welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Homomentum: prop 8 is almost guaranteed dead now
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Heretical Rants



Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 5344
Location: No.

PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

fritterdonut wrote:
For fucks sake, can we just make a Sojobo vs. Bitflipper thread?

I mean seriously, it's spread over 3 different threads now.


problem is, different people are being asshats about different things in each of those threads
_________________
butts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2466

PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

fritterdonut wrote:
For fucks sake, can we just make a Sojobo vs. Bitflipper thread?

I mean seriously, it's spread over 3 different threads now.

bitflipper dragged in into here; I don't know why.

And the rape culture thread doesn't count, as I would have corrected anyone engaging in victim blaming, especially in a conversation directly about victim blaming, especially in a thread explicitly about rape culture. It's just a coincidence that bitflipper was the offender this time.
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fritterdonut



Joined: 24 Jul 2012
Posts: 1212
Location: Hedonism

PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sojobo wrote:

bitflipper dragged in into here; I don't know why.

And the rape culture thread doesn't count, as I would have corrected anyone engaging in victim blaming, especially in a conversation directly about victim blaming, especially in a thread explicitly about rape culture. It's just a coincidence that bitflipper was the offender this time.


My mistake then; please disregard.

Also:
Snorri wrote:
And that is also why we ban MSM from donating blood. That ain't homophobia, that's just math. Any feasible screening method for HIV and other diseases is imperfect, so the smart thing to do is to exclude groups with a too high infection rate to minimize the risks.


While I can't really disagree - HIV and AIDs testing is pretty hard, since it can be months before you produce the antibodies that the tests look for; but at the same time, it still seems like another thing that draws lines in the sand between the heterosexual and homosexual communities. And in Canada, it's a lifetime ban on donation, unlike places like Britain where you can donate after 1 year of inactivity, or 5 years in some other countries.
_________________
To get things done, you must love the doing, not the secondary consequences. The work, not the people. Your own action, not any possible object of your charity.
-Howard Roark, The Fountainhead
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17588
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mizike wrote:
Now, after the Supreme Court Rules on Prop 8, some religious country clerk or whatever is going to decide he (it's always a he, isn't it?) cannot, in good conscience, marry Adam and Steve. Three years down the road, that case will result in gay marriage being the law of the land.


But by then about half the states will have it anyway.


your analysis sounds believable - but i'm wondering if striking down DOMA will speed things. as i understand it, striking down DOMA would mean all married couples get all federal benefits, but the states still get to decide whether or not you are officially 'married', and just because you are married in one state doesn't mean your marriage is recognized in another.

so if, for example, a same-sex couple is married in iowa, then moves to nebraska, suddenly the spouse is back to losing rights again. picture one member of that couple being in the military (with all the regular transfers that involves) and you have a couple that can have benefits part of year 1, then not in year 2, then back to it in year 3, then....

although i'm not sure what the basis of that would be - "freedom from stupid irritating bureaucracy" doesn't appear to be a fundamental right.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bitflipper



Joined: 09 Jul 2011
Posts: 728
Location: Here and Now

PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
although i'm not sure what the basis of that would be - "freedom from stupid irritating bureaucracy" doesn't appear to be a fundamental right.

...I think we need a new Constitutional Amendment. Wink

For members of the military, I think federal law and UCMJ apply regardless of in what state (or where overseas, for that matter) they may be stationed, so their marital status shouldn't change once it's recognized unless they change it themselves. That's just my opinion, though; I'm willing to bet it comes up in court more than once before this silliness finally gets settled.

Personally, I always thought there was a constitutional requirement for all states to recognize the bona fides and documents of all other states. In fact, prior to Lincoln's administrations, this used to cause all kinds of headaches with state-issued currencies. So, it seems to me that a same-sex couple married in Iowa, with a certified Iowa marriage license, should be married in all of the states and territories, regardless of which states allow same-sex couples to get married in the first place. But, that's just me; apparently most individual state legislatures disagree with me.
_________________
I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10953
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 12:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's DOMA for you:
"Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."

Edit: Section 2 isn't being reviewed by SCOTUS, only section 3. So if they decide against DOMA they'll only be removing the prohibition on federal recognition of same-sex marriages, not the ability of states to ignore the Full Faith and Credit clause regarding marriages from other states.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stripeypants



Joined: 24 Feb 2013
Posts: 3448
Location: Land of the Grumpuses

PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 2:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bitflipper wrote:
mouse wrote:
although i'm not sure what the basis of that would be - "freedom from stupid irritating bureaucracy" doesn't appear to be a fundamental right.

...I think we need a new Constitutional Amendment. Wink

For members of the military, I think federal law and UCMJ apply regardless of in what state (or where overseas, for that matter) they may be stationed, so their marital status shouldn't change once it's recognized unless they change it themselves. That's just my opinion, though; I'm willing to bet it comes up in court more than once before this silliness finally gets settled.


As far as I know, that's the case. For instance, the military uses a different age of consent law. I think their minimum is 17, even if the age is lower where they are stationed.
_________________
[Stripeypants has enabled lurk mode.]

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bitflipper



Joined: 09 Jul 2011
Posts: 728
Location: Here and Now

PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 4:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogen wrote:
That's DOMA for you:
"Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."

Edit: Section 2 isn't being reviewed by SCOTUS, only section 3. So if they decide against DOMA they'll only be removing the prohibition on federal recognition of same-sex marriages, not the ability of states to ignore the Full Faith and Credit clause regarding marriages from other states.

Gods, I'm surprised it passed in the first place. Surely someone in Congress would have raised a hand and said "Uh, gang? Think we got a little Constitutional issue, here in section 2..." after they read the... oh. Oh yeah. Nevermind. Silly me.
_________________
I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Finnegan



Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 1080
Location: in that cool mountain air, on an appalachian trail

PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 4:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bitflipper wrote:

Gods, I'm surprised it passed in the first place.


hey! you stole my blasphemy! [insert appropriate emoticon to convey the fact that my outrage is playful and insincere, except not because I fucking hate using emoticons but haven't found a way to textually convey my tone and facial expression yet.]
_________________
Formerly Green_Finn

hey! rock bottom's not that bad
we've got glow-in-the-dark fish down here that's rad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bitflipper



Joined: 09 Jul 2011
Posts: 728
Location: Here and Now

PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 5:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You mean, you don't want to share? :sad_kitty_eyes: But it's such a nice blasphemy! :blink_blink:
_________________
I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stripeypants



Joined: 24 Feb 2013
Posts: 3448
Location: Land of the Grumpuses

PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 11:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wish we didn't have to wait till June or whenever to find out the rulings. On that day, I will probably celebrate with cake. And fruits arranged by color into a rainbow.
_________________
[Stripeypants has enabled lurk mode.]

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10953
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bitflipper wrote:
Gods, I'm surprised it passed in the first place. Surely someone in Congress would have raised a hand and said "Uh, gang? Think we got a little Constitutional issue, here in section 2..." after they read the... oh. Oh yeah. Nevermind. Silly me.

Instead, it was extremely popular.
Quote:
Passed the House on July 12, 1996 (Yeas: 342; Nays: 67)
Passed the Senate on September 10, 1996 (Yeas: 85; Nays: 14)

_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Page 5 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group