Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
So it seems this turned out to be the sleeper issue of the election, bizarrely enough. The people voted Bush, because they hate fags. (Personally, I'm not so convinced since there were states that went Kerry and yet still voted for a ban on gay marriage.)

Rather than legislating for gay marriage, what I'd prefer to see would be the disappearance of heterosexual marriage as a legal concept. Let people get married in churches or in humanist ceremonies or whatever, but take the law out of what is essentially a cultural, judeo-christian practice. And just stick to the idea of a civil contract of union between two or more people of whatever sex.

James R., Thursday, 4 November 2004 15:51 (10 years ago) Permalink

This is the way marriage originally was in Massachusetts, which is why the judges here ruled the way they did and why the entire rhetorical spiel about "activist judges changing the law" is a gigantic crock of shit in this state.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 15:58 (10 years ago) Permalink

It's a red herring that played upon the fears and insecurities of people who aren't smart enough to use the Bible as anything other than what it should be used for -- kindling or a doorstop.

If two guys want to get married --- fuck, if two individuals who happen to love each other --- want to get married, how can that possibly hurt anyone?

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 4 November 2004 15:58 (10 years ago) Permalink

Thanks for the offer but I'm spoken for

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:00 (10 years ago) Permalink

I feel like I keep repeating the same thing, but it really can't hurt. This isn't an issue about "marriage." It's pure and simple a CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE.

Je4nne ƒury (Jeanne Fury), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:02 (10 years ago) Permalink

Because the Bible specifically states it is a sin and, as a result, being married in a Church is a slap in the face to many people of faith.

I am for gay marriage, but I also don't want to start pushing people about for their religion. It is their right to hold Christian views if they want and their right to want to keep the Church central to Biblical prose. I think Gay people should be married out of Church sermons. A registrar for example. Why would this bother anyone? (Unless we accept marriage is an intrisically religious thing anyway).

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:03 (10 years ago) Permalink

Because the Bible specifically states.....

Said novel also states that the world was created in seven days. In other words, IT'S A CROCK OF SHIT!

Let's all evolve, people.

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:04 (10 years ago) Permalink

SASKATOON— There’s a lot at stake for a gay couple hoping to have their marriage recognized when a Saskatoon judge rules on the case Friday.
James and Willie Hein-Blackmore sat together in court Wednesday as they and four other gay couples asked Justice D. L. Wilson to allow them to obtain marriage licences.
The provincial and federal lawyers are not opposing the application, clearing the way for Wilson to rule in the couple’s favour Friday.
That would make Saskatchewan the sixth jurisdiction in Canada to grant wedding licences to gay couples.
The Hein-Blackmores are both HIV-positive. James isn’t sure how long he has to live.
His immune system is so weak a common cold could cause serious complications, he said.
“It’s very important that we get this done (in court),” James said.
“If something happens to me, I want (Willie) making the decisions for me.”
They met four years ago and have been a couple for the past three. Both are divorced from women, and Willie is a father of three girls.
Both say they’ve always known they were gay, but societal and religious pressure led them to marry women.
In Willie’s case, he served as a Pentecostal pastor in other cities across Canada where he lived. He also sat on various church boards. Part of the reason he got married was he “didn’t want to go to hell.”
Once they accepted their homosexuality, they lived much happier lives, they said.
This summer, they were turned down when they went to get a marriage licence in Saskatoon. So they went to Vancouver and got married in a small ceremony at the home of a marriage commissioner.
“When you live together, there’s a certain level of commitment. Once you’re married, it changes the relationship. It’s like glue that holds you together,” said Willie.
“This is the person I want to spend the rest of my life with.”
While the Hein-Blackmores are hoping to get their Vancouver marriage recognized in Saskatchewan, most of the other couples involved in the court action are not yet married.
“We’re very optimistic about the outcome (Friday),” said Nicole White.
“We’re very excited to get going on the wedding plans.”
White and partner Julie Richards were the original couple involved in the court application. They plan to marry next summer.
Represented by lawyers Greg Walen and Sarah Buhler, the couples put their faith in Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees equality under the law.
Denial of marriage licences “denigrates same-sex relationships,” Walen said in court.
“It is offensive to human dignity.”

Federal government lawyer Chris Bernier did not oppose the application, but said the federal government could not technically consent to it either, as the Supreme Court is currently considering the issue.
Provincial government lawyer Thomson Irvine took the same neutral position, but said it was because marriage laws are federal.
Outside court, Walen said he’s happy to hear the governments aren’t opposing the application. He said some gay couples have told him they’ll be getting married as early as this Saturday if the ruling is in their favour.
Gay and lesbian couples can marry in Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, Manitoba, the Yukon and now Nova Scotia.
CanWest News Network

Huk-L, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:05 (10 years ago) Permalink

Genesis is most likely a gigantic metaphor.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:05 (10 years ago) Permalink

Agreed, but I take it a step further.. Forget the civil contract as a substitute for marriage. Any two adults should be able to enter into a "right of survivorship" contract (name it whatever you want) that gives legal rights - it has nothing to do with sex or couples. It could be a married couple, it could be business associates, parent/child, neighbors, friends. You could only have a contract with one person at a time, but it could be changed every week if people wanted to. (That's not practical, but ideally, there would be no restrictions on this.)

"Marriage" is a faith-based union that is between an individual and a church. And if it makes people happy, the "right of survivorship" contract could be inherent in a marriage (or, registering that legal relationship could be part of the church/marriage registration process - just as marriages are registered with the county currently.) And if "no man can put asunder" the married couple contract - ie you MUST establish that contract with your spouse if you are married & cannot establish that contract with anyone else - then, that'll have to be part of the compromise.

So, anyway - it needs to be approached as contract law and a business deal, rather than a pseudo-marriage.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:06 (10 years ago) Permalink

And that sort of attitude is going to help bridge a glaring gap between two sets of beliefs how? "Oh your belief sucks", well yeah that'll help won't it? And would you say the same thing about Muslims and their beliefs? Or is it only politically correct to declare open season on Christians?

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:06 (10 years ago) Permalink

See above a prime case of the need for rapid evolution among certain members of the human race.

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:07 (10 years ago) Permalink

The Bible nowhere "explicitly states" that gay marriage is wrong.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:08 (10 years ago) Permalink

Yes Kevin, but you can't expect people who've never actually read it to know that can you?

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:08 (10 years ago) Permalink

Kevin OTM; in the Bible, premarital sex is a much larger sin than homosexuality.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:09 (10 years ago) Permalink

Or is it only politically correct to declare open season on Christians?

You've heard of "The War On Terror", no?

Huk-L, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:09 (10 years ago) Permalink

"Because the Bible specifically states it is a sin"

Where? Chapter and verse please.

Man lying with another man? I'll find my paper to tell you why that indicates nothing clear about God's rules about homosexuality.

Bumfluff, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:10 (10 years ago) Permalink

What is it about dumb people and their inability to argue in any way that isn't "oh well x is just as bad" rather than actually ARGUING THEIR FUCKING CASE?

Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:10 (10 years ago) Permalink

"Marriage" is a faith-based union that is between an individual and a church.

This also isn't true, and probably hasn't ever been really true.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:10 (10 years ago) Permalink

Check out Paul the Apostle. I don't have a Bible handy just now, but it is indeed declared as a sin. Have YOU read the NT?

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:10 (10 years ago) Permalink

Um Huk, I don't think anybody is suggesting Bush is in the slightest bit PC.

x-post

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:11 (10 years ago) Permalink

Paul is not Jesus. Paul is a frakish zealot who is almost the antithesis of everything Jesus (and Matthew, Mark and Luke) stands for.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:11 (10 years ago) Permalink

Oh, good point, Steve.n.

Huk-L, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:12 (10 years ago) Permalink

frakish zealot

(haha nabisco to thread)

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:12 (10 years ago) Permalink

I have never read the bible but I often masturbate myself into a righteous frenzy with it.

Does that help the debate at all?

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:13 (10 years ago) Permalink

That's one up on most people.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:14 (10 years ago) Permalink

There would be no Christianity without Paul.............. discuss

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:14 (10 years ago) Permalink

It's a civil rights issue, but it's more than that, and that's precisely because there's a confusion between marriage as a legal union and marriage as a religious union. I agree that these two should be decoupled, ie a secular state should not be legally privileging what is at heart a Christian religious custom. If marriages were things celebrated in church, and were separate from civil unions between people signed in a solicitor's office, it would surely take the wind out of conservative christians's sails. This, incidently was Derrida's position too. From his last interview:

"If I were a legislator, I would quite simply propose the disappearance of the word and the concept of marriage in the civil and secular code. "Marriage", a religious, sacred, heterosexual value - with the vow of procreation, eternal fidelity, etc.-, is a concession on the part of the secular state to the Christian church - in particular in a monogamy that is neither Jewish (it was only imposed on Jews by Europeans in the last century and was not an obligation of Maghrebi Jewry a few generations ago) nor, as we know very well, Muslim. When we take away the word and the concept of "marriage", this religious and holy ambiguity or hypocrisy, which has no place in a secular constitution, we would replace them with a contractual "civil union", a sort of generalized, improved, refined, and supple pact to be fitted between partners whose gender and number are not imposed.

As for those who want to ally themselves in a "marriage" in the strict sense of the term - for which, by the way, my respect remains intact -, they could do so before the religious authority of their choice - which, moreover, is how it happens in those countries which agree to accept the religious consecration of marriage between homosexuals. Some could unite themselves according to one mode or the other, others both ways, others neither by secular nor religious law. End of the conjugal parentheses. (It's a Utopia, but mark my words.)"

Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:14 (10 years ago) Permalink

And Paul doesn't say anything about gay marriage - homosexuality maybe, but that is the only mention in the new testamnet - he also says that people who engage in such acts are murderers, thieves, liars etc., things which are demonstratably false.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:15 (10 years ago) Permalink

"Marriage" is a faith-based union that is between an individual and a church.

This also isn't true, and probably hasn't ever been really true.

That's why it's in quotes. I mean to redefine it to make it a non-issue.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:15 (10 years ago) Permalink

Paul is not Jesus and indeed not God. He is, regrettably, in the Bible, but I tend to forget about him because he's crap.

However, both you and I will have to wait for my rebuttal because i can't get to the paper I have on this for a bit

Bumfluff, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:16 (10 years ago) Permalink

Paul is a frakish zealot who is almost the antithesis of everything Jesus (and Matthew, Mark and Luke) stands for.

So this Paul, he voted Bush in '04 too?

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:16 (10 years ago) Permalink

Wait, I don't know much about the debate in the USA, but is the debate as to the right for gay people to get married in a Church? Or as a legal agreement? I see people talking about both.

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:17 (10 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, sorry Dave. I think it's not a non-issue though. People have always become married independent of religion, for long periods without any ceremony at all. I don't think we should let the religious right redifine marriage to fit their definition - is everyone who didn't get married in a church single now?

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:18 (10 years ago) Permalink

Wait, I don't know much about the debate in the USA, but is the debate as to the right for gay people to get married in a Church? Or as a legal agreement? I see people talking about both.

It's both, but much more on the legal agreement side.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:18 (10 years ago) Permalink

Other than appeasing the bible-belt, why is anyone arguing what the christian bible has to say about it? It's not the only religious book out there.

I don't think we should let the religious right redifine marriage to fit their definition - is everyone who didn't get married in a church single now?
I mean "faith" not "church" -- in other words, it's up to the individuals' own sprituality (or intellect) to decide what a valid "marriage" is. It has nothing to do with law, is my main point.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:20 (10 years ago) Permalink

This is essentially a civil rights issue. Discrimination against same sex couples flies in the face of the concept of equality under the law. If, as science and experience show, basic sexual orientation is not a choice, criminalizing or marginalizing sexual behaviors amongst consenting adults amounts to an act of the most basic cruelty.

The hypocrisy with which fundamentalists criticize gay marriage but do not outlaw divorce and remarriage, or require an unwed brother to marry his brother's widow, belies the religious basis of their argument. They cherry pick the OT and the NT to find stones to cast at those who are different, which I find particularly repulsive.

The state does have an interest in encouraging stable, long-term partnerships but why the state should recognize 'marriage' if it is essentially a religious ceremony, is beyond me.

Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:20 (10 years ago) Permalink

If, as science and experience show, basic sexual orientation is not a choice

I thought this had been rejected/disproven by gay groups?

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:22 (10 years ago) Permalink

I don't understand why the getting-married-in-church thing is an issue. If gay marriage were legalised would it not be down to the individual churches to decide whether or not to allow gay couples to get married in that particular church?

RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:23 (10 years ago) Permalink

(Church meaning denomination or congregation there, btw, I don't think it really affects my point either way.)

RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:24 (10 years ago) Permalink

As I said, are we just declaring open season on Christianity right now or are we going to start criticising the instant death penalty handed out within Muslim countries for homosexuality? WELL?

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:25 (10 years ago) Permalink

Yes, it would.

x-post

Leon in Exile (Ex Leon), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:25 (10 years ago) Permalink

I just read a news item - Sec. State Blackwell (Ohio) speaking against gay marriage .. not a quote, but asserts that marriage is for the purpose of procreation, which you can't do with a gay couple. This offends me to no end .. and to debate him on his own terms, leaving out the gay arguments - my wife and I have decided not to have children. Are we no longer allowed to be married? What about people who can't physically have children?

God, I hate that idiot.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:26 (10 years ago) Permalink

xp - Indeed it would. And that would closely resemble a constitutionally-guaranteed right called Freedom of Religion.

briania (briania), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:26 (10 years ago) Permalink

you first 'Chantel'

Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:27 (10 years ago) Permalink

I don't understand why the getting-married-in-church thing is an issue.

I don't think that really is an issue - anyone/any church can call two people married, the issue is that the rest of society doesn't have to recognize it.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:27 (10 years ago) Permalink

The word "marriage" is charged with religious meaning, which is why I think it'd be best to jettison it from a legal opint of view and just talk about civil unions. This is what they've essentially done in France, where gay couples (or straight couples or brothers and sisters or whatever) can sign a PACS (pacte civile de solidarité) which affords most of the rights of marriage.

Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:28 (10 years ago) Permalink

unfortuneately, "civil union" is also stigmatized as "a way for queers to approximate marriage".. So a new term is needed.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:29 (10 years ago) Permalink

Chantel, I don't think you will find anyone supporting the death penalt in muslim nations here. And probably not the death penalty anywhere.

However, I won't allow the Bible to be misinterpreted, twisted and wielded to hateful ends. The arguments will have to come both in the religious world and the secular, because like it or not we live in a christian civilisation.

But Jonathan, why can't a christian gay souple get married in a church which recognises their partnership?

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:30 (10 years ago) Permalink

As I said, are we just declaring open season on Christianity right now or are we going to start criticising the instant death penalty handed out within Muslim countries for homosexuality? WELL?

This kind of argument really pisses me off. YES THERE ARE THINGS WRONG IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES AS WELL, I know. But rather than talking about something I know nothing about and have no contact with, I would rather talk about something I know about, think is wrong and have a chance of changing.

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:30 (10 years ago) Permalink

otm

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 September 2015 13:57 (3 days ago) Permalink

reminds me of Nixon intoning, "Jesus Christ of Nazareth is the greatest philosopher."

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 September 2015 13:57 (3 days ago) Permalink

even odds she offered every hetero couple that exited her office door a "blessed day"

big fat rascal (will), Tuesday, 1 September 2015 14:01 (3 days ago) Permalink

Norse Jung (Eric H.), Tuesday, 1 September 2015 14:03 (3 days ago) Permalink

How is she not fired and/or in jail yet

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 1 September 2015 14:26 (3 days ago) Permalink

her position was elected?

j., Tuesday, 1 September 2015 14:41 (3 days ago) Permalink

Stephen Prothero has a book coming out about how the subjects of culture war seem to always be about shit that conservatives will lose, b/c ultimately what fuels the aggrieved entitlement, rage, and straight ressentiment of modern rightwingers is the sense of loss and endangerment/martyrdom.

So they pick shit that's pretty much already been decided and moved on from by everybody else and make their last stand there, which is why you got all those assholes going after Sandra Fluke & contraception in 2012 and why they're attacking the 14th Amendment now. Of course, losing the cultural way tends to fuel them winning elections.

He gave a talk summarizing this stuff last year:

http://religionandpolitics.org/2014/12/10/do-liberals-always-win-an-interview-with-stephen-prothero/

Purves Grundy (kingfish), Tuesday, 1 September 2015 14:56 (3 days ago) Permalink

County clerks are elected? wtf

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 1 September 2015 15:14 (3 days ago) Permalink

Welcome to flyover country, I guess. (I'd be interested to know the ratio of appointed to elected in the US.)

Gett Off, Eileen (WilliamC), Tuesday, 1 September 2015 15:26 (3 days ago) Permalink

Here in King County, WA (pop. 2 million+), we elect our elections clerk, so not just flyover country.

best beloved george benson (The Reverend), Tuesday, 1 September 2015 15:35 (3 days ago) Permalink

i wonder if there are any other jobs she could get that involve filing paperwork

j., Tuesday, 1 September 2015 15:58 (3 days ago) Permalink

She could always open up a bakery. That seems to be a hot industry for bigots lately.

Norse Jung (Eric H.), Tuesday, 1 September 2015 16:18 (3 days ago) Permalink

when will the homos respect the straights rights to discriminate against them come on it's only fair

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 1 September 2015 16:24 (3 days ago) Permalink

Her whole office has been summoned to a contempt hearing: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/kim-davis-rowan-staff-ordered-court

I might like you better if we Yelped together (Phil D.), Tuesday, 1 September 2015 17:58 (3 days ago) Permalink

is someone going to explain the separation of church and state to them

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 1 September 2015 18:01 (3 days ago) Permalink

"They want us to accept their beliefs and their ways. But they won't accept our beliefs and our ways."

the logic, it is blinding

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 1 September 2015 18:02 (3 days ago) Permalink

explain it to me – I'm marrying the filthy motherfuckers

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 September 2015 18:03 (3 days ago) Permalink

Someone needs to ask her, on camera, "Since you obviously had no intention of issuing the licenses regardless of what the Court says, why did you bother with the pretense? Isn't it a sin to lie like that?"

I might like you better if we Yelped together (Phil D.), Tuesday, 1 September 2015 18:07 (3 days ago) Permalink

"Also, what's the deal with those clothes?"

I might like you better if we Yelped together (Phil D.), Tuesday, 1 September 2015 18:07 (3 days ago) Permalink

can't someone else just do the job for her? i don't get the fascination with this halfwit hick

usic ally (k3vin k.), Thursday, 3 September 2015 17:26 (Yesterday) Permalink

I have news for you - they can get even more dimwitted: http://gawker.com/dumbass-tennessee-judge-if-gays-can-get-married-no-on-1728447299

A local judge in Tennessee has denied a divorce to a man and woman on the grounds that the Supreme Court’s recent decision on same-sex marriage means only the Supreme Court can decide “what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage.”

Hamilton County Chancellor Jeffrey Atherton is a huge Antonin Scalia stan, and apparently agreed with Scalia’s dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges, where he argued that the justices were usurping states’ legislative power by recognizing gay couples’ right to marry.

Now, Atherton argues, I guess us stupid Tennesseans will have to wait for the Supreme Court to tell us what “divorce” is.

“The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorce,” Atherton wrote.

I might like you better if we Yelped together (Phil D.), Thursday, 3 September 2015 17:29 (Yesterday) Permalink

only incompetent person in this scenario is you, fuckface

panettone for the painfully alone (mayor jingleberries), Thursday, 3 September 2015 17:35 (Yesterday) Permalink

that judge thinks his turds are truthbombs

Aimless, Thursday, 3 September 2015 17:41 (Yesterday) Permalink

why in the fuck did they throw this woman in jail argh so dumb

goole, Thursday, 3 September 2015 17:46 (Yesterday) Permalink

fine her. remove her from service. order her subordinates to take over her duties. something else besides a political martyrdom

goole, Thursday, 3 September 2015 17:46 (Yesterday) Permalink

there are going to be kim davis skits put on in megachurches for the next 25 years. thanks, idiot.

goole, Thursday, 3 September 2015 17:47 (Yesterday) Permalink

remove her from service

can't be done. although putting her in jail accomplishes this in practice

Οὖτις, Thursday, 3 September 2015 17:49 (Yesterday) Permalink

so she's County Clerk and not, like, a clerk for the county. i figured.

still. no jail! duh.

goole, Thursday, 3 September 2015 17:50 (Yesterday) Permalink

Judge's reasoning is fining her will do no good because people are raising money to pay her fines for her.

I might like you better if we Yelped together (Phil D.), Thursday, 3 September 2015 17:56 (Yesterday) Permalink

(Judge is Jim Bunning's kid btw)

I might like you better if we Yelped together (Phil D.), Thursday, 3 September 2015 17:56 (Yesterday) Permalink

I'm happy enough to see her in jail, considering what alternatives there were. imo, if the judge only fined her, her fines would be paid by fellow fanatics, regardless of how high he sets the fine, and the higher it was, the more it would serve the purpose of making her look persecuted. sending her to jail will feel a bit glamorous to her at first, with all the adulation she'll get, but the longer she stays in, the less glamor will cling to it and the more the reality will set in. and if others are tempted to follow her example, they will know the consequence of hopping onto the bandwagon is jail time.

Aimless, Thursday, 3 September 2015 17:58 (Yesterday) Permalink

btw, I'd bet that she's been getting a lot of encouragement from her lawyers to be in contempt of court, because the lawyers' fees are being paid by organizations with a strong interest in the publicity her case generates and those organizations are the real client, not Davis. she's just a useful fool, blinded by her delusion that her going to jail will somehow result in changing a Supreme Court ruling. and her lawyers know it's all a circus for the media and all she will get out of it is an inflated sense of her own importance and a stint in jail.

Aimless, Thursday, 3 September 2015 18:13 (Yesterday) Permalink

I was hoping the judge would have some words for her lawyers but I havent see anything.

panettone for the painfully alone (mayor jingleberries), Thursday, 3 September 2015 18:32 (Yesterday) Permalink

This is mentioned unthread, but one of the weirdest semi-related aspects of this case is that the Dubya-appointed federal judge who issued the court order is the son of Jim Bunning, All-Star Hall of Fame pitcher for the Tigers, Phillies, and Pirates(played with Al Kaline among many others, and pitched a perfect game).

Jim Bunning Sr retired from pro-ball and went into politics, eventually being elected as Congressman from KY. He held this seat until 2001, and his replacement? Rand Paul.

Pop culture is weird, and life can be dumber than fiction.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Bunning

Purves Grundy (kingfish), Thursday, 3 September 2015 23:15 (Yesterday) Permalink

whoever said she's "out-George Wallace-ing George Wallace" otm this is v civil rights era in terms of people openly defying established law and proudly martyring themselves. they won't win.

Οὖτις, Thursday, 3 September 2015 23:31 (Yesterday) Permalink

if there's anything the state unreservedly will never back down on, it's the power of the state

Οὖτις, Thursday, 3 September 2015 23:31 (Yesterday) Permalink

i bet her sympathizers are excited she got arrested, more victimhood bullshit to spout on about and get excited and mad about

global tetrahedron, Thursday, 3 September 2015 23:37 (Yesterday) Permalink

She's set financially for life.

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 4 September 2015 00:36 (9 hours ago) Permalink

I doubt it's a lifetime sinecure. Her value as a symbol of resistance will fade to nothing long before she dies, because the cause she's backing will fade away before too long. It will result in a rising tide of money over the next X weeks as the media circus continues.

Aimless, Friday, 4 September 2015 00:54 (9 hours ago) Permalink

her punishment shoulda been to serve as a stagehand for the touring version of La Cage Aux Folles for a year.

Hammer Smashed Bagels, Friday, 4 September 2015 01:10 (9 hours ago) Permalink

Have you seen her? She may not live very long.

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 4 September 2015 01:26 (8 hours ago) Permalink

yeah, it was kinda like looking upon the wreck of the Ella Fitzgerald

Hammer Smashed Bagels, Friday, 4 September 2015 01:41 (8 hours ago) Permalink

Edmund...christ.

Hammer Smashed Bagels, Friday, 4 September 2015 02:24 (8 hours ago) Permalink

Edmund Christ, younger brother of Jesus, never amounted to much

go hang a salami I'm a canal, adam (silby), Friday, 4 September 2015 02:28 (7 hours ago) Permalink

Don't underestimate a woman's longevity. Unless she's big smoker and boozer, the chances are good she'll hit at least 80, if not 90.

Aimless, Friday, 4 September 2015 03:16 (7 hours ago) Permalink

i can't believe "wreck of the ella fitzgerald" is not a punk band or something

Gorefest Frump (Doctor Casino), Friday, 4 September 2015 03:27 (6 hours ago) Permalink

It's a joke in Love and Rockets iirc

Οὖτις, Friday, 4 September 2015 03:44 (6 hours ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.