posted
i have not been following but i think this is the election coming up for congress where it is most of those still swingy states who got democrats through on the power of election year obama charisma
so i would assume that the republicans are probably gonna sweep a ton of seats, and try to get over 50
prior to recently i would have assumed they were most likely gonna do so but i suppose it's going to be in doubt, which means you can expect all of the pew-crammer wedge issue to come through in droves. gay marriage will be brought up a lot still, since they really want to cash out as hard as they can to get over the line
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
no, wait, i was totally following this, i'm just being forgetful. yeah the upcoming election is the predicted best sweeps week option for the republican party before an at best guess demographic nightmare coming to roost in 17-18
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Over the thirteen years I worked at The Birmingham News I had the displeasure of drawing Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore numerous times. He is and always shall be a demagogue of the very worst sort. His hatred of our gay citizens was so zealous that he once issued a decision against a lesbian couple fighting for custody of their child by quoting an Old Testament passage that strongly implied homosexuals should be killed. Even after being removed from office for deciding he was above the law the voters of Alabama returned him to the bench. He remains an embarrassment to a state I love and to all those who believe in the rule of law. "
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court has ignored the law, rejected the U.S. Constitution, and flouted the oath by which he swore to abide. But I don't think Roy Moore cares.
Following the ruling by a federal district judge that Alabama's ban on same-sex marriage violated the Equal Protection and Due Processes Clauses of the 14th Amendment, Moore took public action -- not as a private citizen, but as Alabama's leading judge. On Supreme Court of Alabama letterhead, Moore sent a letter to Alabama Governor Robert Bentley on January 27th and instructed him that marriage is beyond the reach of the Constitution of the United States, advising the governor to ignore federal courts and their so-called "judicial tyranny." He followed his letter to the governor by telling the press that a confrontation was imminent if the federal court's order was enforced. In one swift stroke, Moore violated judicial canon and flagrantly ignored the duties of his office.
Even after a clarifying letter from that same judge who ruled the ban unconstitutional, Moore doubled down. He explicitly urged probate judges to ignore the law and refuse to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, saying that the federal court lacked the authority to make these decisions.
This isn't Chief Justice Moore's first rodeo. A decade ago, he ignored a federal court order requiring the removal of a statue of the Ten Commandments from the State Judicial Building. For this offense, he was removed by the State Supreme Court in 2003. "[T]he Oath taken by Chief Justice Moore commands him to support both the United States and Alabama Constitutions," read the opinion removing him. "In the event of a conflict between the constitutions of Alabama and the United States, the Constitution of the United States must prevail."
In short, Roy Moore was wrong then, and he's wrong again today. That's why the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is proud to support the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in their ethics complaint seeking Moore's removal.
Because what's clear today is Roy Moore doesn't care about the law. Roy Moore doesn't care about the Constitution. Roy Moore cares mostly about Roy Moore and his particular set of deeply-felt personal beliefs. His particular brand of demagoguery is not based in a failure to understand the laws he is duty bound to uphold, but in an outright refusal to do so. That's not a Chief Justice; that's an ideologue. An ideologue has his place -- in the opinion pages of the newspaper or on morning talk shows on cable news -- but he should not be Alabama's most senior jurist.
If Roy Moore isn't prepared to uphold the law, than perhaps the role of Chief Justice isn't right for him. And if he doesn't recognize that, then perhaps others should recognize it for him and remove him from office. The Court has lots of room for different legal thinkers, but it has no place for those who refuse to think about the law.
quote:Look what happened when the GOP in Georgia tried to 'clarify' that their religious freedom measure was non-descriminatory:
quote:During a Georgia House Judiciary Committee debate over the state’s new religious freedom bill, Rep. Mike Jacobs—a Republican!—called anti-gay legislators’ bluff. Jacobs proposed a simple amendment to the legislation clarifying that it must not be interpreted to legalize discrimination. Conservative representatives cried foul, asserting that an anti-discrimination amendment would defeat the purpose of the bill. When the amendment narrowly passed, conservatives quickly tabled the bill, postponing its consideration indefinitely. A religious freedom measure with an anti-discrimination provision, they decided, was not a real religious freedom measure at all.
quote:The Indiana law is the product of a G.O.P. search for a respectable way to oppose same-sex marriage and to rally the base around it. There are two problems with this plan, however. First, not everyone in the party, even in its most conservative precincts, wants to make gay marriage an issue, even a stealth one—or opposes gay marriage to begin with. As the unhappy reaction in Indiana shows, plenty of Republicans find the anti-marriage position embarrassing, as do some business interests that are normally aligned with the party. Second, the law is not an empty rhetorical device but one that has been made strangely powerful, in ways that haven’t yet been fully tested, by the Supreme Court decision last year in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. That ruling allowed the Christian owners of a chain of craft stores to use the federal version of the RFRA to ignore parts of the Affordable Care Act. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her dissent, argued strongly that the majority was turning that RFRA into a protean tool for all sorts of evasions. As Jeffrey Toobin has noted, she was proved right even before the Indiana controversy.
Both of those factors have combined to produce real confusion about the Indiana law. Some people are not being straightforward about its implications, whether because they are calculating, mortified, or—in the case of opponents, some of whom have also been unclear about what the law means—alarmed, but it also inhabits novel legal territory, so it is genuinely hard to know what those implications would be. Governor Pence has done much to muddle things even more. On Sunday, on “This Week,” George Stephanopoulos asked Pence “a yes-or-no question” about whether “a florist in Indiana can now refuse to serve a gay couple without fear of punishment.” He asked half a dozen times, but never got an answer:
quote:Pence: This is not about discrimination, this is about … Stephanopoulos: But … Pence: … empowering people … Stephanopoulos: But let me try to pin you … Pence: … government overreach here. Stephanopoulos: … down here though. … It’s just a question, sir. Question, sir. Yes or no? Pence: Well—well, this—there’s been shameless rhetoric about my state and about this law and about its intention all over the Internet. People are trying to make it about one particular issue. And now you’re doing that as well.
quote:[T]he idea of religious practice seems to have morphed to include a vague sense of offense at the lives of others. In Hobby Lobby, it was corporate owners who felt “implicated” by the contraceptive decisions of the employees whose health insurance they helped pay for. A Heritage Foundation paper cited a baker who thought that his religious freedom would be infringed upon if he delivered his goods to a same-sex wedding, because, he said, “when I do a cake, I feel like I am participating in the ceremony or the event or the celebration that the cake is for”—as if he were being forced to get gay-married himself.
posted
"“If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no,” Crystal said as she stood in the restaurant, which is festooned with Christian paraphernalia.
“We’re not discriminating against anyone, that’s just our belief and anyone has the right to believe in anything,” she added. “I do not think it’s targeting gays. I don’t think it’s discrimination. It’s supposed to help people that have a religious belief.”
Despite not believing that the bill would lead to targeted discrimination against members of the LGBT community, O’Connor told the station that her establishment would use the bill to avoid having to cater events like gay or non-Christian weddings."
posted
I'd rather not. They're clearly trying to drum up publicity, hoping to be the next Chic-Fil-A.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have absolutely no doubt that they are now getting flooded with harassment and nasty things from crazy people. this is exactly the sort of thing that the reactionary conflict theory 101 wing of the progressives are all over with conspicuous venom
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
INDIANAPOLIS—Addressing the controversy surrounding his state’s recently signed Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Indiana governor Mike Pence forcefully insisted to reporters Monday that the new law has nothing at all to do with what it was explicitly intended to do. “Let me state directly that in no way is this law designed to allow the kind of anti-gay discrimination that is the law’s single reason for existing,” said Pence, emphasizing that provisions authorizing businesses to refuse service to gay customers were nothing more than the only explanation for the law being drafted in the first place. “Regardless of the widespread misconceptions surrounding it, I want to reassure Hoosiers of all backgrounds that this law will never be interpreted in the way it was unambiguously designed to be from the very beginning.” Pence further clarified that the act’s sole purpose was in fact to safeguard the free exercise of religion it was in no way whatsoever created to protect.
"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.
posted
YEAH! I can marry a chick if i wanted to and didn't hate people so much and not just be married in places like Massachusetts. woo! Happy gay party! *is actually bisexual, but still!*
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
turns out all four of the nay votes hammered out a bitter mash of impotent objection. i get a scalia dissent and a thomas dissent. my cup runneth over
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:THOMAS: Perhaps recognizing that these cases do not actually involve liberty as it has been understood, the majority goes to great lengths to assert that its decision will advance the “dignity” of same-sex couples. Ante, at 3, 13, 26, 28. 8 The flaw in that reasoning, of course, is that the Constitution contains no “dignity” Clause, and even if it did, the government would be incapable of bestowing dignity. Human dignity has long been understood in this country to be innate. When the Framers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” they referred to a vision of mankind in which all humans are created in the image of God and therefore of inherent worth. That vision is the foundation upon which this Nation was built. The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.
thomas is deranged. he is absolutely deranged.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, to be perfectly fair to him, I understand what he's saying. He's just using a different definition of dignity than is meant by the comment to which he's responding. To Thomas, dignity is a self-produced and self-observed attribute; it is something that someone can decide he has, something that is innate in his assessment of his own being. Being beaten and forced to lick someone's shoes while wearing a clown nose does not strip you of your dignity if, as you do it, you recognize that this action does not actually force you to reassess your sense of self or your right to self-determination. You are not technically being forced to wear the clown nose; you are choosing to do it because you would prefer not to die, and the power in your acknowledgment of that choice can still grant you a measure of self-esteem.
By this logic, two men who love each other are not denied dignity in their relationship by the government's refusal to acknowledge it legally; that dignity is there as long as they believe it is.
But, of course, that definition of "dignity" is at odds with what was meant by "dignity" in the original observation: namely, recognition of the intrinsic validity of each of someone's potential choices.
And to be even more forgiving of Thomas, I can understand why -- given his personal history -- he might want to make it clear that dignity is purely a matter of self-will.
posted
Ah, the saving grace of technicality. That's the most important kind of being right there is! Because in a sense he is right. One can, if they are of heroic degrees of self-reliance and willpower, maintain a hold on their dignity in the face of, say, the guards at their internment camp.
Well, to an extent. From a particular angle of view. Though I would love to hear from any of the people he referenced who say 'I never felt I had lost my dignity'. Much less, you know, someone born into slavery. I suppose they didn't 'lose' anything not having had it to start with?
Bless his heart for the head take towards 'fags ain't in the image of God', though. I imagine he had to think carefully on the rhetoric there. Can't be too open, but the message must be understood!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
People have often asked me how I can support marriage equality and be a good Catholic and I have answered in a variety of ways including explaining dissent and misconceptions about infallibility, pointing out that US Catholics actually support marriage equality at a higher rate than the general populace and so forth. I found this article that beautifully expressed why as a Catholic I support marriage equality.
quote: Those who possess a sacramental view of the world often realize that any human person or relationship that brings love, mercy, forgiveness, kindness, generosity or faithfulness into the world is a sign of God's grace. Perhaps this is the reason so many Catholics defend marriage equality: They have recognized these graces can come forth as much through same-sex couples as heterosexual couples. Those who have a Catholic imagination recognize that a couple's ability to enter into a marriage commitment is not contingent on their anatomies, but on the depth, strength and fruitfulness of their bond.
Given their sacramental view of the world, it is little wonder that so many Catholics dissent from the bishops' disparaging characterization of LGBT persons and same-sex relationships. The hierarchy's position simply does not do justice to the power of the Catholic imagination.
posted
it's similar to asking why the vast majority of first world catholics consider themselves catholics even if they are flatly ignoring and handwaving away entire ironclad rules that are strictly and clearly presented. The more modern the nation, the more the remaining faithful just ignore archaic B.S. and effectively force change on God.
Imagine an american thirtysomething catholic: how likely are they to not use birth control or condoms and literally never masturbate not even for a doctor's test? Fantastically unlikely.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We don't have to handwave and the rules are not (despite what some bishops like to think) ironclad.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh...not so much. The Catholics in the fourth century found that as well. And the first century (see Paul). And the 17th century. And the nineteenth. And the twelfth...
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: it's similar to asking why the vast majority of first world catholics consider themselves catholics even if they are flatly ignoring and handwaving away entire ironclad rules that are strictly and clearly presented. The more modern the nation, the more the remaining faithful just ignore archaic B.S. and effectively force change on God.
Imagine an american thirtysomething catholic: how likely are they to not use birth control or condoms and literally never masturbate not even for a doctor's test? Fantastically unlikely.
I went to a Catholic high school (in the bay area) in which the "morality" class (which was really sex education), openly discussed how to use various forms of birth control, and all their various advantages and disadvantages. The lecturer then stated at the end of any such lecture that "so you all understand the official position, these things are considered to be sinful by the church. Just so you know the official position."
Then he went on to discuss various other forms of birth control. The only hardline thing they actually pushed was on abortion.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But it is still immoral. The Catholic doctrine claims that woman's fertility is cyclical, thus the only way not to get pregnant is not to have sex when a woman is ovulating. Having sex when a woman is not ovulating is not a sin and is allowed.
Any kind of contraception is immoral and unnatural. Furhermore, an argument that contraception is a way of preventing abortion is completely wrong, as Catholicism does not allow the choosing a of a lesser "moral evil" (whereas lesser "physical evil" is allowed).
Although I do not follow Catholic doctrine, for me it's absolutely reasonable and ideologically coherent.
Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: But it is still immoral. The Catholic doctrine claims that woman's fertility is cyclical, thus the only way not to get pregnant is not to have sex when a woman is ovulating. Having sex when a woman is not ovulating is not a sin and is allowed.
Any kind of contraception is immoral and unnatural. Furhermore, an argument that contraception is a way of preventing abortion is completely wrong, as Catholicism does not allow the choosing a of a lesser "moral evil" (whereas lesser "physical evil" is allowed).
Although I do not follow Catholic doctrine, for me it's absolutely reasonable and ideologically coherent.
I guess it is ideologically coherent, but why would a non-Catholic think birth control is wrong?
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your explanation of it wasn't at all coherent, I'm afraid. It i also not really Catholic doctrine. I mean, the reasons you suggest aren't doctrinal. Actual doctrine has to do with the purpose of marriage being procreative.
It also (the actual doctrine) isn't reasonable or practical. It is my opinion - based on the opinion of people with first hand experience with the process that led to Humanae vitae including that of a woman who was on the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control - is that our failure to admit error was the key factor in the outcome.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never said they taught us that birth control is a means to stop abortions, nor that this was a doctrinal teaching. They simply taught us about different methods of birth control. And they also showed us a really horrifying video starring Charlton Heston about a late term abortion. A video our teacher actually qualified by saying that such procedures are very rare.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
WASHINGTON -- In wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of same-sex marriage, Republicans are pushing legislation that aims to protect Americans who oppose these unions on religious grounds. But critics say the language is so broad, the bill creates a license to discriminate that would let employers fire women for getting pregnant outside of wedlock.
The First Amendment Defense Act prohibits the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person -- which is defined to include for-profit corporations -- acting in accordance with a religious belief that favors so-called traditional marriage. This means the feds can't revoke a nonprofit's tax-exempt status or end a company's federal contract over this issue.
The bill specifically protects those who believe that marriage is between "one man and one woman" or that "sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage." Ian Thompson, a legislative representative at the American Civil Liberties Union, said that in addition to targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, the bill "clearly encompasses discrimination against single mothers" and would hobble the ability of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal body that protects women from sex-based discrimination, to act.
This scenario isn't merely hypothetical. There are a number of recent cases where religious schools have fired unwed teachers for becoming pregnant. A Montana Catholic school teacher who was fired for having a baby out of wedlock, for example, filed a discrimination charge last year with the EEOC. While the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized a ministerial exception to employment discrimination laws, that exception is somewhat limited, not necessarily covering educators employed by Catholic schools who teach about exclusively secular subjects.
James Ryan, a spokesman for the EEOC, said the commission could not comment on pending legislation in Congress.
At a press conference on Thursday, Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho), who authored the House bill, strongly denied that it could be used this way. "It's just allowing people to continue to believe the way they do," he told The Huffington Post.
His colleague, Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas) said, "We're not going to try to dance on the head of a pin here. This legislation protects an institution based on its sincerely held religious beliefs from persecution."
When NPR asked Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who introduced the companion Senate bill, about a hypothetical university firing an unmarried woman for having sex out of wedlock, he said, "There are colleges and universities that have a religious belief that sexual relations are to be reserved for marriage" and they "ought to be protected in their religious freedom."
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is it just those religious rights being enshrined? What about firing people who aren't charitable?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where was this sincere belief about not doing business with people who live in violation of ones own moral guidelines a few years ago? This is such a novelty, you'd think Christ had descended and announced the new rule.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
i flipped over a moneylender's table and literally whipped him. this is something that jesus did and yet nobody's protecting my religious rights
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Why is it just those religious rights being enshrined? What about firing people who aren't charitable?
It's written broadly enough to where I think you could make the argument.
This law, if passed, doesn't really do anything other than, for the moment, have Congress say that it thinks the 1st Amendment (as they understand it) trumps the 14th Amendment (and probably a couple others).
Ultimately it's just greasing the skids to a SCOTUS case in a few years where they'll roll the dice and hope the court happens to lean more Conservative that day.
But in the meantime...the First Church of Cannabis, and many other start-up religions would likely do their best to have a field day.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
woo! Happy gay party! *is actually bisexual, but still!*
