read it here, confused now tbh
http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=28029
― plaxico (I know, right?), Wednesday, 11 November 2009 20:44 (fourteen years ago) link
well, the bill passed in 2010 is for the next year, i.e. 2011. Gov't doesn't exactly work on a pay-as-you-go scheme.
― squarefair (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 11 November 2009 20:47 (fourteen years ago) link
wait what? not from ur country btw jus so u kno
― plaxico (I know, right?), Wednesday, 11 November 2009 20:48 (fourteen years ago) link
like getting snarky abt me not being 100% on how ur govt works seems pretty silly but then mayb that is how u roll
― plaxico (I know, right?), Wednesday, 11 November 2009 20:50 (fourteen years ago) link
that's not really snarky though
― jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Wednesday, 11 November 2009 20:51 (fourteen years ago) link
But as an amendment, it could be made effective whenever they choose, Shakey, no?
― l'homme moderne: il forniquait et lisait des journaux (Michael White), Wednesday, 11 November 2009 20:53 (fourteen years ago) link
not trying to be snarky! sorry.
Appropriations/funding bills are passed for each fiscal year, not on a week-by-week or month-by-month basis. After all, the gov't only collects income taxes once a year. So in 2009 congress approves all the funding for 2010, in 2010 they approve all the funding for 2011, etc. This is kinda a standard budgeting practice for governments, isn't it? And since the DADT repeal is being included in an appropriations bill that will pass next year, that means it will go into effect in 2011. But the bill will have passed and the law will have been repealed in 2010. Make sense?
x-post
― squarefair (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 11 November 2009 20:57 (fourteen years ago) link
well this is kinda true but what else would they amend it to? The defense budget is a bill that is guaranteed passage, no one's going to filibuster or vote it down based on this one amendment. Whereas if they amended it to some other random bill it might be more difficult to get through.
― squarefair (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 11 November 2009 20:58 (fourteen years ago) link
yeah i can see how in a large country like the US this would be a cumbersome move that would take up to a year to implement but living in a country with 4 million ppl I tend not to think of things like this, sorry for interpreting snark and thereby forcing this thread into digressions abt fiscal years :-/
― plaxico (I know, right?), Wednesday, 11 November 2009 21:02 (fourteen years ago) link
If they do pass it as an amendment, they probably won't tie it to any appropriations schedule but set out a timetable to amend the Title 10 of the US Code.
― l'homme moderne: il forniquait et lisait des journaux (Michael White), Wednesday, 11 November 2009 21:09 (fourteen years ago) link
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2009/12/no-doma-repeal-attempt-in-2010-and.html
― Feingold/Kaptur 2012 (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 12 December 2009 15:46 (fourteen years ago) link
That's good news. If you don't care about gay marriage. Which you don't.
― really senile old crap shit (Eric H.), Saturday, 12 December 2009 17:51 (fourteen years ago) link
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/prop-8-backers-seek-to-block-federal-trial-broadcast.html
"Many supporters of Proposition 8 who are being dragged into this case are fearful about being questioned about their personal, political and religious beliefs on the stand and having that televised," Pugno said.
I kinda have a hard time generating sympathy for these folks..
― mayor jingleberries, Friday, 8 January 2010 22:45 (fourteen years ago) link
fuck 'em
― larry craig memorial gloryhole (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 8 January 2010 22:45 (fourteen years ago) link
agreed
― richie aprile (rockapads), Friday, 8 January 2010 22:51 (fourteen years ago) link
Are they going to call that poor lady who runs El Coyote as a witness?
― mayor jingleberries, Friday, 8 January 2010 22:59 (fourteen years ago) link
― larry craig memorial gloryhole (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, January 8, 2010 4:45 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― into the young coconuts (gbx), Saturday, 9 January 2010 01:36 (fourteen years ago) link
wonderful piece by ted olson in newsweek
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 12 January 2010 19:25 (fourteen years ago) link
I wonder if Ted Olson has a gay family member. Hes so passionate about it.
I also dont understand how this thing going on now is a 'trial'. Is some couple suing the state civilly for discrimination?
― mayor jingleberries, Tuesday, 12 January 2010 20:21 (fourteen years ago) link
Olson's a fascinating guy. For all his wingnut roots he gives the impression of a guy who's spent a lifetime carving out principles only to have them challenged recently, and he's sensitive enough to find a connection between "classic" conservatism and the support of gay marrriage.
― Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 12 January 2010 20:24 (fourteen years ago) link
this might be old news but divorce rates lower in states that don't ban gay marriage
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/divorce-rates-appear-higher-in-states.html
― plaxico (I know, right?), Friday, 15 January 2010 17:40 (fourteen years ago) link
Is some couple suing the state civilly for discrimination?
yes gay couples are suing the state for violating their civil rights under the Constitution - no matter what happens this is the case that will go to the Supreme Court
― shake hands with Gongo? (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 15 January 2010 17:52 (fourteen years ago) link
Can't wait for embittered Scalia dissent.
― Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 15 January 2010 17:52 (fourteen years ago) link
maybe he'll get so bent-out-of-shape he'll just, you know, die already.
― Prospective Liberal Troll (will), Friday, 15 January 2010 17:54 (fourteen years ago) link
"So am I to understand that homosexualists, you know, what to stick penile objects yay big into their anuses? They're not the only ones who'll be asking for protection."
http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/files/2009/10/scalia.jpg
― Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 15 January 2010 17:56 (fourteen years ago) link
I imagine he finds gays about as confusing as non-Christians (cf. his whole "the cross is not a religious symbol" argument)
― shake hands with Gongo? (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 15 January 2010 17:57 (fourteen years ago) link
"the penis goes WHERE?"
― shake hands with Gongo? (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 15 January 2010 18:00 (fourteen years ago) link
^^^^ this would be a question to a lesbian couple
― Jay Leno's Pony Vivisection Hour (HI DERE), Friday, 15 January 2010 18:02 (fourteen years ago) link
btw this is a good book.
― Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 15 January 2010 18:02 (fourteen years ago) link
Nino Scalia can probably imagine lots of positions for lesbians.
Ha ha, I read the most apopleptic review of that book not long ago.
― Enfonce bien tes ongles et tes doigts délicats dans la jungle de (Michael White), Friday, 15 January 2010 18:03 (fourteen years ago) link
the title's the worst part.
― Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 15 January 2010 18:04 (fourteen years ago) link
My post is a little misleading. The reviewer basically said that she outed him as a highly partisan judge in very bad faith.
― Enfonce bien tes ongles et tes doigts délicats dans la jungle de (Michael White), Friday, 15 January 2010 18:14 (fourteen years ago) link
i think people who read that book and don't think scalia is a highly partisan judge are only fooling themselves
― that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Friday, 15 January 2010 18:17 (fourteen years ago) link
Yeah, um, if anyone's been hoodwinked it's readers. I mean, Scalia doesn't equivocate or "clarify" public statements. He doesn't give a damn.
― Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 15 January 2010 18:19 (fourteen years ago) link
http://cbs2.com/local/cindy.mccain.gay.2.1439011.html
― ('_') (omar little), Thursday, 21 January 2010 02:19 (fourteen years ago) link
cindy.mccain.gay
― max, Thursday, 21 January 2010 02:33 (fourteen years ago) link
;)
― mage pit laceration (gbx), Thursday, 21 January 2010 03:10 (fourteen years ago) link
Defection at the fringes ain't a trend. People currently under 40 were overwhelmingly against 8; people currently over 60 were overwhlemingly against.The difference was 300,000 votes. Next year a whole bunch of under 40s will be old enough to vote for the first time, and a whole bunch of over 60s will be dead. You do the math.― Passenger 57 (rogermexico.), Monday, November 17, 2008
The difference was 300,000 votes. Next year a whole bunch of under 40s will be old enough to vote for the first time, and a whole bunch of over 60s will be dead. You do the math.
― Passenger 57 (rogermexico.), Monday, November 17, 2008
The math is gettin' done: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/03/50-of-californians-now-support-gay-marriage-poll-finds.html
― all yoga attacks are fire based (rogermexico.), Thursday, 25 March 2010 16:48 (fourteen years ago) link
yeah this is gonna get overturned
"Say I Do" is a great slogan btw
― Whats with all the littering? (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 25 March 2010 16:58 (fourteen years ago) link
some friends are getting married in dc this weekend <3
― mookieproof, Thursday, 25 March 2010 17:37 (fourteen years ago) link
from Laura Bush's memoir:
"In 2004 the social question that animated the campaign was gay marriage. Before the election season had unfolded, I had talked to George about not making gay marriage a significant issue. We have, I reminded him, a number of close friends who are gay or whose children are gay. But at that moment I could never have imagined what path this issue would take and where it would lead."
― cool and remote like dancing girls (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 28 April 2010 18:13 (thirteen years ago) link
We have, I reminded him, a number of close friends who are gay
lindsey graham?
― ibaka flocka flame (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 28 April 2010 18:14 (thirteen years ago) link
Charlie Crist.
― cool and remote like dancing girls (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 28 April 2010 18:15 (thirteen years ago) link
Worrying about hurting people is so like a woman. GWB had his eyes on the REAL prize: the power to fuck over everyone you don't like.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 28 April 2010 18:20 (thirteen years ago) link
whereas Bill Clinton had his eyes on a different prize: the power to fuck everyone
― Marriage, that's where I'm a Viking! (HI DERE), Wednesday, 28 April 2010 18:22 (thirteen years ago) link
Obama, thankfully, has his eyes on what really counts: scaring the shit out of white people.
― cool and remote like dancing girls (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 28 April 2010 18:24 (thirteen years ago) link
YES
― Master of the Manly Ballad (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 8 July 2010 23:26 (thirteen years ago) link
The article is weird, the comments...weirder.
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 16 July 2010 19:57 (thirteen years ago) link
And here we go, it seems.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 20:36 (thirteen years ago) link