Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/21/2009 05:22:47 PM · #2526

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I still think the DOMA is going to be hard to overturn given the makeup of the SC... The court is likely to remain in its current form for a while. Most of the time that annoys me, but here it may not.

Ouch.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

04/21/2009 05:23:44 PM · #2527

I think he means SCOTUS ... ;-)

04/21/2009 05:40:44 PM · #2528

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I think he means SCOTUS ... ;-)

Oh, I know, I was referring to the intolerant attitude expressed by his last sentence.

04/21/2009 05:43:41 PM · #2529

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think he means SCOTUS ... ;-)

Oh, I know, I was referring to the intolerant attitude expressed by his last sentence.

Pfft. There goes that word again...

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

04/21/2009 05:53:09 PM · #2530

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Oh, I know, I was referring to the intolerant attitude expressed by his last sentence.

Pfft. There goes that word again...

Hey, the shoe fits. It's OK to disapprove of another's choice or disagree with their opinion, but applauding a status quo or new law that restricts their ability to exercise that choice is intolerance. It's directly analogous to someone hoping the Pace vs. Alabama decision would stand for decades.

scarbrd

Leica M10

04/21/2009 05:55:02 PM · #2531

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

On the other hand he wrote the decision for Lawrence vs. Texas which finally did away with sodomy as a crime.

The Texas (Houston) case was amazing. If it's the one I think it is, the police got some bad information about a criminal or a crime at a specific address. The address was wrong. They busted down the doors, the person or people the police were looking for were not there but there were 2 men that lived there engaged in a sex act. They were arrested based on the sodomy statute.

So they were, 2 consenting adults in their own dwelling, the police barged in under false pretenses, and they get arrested for something that had nothing to do with the reason the police were there. It went all the way to the Supreme Court.

Conservative courts can suprise you sometimes. Once they get appointed for life, they don't have to answer to a particular party or group. They can vote thier conscience. This happened with a lot of the civil rights legislation in the 60s.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/21/2009 06:03:01 PM · #2532

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Children aren't "full citizens"? I'm not sure what that means. They can't vote until they reach 18?

R.

I means requiring a SCOTUS argument to decide whether the Fourth Amendment protects a 13 year old girl from being strip-searched by school officials searching for ... ibuprofen.

Message edited by author 2009-04-21 18:03:25.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/21/2009 06:08:25 PM · #2533

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Conservative courts can suprise you sometimes. Once they get appointed for life, they don't have to answer to a particular party or group. They can vote thier conscience. This happened with a lot of the civil rights legislation in the 60s.

The vetting that goes on now is alot more in depth than it was in the days of Wizzer White. While it is wrong to elevate justices of the past to lordly legal monks, when guys like Justice Thomas are on the bench, another criteria then legal brilliance is in the fore.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/21/2009 06:34:44 PM · #2534

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

"Legal brilliance"? We don't need no stinkin' legal brilliance! The primary function of SCOTUS, for decades now, has been to Preserve the American Way of Life against those who would pervert it. When justices who uphold the constitution are excoriated as "activist judges", we've all fallen down the rabbit hole, and there seems to be no way back...

R.

04/21/2009 07:35:31 PM · #2535

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by BrennanOB:
The vetting that goes on now is alot more in depth than it was in the days of Wizzer White. While it is wrong to elevate justices of the past to lordly legal monks, when guys like Justice Thomas are on the bench, another criteria then legal brilliance is in the fore.

"Legal brilliance"? We don't need no stinkin' legal brilliance! The primary function of SCOTUS, for decades now, has been to Preserve the American Way of Life against those who would pervert it. When justices who uphold the constitution are excoriated as "activist judges", we've all fallen down the rabbit hole, and there seems to be no way back...

R.

"Activist Judge" is just a throw-away term to indicate the judge ruling against what you think the correct decision is. Mark my words, as more conservative decisions get handed down over the next years we will hear just as many cries of "activist judge" from the left. Scalia drives me up the wall, but he's consistent if nothing else.

I agree with Brennan that the vetting process is pretty thorough these days, but that doesn't mean judges act the way you want them to. Souter was considered a "home run" for the conservatives. That didn't quite work out the way they wanted. Look at it this way, six of the nine justices were appointed by Republicans. We see far more 5-4 decisions in favor of the "liberal" position (whatever that means) than you'd think.

I do recommend again The Nine as a great read about the Supreme Court. I enjoyed it immensely. It details individual justices in the context of the most important decisions of the last two to three decades.

04/21/2009 07:45:59 PM · #2536

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Oh, I know, I was referring to the intolerant attitude expressed by his last sentence.

Pfft. There goes that word again...

Hey, the shoe fits. It's OK to disapprove of another's choice or disagree with their opinion, but applauding a status quo or new law that restricts their ability to exercise that choice is intolerance. It's directly analogous to someone hoping the Pace vs. Alabama decision would stand for decades.

So let's just hypothesize that the SCOTUS upholds the DOMA. Where would that put you within your society's ideas of moral right and wrong? Would you now agree with it as a member of that society having heard from the highest court in the land? or would you consider the ruling to be "incorrect" falling back on the precepts held by a separate society (perhaps the society of the individual)?

04/21/2009 07:57:19 PM · #2537

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

So let's just hypothesize that the SCOTUS upholds the DOMA. Where would that put you within your society's ideas of moral right and wrong?

Exactly where it put the citizens of Alabama when their court decided Pace vs. Alabama: with one group dictating how others may live.

04/21/2009 08:00:23 PM · #2538

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So let's just hypothesize that the SCOTUS upholds the DOMA. Where would that put you within your society's ideas of moral right and wrong?

Exactly where it put the citizens of Alabama when their court decided Pace vs. Alabama: with one group dictating how others may live.

So I guess you would be against a position held by the society you are part of.

04/21/2009 08:14:18 PM · #2539

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So let's just hypothesize that the SCOTUS upholds the DOMA. Where would that put you within your society's ideas of moral right and wrong?

Exactly where it put the citizens of Alabama when their court decided Pace vs. Alabama: with one group dictating how others may live.

So I guess you would be against a position held by the society you are part of.

What does that have to do with anything? It would be discrimination and intolerance whether I agreed or not, and whether that's right or wrong is in the eye of the beholder.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

04/21/2009 08:49:53 PM · #2540

Originally posted by scalvert:

So I guess you would be against a position held by the society you are part of.

What does that have to do with anything? It would be discrimination and intolerance whether I agreed or not, and whether that's right or wrong is in the eye of the beholder. [/quote]

So I'm guessing in the eye of your beholder (ie. you) you would think it's a wrong position held by the society you are part of.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

04/21/2009 11:40:47 PM · #2541

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

1) Discrimination is not defined as always wrong. We discriminate against felons (no vote).

Felons not being allowed to vote isn't discrimination, it's the consequences of their actions.

Sheesh!

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

04/21/2009 11:57:03 PM · #2542

Originally posted by Melethia:

when I got my mocha this evening, I had an enjoyable visit with my favorite barista. We decided we needed to run off to Paris together to find the perfect man, one for each of us.

That's hilarious!

One of my best friends at church is a woman half my age who, like me, is a movie fan, and we generally have a good time discussing the merits of women we both like.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/22/2009 12:47:17 PM · #2543

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

What does that have to do with anything? It would be discrimination and intolerance whether I agreed or not, and whether that's right or wrong is in the eye of the beholder.

So I'm guessing in the eye of your beholder (ie. you) you would think it's a wrong position held by the society you are part of.

Come on Shannon. :) Sometimes you just need to answer the question the way you believe and damn the consequences. I'd have thought you'd have the intestinal fortitude equivalent to a 21-year old blonde from sunny San Diego...

Message edited by author 2009-04-22 12:48:03.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

04/27/2009 03:11:46 PM · #2544

Moral Relativity

:-)

R.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

04/27/2009 07:25:32 PM · #2545

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Moral Relativity

:-)

R.

This is my favourite xkcd comic - and one that a few people here could do with understanding...!

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

04/27/2009 09:32:12 PM · #2546

OMFG!!!

Talk about context! LOL!!!

xkcd # 164

Mousie

04/27/2009 11:14:52 PM · #2547

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
This conversation has played out like all online conversations tend to. A bunch of noise with no real advancement.

You really think that?

That's a shame.

Time for quips!

I got married. During the unspooling of this thread, California first legalized gay marriages, then made them illegal, but haven't taken mine away.

So, I'd say, conclusively, that we are still somewhat ahead of where we were at the start.

Mousie

04/27/2009 11:18:21 PM · #2548

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You don't think there are no gay, confirmed Catholics out there? I see this as a very real possibility down the road. I don't think it's a ficticious hypothetical. But you can replace a specifically catholic church with a general protestant one. I think the fear remains real and potentially valid.

You're thinking about it wrong. The church IS the members. If gay members want to get married... the church itself supports gay marriage in part.

So while I do agree that legalizing marriage will put pressure on churches... that pressure comes from within. The church is therefore conflicted, not oppressed.

Mousie