And my brother just basically said the gay rights movement is nothing near the civil rights movement because enough gays didn't die compared to the coloreds back in the 60s.
So, the transcript from yesterday is actually worth listening to. There is some BS about standing (actually great from a legal standpoint because they can't come up with any actual injury to the people who don't want gay marriage) and then they get into the substance. That's how it goes for pretty much each person who testifies.
My favorite part is the debate about procreation where the guy says as long as one member of a couple over 55 can procreate, they can still procreate. He doesn't seem to realize that applies to gay couples! XD Everybody laughs at him. But I'm only halfway through by this point, so there could be something better later on.
It sounds like there's a pretty serious chance the Prop 8 case will be dismissed for lack of standing without having the substance of the case decided. I actually agree that it doesn't sound like the Prop 8 supporters have standing, and saying they do would set a possibly dangerous precedent. Dismissing the case would uphold the overturn of Prop 8 in CA, but would not advance the greater cause of marriage equality in America. I haz a conflicted.
On a "friend's" facebook wall. The funny thing is I had always assumed that he was closeted and in denial, so I guess if I'm right then hes in deeper than before.
Sounds like the court was also getting irritated at the Executive branch for choosing not to defend DOMA in court while enforcing it. Both of these issues are weird (legally) and I would not be surprised if both are tossed out on standing issues.
Oh, I haven't listened to today's transcript! I am excited for it.
Honestly, I can't say that my legal opinion is that the Prop 8 case has standing. I don't think it does because the Prop 8 supporters aren't actually CA agents. And it sounded like they weren't ready to declare the issue ripe yet either; it's not like there's a split in the Circuits.
Nuri explained legal things to me!!! I got smarterer!!!
It was also really funny to hear Cooper totally fail to find any standing at all for his case: "Can you show a specific harm that would arise from this?" "Um, we don't know what's going to happen?" "Yeah, that's not going to cut it." "Then no."
I've got a better idea. How about we get rid of state-sponsored marriage and marriage licenses altogether? Why do we need the government to give incentives to people to partner up? I think that people do a plenty good job of partnering up all on their own without incentives from the government.
The problem is, laws are based on ancient philosophies, and who has the power to rewrite the law in it's entirety?
It is. Politics is not.The difficulty is not "who has the power," but rather "who could get away with it?" The electorate isn't anti-marriage yet. When it will, Congress will find a reason for them having the power to do so and do it.
What? That is in no way true. Most law is based on old English common law, which developed from a lot of other law, but in no way is common law founded in philosophy.
And I'd hardly call the Enlightenment theories of government that were used to justify the creation of most state constitutions "ancient."
I hate the "there are more important things" bullshit. For one, this is a human rights issue, which is in my opinion the most important thing. And secondly it assumes that things can't work in parallel, which is of course blatantly ridiculous particularly considering that we are talking about different branches of government.
Isn't it easier for gays just to move, rather than try to fight off the views of everyone around them? There are plenty of places where stuff doesn't suck for gays; just go to one of those places for a while.
Isn't it easier for gays just to move, rather than try to fight off the views of everyone around them? There are plenty of places where stuff doesn't suck for gays; just go to one of those places for a while.
"Just move" isn't really a solution for some people. Poverty, local responsibility, transportation difficulties...
The US is large. Someone stuck out in the middle of bumfuck nowhere might be 1500 miles from the nearest gay-friendly place. And you're asking people to potentially give up the entire social network that they've developed by being in that specific locale for however long; if you've been in a place for 30 years, a lot of your emotional and social roots are in that place. Digging those up and resettling is a long process, and you won't be able to engage in your new place like you did in the old place.
So my neighbor is a catholic, and I think she's wrong and stupid and the idea of her praying quietly in her own home offends me. So lets burn crosses on her lawn and throw "The Origin of Species" though that jerk's windows! FUCK YEAH!!! MILITIANT ATHEISTS!!! WOOOOOOOT!!!!
Moving isn't easy, and they shouldn't have too because I'm the one who doesn't like it.
So my neighbor is a catholic, and I think she's wrong and stupid and the idea of her praying quietly in her own home offends me. So lets burn crosses on her lawn and throw "The Origin of Species" though that jerk's windows! FUCK YEAH!!! MILITIANT ATHEISTS!!! WOOOOOOOT!!!!
You could do better than toss "The Origin of Species" through her window. The Catholic Church has stated that it has no problem with Darwinian Evolution. In fact, their official stance is that Darwinian Evolution is merely the scientific description of God's method for the creation of life.
Now if she was some sort of evangelical fundie on the other hand...
Isn't it easier for gays just to move, rather than try to fight off the views of everyone around them? There are plenty of places where stuff doesn't suck for gays; just go to one of those places for a while.
I agree, but then this is my answer to just about everything. I know that there are reasons people don't do it, I just don't understand them. This has been relevant talking to friends about collage selection. The most frequent excuse I hear is "I don't want to leave my friends," which in my experience almost always comes from people who hang out with pricks.
No one should have to move for basic human rights. Should the black children wanting to attend a good school in Arkansas have "just moved" to the north?
State and local government can be as stupid as it wants to be, so long as it stops short of the minimum stupid guaranteed by the constitution.
No one should have to move for basic human rights. Should the black children wanting to attend a good school in Arkansas have "just moved" to the north?
Marriage exists only in our minds, so it's a civil right, not a human one. You're not wrong on any other account, but I've been seeing almost everyone saying this and it's pissing me off. Human rights are things like habeus corpus, access to food and fresh water, freedom of speech, etc. most of which we have in 'Murrkuh.
No, marriage exists as a standard, easy-to-enter contract between two people which affords substantial tangible benefits. The institution and its benefits have been in place for all of modern history, and aren't going to disappear any time soon.
It's a basic human right to have equal access to the beneficial institutions of one's own civil society.
Marriage is not a human right, and if you're in a place where the government is mistreating you, chances are the people do as well. Even if you shouldn't have to move, you kinda do. So just do it now, instead of bitching about having to move and then move later.
It's a basic human right to have equal access to the beneficial institutions of one's own civil society.
Human rights exist independent of society.
I cannot think of a single society in human history that has not placed primary value on marriage as a stabilizing social force. We see it throughout history, and it is obviously something that every culture values. I would say that qualifies it as a de facto human rights issue.
Marriage is not a human right, and if you're in a place where the government is mistreating you, chances are the people do as well. Even if you shouldn't have to move, you kinda do. So just do it now, instead of bitching about having to move and then move later.
But we're talking about the United States, so fuck that noise. No one should have to move due solely to the ignorance and bigotry of their local governments.
You're basically saying black people should have left the south, rather than fighting Jim Crow Laws.
Marriage is not a human right, and if you're in a place where the government is mistreating you, chances are the people do as well. Even if you shouldn't have to move, you kinda do. So just do it now, instead of bitching about having to move and then move later.
But we're talking about the United States, so fuck that noise. No one should have to move due solely to the ignorance and bigotry of their local governments.
You're basically saying black people should have left the south, rather than fighting Jim Crow Laws.
Also, "That girl done knew she was-a-gonna get raped. She shouldn'a gone outside after dark while them's-a-McConnell brothers was in town."
Blaming the victim: Classy move or classiest move?
Marriage is not a human right, and if you're in a place where the government is mistreating you, chances are the people do as well. Even if you shouldn't have to move, you kinda do. So just do it now, instead of bitching about having to move and then move later.
Exactly. If the niggers would've just up and left, there wouldn't have been problems.
Comments
I wish I could punch people through the internet.
My favorite part is the debate about procreation where the guy says as long as one member of a couple over 55 can procreate, they can still procreate. He doesn't seem to realize that applies to gay couples! XD Everybody laughs at him. But I'm only halfway through by this point, so there could be something better later on.
On a "friend's" facebook wall. The funny thing is I had always assumed that he was closeted and in denial, so I guess if I'm right then hes in deeper than before.
Honestly, I can't say that my legal opinion is that the Prop 8 case has standing. I don't think it does because the Prop 8 supporters aren't actually CA agents. And it sounded like they weren't ready to declare the issue ripe yet either; it's not like there's a split in the Circuits.
It was also really funny to hear Cooper totally fail to find any standing at all for his case: "Can you show a specific harm that would arise from this?" "Um, we don't know what's going to happen?" "Yeah, that's not going to cut it." "Then no."
Law needs to be a science.
And I'd hardly call the Enlightenment theories of government that were used to justify the creation of most state constitutions "ancient."
The US is large. Someone stuck out in the middle of bumfuck nowhere might be 1500 miles from the nearest gay-friendly place. And you're asking people to potentially give up the entire social network that they've developed by being in that specific locale for however long; if you've been in a place for 30 years, a lot of your emotional and social roots are in that place. Digging those up and resettling is a long process, and you won't be able to engage in your new place like you did in the old place.
Moving isn't easy, and they shouldn't have too because I'm the one who doesn't like it.
Now if she was some sort of evangelical fundie on the other hand...
State and local government can be as stupid as it wants to be, so long as it stops short of the minimum stupid guaranteed by the constitution.
It's a basic human right to have equal access to the beneficial institutions of one's own civil society.
You're basically saying black people should have left the south, rather than fighting Jim Crow Laws.
Blaming the victim: Classy move or classiest move?
No, seriously, this is what you're saying.