A Big Win For Freedom and Equality. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Marc2b -> A Big Win For Freedom and Equality. (10/6/2014 3:37:41 PM)

The Supreme Court has declined to hear Anti-Gay Marriage appeals.

[sm=applause.gif]




Gauge -> RE: A Big Win For Freedom and Equality. (10/6/2014 4:41:01 PM)

Yes it is. It's about time.




deathtothepixies -> RE: A Big Win For Freedom and Equality. (10/6/2014 4:53:48 PM)

Great, now the only thing to be done is get all the people to agree that same sex marriage is ok, that might be a little trickier




Marc2b -> RE: A Big Win For Freedom and Equality. (10/6/2014 6:00:52 PM)

quote:

Great, now the only thing to be done is get all the people to agree that same sex marriage is ok, that might be a little trickier


A right is a trump card. It doesn't matter if all the people are against you. That's the theory at least. In practice you need a majority (not "all") to agree that something is a right. An increasing majority of Americans favor homosexual rights.




Lucylastic -> RE: A Big Win For Freedom and Equality. (10/6/2014 6:23:43 PM)

Im so happy to hear this:)




joether -> RE: A Big Win For Freedom and Equality. (10/7/2014 2:39:19 AM)

An...WHO...came up with all these hate laws that are being overturned? The conservative Republican Party. To a least extend, the Militia Man Movement/Tea Party (one just became the other over 20+ years). And that's what happens when we allow a theocracy to control our government. The creation of laws meant to disbarred a segment of the US Population to all the rights and benefits that others enjoy. That Christian, conservative, Republican/Tea Party's 'values' do not trump other Americans. I wonder if any of those so called 'fiscal conservatives' have a running tally of how much their viewpoints have cost the American people on this issue? From start, maintaining it, and defending in losing battles across the nation. Because we all know that 'fiscal conservatives' are just so 'non-partisan' about taxpayer waste on government issues....

I'm sure all the divorce lawyers will be happy. They just increased their business profits. Not to mention caterers, 'places to hold marriages' and numerous other business enterprises that benefit from such events. And who was against all these Americans from making money? The Republican/Tea Party! Aren't they the ones that are suppose to be about businesses making money? Oh forgot, they only support THEIR Businesses, not American companies in general.

America once more triumphs over the forces of evil!




DesideriScuri -> RE: A Big Win For Freedom and Equality. (10/7/2014 3:45:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b
The Supreme Court has declined to hear Anti-Gay Marriage appeals.
[sm=applause.gif]


I'm not so sure I approve of them not making a decision. I'd much rather they'd have heard the appeals and made a ruling. It would be better, going forward, if they had heard the appeals and then ruled the Appeals courts were correct.




DaddySatyr -> RE: A Big Win For Freedom and Equality. (10/7/2014 4:26:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

I'm not so sure I approve of them not making a decision. I'd much rather they'd have heard the appeals and made a ruling. It would be better, going forward, if they had heard the appeals and then ruled the Appeals courts were correct.



Yeah. isn't refusing to hear the appeal (which has been handed up to them from the appellate court) kind of like dereliction of duty?

I think there are bigger issues here (and I'm not claiming to know exactly how SCOTUS works or under which rules) but, is it possible that SCOTUS might have ruled against gay marriage in this case and that's why they passed the buck? Could the converse be the case?

Either way, isn't it their fucking job to hear cases that the appeals court passes up to them?







Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?




tweakabelle -> RE: A Big Win For Freedom and Equality. (10/7/2014 6:54:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b
The Supreme Court has declined to hear Anti-Gay Marriage appeals.
[sm=applause.gif]


I'm not so sure I approve of them not making a decision. I'd much rather they'd have heard the appeals and made a ruling. It would be better, going forward, if they had heard the appeals and then ruled the Appeals courts were correct.


As I understand the situation, by declining to hear the anti-GM appeals, the Supreme Court was in effect saying that there were no erroneous matters of law in the ruling that the Appeals Court made, and that therefore there could only be one possible outcome to reviewing the case - to uphold the Appeals Court ruling.

While there may be certain political benefits to the Supreme Court reviewing and making a ruling, in effect, it has made a ruling supporting marriage equality by refusing to review the cases.




joether -> RE: A Big Win For Freedom and Equality. (10/7/2014 7:07:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b
The Supreme Court has declined to hear Anti-Gay Marriage appeals.
[sm=applause.gif]


I'm not so sure I approve of them not making a decision. I'd much rather they'd have heard the appeals and made a ruling. It would be better, going forward, if they had heard the appeals and then ruled the Appeals courts were correct.


The Supreme Court jumps into cases like this in which the Appellate Courts are in disagreement. But each of these courts were in agreement, so there was no need for the Supreme Court to weigh in.





joether -> RE: A Big Win For Freedom and Equality. (10/7/2014 7:09:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I'm not so sure I approve of them not making a decision. I'd much rather they'd have heard the appeals and made a ruling. It would be better, going forward, if they had heard the appeals and then ruled the Appeals courts were correct.

Yeah. isn't refusing to hear the appeal (which has been handed up to them from the appellate court) kind of like dereliction of duty?

I think there are bigger issues here (and I'm not claiming to know exactly how SCOTUS works or under which rules) but, is it possible that SCOTUS might have ruled against gay marriage in this case and that's why they passed the buck? Could the converse be the case?

Either way, isn't it their fucking job to hear cases that the appeals court passes up to them?



There is no law that requires them to weigh in on a case, just because someone doesn't like the outcome in the Appellate Courts.

And they are known to make mistakes when they do rule on something.




Aylee -> RE: A Big Win For Freedom and Equality. (10/7/2014 10:01:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

An...WHO...came up with all these hate laws that are being overturned? The conservative Republican Party. To a least extend, the Militia Man Movement/Tea Party (one just became the other over 20+ years). And that's what happens when we allow a theocracy to control our government. The creation of laws meant to disbarred a segment of the US Population to all the rights and benefits that others enjoy. That Christian, conservative, Republican/Tea Party's 'values' do not trump other Americans. I wonder if any of those so called 'fiscal conservatives' have a running tally of how much their viewpoints have cost the American people on this issue? From start, maintaining it, and defending in losing battles across the nation. Because we all know that 'fiscal conservatives' are just so 'non-partisan' about taxpayer waste on government issues....

I'm sure all the divorce lawyers will be happy. They just increased their business profits. Not to mention caterers, 'places to hold marriages' and numerous other business enterprises that benefit from such events. And who was against all these Americans from making money? The Republican/Tea Party! Aren't they the ones that are suppose to be about businesses making money? Oh forgot, they only support THEIR Businesses, not American companies in general.

America once more triumphs over the forces of evil!


Oh my sakes. Take off your ideological blinders for two minutes, for the love of all rainbows.

They were not "hate laws." It was societal norms.

You remind me of the people decrying H.P. Lovecraft as racist. (Well, duh. Most people were. If you want authors who were not you cannot read anything written before about 1960.) I am expecting you to claim that Gatsby was black at any moment now.

Societal acceptance and cultural mores have changed. People have expanded their view of inclusiveness.

And really, you claim that it was just republicans?




cloudboy -> RE: A Big Win For Freedom and Equality. (10/7/2014 11:29:47 AM)

The Bible Belt still remains closely aligned with Putinism in Russia pitching its flag squarely against decadent, "Western" / "liberal" anti-family values.




cloudboy -> RE: A Big Win For Freedom and Equality. (10/7/2014 11:31:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr



Either way, isn't it their fucking job to hear cases that the appeals court passes up to them?



[/color]




No, the court declines to hear cases all the time.




Aylee -> RE: A Big Win For Freedom and Equality. (10/7/2014 11:51:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr



Either way, isn't it their fucking job to hear cases that the appeals court passes up to them?






No, not really. They get to choose which cases they hear. I think that there is a type of case they must hear, but mostly it is up to the Justices's discretion.




DesideriScuri -> RE: A Big Win For Freedom and Equality. (10/7/2014 2:52:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I'm not so sure I approve of them not making a decision. I'd much rather they'd have heard the appeals and made a ruling. It would be better, going forward, if they had heard the appeals and then ruled the Appeals courts were correct.

Yeah. isn't refusing to hear the appeal (which has been handed up to them from the appellate court) kind of like dereliction of duty?
I think there are bigger issues here (and I'm not claiming to know exactly how SCOTUS works or under which rules) but, is it possible that SCOTUS might have ruled against gay marriage in this case and that's why they passed the buck? Could the converse be the case?
Either way, isn't it their fucking job to hear cases that the appeals court passes up to them?

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?


Yes, it's their job to hear cases appealed from lower courts. But, it's not their job to hear every case appealed from lower courts.

How does the Supreme Court decide whether to hear a case
    quote:

    Factors the Court Considers When Choosing Cases
    Every year, the Supreme Court receives about 10,000 petitions for certiorari, but only hears about 80 of them. While no one really knows why some cases get heard but others do not, the Supreme Court has several factors that it considers when deciding what cases to hear:
      1. The Court will Hear Cases to Resolve a Conflict of Law: The U.S. judicial system consists of 13 federal circuits and 50 state supreme courts. When a number of these courts reach different conclusions about an issue of federal or constitutional law, the Supreme Court may step in and decide the law so that all areas of the country can then operate under the same law.
      2. The Court will Hear Cases that are Important: Sometimes the Court will consider a highly unusual case such as U.S. v Nixon (concerning the Watergate tapes) or Bush v. Gore (concerning the extremely close election in 2000), or a case with an important social issue, such as abortion in Roe v. Wade.
      3. The Court will Sometimes Hear Cases that Speak to the Justices' Interests: Sometimes Justices give preference to cases that decide an issue in their favorite area of law.
      4. The Court hears Cases when Lower Courts Disregard past Supreme Court decisions: If a lower court blatantly disregards a past Supreme Court decision, the court may hear the case to correct the lower court, or alternatively, simply overrule the case without comment.


I would have thought this would have definitely fallen under the Second condition, and perhaps the first. There has to be 4 Justices accepting the case for it to be heard, so, apparently, this wasn't a big enough deal. Maybe the Justices felt the lower court got it right, so they're letting it stand?




DesideriScuri -> RE: A Big Win For Freedom and Equality. (10/7/2014 2:55:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b
The Supreme Court has declined to hear Anti-Gay Marriage appeals.
[sm=applause.gif]

I'm not so sure I approve of them not making a decision. I'd much rather they'd have heard the appeals and made a ruling. It would be better, going forward, if they had heard the appeals and then ruled the Appeals courts were correct.

As I understand the situation, by declining to hear the anti-GM appeals, the Supreme Court was in effect saying that there were no erroneous matters of law in the ruling that the Appeals Court made, and that therefore there could only be one possible outcome to reviewing the case - to uphold the Appeals Court ruling.
While there may be certain political benefits to the Supreme Court reviewing and making a ruling, in effect, it has made a ruling supporting marriage equality by refusing to review the cases.


Perhaps they have supported it, but had they heard it and made the decision upholding the lower court (that is, supported GM rights), there would be far fewer court cases in the future over it. I don't know that precedent can be set by refusing to hear a case.




PeonForHer -> RE: A Big Win For Freedom and Equality. (10/7/2014 3:13:17 PM)

quote:

Oh my sakes. Take off your ideological blinders for two minutes, for the love of all rainbows.

They were not "hate laws." It was societal norms.


That seems a weird way of looking at it to me. For one thing, societal norms can, and do, entrench hate and make it widely acceptable. One of the many advantages is that people can be shitty towards certain other sorts of people without having to feel guilty about it.

For another, an ideology works at its strongest and most effectively when what it claims comes to be seen as as 'just normal, natural, ordinary, and eternally true'. This big win is a win against an ideology that promoted homophobia.




Aylee -> RE: A Big Win For Freedom and Equality. (10/7/2014 3:59:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

Oh my sakes. Take off your ideological blinders for two minutes, for the love of all rainbows.

They were not "hate laws." It was societal norms.


That seems a weird way of looking at it to me. For one thing, societal norms can, and do, entrench hate and make it widely acceptable. One of the many advantages is that people can be shitty towards certain other sorts of people without having to feel guilty about it.

For another, an ideology works at its strongest and most effectively when what it claims comes to be seen as as 'just normal, natural, ordinary, and eternally true'. This big win is a win against an ideology that promoted homophobia.


Did you read joether's vitriol?

Can you imagine replacing republicans/tea party/conservatives with homosexuals/transgendered?

It is the same type of othering. He even goes so far as to call 1500 years or so of religious belief and bias with regards to marriage as "evil."

I just do not see all of those generations of people as evil. I see them as products of their times.

Remember, it is not tolerating something if you do not have an issue with it in the first. So all of those "evil" people upset about the changes to marriage (and some of them I do not agree with) that are not killing, maiming, and threatening others are actually being fairly tolerant.




joether -> RE: A Big Win For Freedom and Equality. (10/7/2014 10:55:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
An...WHO...came up with all these hate laws that are being overturned? The conservative Republican Party. To a least extend, the Militia Man Movement/Tea Party (one just became the other over 20+ years). And that's what happens when we allow a theocracy to control our government. The creation of laws meant to disbarred a segment of the US Population to all the rights and benefits that others enjoy. That Christian, conservative, Republican/Tea Party's 'values' do not trump other Americans. I wonder if any of those so called 'fiscal conservatives' have a running tally of how much their viewpoints have cost the American people on this issue? From start, maintaining it, and defending in losing battles across the nation. Because we all know that 'fiscal conservatives' are just so 'non-partisan' about taxpayer waste on government issues....

I'm sure all the divorce lawyers will be happy. They just increased their business profits. Not to mention caterers, 'places to hold marriages' and numerous other business enterprises that benefit from such events. And who was against all these Americans from making money? The Republican/Tea Party! Aren't they the ones that are suppose to be about businesses making money? Oh forgot, they only support THEIR Businesses, not American companies in general.

America once more triumphs over the forces of evil!

Oh my sakes. Take off your ideological blinders for two minutes, for the love of all rainbows.


Like supporting the G. W. Bush war in Iraq because of all those WMDs? Conservatives have historically for the past twenty years been many times more susceptible to ideology coming from both the Republican and Tea Party on a great number of things.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
They were not "hate laws." It was societal norms.


Christians who hate homosexuality enough to develop something called 'DOMA'? Wouldn't 'Defending Marriage' be more about keeping divorces from taking place? Rather than keeping other people from getting married? Its called 'logic'. But no, DOMA and the state level versions of it were created to keep a segment of the population from gaining all the rights and protections of being marriage to someone they will to be attached too. You would have to ignore reality itself, to arrive at the viewpoint that these laws were....not....created out of hatred for gay, lesbian, bi, and transgendered people. The 'Christian Conservatives' on the right took over the Republican Party in the 90's. Or does the concept of 'Family Values' mean nothing to you in political terms?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
You remind me of the people decrying H.P. Lovecraft as racist. (Well, duh. Most people were. If you want authors who were not you cannot read anything written before about 1960.) I am expecting you to claim that Gatsby was black at any moment now.


And you remind me of the sort of people that burned books. While not part of the people demanding such action, but the people too scared to stand up and say 'this is wrong!'. And only after that evil was defeated you tried to claim "oh, I would have helped....but....". But everyone knows the real reasons you didn't.

Just saw this on a tshirt design today.....(while having nothing to do with the topic, you did bring up H. P. Lovecraft)

[image]http://technabob.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/MICKTHULHU-MOUSE.jpg[/image]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
Societal acceptance and cultural mores have changed. People have expanded their view of inclusiveness.


Really? Go chat with all the minorities in America. That Latinos on the Southern Border of America/Mexico are accused of being here illegal even when they are US Citizens. That black Americans live in high numbers in poor sections of America and attacked by the Christian version of 'ISIS' (that's the KKK). Little children hopping the border are seen as evil when the reality is, they are trying to escape from evil. That all Muslims in America are often suspected and seen as terrorists; even when they declare they are against all that evil. Who are the people doing all these things onto people? Conservatives, libertarians, Republicans, and Tea Partiers. 'Inclusive' like many other virtuous words, are not in the conservative/libertarian mind set. The idea that marriage between a man and woman, is exclusively a Republican/Tea Party concept.

And then we have laws barring gay marriage. For what, non-Christian, reason was there to keep two consenting adults, in full control of their minds, to be allowed to marry? I've heard all the 'studies' performed that show two lesbians can not raise a child; and the information that debunked them as 'full of shit'. Its metaphorically 'Creationism verse The Theory of Evolution'.

To quote you, "People have expanded their view of inclusiveness" the most.....have been liberals. When compared to conservatives/libertarians, its like comparing ant hills (conservatives) to the mountain ranges of the Alps (Liberals). Yes, every once in a while, us liberals fuck up on that 'inclusive' idea. Yet, how often do we see conservatives and libertarians holding themselves (and the people they elect to public office) to the same level of accountability and responsibility as they bash liberals, moderates, Democrats, and President Obama?

I think I can name all those moments on one hand and have four fingers left over.....maybe five.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
And really, you claim that it was just republicans?


Republicans were the ones that forced all that crap through. They OWNED the governments in many states of the nation. An even to this day, they STILL defend those laws with taxpayer money. The Tea Party, ironically enough, have sided with the Republican Party, instead of being in favor of liberty for all citizens in the nation....




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625