Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

strike one for heteronormativity u guys!

yeah, but, see, none of those things are in the Constitution, therefore homosexual marriage is not a fundamental right

Holy shit, they don't say anything about my owning a CD collection in the Constitution either. I throw myself on the mercy of the court.

http://lawdork.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/clarence-thomas.jpg

lol I went to the AFA site to see if they'd thrown a fit yet - not yet, but they're pretty busy boycotting EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD

:)

I do like how Walker basically said Blankenhorn was a useless dumbass.

those 13 FACTS! bam, bam, bam.

yeah like this kicker:

"6. Sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of a human being."

Off-topic, but the censoring on the AFA's website makes me LOL

Sears is currently offering giant posters of total nud**y on its website.

strike one for heteronormativity u guys!

was sorta waiting for this

yeah like this kicker:

"6. Sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of a human being."

I agree that this is deeply problematic

like, whether or not sexual orientation is a choice or in born or whatever should have zero bearing on how it is legally addressed.

moreover, "answering" that question wont change the minds of haters---if its something essential to a person ("genetic"), it can be made pathological. if its a choice, its a bad one. etc

also ur enshrining a really problematic idea in law

Not shocked of course, but lol @ the AFA definition of "graphic total nudity".

I'm sorry "graphic total nud**y".

like, whether or not sexual orientation is a choice or in born or whatever should have zero bearing on how it is legally addressed.

While I am inclined to agree w/you, most people I know did not choose their orientation.

The judge is specifically refuting testimony by pro-Prop 8 lawyers, one of whose claims was the inviolability of heterosexual marriage vs the protean nature of homosexual relationships.

in other words, Walker wasn't composing aphorisms, plax.

sorta---not a lawyer, but note that it doesn't localize a persons sexuality (its in the genes!), nor does it render it immutable. it states that it is fundamental, which could be interpreted as "important enough to someones life/lifestyle to be given legal consideration"

good thing imo

Finding gbx wholly OTM.

From the AFA's condemnation of Sears:

"Some of them depict groups of people, lesbians and others engaged in ***ual activities."

First off, "people, lesbians and others"???

Secondly, "***ual activities"? Casual? Actual? What?

sexual

Searsual

ritual

holy shit: "Rejecting several requests by AFA to remain neutral in the culture war, The Home Depot has..."

sorta---not a lawyer, but note that it doesn't localize a persons sexuality (its in the genes!), nor does it render it immutable. it states that it is fundamental, which could be interpreted as "important enough to someones life/lifestyle to be given legal consideration"

good thing imo

― pies. (gbx), Wednesday, August 4, 2010 9:59 PM (2 minutes ago)

idk if you rephrase that as "race is a fundamental characteristic of a human being" then it immediately complicates things. I think the more you essentialise as internal what are really external social characteristics, the more you objectify in the name of some sort of humanism. Like I think there's a kind of implicit heteronormative bias in saying something like this, you turn sexuality (which is what exactly? is there a definition of that because that might appease me) into something that essentially differentiates and characterises.

I remember my (gay) cousin being totally depressed by the Prop 8 vote, but by way of reassurance I suggested it was a mislaid strategy on the part of gay marriage opponents that would just fast track the issue to the Supreme Court. And I can't imagine the Supreme Court as it stands (sits?) today coming up with a circuitous way to deny rights. Well, I mean, sure, I can imagine them trying, but I think even the more conservative members would have to work hard.

I think I've asked this before, but where do the right wing libertarians like Rand Paul land on this issue?

I'm not being flippant, plax (I hope), when I say that in law winning a case is not like writing a successful essay for a gender studies course. The outcomes are different!

"graphic total nud**y"

should be iltmi board description imo

plax, I'll still take it since it makes the ruling (on the Defendants' assertions) more easily defensible at the 9th circuit.

it does because they made that "fundamental characteristic" crap up a long time ago

i'm for real excited about it, as are most of my friends, but I'm already sighing in anticipation of the 'older' folk I know forwarding me mass emails against my will talking about the "tyrannical court system". but still, this is a reassuring sign that reason is possible in 'Merica.

I think I've asked this before, but where do the right wing libertarians like Rand Paul land on this issue?

if you are talking about Paul specifically it's a robotic "leave it up to the states" "leave it up to the states" "leave it up to the states" "leave it up to the states" "leave it up to the states" "leave it up to the states" "leave it up to the states" "leave it up to the states" "leave it up to the states" "leave it up to the states" "leave it up to the states"

hmmmm

I get what yr saying I think, insofar as making something like race or sexuality "fundamental" serves to prop up and solidify what are basically liquid social constructs (is that what yr saying?)----but, as we have hashed out here before, those constructs are believed to be real and ~acted upon~ by members of society all the g-d time, often along a pitched power gradient.

given the choice between affording equal rights/protections to ppl lacking them (for whatever reason), or waiting for the law to catch up with philosophy, I'm gonna be a pragmatist

xp

srsly tho when the revolution comes none of this will matter

when we start the revolution all Tuomas will probably do is snitch

no he just wont understand what all the fuss is about

oops I was talking about daddy Ron. I would imagine Rand is towing the party line pretty hard in KY on social issues, when he isn't avoiding them altogether.

xxposts

The "tyrannical court system" which looks narrowly at the law as written and hears the evidence presented and judges thereby? I thought that was a conservative approach to jurisprudence. The biggest problem here was that the Prop 8 backers presented such shitty and tautalogical evidence.

I used that quote because of some unironic comment some tosser posted in a message board debate I had around the Kerry election as the debate was really getting legs. his logic was that the courts were "tyrannical" for forcing them to accept the existence of homosexual marriage.

there are few arguments where the argument itself disarms itself better than any retort could, but this is one of them....fortunately my friends are mostly all progressive folk who are cheering about this decision so I just have to worry about the old shits at my business.

srsly tho when the revolution comes none of this will matter

― plax (ico), Wednesday, August 4, 2010 5:16 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

this edges into a lot of what i was trying to say on the feminist blogs thread, but, i have srs probs with this.

i think we ought to behave and act and struggle with the certainty that no revolution will ever come. forget heaven, man...

he biggest problem here was that the Prop 8 backers presented such shitty and tautalogical evidence.

real surprise here

Just as tyrannical as they are for forcing pious Catholics to accept, say, Gingrich's latest marriage.

x-post

Michael White OTM. All the Prop 8 backers are like, no way, we voted you off the island, the will of the people is not being heeded.

the next person who lectures me on the roots of marriage makes me wonder how far to them people wanna go back...like to the passing on the wife to teh brother after you die days?

"roots of marriage"=statement that means ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY NOTHING

idk if you rephrase that as "race is a fundamental characteristic of a human being" then it immediately complicates things. I think the more you essentialise as internal what are really external social characteristics

don't think it does this, can external social characteristics not be "fundamental"? in the sense that, historically, they have been pretty fundamental to how people of certain races and sexualities have been treated, legally & otherwise

Re: Paul, I don't see how someone can be a self-professed libertarian then at the same time be such a roll-over pussy when it comes to social issues. As long as the government is not using tax payer money to force gay people to get married, why should he give a shit?*

*Rhetorical question ignoring Realpolitik.

no way, we voted you off the island, the will of the people is not being heeded.

I'm as wary about this being decided by a court as I am about Roe vs. Wade instead of a law or constituional amendment, but there are things that we cannot vote on w/o changing the Constitution and that IS what the judiciary is there for and if they write stupid laws and then defend them fecklessly, this is exactly what happens.

American Libertarians are never sure where they fall in the debate between individual liberties and the 'reserved to the States or the people' right of more local governments to fuck w/people for any reason whatsoever.

Sexual orientation isn't a defining characteristic of a human being until puberty hits yo.