Fundraising for 2019/2020: 12 Months Renewed - We are good until October 2020. Paypal Donation Link Here

LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46979
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, where we only use the old smilies

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by LawBeefaroni » Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:56 pm

JONAH loses "gay conversion" consumer fraud case.
[A] jury needed only a few hours to find that JONAH -- Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing -- made gross misrepresentations in advertising its program and awarded damages of $72,000. Three gay men and their parents had filed suit against JONAH, basically claiming it had committed consumer fraud.

“My clients needed help,” said James Bromley, a lawyer from the Southern Poverty Law Center, which represented the plaintiffs. “They went to JONAH. JONAH lied, and JONAH made it worse,” Religion News Service reported.

The defense argued that JONAH’s ideology and methods were both scientific and based on Jewish values. But that argument was undermined by a February ruling in which, Judge Peter Bariso held that it was a violation of the consumer fraud act to call homosexuality a mental illness or disorder -- thought to be the first such ruling in the country.

JONAH’s program included weekend retreats called “journey into manhood” weekends which allegedly included standing naked in front of a mirror while touching one’s genitals. JONAH insists its program works and says it will appeal the jury’s verdict.

Several states already prohibit licensed therapists from providing “conversion therapy” to minors and a bill pending in Congress would classify commercial conversion therapy and advertising that claims to change sexual orientation and gender identity as fraud.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT

User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 18090
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Defiant » Wed Jul 01, 2015 4:07 pm

Zarathud wrote: SCOTUS judges work hard and don't retire because the job is important and a rewarding life ambition.
Or because they don't want a president of a different party to nominate their replacement :ninja:

User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 18090
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Defiant » Wed Jul 01, 2015 4:08 pm

stessier wrote:
Jeff V wrote: Rather than have partisan politicians determine who is on the court, justices would be selected by their peers -- which is more likely to produce justices there on merit and not because their are politically convenient.
You don't think judges are political? That's pretty naive.
Compared to politicians? :wink:

Jeff V
Posts: 32008
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Nowhere you want to be.

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Jeff V » Wed Jul 01, 2015 4:12 pm

I said nothing about them being slackers -- only that it's apparently not so hard of a job that octogenarians continue to do it rather than retire. As far as their ability to render good decisions - yes, I think old age plays a role. Even if the court as a whole usually gets things right, some of the members are reliably out of touch with societal change; and reluctance/inability to adapt to change is an unfortunate side effect of old age.

As far as the selection process -- what I see are candidates chosen for their ability to promote the party agenda; political neutrality being something actively avoided. No doubt they are very capable - but still tainted.

In the business world, you see it a lot: ancient corporations led by ancient relics that become too attached to the past: the company isn't agile enough to respond to change, and over time their role as an industry leader deteriorates as they (and the companies they lead) become has-beens. A decent board of directors can keep even large, old companies on track though. SCOTUS has no such oversight, and when members become out of touch with mainstream evolution, it hinders our nation's ability to not only deliver what the citizens demand, but our standing and reputation internationally as well.

User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 19377
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Pyperkub » Wed Jul 01, 2015 5:14 pm

Zarathud wrote:What evidence is there that old Justices don't work hard or produce decent opinions? Just political disagreement -- the "bad thing" we're talking about preventing. SCOTUS judges work hard and don't retire because the job is important and a rewarding life ambition. You don't get nominated if you're a slacker (sorry, Jeff V).

These proposals would only make politicization worse -- and are based on politics to begin with. The Senate and politics should have less of a role, not more.
Harriet Miers (almost) to the contrary.
There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 19377
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Pyperkub » Wed Jul 01, 2015 5:23 pm

Jeff V wrote:I said nothing about them being slackers -- only that it's apparently not so hard of a job that octogenarians continue to do it rather than retire. As far as their ability to render good decisions - yes, I think old age plays a role. Even if the court as a whole usually gets things right, some of the members are reliably out of touch with societal change; and reluctance/inability to adapt to change is an unfortunate side effect of old age.

As far as the selection process -- what I see are candidates chosen for their ability to promote the party agenda; political neutrality being something actively avoided. No doubt they are very capable - but still tainted.

In the business world, you see it a lot: ancient corporations led by ancient relics that become too attached to the past: the company isn't agile enough to respond to change, and over time their role as an industry leader deteriorates as they (and the companies they lead) become has-beens. A decent board of directors can keep even large, old companies on track though. SCOTUS has no such oversight, and when members become out of touch with mainstream evolution, it hinders our nation's ability to not only deliver what the citizens demand, but our standing and reputation internationally as well.
SCOTUS does have that oversight - it's called the electoral process for both the President AND the Senate.

Are those processes mucked up right now? To a degree, yes (and Citizens United certainly threatens to make it even worse), but they are still better than most of the alternatives thrown up here.

Forced Retirement/forced turnover is simply begging to be gamed like the rest of the political processes and opens the highest judges in the land up to even more opportunities for corruption (both personal, and of the process).

Don't forget that the penultimate president's AG was involved in a scandal regarding firing AG's who refused to gin up corruption cases against candidates from the opposing party, in order to try to influence elections.

Hell, I could see forged birth certificates being used to try to disqualify a potentially negative judge in that case. Prove beyond a nutcase's doubt that you were born when and where you say you were (when we have these documents which cast doubt on anything you can/will say), or we'll replace you with someone more, shall we say, amenable?
Last edited by Pyperkub on Wed Jul 01, 2015 5:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 40450
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Smoove_B » Wed Jul 01, 2015 5:34 pm

As a big fan, I'm pleased to share the Brotherhood of Forks cover band Coheed and Cambria singing excerpts from Justice Scalia's dissent.
The band noticed that Justice Antonin Scalia was one of the dissenting opinions on the same sex marriage ruling, and it’s not the first time he’s been on the wrong side of history. So, they decided to record a song coming from his wording in not only the same sex marriage ruling, but also on the Affordable Care Act.

User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 17502
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Unagi » Wed Jul 01, 2015 7:28 pm

That was awesome.

User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 40450
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Smoove_B » Wed Jul 01, 2015 7:35 pm

Yeah, I've listened to it like 10 times. They took complete nonsense and turned it into something quite enjoyable. :D

User avatar
em2nought
Posts: 3595
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:48 am

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by em2nought » Wed Jul 01, 2015 11:54 pm

Ok, now when are we going to make prostitution legal? If I marry my business partner, I definitely don't plan on playing hide the tube steak with him. :mrgreen:
Waiting for the tide to bring me a sail.

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 33203
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by El Guapo » Thu Jul 02, 2015 12:04 am

em2nought wrote:Ok, now when are we going to make prostitution legal? If I marry my business partner, I definitely don't plan on playing hide the tube steak with him. :mrgreen:
Honestly, it's kind of rude to not play hide the tube steak with him.

User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 39253
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!
hepcat’s avatar
Offline

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by hepcat » Thu Jul 02, 2015 9:07 am

em2nought wrote:Ok, now when are we going to make prostitution legal? If I marry my business partner, I definitely don't plan on playing hide the tube steak with him. :mrgreen:
Methinks the lad doth protest too much.
I beat a camel to death with a monkey. Can I do that?
-Mr Bismarck

You have to whack a few rabbits before you are ready to punch a camel.
-Coopasonic

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 62901
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Online

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Isgrimnur » Thu Jul 02, 2015 9:09 am

Someone went and put Astroglide on his slippery slope.

User avatar
Zarathud
Posts: 13910
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Zarathud » Thu Jul 02, 2015 9:55 am

Isgrimnur wrote:Someone went and put Astroglide on his slippery slope.
Definitely. :lol:
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
"When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal. - Nixon
"I don't stand by anything." - Trump
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867

User avatar
Jaymann
Posts: 9274
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
Location: California

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Jaymann » Thu Jul 02, 2015 11:17 am

Isgrimnur wrote:Someone went and put Astroglide on his slippery slope.
Rainbow colored.
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>


User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 22935
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by RunningMn9 » Thu Jul 02, 2015 1:25 pm

Alright, that at least gives me some sense as to the concern of the "support for traditional marriage" folks.

I have a question though - how many people feel bad that Bob Jones U lost their tax exempt status over banning people from interracial relationships?

To be clear - I absolutely have no problem with the colleges mentioned adhering to their convictions and continuing to prohibit same-sex relationships (forget marriage, they don't even permit a sexually-intimate relationship). I certainly would not seek to force them to change those policies - since it is incredibly unlikely that someone in a same-sex relationship is going to want to be associated with them anyway. I am comfortable frowning upon their morally objectionable behavior (to me anyway) and leaving it at that.

To the issue of tax-exempt status. On the one hand, revoking their status clearly feels punitive. "You don't agree with us, so we are going to in effect fine you for having your beliefs". On the other hand, why does this institution feel comfortable with asking me (the taxpayer) to subsidize their operation if this sort of thing is what they want to promote?
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range

User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 61358
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by LordMortis » Thu Jul 02, 2015 1:30 pm

I think religion and tax emptedness controversy has been a long time brewing. I don't have a pony in this race but I'm still :pop:

User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46979
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, where we only use the old smilies

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by LawBeefaroni » Thu Jul 02, 2015 1:42 pm

RunningMn9 wrote: On the other hand, why does this institution feel comfortable with asking me (the taxpayer) to subsidize their operation if this sort of thing is what they want to promote?
That's exactly it. Why should taxpayers be asked to subsidize an anti-science , anti-freedom (borrowing a page from another playbook) "academic" institution?
Cornerstone Manifesto wrote:We believe that God has revealed himself in the sixty-six canonical books of Scripture, which are verbally inspired, truth without error, and serve as our final authority in faith and life. They lead us to Jesus Christ, who shows us the Father, and rightly interpreted, they enable us to understand God's revelation in humanity, nature, and history.

We believe that God directly created Adam and Eve, the historical parents of the human race, distinct from the rest of creation in their bearing of God's image and their stewardship over creation. Their union as man and woman models God's design for marriage and perpetually stands as God's loving and righteous will for all sexual intimacy.

We believe that our first parents forfeited their original righteousness when they succumbed to Satan's temptation and rebelled against God's revealed will. As a result, every human is born in sin, leaving us totally depraved, alienated from God, and destined to spiritual and physical death. As such, our sinful ways have corrupted God's creation, resulting in discord to society and nature.
RunningMn9 wrote:To be clear - I absolutely have no problem with the colleges mentioned adhering to their convictions and continuing to prohibit same-sex relationships (forget marriage, they don't even permit a sexually-intimate relationship). I certainly would not seek to force them to change those policies - since it is incredibly unlikely that someone in a same-sex relationship is going to want to be associated with them anyway. I am comfortable frowning upon their morally objectionable behavior (to me anyway) and leaving it at that.
How about someone in a non-married different sex relationship? Does anyone believe that the enforce their prohibition on "premarital sexual activity" as vigorously as their ban on same-sex relationships?
Members of the Cornerstone community are expected to commit to sexual purity – appropriately reflected in either celibacy or heterosexual monogamous marriage. Premarital sexual activity, extramarital sexual activity, and romantic relationships between members of the same gender breach this commitment and are not permitted.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT

User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 22935
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by RunningMn9 » Thu Jul 02, 2015 2:06 pm

It's staggering to me that an employer feels as though it is in their authority to exert such control over their employee's lives. I get that you don't have to work for them - but it's still mind-boggling to me.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range

User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 19377
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Pyperkub » Thu Jul 02, 2015 2:19 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:It's staggering to me that an employer feels as though it is in their authority to exert such control over their employee's lives. I get that you don't have to work for them - but it's still mind-boggling to me.
Why do toy think they are called wage slaves? :)
There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

User avatar
Moliere
Posts: 12007
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:57 am
Location: Walking through a desert land

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Moliere » Thu Jul 02, 2015 2:42 pm

What would happen if a Republican referred to an African American as a "clown in blackface"?
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40570
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by GreenGoo » Thu Jul 02, 2015 2:46 pm

Moliere wrote:What would happen if a Republican referred to an African American as a "clown in blackface"?
Earthquakes, typhoons, winter during summer, and summer during winter.

Pretty awful, Takei. You and Trump, I guess.

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 33203
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by El Guapo » Thu Jul 02, 2015 2:47 pm

Moliere wrote:What would happen if a Republican referred to an African American as a "clown in blackface"?
The consequences of any *politician* or official making that comparison would be vastly different than the consequences of an *actor* making that comparison.

I mean, what would happen if Obama performed Louis CK's recent SNL monologue, right? Total double standard.

User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26885
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:
Rip’s avatar
Offline

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Rip » Thu Jul 02, 2015 2:48 pm

We give tax exempt status to organizations known to funnel money to terrorists, so.....

The Washington, D.C.-based Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its related foundation were two of about 275,000 nonprofits that lost tax exempt status last year for not filing tax returns for three years in a row. On June 23, the IRS sent a letter to the CAIR-Foundation Inc., saying that the nonprofit is now tax exempt.
Those critics also claim CAIR has terrorist ties because it and other Muslim groups were named as unindicted co-conspirators in a 2007 trial of the now defunct Holy Land Foundation in Texas. Holy Land Foundations officials were convicted in 2009 of diverting funds to Hamas.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/rel ... 56534428/1

User avatar
Zarathud
Posts: 13910
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Zarathud » Thu Jul 02, 2015 4:06 pm

Rip wrote:We give tax exempt status to organizations known to funnel money to terrorists, so.....
Bullshit! See Code Section 501(p) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (scroll down to suspension of tax-exempt status of terrorist organizations). Charities are subject to anti-terror financing laws, anti-terror laws, know you customer and illicit money tracking laws. But you should be with Forbes denouncing all those "unnecessary" government regulations.

And doesn't an unindicted alleged co-conspirator receive any presumption of innocence, Rip? Pretty flimsy claim anyway, much like that 2012 USA Today article. If CAIR had its tax-exempt status recently reinstated, they had to resubmit all of the paperwork to the IRS, including representations that they weren't funding terrorists and complied with anti-terrorist financing laws, etc. Every time I work with a charity that makes international grants -- even to well-known educational institutions like University of Oxford or Edinburgh or even Sydney -- they get tagged with supplemental questions on terrorist financing. If you have any question, you could even ask CAIR for their IRS correspondence -- they have to disclose it upon request.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
"When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal. - Nixon
"I don't stand by anything." - Trump
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867

User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26885
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:
Rip’s avatar
Offline

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Rip » Thu Jul 02, 2015 4:15 pm

Zarathud wrote:
Rip wrote:We give tax exempt status to organizations known to funnel money to terrorists, so.....
Bullshit! See Code Section 501(p) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (scroll down to suspension of tax-exempt status of terrorist organizations). Charities are subject to anti-terror financing laws, anti-terror laws, know you customer and illicit money tracking laws. But you should be with Forbes denouncing all those "unnecessary" government regulations.

And doesn't an unindicted alleged co-conspirator receive any presumption of innocence, Rip? Pretty flimsy claim anyway, much like that 2012 USA Today article. If CAIR had its tax-exempt status recently reinstated, they had to resubmit all of the paperwork to the IRS, including representations that they weren't funding terrorists and complied with anti-terrorist financing laws, etc. Every time I work with a charity that makes international grants -- even to well-known educational institutions like University of Oxford or Edinburgh or even Sydney -- they get tagged with supplemental questions on terrorist financing. If you have any question, you could even ask CAIR for their IRS correspondence -- they have to disclose it upon request.
They are no different than the ICNA which Canada was at least prudent enough to reject.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/20505 ... greenfield
The Canada Revenue Agency has revoked the charitable status of an Islamic group after it says it distributed over $280,000 to an agency allegedly linked to a terrorist organization in Pakistan.

The CRA announced Friday it will strip the Islamic Society of North America Canada's Development Foundation of its charitable status.

After a nearly two-year-long audit of its books, the CRA said it found evidence linking the group to an organization that funds a terrorist organization in Pakistan.
At least Canada can recognize that fact. They are hardly the only one.

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/07/02 ... ush-obama/

The ties of these organizations isn't even all that well hidden.

User avatar
Zarathud
Posts: 13910
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Zarathud » Thu Jul 02, 2015 4:23 pm

Love Justice Posner's Obergefell commentary in Slate.
It was no surprise that the Supreme Court held Friday that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. It is very difficult to distinguish the case from Loving v. Virginia, which in 1967 invalidated state laws forbidding miscegenation.
Related to the preceding point, the chief justice’s dissent is heartless. There is of course a long history of persecution of gay people, a history punctuated by such names as Oscar Wilde, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, and Alan Turing. Until quite recently, many American gays and lesbians took great pains to conceal their homosexuality in order to avoid discrimination. They value marriage just as straight people do. They want their adopted children to have the psychological and financial advantages of legitimacy. They are hurt by the discrimination that the dissenting justices condone. Prohibiting gay marriage is discrimination.
And isn’t the history of constitutional law the history of Supreme Court justices, often by a narrow vote, inventing new rights and imposing them on the rest of the country?
:geek:
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
"When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal. - Nixon
"I don't stand by anything." - Trump
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867

User avatar
Zarathud
Posts: 13910
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Zarathud » Thu Jul 02, 2015 4:37 pm

Rip wrote:The ties of these organizations isn't even all that well hidden.
You obviously don't read your own sources:
In 2003, the Senate Finance Committee looked into ISNA’s financial records for terrorist connections. In 2005, the investigation was closed and Committee Chairman Charles Grassley said the committee “did not find anything”.
But, wait, the pretty loopy extremism is coming from a self-declared "former member of the Muslim Brotherhood" who claims to know the real conspiracy....
The truth is that the Republican Party – and Mitchell herself – have dirty hands when it comes to giving Muslim Brotherhood front groups and individuals legitimacy. All signs point to them wanting to win the fight with the IRS by using spitballs instead of the heavy artillery in order to protect their own self-interests.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
"When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal. - Nixon
"I don't stand by anything." - Trump
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867

User avatar
em2nought
Posts: 3595
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:48 am

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by em2nought » Fri Jul 03, 2015 12:30 am

Isgrimnur wrote:Someone went and put Astroglide on his slippery slope.
That's great! :mrgreen: I can see straights and uh, alternatives?, joining together to happily prevent others from achieving happiness via prostitution.
Waiting for the tide to bring me a sail.

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40570
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by GreenGoo » Fri Jul 03, 2015 1:13 pm

em2nought wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:Someone went and put Astroglide on his slippery slope.
That's great! :mrgreen: I can see straights and uh, alternatives?, joining together to happily prevent others from achieving happiness via prostitution.
Why do you keep suggesting that money needs to change hands in order to have sex?

Malachite
Posts: 1081
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:59 pm

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Malachite » Fri Jul 03, 2015 2:08 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
em2nought wrote:That's great! :mrgreen: I can see straights and uh, alternatives?, joining together to happily prevent others from achieving happiness via prostitution.
Why do you keep suggesting that money needs to change hands in order to have sex?
Personal experience?

User avatar
Moliere
Posts: 12007
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:57 am
Location: Walking through a desert land

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Moliere » Sun Jul 05, 2015 10:37 am

Moliere wrote:What would happen if a Republican referred to an African American as a "clown in blackface"?
His FB apology:
I owe an apology. On the eve of this Independence Day, I have a renewed sense of what this country stands for, and how I personally could help achieve it. The promise of equality and freedom is one that all of us have to work for, at all times. I know this as a survivor of the Japanese American internment, which each day drives me only to strive harder to help fulfill that promise for future generations.

I recently was asked by a reporter about Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent in the marriage equality cases, in which he wrote words that really got under my skin, by suggesting that the government cannot take away human dignity through slavery, or though internment. In my mind that suggested that this meant he felt the government therefore shouldn’t be held accountable, or should do nothing in the face of gross violations of dignity. When asked by a reporter about the opinion, I was still seething, and I referred to him as a “clown in blackface” to suggest that he had abdicated and abandoned his heritage. This was not intended to be racist, but rather to evoke a history of racism in the theatrical arts. While I continue to vehemently disagree with Justice Thomas, the words I chose, said in the heat of anger, were not carefully considered.

I am reminded, especially on this July 4th holiday, that though we have the freedom to speak our minds, we must use that freedom judiciously. Each of us, as humans, have hot-button topics that can set us off, and Justice Thomas had hit mine, that is clear. But my choice of words was regrettable, not because I do not believe Justice Thomas is deeply wrong, but because they were ad hominem and uncivil, and for that I am sorry.

I often ask fans to keep the level of discourse on this page and in comments high, and to remember that we all love this country and for what it stands. even if we often disagree passionately about how to achieve those goals. I did not live up to my own high standards in this instance.

I hope all of you have a wonderful, safe and joyously free July 4th, the first where all married couples in the U.S. can enjoy the full liberties of matrimony equally. It is truly a blessing to be an American today.
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow

User avatar
em2nought
Posts: 3595
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:48 am

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by em2nought » Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:03 pm

Malachite wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:
em2nought wrote:That's great! :mrgreen: I can see straights and uh, alternatives?, joining together to happily prevent others from achieving happiness via prostitution.
Why do you keep suggesting that money needs to change hands in order to have sex?
Personal experience?
No, sometimes you just need to fill out a form 2257. :mrgreen:

I think what I'm suggesting is that in regards to sex both sides in this argument are still hypocrites.
Waiting for the tide to bring me a sail.

User avatar
Skinypupy
Posts: 13836
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:12 am
Location: Pac-12 Country

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Skinypupy » Sun Jul 05, 2015 4:20 pm

Sorry, I'm having trouble following. You're saying that both supporters and detractors of same sex marriage are hypocrites because prositution is illegal?
“Don’t tickle the wall clown.” - MST3K

User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 39253
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!
hepcat’s avatar
Offline

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by hepcat » Sun Jul 05, 2015 4:53 pm

Skinypupy wrote:Sorry, I'm having trouble following. You're saying that both supporters and detractors of same sex marriage are hypocrites because prositution is illegal?
All I can think of is that he doesn't believe prostitution should be illegal. :?
I beat a camel to death with a monkey. Can I do that?
-Mr Bismarck

You have to whack a few rabbits before you are ready to punch a camel.
-Coopasonic

User avatar
Daehawk
Posts: 44814
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:11 am

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Daehawk » Sun Jul 05, 2015 6:00 pm

Wait is there going to be a hearing on same sex prostitution now?

Will they have to rename the bunny ranch the crowing cock ranch?
https://www.gofundme.com/please-help-di ... -wife-died ....Help for me to take care of stuff . Wife died Jan 3 2019 after 31 years. My soulmate.
---------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.
GroovAtroN, stop asking
I guess Ray Butts has ate his last pancake.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/daehawk

User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 27434
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana
Contact:
Blackhawk’s avatar
Offline

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Blackhawk » Sun Jul 05, 2015 7:39 pm

hepcat wrote:
Skinypupy wrote:Sorry, I'm having trouble following. You're saying that both supporters and detractors of same sex marriage are hypocrites because prositution is illegal?
All I can think of is that he doesn't believe prostitution should be illegal. :?
No, because then I'd have something I agreed with him on. This cannot be.
[This space left intentionally blank.]

User avatar
em2nought
Posts: 3595
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:48 am

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by em2nought » Mon Jul 06, 2015 2:56 am

Blackhawk wrote:No, because then I'd have something I agreed with him on. This cannot be.
Comrade! :wink:
Waiting for the tide to bring me a sail.

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40570
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by GreenGoo » Mon Jul 06, 2015 1:26 pm

hepcat wrote:
Skinypupy wrote:Sorry, I'm having trouble following. You're saying that both supporters and detractors of same sex marriage are hypocrites because prositution is illegal?
All I can think of is that he doesn't believe prostitution should be illegal. :?
Which is fine, I'm just confused how it is related to the right to be married.

Post Reply