| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/22/2014 12:41:54 PM · #6301 |
I live in a city that has been undergoing change by virtue of the fact that the old houses & neighborhoods have character and potential. We have black, white, Asian, Hispanic, Indian, middle European.....you get the idea......a genuine melting pot. There are workingman bars, trendy boutique shops & restaurants, museums, sports bars, galleries, regular shops/stores for everyday life, and even a farmer's market that's approaching 150 years old. There are old people, young, regular working people, artists, sole proprietors, and thriving family businesses. The couples range from newlyweds, to people who have been married for a half century. There are mixed marriages of *ALL* types, and you know what? Nobody gives a damn who you sleep with......just so that you're decent to your neighbors and friends. Imagine that.
I love my city.
|
|
|
|
08/22/2014 04:53:07 PM · #6302 |
|
|
|
09/04/2014 09:00:50 PM · #6303 |
| Lots of facets of this long journey explored in this decision. |
|
|
|
09/04/2014 09:10:59 PM · #6304 |
Hard to believe that a country can be so advanced in some areas yet so backwards in others.
In time I guess.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/08/2014 04:34:34 PM · #6305 |
Heartwarming story...
90-year old Iowans, together 72 years, marry at last... Who can read this story and NOT think it's "right"? Plenty of folks, I guess, and that's too bad :-( |
|
|
|
09/08/2014 04:49:26 PM · #6306 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Who can read this story and NOT think it's "right"? Plenty of folks, I guess, and that's too bad :-( |
Evidently a very determined Judge Martin Feldman. |
|
|
|
10/06/2014 01:12:44 PM · #6307 |
Supreme Court acts by not acting.
link is here. |
|
|
|
10/06/2014 09:22:11 PM · #6308 |
"Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?"
Yes.
|
|
|
|
10/06/2014 09:24:00 PM · #6309 |
Originally posted by Ann:
"Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?"
Yes. |
We're on the home stretch!
:) |
|
|
|
10/07/2014 10:37:31 AM · #6310 |
Given the Supreme Court's laissez-faire attitude in this perspective I really cannot say that things are "evolving"... at least not within the legal parameters.
There is no denying the fact that socially, gay rights have advanced by leaps and bounds, but I would have thought that this would have been the perfect occasion for the courts to express their view and finally bring closure to this matter.
In time I guess.
Ray |
|
|
|
10/07/2014 10:47:03 AM · #6311 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
... I would have thought that this would have been the perfect occasion for the courts to express their view and finally bring closure to this matter. |
In the US system the SCOTUS often only intervenes when the District Appeals courts issue conflicting rulings. Right now, all five District court rulings agree that the State provisions under dispute are unconstitutional, so there is no disagreement to resolve. Until some District court rules the other way the SCOTUS will be able to continue to sidestep their responsibility ... |
|
|
|
10/07/2014 10:51:29 AM · #6312 |
how is the SC sidestepping then? the states seem to be able to handle this on their own and are doing the job. isn't that the way we want it? i mean this is the UNITED STATES of America after all.
|
|
|
|
10/07/2014 11:26:25 AM · #6313 |
Originally posted by Mike:
how is the SC sidestepping then? |
If the basis of the ruling is violation of the Federal Constitution, then it seems to me that it is important to have all of the states conforming, rather than allowing some to continue to violate citizens' rights until someone has the (financial and political) means to challenge the existing law. |
|
|
|
10/07/2014 01:43:08 PM · #6314 |
Originally posted by Mike:
how is the SC sidestepping then? the states seem to be able to handle this on their own and are doing the job. isn't that the way we want it? i mean this is the UNITED STATES of America after all. |
It's not up to the states to decide which civil rights are "valid" within their borders and which they can ignore with impunity. |
|
|
|
10/07/2014 01:52:44 PM · #6315 |
| the federal government doesn't regulate marriage, the states do, it just recognizes the state's given marital status. i till dont see why the SC should get involved if the states are working it out on their own. |
|
|
|
10/07/2014 02:06:37 PM · #6316 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Mike:
how is the SC sidestepping then? the states seem to be able to handle this on their own and are doing the job. isn't that the way we want it? i mean this is the UNITED STATES of America after all. |
It's not up to the states to decide which civil rights are "valid" within their borders and which they can ignore with impunity. |
is sexual orientation explicitly defined as a civil right? I'm merely asking the question because i can't seem to find if it is.
edit: nevermind, i found it.
Message edited by author 2014-10-07 14:08:40. |
|
|
|
10/07/2014 02:08:43 PM · #6317 |
Originally posted by Mike:
the federal government doesn't regulate marriage, the states do, it just recognizes the state's given marital status. i till don't see why the SC should get involved if the states are working it out on their own. |
Well, that's because YOU don't think restricting "marriage" to heterosexual couples is a form of discrimination. But the way things are now there is perhaps a majority, certainly a VERY large minority, of Americans who feel otherwise. And a State can't just tell them to go away. That's not how it's supposed to work. |
|
|
|
10/07/2014 02:13:33 PM · #6318 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Well, that's because YOU don't think restricting "marriage" to heterosexual couples is a form of discrimination. But the way things are now there is perhaps a majority, certainly a VERY large minority, of Americans who feel otherwise. And a State can't just tell them to go away. That's not how it's supposed to work. |
i do think its discrimination. however if the federal government doesn't regulate marriage and they merely acknowledge what the states regulate, how can they say what about it is discriminatory? |
|
|
|
10/07/2014 02:17:43 PM · #6319 |
Originally posted by Mike:
i do think its discrimination. however if the federal government doesn't regulate marriage and they merely acknowledge what the states regulate, how can they say what about it is discriminatory? |
The Federal Government already HAS established that it is unconstitutional to discriminate against individuals based on their sexual orientation. So if you think the States ARE discriminating against homosexuals by not allowing them to "marry", then you should understand why the Feds need to get involved. If you DON'T think that's discrimination, my statement stands. |
|
|
|
10/07/2014 02:24:10 PM · #6320 |
jeez, i'm just trying to understand the legalities involved.
from what i'm reading if the SC ruled in 1967 that any state laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional, then the same applies with gay marriage.
|
|
|
|
10/07/2014 03:36:43 PM · #6321 |
Originally posted by Mike:
from what i'm reading if the SC ruled in 1967 that any state laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional, then the same applies with gay marriage. |
Bingo. That should be plainly obvious to anyone, and yet it took 33 years after that SC ruling in 1967 for all the states to finally accept the unconstitutionality of miscegenation. Bigotry dies hard. |
|
|
|
10/07/2014 03:50:48 PM · #6322 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Bigotry dies hard. |
and so does homophobia |
|
|
|
10/07/2014 06:09:16 PM · #6323 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
...it took 33 years after that SC ruling in 1967 for all the states to finally accept the unconstitutionality of miscegenation. |
Whoa! the definition of miscegenation is "the interbreeding of people considered to be of different racial types." So SCOTUS told us miscegenation is PROTECTED by the constitution... |
|
|
|
10/07/2014 08:50:20 PM · #6324 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
...it took 33 years after that SC ruling in 1967 for all the states to finally accept the unconstitutionality of miscegenation. |
Whoa! the definition of miscegenation is "the interbreeding of people considered to be of different racial types." So SCOTUS told us miscegenation is PROTECTED by the constitution... |
Technically true, BUT... from Ye Olde Wiki: "Anti-miscegenation laws or miscegenation laws were laws that enforced racial segregation at the level of marriage and intimate relationships by criminalizing interracial marriage and sometimes also sex between members of different races... In the United States, interracial marriage, cohabitation and sex have been termed "miscegenation" since the term was coined in 1863. Contemporary usage of the term is less frequent, except to refer to historical laws banning the practice." |
|
|
|
10/09/2014 05:37:56 PM · #6325 |
Originally posted by Dave Ross:
You can be afraid of only so much
The challenge of being an American lately is deciding what's worth being afraid of. FBI director James Comey was on the air over the weekend talking about the threat of terrorist attacks.
"They are experienced terrorists, experienced bomb-makers, experienced killers, experienced planners," Comey said.
Sure enough the polling shows that 75 percent of Americans are concerned about a terrorist attack.
Then there's the threat of cyber attacks.
"People have connected their entire lives to the Internet. That's where those who want to steal money or hurt kids or defraud, go," Comey said. "It's an epidemic."
Sure enough, the polls say 70 percent of us consider cyber-attacks a major threat.
But now, there's competition from another epidemic - Ebola.
"I consider this a top national security priority," President Obama said.
Especially when the only precaution to stop an exposed person from hopping on a U.S.-bound plane is a questionnaire at the airport in Liberia asking, "Were you exposed?" There might be a teensy weensy incentive to lie?
But not to worry.
"We're also going to be working on protocols to do additional passenger screening at the source and in the United States," Obama said.
And so far, the reassurance seems to have worked. Americans haven't gone into an Ebola panic despite the Internet's best efforts to create one.
But the point is, there's a lot of competition for our emotional attention, which might be why the Supreme Court decided Monday that what the heck, let's just make gay marriage the law of the land. That such a thing was once seen as a threat, by a lot of people, suddenly seems pretty silly. |
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 07:32:35 AM EDT.
