FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: Rabbit of Caerbannog on December 07, 2012, 05:25:25 pm
-
Today the U.S. Supreme Court (finally) announced (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/us/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-two-cases-on-gay-marriage.html?hp&_r=0) it would hear arguments for two gay marriage cases: Windsor v. United States and Hollingsworth v. Perry. Windsor is a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act while Perry is, of course, a challenge to California's Proposition 8. The implications of these cases are enormous, as the first case deals with the thousand or so benefits afforded to straight couples but denied to gay couples, while the second has a possibility of legalizing same-sex marriage on a national level. Arguments are expected for March of 2013 with a decision in late June ;D
-
I am hoping that they will find that restricting marriage to the binary heterosexual model is unconstitutional and that marriage between same sex couples will be allowed. I know that there are countries in Europe that have same sex marriage and they seem to be doing fine. It would of course be foolish for the SCOTUS to say no as the rest of the Western world seems to be more progressive and moving past old paradigms.
-
I am hoping that they will find that restricting marriage to the binary heterosexual model is unconstitutional and that marriage between same sex couples will be allowed. I know that there are countries in Europe that have same sex marriage and they seem to be doing fine. It would of course be foolish for the SCOTUS to say no as the rest of the Western world seems to be more progressive and moving past old paradigms.
That's exactly what I was complaining about on the thread I started yesterday on the topic of the Mexican Supreme Court striking down a gay marriage ban in Oaxaca. This is what bothers me about the whole "American exceptionalism" thing. We should be leading the way on human rights, not playing catch-up.
-
Is that the Prop 8 case where the evidence was down right amusing?
-
My prediction: 5-4, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito in the majority, Scalia writes the opinion, and possibly words it to declare gay marriage itself outright unconstitutional.
-
Is that the Prop 8 case where the evidence was down right amusing?
You mean where one of the Prop 8 proponents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tam) said gays and lesbians were more likely to molest children and then said he learned it "from the Internet"? Yes, that's the one.
-
My prediction: 5-4, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito in the majority, Scalia writes the opinion, and possibly words it to declare gay marriage itself outright unconstitutional.
Wow is that cynical
Ironbite-especially since the guys defending Prop 8 failed on every level.
-
My prediction: 5-4, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito in the majority, Scalia writes the opinion, and possibly words it to declare gay marriage itself outright unconstitutional.
Bear in mind, though, that Kennedy has a very pro-gay rights track record, having written the opinions in Lawrence v. Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas) (striking down sodomy laws) and Romer v. Evans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans) (striking down a Colorado constitutional amendment which stripped legal protections from gays and lesbians). He also sided with the four liberal justices in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Legal_Society_v._Martinez) which ruled that a public law school could deny official recognition to student groups which disallowed gay members.
EDIT: Moreover, there are no grounds for declaring laws which legalized same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. If Prop 8 is, somehow, upheld all it would mean is that the states that want to ban same-sex marriage can, while the states that want to legalize it can do so as well.
-
Is that the Prop 8 case where the evidence was down right amusing?
Yes.
If the USSC strikes down Prop 8, it likely won't affect the rest of the country at all. It's been a while since I read the 9th Cir. decision, but it sticks in my mind it was struck down there based on "you can't give rights and then take them away." (CA has previously allowed SSM, then Prop 8 passed.) If the USSC does strike down Prop 8, it will likely be on those same grounds. Meaning that states that have SSM will keep it, but those that don't have it will be in the same boat they are now.
As for the other case, as I understand it, it also won't directly affect states that don't have SSM. All it will do is allow people who live in those states with SSM to get federal benefits that they are eligible for (Social Security, vet benefits, etc). I also think it would allow people who are in a SSM who work for the federal government to put their same-sex spouse on their health insurance. (Not sure on that last one.)
What striking down DOMA would do is set up Loving v. Virginia, Part II. A couple could marry in a state that recognizes SSM, then go back to a state that does not and file under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution. (That's exactly what the Lovings did. They married in DC - which recognized interracial marriage - then filed suit in Virginia, where they lived.)
My prediction: 5-4, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito in the majority, Scalia writes the opinion, and possibly words it to declare gay marriage itself outright unconstitutional.
Unlikely. Kennedy has written opinions favoring gay rights. (He wrote Lawrence v. Texas, for instance.)
-
Is that the Prop 8 case where the evidence was down right amusing?
What striking down DOMA would do is set up Loving v. Virginia, Part II. A couple could marry in a state that recognizes SSM, then go back to a state that does not and file under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution. (That's exactly what the Lovings did. They married in DC - which recognized interracial marriage - then filed suit in Virginia, where they lived.)
But remember that in Loving the couple was legally barred from going back to Virginia and was jailed when they returned, which I think is a very big distinction between the two.
Actually now that I think about it the Loving case dealt with the Equal Protections Clause and not Full Faith & Credit.
-
Is that the Prop 8 case where the evidence was down right amusing?
Yes.
If the USSC strikes down Prop 8, it likely won't affect the rest of the country at all. It's been a while since I read the 9th Cir. decision, but it sticks in my mind it was struck down there based on "you can't give rights and then take them away." (CA has previously allowed SSM, then Prop 8 passed.) If the USSC does strike down Prop 8, it will likely be on those same grounds. Meaning that states that have SSM will keep it, but those that don't have it will be in the same boat they are now.
As for the other case, as I understand it, it also won't directly affect states that don't have SSM. All it will do is allow people who live in those states with SSM to get federal benefits that they are eligible for (Social Security, vet benefits, etc). I also think it would allow people who are in a SSM who work for the federal government to put their same-sex spouse on their health insurance. (Not sure on that last one.)
What striking down DOMA would do is set up Loving v. Virginia, Part II. A couple could marry in a state that recognizes SSM, then go back to a state that does not and file under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution. (That's exactly what the Lovings did. They married in DC - which recognized interracial marriage - then filed suit in Virginia, where they lived.)
My prediction: 5-4, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito in the majority, Scalia writes the opinion, and possibly words it to declare gay marriage itself outright unconstitutional.
Unlikely. Kennedy has written opinions favoring gay rights. (He wrote Lawrence v. Texas, for instance.)
On the other hand, SCOTUS could follow the logic of the California judge who first struck down Prop 8, which is that denying rights to gay couples is bullshit, and therefore make gay marriage the law of the land.
The fundies' reactions would be PRICELESS.
-
So if DOMA is struck down, that would mean a couple who gets married in Iowa and then moves to Michigan, Michigan would have to recognize the marriage for benefits, taxes, and so on, right? Isn't that what the Equal Protections Clause means?
-
On the other hand, SCOTUS could follow the logic of the California judge who first struck down Prop 8, which is that denying rights to gay couples is bullshit, and therefore make gay marriage the law of the land.
The fundies' reactions would be PRICELESS.
Ah yes...we would feel a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of fundies cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced...and it would be GLORIOUS!
-
On the other hand, SCOTUS could follow the logic of the California judge who first struck down Prop 8, which is that denying rights to gay couples is bullshit, and therefore make gay marriage the law of the land.
The fundies' reactions would be PRICELESS.
Ah yes...we would feel a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of fundies cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced...and it would be GLORIOUS!
Silenced, why, did the rapture actually get them?
Honestly, that's the only way I see them shutting the fuck up regardless which way the decision goes.
I know that there are countries in Europe that have same sex marriage and they seem to be doing fine.
Your neighbors to the north are doing pretty damn good too. ;)
-
My prediction: 5-4, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito in the majority, Scalia writes the opinion, and possibly words it to declare gay marriage itself outright unconstitutional.
Unlikely. Kennedy has written opinions favoring gay rights. (He wrote Lawrence v. Texas, for instance.)
True, but that one and Romer were heard when Stevens was on the Court, and as senior associate justice he assigned the writing of the majority opinion if the Chief Justice was not in the majority--thus he would promise them to Kennedy, while Rehnquist and Roberts wouldn't. Right now Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy are all senior to Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan--the only way to have one of the latter four assigning the majority opinion is if Alito, and only Alito, sided with them in a 5-4 decision.
As for the Court making it illegal over the whole country, perhaps not, but I wouldn't put it past Scalia to try (or at the least write it in such a way that lower courts would have to point to it as precedent in striking down other attempts at legalizing gay marriage, perhaps by pointing out why the "you can't take away rights once given" argument that the Ninth Circuit used doesn't hold water).
-
6-3 with the court striking down the law. I think Roberts knows this is the right thing to do and will not want his court looked at in the future as a road block. That being said I think the decision will be written in a way that will allow states to decide on the definition of marriage.
-
My prediction: 5-4, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito in the majority, Scalia writes the opinion, and possibly words it to declare gay marriage itself outright unconstitutional.
Unlikely. Kennedy has written opinions favoring gay rights. (He wrote Lawrence v. Texas, for instance.)
True, but that one and Romer were heard when Stevens was on the Court, and as senior associate justice he assigned the writing of the majority opinion if the Chief Justice was not in the majority--thus he would promise them to Kennedy, while Rehnquist and Roberts wouldn't. Right now Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy are all senior to Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan--the only way to have one of the latter four assigning the majority opinion is if Alito, and only Alito, sided with them in a 5-4 decision.
As for the Court making it illegal over the whole country, perhaps not, but I wouldn't put it past Scalia to try (or at the least write it in such a way that lower courts would have to point to it as precedent in striking down other attempts at legalizing gay marriage, perhaps by pointing out why the "you can't take away rights once given" argument that the Ninth Circuit used doesn't hold water).
Well the Christian Legal Society decision was a pro-gay decision and while it wasn't written by Kennedy it was at least written by Ginsberg who is also LGBT-friendly. At any rate, regardless of who issues the opinion I predict a 5-4 decision in our favor.
-
6-3 with the court striking down the law. I think Roberts knows this is the right thing to do and will not want his court looked at in the future as a road block. That being said I think the decision will be written in a way that will allow states to decide on the definition of marriage.
Just to be different I'll say they will legalize it nationwide. If Kennedy is the LGBT ally he's shown himself to be in the past then he will be in the majority striking down Prop 8 and DOMA. And since they theoretically have the votes necessary (four liberals and a swing vote) they won't have to water down the decision in order to pressure people like Roberts to side with them.
-
I was surprised they took up Prop 8. Usually they don't take up such narrowly defined decisions unless they either want to A. overturn them or B. expand them. Why would they bother wasting their time taking up a case that applies, in essence, to one state? If they were interested in keeping the scope the same they probably would have waited for further legal challenges in the same vein.
-
I was surprised they took up Prop 8. Usually they don't take up such narrowly defined decisions unless they either want to A. overturn them or B. expand them. Why would they bother wasting their time taking up a case that applies, in essence, to one state? If they were interested in keeping the scope the same they probably would have waited for further legal challenges in the same vein.
Well, keep in mind that only four judges need to agree to hear a case (this prevents a majority from dictating the court's docket). So by taking up such a narrowly defined decision, said four might think that it probably limits the potential damage while still allowing the greatest scope for expansion.
I still wouldn't be surprised if Kennedy stops short of actual gay marriage.
And whatever happens, I'm almost looking forward to what is sure to be an amusing (depending on one's sense of humour) Scalia opinion.
-
Well, NOM (http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=omL2KeN0LzH&b=5075187&ct=12526975¬oc=1) offered its prediction in the matter. And as we all know, their prediction that same-sex marriage would lose in a landslide on election day was a huge success.
-
My bet's riding on a 6-3 as well, in favor of striking down DOMA and Prop 8.
-
Well, NOM (http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=omL2KeN0LzH&b=5075187&ct=12526975¬oc=1) offered its prediction in the matter. And as we all know, their prediction that same-sex marriage would lose in a landslide on election day was a huge success.
I just cannot take that organizations name seriously. nom nom nom nom.
-
Well, NOM (http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=omL2KeN0LzH&b=5075187&ct=12526975¬oc=1) offered its prediction in the matter. And as we all know, their prediction that same-sex marriage would lose in a landslide on election day was a huge success.
I just cannot take that organizations name seriously. nom nom nom nom.
I just can't take that organization seriously, period.
-
I may have posted about it once before, but I still don't understand why an anti-LGBT act is called the "Defense of Marriage Act."
...Other than the shiny mirror and black & white perception of that movement.
-
Same reason a pollution deregulation bill is called the Clean Air Act, or the repeal of the constitution is called the PATRIOT act. Always call something its opposite, that way your opposition will be too angry to respond effectively.
-
On the other hand, SCOTUS could follow the logic of the California judge who first struck down Prop 8, which is that denying rights to gay couples is bullshit, and therefore make gay marriage the law of the land.
The fundies' reactions would be PRICELESS.
That's too awesome to happen, at least for another half decade.
But in the meantime, I will feast on this: http://rr-bb.com/showthread.php?182511-Supreme-Court-to-hear-gay-marriage-cases
Yum yum yum! Not much yet, but this is a nice appetizer:
It's such a sad world we live in when God's Word is totally ignored by everybody.
-
I may have posted about it once before, but I still don't understand why an anti-LGBT act is called the "Defense of Marriage Act."
...Other than the shiny mirror and black & white perception of that movement.
Well, it's a defence of marriage as it was understood by the bipartisan majority that passed it.
-
I may have posted about it once before, but I still don't understand why an anti-LGBT act is called the "Defense of Marriage Act."
...Other than the shiny mirror and black & white perception of that movement.
I've always referred to it as the Defense Against Marriage Act (DAMA).
-
The Progressive (http://www.progressive.org/why-supreme-court-will-affirm-same-sex-marriage) has a nice article on why the Supreme Court will legalize same-sex marriage. Worth the read.
-
Antonin Scalia's still on the Supreme Court, so unless by some miracle he dies I doubt this is going to turn out particularly awesome.
-
If this court can uphold the healthcare law, then I'm confident about same-sex marriage.
-
If this court can uphold the healthcare law, then I'm confident about same-sex marriage.
But they didn't, not really.
Roberts, in my view, gave Obama the worst possible outcome.
First, he could have struck it down. What happens then? Obama goes to the people, points out that he needs a Democratic majority in the House (and a Senate supermajority) to get all the goodies promised in the bill, then he gets it and passes the thing again with a few minor changes--not the same law, thing gets re-litigated, possibly after Scalia or Thomas passes away.
Second, he could have found it constitutional under the Commerce Clause. This would have given the federal government a lot of power to enforce it--for instance, the federally subsidised plans are (AFAIK) only available through the state exchanges, and so if a state chooses not to set one up its citizens can't get those plans. If the federal government has Commerce Clause authority, they can do a lot, plus it would mean that Commerce extends to individual mandates.
But he did neither of these things. He found it constitutional under the Taxation Clause. That means that there's little incentive for the government to tinker to try to get it to be constitutional under Commerce--they might just strike it down outright next time--but that they can't do much if a state chooses not to set up an exchange, meaning all its citizens have to get expensive private plans or pay a tax.
So basically the government is stuck being seen as taxing people and can't do much to get the states to do what the feds want, so the states can turn around and blame the federal government for that new tax you've got to pay.
The Progressive (http://www.progressive.org/why-supreme-court-will-affirm-same-sex-marriage) has a nice article on why the Supreme Court will legalize same-sex marriage. Worth the read.
I dispute points 4 and 5 in this article.
For point 4, I've noted my objections above--Kennedy did write Romer and Lawrence, but that's because Stevens, as senior associate justice, let him write them. Rehnquist probably would have given them to Scalia, leaving Kennedy with the choice of writing the majority opinion or signing onto Scalia's.
For point 5, see above. Roberts didn't let the health-care law prevail the way the federal government wanted it to prevail. He gave them a Pyrrhic victory.
-
Antonin Scalia's still on the Supreme Court, so unless by some miracle he dies I doubt this is going to turn out particularly awesome.
Scalia would have to be in the majority for his opinion to even matter. Kennedy would have to somehow be persuaded to go against his own previous opinions in order to uphold bans on gay marriage.
-
I dispute points 4 and 5 in this article.
For point 4, I've noted my objections above--Kennedy did write Romer and Lawrence, but that's because Stevens, as senior associate justice, let him write them. Rehnquist probably would have given them to Scalia, leaving Kennedy with the choice of writing the majority opinion or signing onto Scalia's.
If Rehnquist were in the majority then he could have dictated who would write the opinion, but he wasn't. The same applies now. If Roberts is not in the majority and Kennedy is, then guess who the most senior member in the majority is? That would be Justice Kennedy who could then write the opinion himself.
-
I dispute points 4 and 5 in this article.
For point 4, I've noted my objections above--Kennedy did write Romer and Lawrence, but that's because Stevens, as senior associate justice, let him write them. Rehnquist probably would have given them to Scalia, leaving Kennedy with the choice of writing the majority opinion or signing onto Scalia's.
If Rehnquist were in the majority then he could have dictated who would write the opinion, but he wasn't. The same applies now. If Roberts is not in the majority and Kennedy is, then guess who the most senior member in the majority is? That would be Justice Kennedy who could then write the opinion himself.
That's my point: Kennedy sided with Stevens because Stevens let him write the opinions, where Rehnquist wouldn't have. The other one noted above (where he didn't write the opinion) he might well have been in the majority because he realized it would look bad if he wasn't given Romer and Lawrence. I still wouldn't be surprised if he stopped short of gay marriage and just pulled the usual "marriage is a special term with a special meaning" card.
-
I dispute points 4 and 5 in this article.
For point 4, I've noted my objections above--Kennedy did write Romer and Lawrence, but that's because Stevens, as senior associate justice, let him write them. Rehnquist probably would have given them to Scalia, leaving Kennedy with the choice of writing the majority opinion or signing onto Scalia's.
If Rehnquist were in the majority then he could have dictated who would write the opinion, but he wasn't. The same applies now. If Roberts is not in the majority and Kennedy is, then guess who the most senior member in the majority is? That would be Justice Kennedy who could then write the opinion himself.
That's my point: Kennedy sided with Stevens because Stevens let him write the opinions, where Rehnquist wouldn't have. The other one noted above (where he didn't write the opinion) he might well have been in the majority because he realized it would look bad if he wasn't given Romer and Lawrence. I still wouldn't be surprised if he stopped short of gay marriage and just pulled the usual "marriage is a special term with a special meaning" card.
I'm afraid I don't understand the point you're trying to get across. Are you saying the only reason Kennedy voted as he did was because Stevens said he could write the opinions? Kennedy is more or less a staunch libertarian who doesn't believe the government should be able to restrict one's private, consensual conduct. I think his views on the subject of LGBT rights are genuine. I would be surprised if all of the sudden he abandoned logic and fell for the "traditional marriage" argument. And you also leave Christian Legal Society out of the equation wherein he sided with the liberal voting bloc and didn't write the opinion.
EDIT: I liked this quote from a SCOTUS clerk from the Romer term: "Kennedy definitely wanted the case. … His big shtick was this was an exceptional case, this was an outrage. He wanted to sock it to the people of Colorado. The emphasis on motive, bad guys is very much Kennedy."
I think he's really an ally.
-
I'm afraid I don't understand the point you're trying to get across. Are you saying the only reason Kennedy voted as he did was because Stevens said he could write the opinions? Kennedy is more or less a staunch libertarian who doesn't believe the government should be able to restrict one's private, consensual conduct. I think his views on the subject of LGBT rights are genuine. I would be surprised if all of the sudden he abandoned logic and fell for the "traditional marriage" argument. And you also leave Christian Legal Society out of the equation wherein he sided with the liberal voting bloc and didn't write the opinion.
EDIT: I liked this quote from a SCOTUS clerk from the Romer term: "Kennedy definitely wanted the case. … His big shtick was this was an exceptional case, this was an outrage. He wanted to sock it to the people of Colorado. The emphasis on motive, bad guys is very much Kennedy."
I think he's really an ally.
I did mention Christian Legal Society indirectly--I mentioned that it could well have been that he was in the majority not because he got to write the opinion but because he realized he had to be to be consistent with where he sided in Lawrence and Romer. (I just couldn't recall the name of the case.)
However, I was unaware of that quote regarding Kennedy's view on Romer.
It still wouldn't surprise me to see him stop short of marriage, given the firestorm that surrounds that particular term, but I take your point.
-
The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-get-to-determine-whether-gay-people-can-marry,30684/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=standard-post:headline:default) has an interesting take on the case. I don't find it funny, and I'm not even sure that it's supposed to be a joke. It seems to be a serious critique of Clarence Thomas (with a nice little potshot at Scalia). What do you guys think?
-
The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-get-to-determine-whether-gay-people-can-marry,30684/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=standard-post:headline:default) has an interesting take on the case. I don't find it funny, and I'm not even sure that it's supposed to be a joke. It seems to be a serious critique of Clarence Thomas (with a nice little potshot at Scalia). What do you guys think?
I love The Onion but that wasn't one of their better pieces. If anything it should have been aimed at Scalia, who cannot stop shooting his mouth off (http://theweek.com/article/index/237640/justice-antonin-scalia-compares-homosexuality-to-murder) about homosexuality being wrong.
-
The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-get-to-determine-whether-gay-people-can-marry,30684/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=standard-post:headline:default) has an interesting take on the case. I don't find it funny, and I'm not even sure that it's supposed to be a joke. It seems to be a serious critique of Clarence Thomas (with a nice little potshot at Scalia). What do you guys think?
I love The Onion but that wasn't one of their better pieces. If anything it should have been aimed at Scalia, who cannot stop shooting his mouth off (http://theweek.com/article/index/237640/justice-antonin-scalia-compares-homosexuality-to-murder) about homosexuality being wrong.
I think they aimed it at Thomas (with a shot at Scalia) because Thomas, previously just a clone of Scalia, has become Scalia, only wackier. If that's what Scalia thinks, I shudder to think what Thomas thinks.
-
The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-get-to-determine-whether-gay-people-can-marry,30684/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=standard-post:headline:default) has an interesting take on the case. I don't find it funny, and I'm not even sure that it's supposed to be a joke. It seems to be a serious critique of Clarence Thomas (with a nice little potshot at Scalia). What do you guys think?
I love The Onion but that wasn't one of their better pieces. If anything it should have been aimed at Scalia, who cannot stop shooting his mouth off (http://theweek.com/article/index/237640/justice-antonin-scalia-compares-homosexuality-to-murder) about homosexuality being wrong.
I think they aimed it at Thomas (with a shot at Scalia) because Thomas, previously just a clone of Scalia, has become Scalia, only wackier. If that's what Scalia thinks, I shudder to think what Thomas thinks.
Oh, Thomas is a reliable yea vote on whether states can ban same-sex marriage. But like I said, I think Kennedy's got this one. Of course we shall have to wait and see, but I sense that this will be a 5-4 ruling with Kennedy writing the opinion--at least in the Perry case. In Windsor I think it will also be 5-4 but perhaps with the opinion written by Ginsberg. I say this because Judge Walker's decision in Perry was written in such a way that it was specifically geared towards Kennedy, so he will probably decide to answer it with an opinion of his own.
-
So apparently Scalia says banning gay people fucking is like banning murder
-
So apparently Scalia says banning gay people fucking is like banning murder
He was attempting to say that the legislature is allowed to pass laws which govern morality, such as laws which prohibit murder. Therefore, the legislature can pass other laws which govern morality such as bans on sodomy. What he neglects to mention is that, while one can say the prohibition on murder is based in moral condemnation of the act, murder is also an act that violates the fundamental rights of other people. Moreover, murder being allowed would cause lawlessness, with people being able to exact "justice" upon whomever they please and for any reason. Sodomy, on the other hand, does not. So I would say the mere moral disapproval of murder is not a sufficient explanation for laws prohibiting it, that there are practical and rights-centered reasons for such laws. The same cannot be applied to homosexual sex.
-
Gotta love the, 'gay sex = murder' arguments. As if unnatural sex (by their POV) hurts so many people. Personally, the only sex I think is wrong is rape, cheating, sex with a child, and anything that could earn you a Darwin Award.
-
I'm wondering about how it would apply as far as federal benefits and such. And moving from one state which recognizes the marriage to one that doesn't.
-
To be fair gay sex does hurt. I mean that is an exit you're using as an entrance after all.
Ironbite-....what?
-
To be fair gay sex does hurt. I mean that is an exit you're using as an entrance after all.
Ironbite-....what?
Do go on. Tell us more about your experimenting :)
-
I didn't know your tail swished that way, Ibby... *grins wickedly*
-
You stay away from me you freaks.
Ironbite-I have cards...I will use them.
-
To be fair gay sex does hurt. I mean that is an exit you're using as an entrance after all.
Ironbite-....what?
You're not doing it right.
For one thing, go slow. You're not in a porn. (and even porn doesn't really do it the way they imply)
For another, you don't need to go all the way in right away.
I am resisting the urge to offer free lessons. You realize this, right?
-
To be fair gay sex does hurt. I mean that is an exit you're using as an entrance after all.
Ironbite-....what?
^assumes anal sex is the only action that can be called "gay sex"
(is bisexual and has no desire to engage in buttsex)
-
To be fair gay sex does hurt. I mean that is an exit you're using as an entrance after all.
Ironbite-....what?
^assumes anal sex is the only action that can be called "gay sex"
(is bisexual and has no desire to engage in buttsex)
Also implies that anal sex is exclusively a homosexual act.
EDIT: Well this is one of the more entertaining thread derails that I have ever seen.
-
Also, I'm not real up on the mechanics, but doesn't lube help with that somewhat?
-
Also, I'm not real up on the mechanics, but doesn't lube help with that somewhat?
Remember, don't go in dry. This has been a FSTDT Public Service Announcement.
-
I think my work here is done.
-
Also, I'm not real up on the mechanics, but doesn't lube help with that somewhat?
Remember, don't go in dry. This has been a FSTDT Public Service Announcement.
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSREfXFSRMLyverEsCt9d0rHIuNDgHiaJygT-D-OqZYDmMpzyVNNg)
-
So, anyway, George Takei had a pretty good response (http://www.allegiancemusical.com/blog-entry/we-are-not-murderers-mr-scalia) to Scalia's comparison between outlawing murder on moral grounds to outlawing sodomy on moral grounds.
That a sitting U.S. Justice could draw any kind of parallel between an act of love and tenderness on the one hand and an act of ultimate violence and evil on the other is more than disheartening; it sends a message to LGBT people everywhere that a member of our highest court cannot see us as anything but criminals, simply because of who we are and who we love. How can any gay couple coming before this court seeking equal treatment under the law have any realistic hope that Justice Scalia will fairly apply the rule of law and the principles of our Constitution, when all he sees before him are persons who should be locked up?
...
Justice Scalia had the unprofessional gall to make his preconceptions and animus toward LGBT persons public and crystal clear a mere few days after the Court agreed to review the cases. As he well knows, judges must avoid not only bias in their decisions, but the appearance of bias in their decision making, lest the judiciary fall even further into discredit in the eyes of the public. Now Justice Scalia should do the right thing and admit he cannot rule in this case fairly and impartially, and he should recuse from the cases. Should he fail to do so (and I have little expectation that he will), I hope and trust the fair-minded members of the Court will consider his poisonous preconceptions as unworthy of support–and toss them unceremoniously to the dungheap of history where they belong.
Emphasis mine
-
Personally I think the whole thing is ridiculous, even as a heterosexual. If consenting adults (regardless of gender) love each other, then who am I (or indeed anyone) to stop them?
Either way, I can only say I hope they rule in favor.
-
Personally I think the whole thing is ridiculous, even as a heterosexual. If consenting adults (regardless of gender) love each other, then who am I (or indeed anyone) to stop them?
Either way, I can only say I hope they rule in favor.
That's pretty much exactly how I feel. I'm straight, but I have no problem with people who are gay, bi, or whatever getting married. I honestly think it's quite sad that this is even still such a big issue.
-
To be fair gay sex does hurt. I mean that is an exit you're using as an entrance after all.
Ironbite-....what?
Methinks you've not heard of this thing called "birth".
If vagina's aren't designed to exit from there are gonna be a lot of unhappy babies!
-
Methinks you're not getting the point of my post.
Ironbite-bend over, I'll show you what that is.
-
You ARE up for experimenting today! ;D
-
Methinks you're not getting the point of my post.
Ironbite-bend over, I'll show you what that is.
Ironbite's horny...just as I reappear...did I miss something fun? The pervert in me likes the idea of Guilmon gettin' it on with a mechasaurus...but the kid in me is afraid of the violation of my childhood.
-
Methinks you're not getting the point of my post.
Ironbite-bend over, I'll show you what that is.
Ironbite's horny...just as I reappear...did I miss something fun? The pervert in me likes the idea of Guilmon gettin' it on with a mechasaurus...but the kid in me is afraid of the violation of my childhood.
Kinky. Can I watch?
Also, YAY, Itachi's back! *hugs!*