking at that map I also noted that you could also move one state in the opposite direction...Hi Jp1,
New Mexico is a much better fit for me than California, this is why I didn't mention California as an option. I don't know how to explain it concisely but the energy and overall values in CA just don't fit me at all. I am someone who would better off in Deming or Las Cruces than LA or SD or SF. Different folks, different strokes, I guess. And I am thinking NM would pass same-sex marriage as it tends to be a quietly liberal live and let live place, even in the smaller towns - such has been my experience, anyway. Rob
Rob, fair enough. I know that you've thought a whole lot about where you would be happy/comfortable living, so I won't try to tell you that you're wrong. I'm certainly not some "residence expert of CA" and I don't know enough about NM to discuss the merits/negatives of living in any given part of it. I will say, though, that life outside of the big cities of CA seems to be much different from life within, at least based on the few friends we have that don't live in one and the limited time we've spent outside SF. I've never considered myself a 'small town' type of guy, but a few CA small towns north of SF really appeal to me and in my advancing gay middle age I could see myself moving to one of them.
NM is gorgeous. Seattle is a FABulous city to live in, especially is one is GLBT. I'm just sayin...
:)
The decision on DOMA also positively affects GLBT couples who are multi-national. I have an american friend here whose partner is Kiwi. Part of the reason that they came is because the kiwi partner couldn't get the next visa to stay in the US. She had to return to NZ. So, her partner -- an american -- came with her. NZ recognizes lesbian partnerships, so she was able to get a partnership visa.
Now, they could go to NY or CA or similar and get married, and then the lovely kiwi lady could get partnership visas! THis means they could live in either country, which is the same freedom that Dh and I have, or that my friend (US citizen) and her husband (french citizen) can have.
Basically ...even if the majority of people in California voted No to gay marriage, which they did, the govt can come in and change it. Which they did.
Poetry_writer: do you understand how the American system of government works? Have you read the US Constitution? Have you read the 14th Amendment to the Constitution? Have you read this particular Supreme Court opinion?
Seattle is a FABulous city to live in, especially is one is GLBT. I'm just sayin...
:)
Seattle is horrible for people of all persuasions. Portland Good, Seattle Bad. Trust me. All fog and moss up here, no parking, bad traffic, and the inhabitants all look like Wookies.
Really.
I like the proposition system. What it is designed for ultimately is circumventing unaccountable government which does not represent the people's will.Elections of state representatives is a far superior means for keeping government accountable in a democratic republic. These initiatives seem far more like nothing more than a contest about which side of an issue can advertise better - a far more corrupt system with generally more corrupt results than the legislative lobbiest system as I see it.
Seattle is horrible for people of all persuasions. Portland Good, Seattle Bad. Trust me. All fog and moss up here, no parking, bad traffic, and the inhabitants all look like Wookies.
Really.
my bad...;)
poetry_writer
6-27-13, 9:56am
Poetry_writer: do you understand how the American system of government works? Have you read the US Constitution? Have you read the 14th Amendment to the Constitution? Have you read this particular Supreme Court opinion?
I am an American, i have a vague idea of it all....:o).......to the mods, your site often makes my anti virus go nuts. Doesnt happen every time, but i think you have a virus. My anti virus blocks it and deletes it.....sorry, i dont know where to put that info so putting it here. Thanks
Is it made of tinfoil? :D
Bwwwhahahaha. (Its only lined with tin foil these days.)
I am an American, i have a vague idea of it all....
Four simple yes or no questions. By your "vague" answer, am I to assume you mean to say "no" to each?
ApatheticNoMore
6-27-13, 11:45am
These initiatives seem far more like nothing more than a contest about which side of an issue can advertise better - a far more corrupt system with generally more corrupt results than the legislative lobbiest system as I see it.
of course money has as often as not been defeated in the initiative process (not always, but sometimes people see through big money and vote the opposite of the amount of overwhelming money!). Bad initiatives with a lot of money sometimes win, but there simply isn't a clear trend of money always winning. Ask for that to EVER happen with your bought and paid for politicians.
But, but what about GMO lableling? Ugh, the thing people have to understand about that is it not only had vast Monsanto money, which it did, but the entire establishment was against it. The newspapers came out against it! Every big money initiative where the people turned against the money had newspapers that at least warned people about them. Neither party wanted to take up the issue until the very end and even then they would not fight for it. And of course it's not like we got or will EVER get GMO labeling through the official channels of our state representatives. Has one state legislature passed GMO labeling? Not even one?
of course money has as often as not been defeated in the initiative processAlmost never. It's always either the orange money or the purple money that wins, these days, because the American voter isn't spending as much time worrying about the myriad impacts of each of the choices, as their elected representatives do, and many will be very up-front with you about the fact that they believe it is right to care only about how things impact themselves, personally. I cannot ever say that that is regressive, because even back when only landowners could vote, they were still more concerned about how their votes affected others than many of today's voters, after they've been continually inundated for the last four decades with messages promoting and extolling the virtues of selfishness and self-centeredness.
ApatheticNoMore
6-27-13, 12:17pm
But anyway I don't argue for initiatives because the results are better than if we didn't' have them. The results overall (not every single initiative because that simply isn't true) may very well be worse! It's just the trend of governments becoming less and less accountable to the people is very real (yes of course the feds are much worse on this, the states may follow though, that's the fear). The initiatives are a way to circumvent this. I don't think the people should willingly give up this power, when they have so little power as is.
Even everyone voting selfishly (if they really did and were informed enough to understand what was in their best interest) would prevent the screwing of the vast majority, it's not perfect, eh it's why we have the Constitution and the ability to overrule majority rule as in this case. But it's better than policy that only serves a few elites which we often get out of DC (but again most of that bad policy is not the states - so my beef isn't strongly the states - it's keeping the ability to keep politicians accountable available for use when need be whenever *any* government becomes unaccountable - including increasing corruption in the states). An example might be if there is an initiative challenge to Jerry Brown's new secrecy policy.
Even everyone voting selfishly (if they really did and were informed enough to understand what was in their best interest) would prevent the screwing of the vast majorityFar less were getting "screwed" before selfishness starting being promoted as a virtue. Far more of those who can least withstand the impact of getting "screwed" will be "screwed" if selfishness is extolled even further and accountability to be fair and just is shifted from elected representatives and appointed officials to the egoistic mob.
Both Washington's marijuana and same-sex marriage laws were the result of initiatives. The irony is that the same sex initiative was brought in opposition to the legislature's passage of a similar bill, and the filers thought the electorate would vote it down. Wrong!
Initiatives are messy, but they give the voter a voice.
Bwwwhahahaha. (Its only lined with tin foil these days.)
Oooooh, very clever tactic! (Margaret scribbles this in her to-do list...)
Seattle is horrible for people of all persuasions. Portland Good, Seattle Bad. Trust me. All fog and moss up here, no parking, bad traffic, and the inhabitants all look like Wookies.
Really.
And there are zombies everywhere. And quicksand on every corner (in front of the Starbucks)
poetry_writer
6-27-13, 2:50pm
Poetry_writer: do you understand how the American system of government works? Have you read the US Constitution? Have you read the 14th Amendment to the Constitution? Have you read this particular Supreme Court opinion?
question 1....Yes....question 2....some of it....question 3....some of it....question 4...some of it.
Yes to all your questions. I am heartened by your revised reply (above). It indicates that you realized that questions aren't always so simple that they can be answered with a single word "yes" or "no".
poetry_writer
6-27-13, 3:25pm
I am heartened by your revised reply (above). It indicates that you realized that questions aren't always so simple that they can be answered with a single word "yes" or "no".
Was attempting to clarify my answer. However the question I asked you was ONE question with a yes or no. You refused to answer, which of course , answered. End of discussion for me, its dissolved into childish bs at this point. Take care.
Wow. Just wow. I'm sorry we tried to help you understand. :(
And there are zombies everywhere. And quicksand on every corner (in front of the Starbucks)And lets not forget the giant man-eating banana slugs that are everywhere in Seattle. Oh the Horror!!
So happy Doma got the 'it's unconsitutional" boot in the :moon: - I've been ranting against it since it's inception. Very happy to hear that the staid old school military is stepping up to ensure the same rights for gay married couples that hetro married couples in the armed forces have.
ApatheticNoMore
6-27-13, 4:14pm
Was attempting to clarify my answer. However the question I asked you was ONE question with a yes or no. You refused to answer, which of course , answered. End of discussion for me, its dissolved into childish bs at this point. Take care.
If the actual discussion was federal overreach versus state direct democracy, I could see that, and am not particularly disposed to the Feds (but I know that the law simply is that the federal law overrides on matters of federal policy like drug policy - whenever they want to enforce or take it to court really). But I really don't think it's about that here, it's about individual equal protection under the law.
If the complaint is about federal--SCOTUS--overreach, it clearly doesn't apply to Prop 8, because the plaintiffs were found not to have standing to bring the case. The DOMA was overturned on the equal protection clause.
If the complaint is about federal--SCOTUS--overreach, it clearly doesn't apply to Prop 8, because the plaintiffs were found not to have standing to bring the case. The DOMA was overturned on the equal protection clause.
And that decision was accepted by the state of California.
[QUOTE=poetry_writer;146630]Basically ...even if the majority of people in California voted No to gay marriage, which they did, the govt can come in and change it. Which they did. Many who call for tolerance for all are the most intolerant of all. It will be interesting to see how it goes, when we can vote for something and simply have the govt say.....er, sorry, no, we are going to change things. Sorry bout your vote. You can like it or not....that is what happened.[/QUOTE
Poetry_writer: every time you respond you are showing your misunderstanding of the issue of Prop 8. buu has tried to educate you and I thought Peggy did a great job in clarifying. Maybe you need to settle down a bit and actually try to figure out what the SCOTUS decision means and why.
Basically ...even if the majority of people in California voted No to gay marriage, which they did, the govt can come in and change it. Which they did. Many who call for tolerance for all are the most intolerant of all. It will be interesting to see how it goes, when we can vote for something and simply have the govt say.....er, sorry, no, we are going to change things. Sorry bout your vote. You can like it or not....that is what happened.
Is this not how the balance of power & the judiciary works? The courts are there to arbitrate matters according to both law and precedence. The impact is that sometimes those laws are vacated, sometimes they are upheld, sometimes they are sent back down the court system for a new look. I can understand your frustration, as I presume you to be a California voter who sounds as if you feel disenfranchised. As a Washington voter, we also have the powers of initiative & referendum, and on occasion, my vote has been overturned in court, so I know the feeling, at least I think I do.
Nonetheless, the court affirming or dispatching laws we either voted for directly via initiative/referendum, or indirectly via our electeds, is how our tripartite system is designed. I don't see this action by SCOTUS as intolerant, especially because of the legal principle which they relied upon. I do disagree with their current states rights emphasis, however, I see the value of the SCOTUS questioning the standing of those who carried forward the state's position. I am so glad I grew up in a household with an attorney & an interest in the law myself. Much as the judiciary can seem arcane and capricious, I think it's a sound system overall.
Goodnight!
I do disagree with their current states rights emphasis....
That pesky 10th Amendment!
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
State supremacy superseded by the 14th Amendment, which touted this portion of Article III of the Constitution:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.... via this text:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.... underscored in SCOTUS decisions, such as:
In Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled: "A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute."
That pesky 10th Amendment!
Yes, interpreting the Constitution is the endless task of our country. I enjoy engaging. Again, to quote my father, "It's the best worst system ever tried."
Uh Oh! Looks like we're in for a BLOW!
http://aattp.org/pat-robertson-predicts-doma-ruling-may-cause-god-to-do-something-pretty-drastic-like-sodom-and-gomorrah/
Maybe he should just get on with the Rapture already! Then Pat Robertson and, what is it, 700,000, of his closest friends could just go away!
Unfortunately, not a single member of Congress will disappear...;)
Didn't Jerry Fallwell say basically the same thing about Brown v. Topeka Board of Education and George Wallace say the same thing about Loving v. Virginia?
Uh Oh! Looks like we're in for a BLOW!
http://aattp.org/pat-robertson-predicts-doma-ruling-may-cause-god-to-do-something-pretty-drastic-like-sodom-and-gomorrah/
Maybe he should just get on with the Rapture already!
http://i.imgur.com/fWl9nHJ.jpg?1
Pat Robertson recently warned that used clothing found at Goodwill could be possessed by demons. I'm doomed.
treehugger
6-28-13, 7:41pm
Pat Robertson recently warned that used clothing found at Goodwill could be possessed by demons. I'm doomed.
Maybe he meant bedbugs?
Kara
P.S. Great cartoon, bae.
ApatheticNoMore
6-28-13, 8:39pm
Pat Robertson recently warned that used clothing found at Goodwill could be possessed by demons.
that's why you need to wash it first, to get out the demon. duh.
http://i.imgur.com/fWl9nHJ.jpg?1
:laff::laff::laff:
I don't know about your dad, but my daughter, unfortunately for Pat, doesn't live in the hurricane/tsunami/earthquake zone. She isn't conveniently located for smiting. ;)
that's why you need to wash it first, to get out the demon. duh.
:devil:
according to some buddhist groups, you never give away used clothing or wear used clothing if you can help it, because the karma stays on that clothing. Your best bet is to burn it so that the hungry ghosts can have it. just sayin'.
but what if the person who owned the clothing before you had good karma? perhaps for someone down on their luck they would do well to buy a lot of clothing at the thrift store and then keep wearing different pieces until their karma improves.
The people buying my clothing are doomed.
Hmm... so if I had gotten the suitcase of my MIL's old kilts out of the garage, do you think I'd have sold her house sooner?
My Dad just called up. Now that DOMA and Prop 8. have been dealt with, he is marrying his partner of 30+ years this week.
So yay!
treehugger
6-29-13, 2:04pm
My Dad just called up. Now that DOMA and Prop 8. have been dealt with, he is marrying his partner of 30+ years this week.
So yay!
Congratulations and best wishes to them! Do they live in California? I am assuming because you mention Prop. 8. It will be pretty cool for the first couples to get married here now that it's legal again. Part of history! My uncles got married at the San Francisco courthouse in October 2008, and, under California law, those marriages that happened then (before the election) have remained legal/legitimate all this time. But yet, they were still sort of in limbo.
Kara
Do they live in California? I am assuming because you mention Prop. 8.
Exactly so. Last time it was briefly legal in CA, they were planning A Big Event, and the law got yanked out from under them before they could finish with their logistics. They aren't going to make the same mistake this time.
Such good news. Congratulations, bae.
Woo hoo! Happy Dance, Bae & fam!!!!!
Woo hoo! Happy Dance, Bae & fam!!!!!
And, BAM, Monday morning I'll have 3 step-brothers, guys I actually like and trust, a big improvement from my biological sibling :-)
that's awesome for your dad and his partner, bae! so happy for them!
I can see why he wants to get it done--the (Arizona-based) Alliance Defending Freedom is petitioning the Court to stop the weddings. Why is an Arizona-based organization meddling in California issues? Rhetorical question.
I can see why he wants to get it done--the (Arizona-based) Alliance Defending Freedom is petitioning the Court to stop the weddings. Why is an Arizona-based organization meddling in California issues? Rhetorical question.
Bcz we're all gonna hafta get GAY MARRIED!!!! Kiss your opposite-sex spouse goodbye.
awww. but i like my opposite-sex spouse. doggonit!
Was THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQugfxpRD-c) already posted on here?
Exactly so. Last time it was briefly legal in CA, they were planning A Big Event, and the law got yanked out from under them before they could finish with their logistics. They aren't going to make the same mistake this time.
Congratulations!
Bcz we're all gonna hafta get GAY MARRIED!!!! Kiss your opposite-sex spouse goodbye.
That's too binary for...some people's....more complex sexuality. (cough)
I'm not sure what to defend anymore, it's all so confusing. Can't we all just get along?
for realz. though i am getting that xanax for gay weddings (not necessary for lesbian weddings).
I can see why he wants to get it done--the (Arizona-based) Alliance Defending Freedom is petitioning the Court to stop the weddings. Why is an Arizona-based organization meddling in California issues? Rhetorical question.
Well, I just don't think they are thinking this through. If California gets smitted, properly smitted I mean, then that just puts Arizona that much closer to the beach, right?;)
I'm not sure what to defend anymore, it's all so confusing. Can't we all just get along?
Dare to dream, aye? And regarding your dad, bae... Outstanding!!!
ApatheticNoMore
7-1-13, 7:47pm
Bcz we're all gonna hafta get GAY MARRIED!!!! Kiss your opposite-sex spouse goodbye.
but I don't want to have to get married ...
Was THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQugfxpRD-c) already posted on here?
oh man, pretty funny!
Well, I just don't think they are thinking this through. If California gets smitted, properly smitted I mean, then that just puts Arizona that much closer to the beach, right?;)
ha! we should take bets on how soon it will take the evangelicals to blame the next natural disaster on the U.S. Supreme Court decision on gay marriage. ... I'm thinking it will be something this summer, for sure.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/world-war-g_n_3511806.html
Brad Pitt parody. World War G.
And, the NYT:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/gay-marriage-same-but-different/
gimmethesimplelife
7-2-13, 3:32am
My Dad just called up. Now that DOMA and Prop 8. have been dealt with, he is marrying his partner of 30+ years this week.
So yay!Congratulations to your father and his partner, that is such great news, Bae!
gimmethesimplelife
7-2-13, 3:33am
I can see why he wants to get it done--the (Arizona-based) Alliance Defending Freedom is petitioning the Court to stop the weddings. Why is an Arizona-based organization meddling in California issues? Rhetorical question.Why am I not surprised this group is based in Arizona? This coming from a (mostly) lifelong Arizonan.....Rob
gimmethesimplelife
7-2-13, 3:44am
Do you know what amazes me about the whole gay marriage issue? With all the machismo in Mexico and the influence of the Catholic church there, there are places in Mexico where gay marriage is legal. Ditto the entire countries of Uruguay and Argentina, and Chile is in the process of considering it. These are countries we are told are "third world" - Actually Uruguay and Mexico are now considered middle income countries by the UN. But I digress - the point I'm trying to make is that these countries are dealing with this issue and the US is supposed to be so far ahead of them. So we are told anyway. It is very frustrating to me that countries considered lower on the totem pole are dealing with this issue and the US lags behind most of the rest of the developed world in handling this. Good to see it finally happening, don't get me wrong, and I don't think there will be turning back now, but are far as the US being progressive as far as some civil rights go - I'm not seeing us on the leading edge. Not by far. I hope I have made a point through this long-windedness. Rob
Sometimes a planet in the sky appears in retrograde for a period of time. It's just part of the natural physics of the planet's forward progress.
So bae, how was the wedding?
So bae, how was the wedding?
Dad and his partner used their white male superpowers to get the Mayor to do the ceremony for them already, before any irritating people change the law out from under them. We'll have an actual family event later in the summer:-)
gimmethesimplelife
7-3-13, 12:16am
Dad and his partner used their white male superpowers to get the Mayor to do the ceremony for them already, before any irritating people change the law out from under them. We'll have an actual family event later in the summer:-)So, Bae, other than the mayor officiating (is this the right word?) the wedding, how was the wedding? These two men have been together 30 years I believe you said, was it a very emotional ceremony or ? Just curious - I'm very much single and I guess both curious and wanting to live vicariously through the details. Again congrats to your father and his now husband. Rob
Dad and his partner used their white male superpowers to get the Mayor to do the ceremony for them already, before any irritating people change the law out from under them. We'll have an actual family event later in the summer:-)
Well excellent! So they are married, no matter what the forces of evil try to do. Congratulations on your new family!
Sometimes those white male superpowers can be used for good--such happy news!
Dad and his partner used their white male superpowers to get the Mayor to do the ceremony for them already, before any irritating people change the law out from under them. We'll have an actual family event later in the summer:-)
What a celebration that will be. Great stuff.
And meanwhile, in Indiana...
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/indiana-law-makes-it-a-felony-for-same-sex-couples-to-apply-for-a-marriage-license/legislation/2013/07/08/70698
My wife and I had a ceremony about seven years ago, followed by a trip to Canada to get a marriage license. I live in Oregon, a state with a mini-DOMA so not sure at this point if the death to the major-DOMA will have on us (expect the absolute glory of WE WON!!;) and that is priceless). Oregon is hoping to be the first state to overturn a constitution amendment banning gay marriage. Wish us luck in 2014!
And meanwhile, in Indiana...
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/indiana-law-makes-it-a-felony-for-same-sex-couples-to-apply-for-a-marriage-license/legislation/2013/07/08/70698
Incredible.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.