'Merica: YOU ARE SO GAY!

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Well now folks. No amount of ill-tempered bitchy persuasion will make me like the Pride parades, unless they show more self-respect and genuine pride by participants and less sleaze.

There is nothing ill-tempered in my post. I said not to whine because you are indisputably whining. This thread is not about gay pride parades, and you have not made any relevant connection to Pride. What you did is in a thread talking about people securing a right they've been fighting for in some cases for most of their lives, you introduced a largely irrelevant topic which in all likelihood scarcely affects you personally just to complain about it. Do you understand how needy that is?

But for the record I will tell you what nobody bothered to ask, namely that I'm wholly in favour of your SCOTUS decision, in spite of the sleaze associated with the parade. I am only glad that no one tried to paint the parades as the equivalent of the March on Washington and other Civil rights marches.

I can't speak for others, but I can't say I really care. Do you want me to pat you on the back for being less negative than you could have been? There is no rational reason "sleaze" at Pride should have any bearing on your views of same-sex marriage. Congratulations on meeting bare minimum expectations.

The parades once were the equivalent as any other political marches from other movements as far as their message went. In some countries that is still true, but now they are often more celebratory. Some people take it rather far with nudity and pda, but this is not unique to Pride or LGBT people. It's also not intrinsic to Pride or representative of a great many participants who are dressed in normal summer wear, or perhaps beach wear., or maybe some other non-sexual costume.

If you don't like the "sleaze" you can certainly object to that without ever touching on the core of what Pride is. Even amongst LGBT people who attend Pride (many LGBT people don't), not everyone is on board with how overtly sexual some participants are. Are you really looking to form a coherent point of view here, or are you perhaps taking potshots to be contrarian? Are you Kanye? I'm really happy for you, and I'ma let you finish, but gay pride parades are one of the best things we should be talking about right now. Or are you truly so hard-pressed by this issue that it had to be forced into this conversation despite having nothing to do with the topic at hand?

 

[Smoker]

Yeah, Scalia's dissent was so comically bad that it will probably make many Republicans think twice about their views. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/gay-marriage-supreme-court-scalia-dissent

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

In other news, bible thumper's heads are exploding [emoji106]

I've never enjoyed Facebook as much as I have today, watching all the conservative Christians I went to high school with lose their minds and preachers threatening to burn themselves.

Gasoline is relatively cheap right now. If they hurry they can save.

 

[Ford]

I've never enjoyed Facebook as much as I have today, watching all the conservative Christians I went to high school with lose their minds and preachers threatening to burn themselves.

I've had a quite different - if equally enjoyable - experience.

My news feed is filled with people celebrating the decision. If there are any of my "friends" who have a problem with it, they have been conspicuously silent today.

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

This would've been more encouraging if it wasn't split between the conservatives and liberals on the supreme court. Oh well.

What was the main reasoning behind the dissenters? Marriage isn't in the constitution?

I had to argue the shit side of this argument in a moot court debate a couple of months ago. It was tough. So here's their main legal argument ...

Did you catch it?

IOW, they didn't have one. I'm serious. What they had were a bunch of statistics based on no-fault divorce and dire predictions for children who won't be growing up in a two parent household. It was more complicated than that, but that's the gist of their strongest argument. And it was directed specifically at Kennedy due to him voicing past concern about The Children. But again, that's not a legal argument, it's speculative public policy--at best.

After getting nuked on all this stuff I threw my Hail Mary: "What this boils down to is a basic 10th Amendment issue."

Judge 1: "It's not a basic 10th Amendment issue counselor."

I recited the wording of the 10th Amendment and then time was called. Thankfully.

I'm good at arguing an issue from any side, but that one was the toughest ever because again, there was no legal argument. That's primarily due to the constructions of the 14th and 5th Amendments in parallel case history over the last 5 decades. It's also because if you make the recognized, well-settled argument that marriage has long been held to be a fundamental right, and that the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of fundamental rights, there is no other possible interpretation except that same-sex marriage must be allowed. Further, the 10th Amendment, while not quite dead, does not provide for the States to trump federal law. And any time that a state statute and a federal statute conflict, the federal statute wins. Every time. It has never not happened.

That this was a 5-4 decision is pathetic. The dissent defies holdings going back 50 years and does so with nothing more than a harrumph.

 

[boneyard bill]

"They (the gays) have been able to travel freely around the country, making their homes where they please. Far from being incarcerated or physically restrained, (the gay) petitioners have been left alone to order their lives as they see fit."

Clarence Thomas, do you not see the same thing could be said about the civil rights of African Americans in 1960?

Of course, blacks were physically restrained in 1960 from entering "whites only" establishments.

No one, including gays and liberals, should be celebrating the decision. Along with yesterday's decision on Obamacare, the Court has now established itself as some kind of College of Cardinals empowered to issued decrees on cosmic moral issues. The Obamacare case was straightforward. The legislation didn't authorize federal exchanges. Obama had no right to establish those exchanges without authorization from Congress.

This decision is even worse and has absolutely no basis in law or the constitution. If legal the sanctions that apply to marriage are not discriminatory, then there is no basis any decision based on the 14th amendment. If they are discriminatory, then gay marriage does not eliminate that inequality. It merely extends that inequality to gays who choose to marry. Any inequalities deriving from marriage laws still exist for people, gay or straight, who do not choose to get married. For the 14th amendment to apply, the decision would have to have eliminated marriage as a legally sanctioned institution altogether.

Neither of these decisions make any sense whatsoever from a legal or constitutional point of view. Apparently, they reflect the political opinions of the majority of the justices of the Court, but the Court is not there to enact their political opinions into law. Evidently, the wording of a law or of the constitution now means nothing at all. We are no longer governed by laws but simply by the arbitrary opinions of a few men.

 

[boneyard bill]

Clarence Thomas, do you not see the same thing could be said about the civil rights of African Americans in 1960?

Of course, blacks were physically restrained in 1960 from entering "whites only" establishments.

No one, including gays and liberals, should be celebrating the decision. Along with yesterday's decision on Obamacare, the Court has now established itself as some kind of College of Cardinals empowered to issued decrees on cosmic moral issues. The Obamacare case was straightforward. The legislation didn't authorize federal exchanges. Obama had no right to establish those exchanges without authorization from Congress.

This decision is even worse and has absolutely no basis in law or the constitution. If legal the sanctions that apply to marriage are not discriminatory, then there is no basis any decision based on the 14th amendment. If they are discriminatory, then gay marriage does not eliminate that inequality. It merely extends that inequality to gays who choose to marry. Any inequalities deriving from marriage laws still exist for people, gay or straight, who do not choose to get married. For the 14th amendment to apply, the decision would have to have eliminated marriage as a legally sanctioned institution altogether.

Neither of these decisions make any sense whatsoever from a legal or constitutional point of view. Apparently, they reflect the political opinions of the majority of the justices of the Court, but the Court is not there to enact their political opinions into law. Evidently, the wording of a law or of the constitution now means nothing at all. We are no longer governed by laws but simply by the arbitrary opinions of a few men.

That may seem comforting when those men are on your side, but what happens if people you don't like get control of this institution and start re-shaping America to their way of thinking? Unrestrained by the constitution, these men could, for example, establish Christianity as the state religion by simply arguing that the establishment clause doesn't mean what it says.

The rule of law is officially dead in America.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Democrats have been working towards this for a decade, and Libertarians have been working towards this for four decades. Thank you for finally catching up with us and helping it pass.

The Libertarians. All 0 elected of them.

Because only elected officials have ever effected any kind of change in this country.

 

[boneyard bill]

The Libertarians. All 0 elected of them.

Because only elected officials have ever effected any kind of change in this country.

Libertarians should be horrified by this decision. Whether or not you agree with gay marriage, libertarians should not want to see it come about in this way. The Court has trampled on the rights of the states without any reasonable constitutional basis at all.

Justice Kennedy was recognized as the swing vote, and Justice Kennedy was also known to be sympathetic to gay rights. But, as the swing vote, he also often looks for a compromise answer.

In this case he had a obvious one. The 14th amendment argument makes no sense whatsoever. But he could have argued for the "full faith and credit" clause of the constitution. That clause would not have forced states to legalized gay marriage, but it would have forced states to recognize gay marriages from states which have legalized it. That would have been a ruling with a solid constitutional basis. Unfortunately, he decided to ignore the constitution and vote for his political preference.

Why do we insist on lawyers for Supreme Court Justices? Why don't we appoint ditch-diggers and dishwashers? If all the justices are going to do is vote for their personal political opinions, why do they need to know anything about law?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Clarence Thomas, do you not see the same thing could be said about the civil rights of African Americans in 1960?

Of course, blacks were physically restrained in 1960 from entering "whites only" establishments.

No one, including gays and liberals, should be celebrating the decision. Along with yesterday's decision on Obamacare, the Court has now established itself as some kind of College of Cardinals empowered to issued decrees on cosmic moral issues. The Obamacare case was straightforward. The legislation didn't authorize federal exchanges. Obama had no right to establish those exchanges without authorization from Congress.

This decision is even worse and has absolutely no basis in law or the constitution. If legal the sanctions that apply to marriage are not discriminatory, then there is no basis any decision based on the 14th amendment. If they are discriminatory, then gay marriage does not eliminate that inequality. It merely extends that inequality to gays who choose to marry. Any inequalities deriving from marriage laws still exist for people, gay or straight, who do not choose to get married. For the 14th amendment to apply, the decision would have to have eliminated marriage as a legally sanctioned institution altogether.

Neither of these decisions make any sense whatsoever from a legal or constitutional point of view. Apparently, they reflect the political opinions of the majority of the justices of the Court, but the Court is not there to enact their political opinions into law. Evidently, the wording of a law or of the constitution now means nothing at all. We are no longer governed by laws but simply by the arbitrary opinions of a few men.

That may seem comforting when those men are on your side, but what happens if people you don't like get control of this institution and start re-shaping America to their way of thinking? Unrestrained by the constitution, these men could, for example, establish Christianity as the state religion by simply arguing that the establishment clause doesn't mean what it says.

The rule of law is officially dead in America.

What do you think of laws banning interracial marriage?
Do you think such laws would be constitutional?
To be clear, I'm not talking about not allowing Black people to enter "White only" establishments, but banning people of different races (or what is or was usually counted as races by laws making such distinctions) from marrying each other.

 

[Ford]

The Court has trampled on the rights of the states without any reasonable constitutional basis at all.

I'm fairly certain that we're about 150 years into an understanding that when it comes to rights, those of the individual trump those of the state. Pursuant to this understanding, an individual generally cannot have a set of rights in one state, but not be able to claim those same rights in another state.

Contrary to your assertion, libertarians (and civil libertarians in particular) should be thrilled with this decision. Your rights with regards to marriage are now not subject to the whims of a local or state government. Your freedom is not abridged when you cross a state line.

 

[TSwizzle]

[
No one, including gays and liberals, should be celebrating the decision. Along with yesterday's decision on Obamacare, the Court has now established itself as some kind of College of Cardinals empowered to issued decrees on cosmic moral issues. The Obamacare case was straightforward. The legislation didn't authorize federal exchanges. Obama had no right to establish those exchanges without authorization from Congress.

This decision is even worse and has absolutely no basis in law or the constitution. If legal the sanctions that apply to marriage are not discriminatory, then there is no basis any decision based on the 14th amendment. If they are discriminatory, then gay marriage does not eliminate that inequality. It merely extends that inequality to gays who choose to marry. Any inequalities deriving from marriage laws still exist for people, gay or straight, who do not choose to get married. For the 14th amendment to apply, the decision would have to have eliminated marriage as a legally sanctioned institution altogether.

Neither of these decisions make any sense whatsoever from a legal or constitutional point of view. Apparently, they reflect the political opinions of the majority of the justices of the Court, but the Court is not there to enact their political opinions into law. Evidently, the wording of a law or of the constitution now means nothing at all. We are no longer governed by laws but simply by the arbitrary opinions of a few men.

That may seem comforting when those men are on your side, but what happens if people you don't like get control of this institution and start re-shaping America to their way of thinking? Unrestrained by the constitution, these men could, for example, establish Christianity as the state religion by simply arguing that the establishment clause doesn't mean what it says.

The rule of law is officially dead in America.

It is quite extraordinary how quickly people will give up democracy in favor of whatever cause célèbre grabs their attention.

 

[Jokodo]

It's unlikely to happen soon. Pride is popular, even with straight, cisgender folk. Larger pride festivities draw in over a million people, so there's money to be made as well, if it's organized right. There is nothing particularly abnormal about going to Pride, but even if there was, the time spent on pride by those who are not staff or organizers is less than one percent of the year for the bulk of attendees, so even if they attend every year, the remaining 99+% of the year is living as 'normally' as 'the rest of us.'

In terms of why Pride festivities are still held despite great advances in LGBT equality issues, there are a number of reasons. It's fun for many people. Homophobia still exists and leaves many feeling isolated, and this is a chance to bring people together in a generally positive atmosphere. It's a chance to reflect on how far LGBT rights have come, remember what hardships and tragedies existed in the past, and consider what challenges and hardships still exist domestically and in the rest of the world.

So I guess in answer to your question, no, you cannot have an end to Pride parades in all likelihood. As a word of advice though. Don't call people 'sensitive' when this is the sort of shit you whine about.

Well now folks. No amount of ill-tempered bitchy persuasion will make me like the Pride parades, unless they show more self-respect and genuine pride by participants and less sleaze.<snip>

You don't have to like gay pride parades. You just don't get to pretend "I don't like it" is a good enough reason to demand people stop doing them.

That's narcissistic and whiny.

 

[Jokodo]

Clarence Thomas, do you not see the same thing could be said about the civil rights of African Americans in 1960?

Of course, blacks were physically restrained in 1960 from entering "whites only" establishments.<snip>

Homosexuals were legally denied marrying the one they love until 2015. Allowing Tom to marry Sue while denying Anne to marry Sue's identical twin Jill is plain and simple discrimination on the basis of gender. Marriage is a government institution, so the argument for outlawing discrimination is actually stronger than for private enterprises: It's actually easier to argue that private businesses should have a right to post "no jews and niggers allowed on the premises" signs at their door because freedom of association than it is to argue that local governments should be allowed to similarly discriminate.

 

[repoman]

I wonder what Thom Hartmann is going to say about this. I remember him having a good rant about how judicial review of the constitutionality of laws is a terrible thing. On the other hand he is staunchly pro gay marriage.


On the whole, I think that the court is liberal on social issues and is also majorly corporate regarding financial cases. Oh well. I would like the court to throw out TPP in the future because of fast track being unconstitutional, but I doubt that will ever happen.

This gay marriage does very little to curtail the power of the state or corporations like a TPP reversal. It is sort of bread and circuses. It is good and all, but it is a one and done. Hope that this gives less cover for the Singer the vulture fund asshole shilling for gay rights (again a good thing) to make him seem ok for fucking over small oppressed countries.

 

[RavenSky]

Well now folks. No amount of ill-tempered bitchy persuasion will make me like the Pride parades, unless they show more self-respect and genuine pride by participants and less sleaze.

Well, the gay pride parade in New York is going forward as planned this weekend, and I expect there will be a tremendouse amount of pride and celebration. Too bad for you.

 

[Jokodo]

[
No one, including gays and liberals, should be celebrating the decision. Along with yesterday's decision on Obamacare, the Court has now established itself as some kind of College of Cardinals empowered to issued decrees on cosmic moral issues. The Obamacare case was straightforward. The legislation didn't authorize federal exchanges. Obama had no right to establish those exchanges without authorization from Congress.

This decision is even worse and has absolutely no basis in law or the constitution. If legal the sanctions that apply to marriage are not discriminatory, then there is no basis any decision based on the 14th amendment. If they are discriminatory, then gay marriage does not eliminate that inequality. It merely extends that inequality to gays who choose to marry. Any inequalities deriving from marriage laws still exist for people, gay or straight, who do not choose to get married. For the 14th amendment to apply, the decision would have to have eliminated marriage as a legally sanctioned institution altogether.

Neither of these decisions make any sense whatsoever from a legal or constitutional point of view. Apparently, they reflect the political opinions of the majority of the justices of the Court, but the Court is not there to enact their political opinions into law. Evidently, the wording of a law or of the constitution now means nothing at all. We are no longer governed by laws but simply by the arbitrary opinions of a few men.

That may seem comforting when those men are on your side, but what happens if people you don't like get control of this institution and start re-shaping America to their way of thinking? Unrestrained by the constitution, these men could, for example, establish Christianity as the state religion by simply arguing that the establishment clause doesn't mean what it says.

The rule of law is officially dead in America.

It is quite extraordinary how quickly people will give up democracy in favor of whatever cause célèbre grabs their attention.

Yes, extraordinary indeed. Like when the assembled townfolks decide that a nigger needs to be hanged for ogling a white girl, that their democratic right to decide, and the courts better mind their own business instead of declaring collective democratic decisions to execute a perpetrator "unlawful". Who do they think they are?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Clarence Thomas, do you not see the same thing could be said about the civil rights of African Americans in 1960?

Of course, blacks were physically restrained in 1960 from entering "whites only" establishments.

No one, including gays and liberals, should be celebrating the decision. Along with yesterday's decision on Obamacare, the Court has now established itself as some kind of College of Cardinals empowered to issued decrees on cosmic moral issues. The Obamacare case was straightforward. The legislation didn't authorize federal exchanges. Obama had no right to establish those exchanges without authorization from Congress.

This decision is even worse and has absolutely no basis in law or the constitution. If legal the sanctions that apply to marriage are not discriminatory, then there is no basis any decision based on the 14th amendment. If they are discriminatory, then gay marriage does not eliminate that inequality. It merely extends that inequality to gays who choose to marry. Any inequalities deriving from marriage laws still exist for people, gay or straight, who do not choose to get married. For the 14th amendment to apply, the decision would have to have eliminated marriage as a legally sanctioned institution altogether.

Neither of these decisions make any sense whatsoever from a legal or constitutional point of view. Apparently, they reflect the political opinions of the majority of the justices of the Court, but the Court is not there to enact their political opinions into law. Evidently, the wording of a law or of the constitution now means nothing at all. We are no longer governed by laws but simply by the arbitrary opinions of a few men.

That may seem comforting when those men are on your side, but what happens if people you don't like get control of this institution and start re-shaping America to their way of thinking? Unrestrained by the constitution, these men could, for example, establish Christianity as the state religion by simply arguing that the establishment clause doesn't mean what it says.

The rule of law is officially dead in America.

Pathetic. Unless you're Archie Bunker.

And the SNL writers are going to have some fun with this.

 

[4321lynx]

Well now folks. No amount of ill-tempered bitchy persuasion will make me like the Pride parades, unless they show more self-respect and genuine pride by participants and less sleaze.<snip>

You don't have to like gay pride parades. You just don't get to pretend "I don't like it" is a good enough reason to demand people stop doing them.

That's narcissistic and whiny.

I have looked at my original post, variously described as 'whiny'. 'narcissistic', 'vitriolic' and a 'demand'. It was in fact a request, not a demand.

So, they (the ??10%) are normal and 'accepted' and can marry, if they want to, in every State of the Union. Now can we please have an end to 'Gay Pride' parades? Just start living normally for Chrissakes, like the rest of us.

A request based on my weariness with continually and tiresomely being presented with narcissistic, self congratulating , spectacles on TV. Exactly like my weariness with many tiresomely repetitive advertisements on the same medium, even though some of those are for products I use and value. It does come over as bad-tempered, which is exactly how I feel in respect of both those cases.

K---I---S re your post ( No.81 here)

1.The title to the OP here is 'MERICA you're so gay'. Any comment on that is fair game IMO. Sorry to rain on your parade.
2.I have no idea who/what Kanye is.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Because only elected officials have ever effected any kind of change in this country.

Libertarians should be horrified by this decision. Whether or not you agree with gay marriage, libertarians should not want to see it come about in this way. The Court has trampled on the rights of the states without any reasonable constitutional basis at all.

It is true that a best case scenario would be that the court rules in favor of separation of marriage and state. But there was no way the court was going to make that ruling, so what is the best possible ruling among the ones they are likely to make?

The government should not be involved in this way, but as long as they are the government should not discriminate in any way.