Profile
Search
Register
Log in
*sigh* Gay Marriage Ban Upheld
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
the mean
Certified O.G.


Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 6497
Location: philly/sacto/kauai/ohio
 Reply with quote  

Embryo wrote:
Could you link me to the results page that you feel is giving you such a cohesive cross-section of coverage as to support your counterargument? Because "iowa gay marriage" only yields a hodgepodge of results when I do it, most not at all about the specifics of how it came to be, and many actually about California. Please keep in mind also that since the actual facts are that the court overturned the law this will probably be more prominently featured in retrospective stories than the subsequent legislative grandstanding (which at the time I maintain was higher-profile because it was far more dramatic).

You said, "ultimately [the legislature's inaction] became the bigger story." Now you are saying that it was the biggest story "at the time." Which is it?

Regardless, you use this to illustrate your point that there was not a big backlash against gay people. How does either of those things lead to no backlash?
Post Tue May 26, 2009 2:47 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Embryo



Joined: 31 Dec 2002
Posts: 6359
Location: http://www.myspace.com/pogopark
 Reply with quote  

futuristxen wrote:
mindboogling. Were you just not watching the news much when Iowa happened? The bulk of the coverage was about the court decision, because that's what happened first, and that's what most people read about. Even the thread here was about the court decision.

I think the burden of proof is on you, not the mean.


I don't "watch" the news at all, though I do try to keep up with what TV news is focusing on. But I might be offpoint on this.

anyway, like i said, this is tangential. i'll concede that there wasn't as much backlash for Iowa despite it being a court decision. That doesn't change the fact that there would be a HUGE backlash about Prop 8 since it was a popular vote. And it doesn't change the fact that the appearance of judicial activism is unhelpful to the overall cause on a national level.
Post Tue May 26, 2009 2:49 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Embryo



Joined: 31 Dec 2002
Posts: 6359
Location: http://www.myspace.com/pogopark
 Reply with quote  

the mean wrote:
Embryo wrote:
Could you link me to the results page that you feel is giving you such a cohesive cross-section of coverage as to support your counterargument? Because "iowa gay marriage" only yields a hodgepodge of results when I do it, most not at all about the specifics of how it came to be, and many actually about California. Please keep in mind also that since the actual facts are that the court overturned the law this will probably be more prominently featured in retrospective stories than the subsequent legislative grandstanding (which at the time I maintain was higher-profile because it was far more dramatic).

You said, "ultimately [the legislature's inaction] became the bigger story." Now you are saying that it was the biggest story "at the time." Which is it?

Regardless, you use this to illustrate your point that there was not a big backlash against gay people. How does either of those things lead to no backlash?


I concede the point but that's not the point I was trying to make. There's lots of reasons why there's less backlash, including futurist's point that the more gay marriage exists, the less people stress about it. Y'all aren't wrong about that, and I already agreed -- people are moving in our direction.

But even so. A popular vote being dismissed on a technicality is a bad look. I find it aggravating that y'all are getting hung up on this side point I made rather than addressing the root philosophical discussion we're having which is not only does it look bad to overturn a popular vote based on a potential technicality (which is substantially different than any of the other court rulings so far), but it is systemically inconsistent and will undermine the potentially cohesive consensus in favor of gay rights that has begun to develop and could become conventional wisdom as long as people continue to find our cause sympathetic.

Actually Sullivan made that last point convincingly -- displays of oppression of a minority at the hands of a majority such as in Prop 8's passing is actually good for the gay rights movement as it turns sympathy in our direction. So the backlash I'm saying would have occurred if it were overturned via court ruling isn't just a backlash about the ruling, but actually potentially additionally the loss of all of the sympathy that Prop 8 generated in the first place.
Post Tue May 26, 2009 2:56 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19373
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

It's not even a 2/3rs majority that passed Prop 8.
I ain't scurred.

Let's see those motherfuckers backlash.
Post Tue May 26, 2009 2:57 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19373
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

California needs to figure out how to change their amendment process though. Like last week. Because they won't be a state much longer with that. You can't run a democracy with that kind of mickey mouse shit going on. Let alone run a government.
Post Tue May 26, 2009 3:01 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Embryo



Joined: 31 Dec 2002
Posts: 6359
Location: http://www.myspace.com/pogopark
 Reply with quote  

futuristxen wrote:

I think the burden of proof is on you, not the mean. It sounds to me like you're trying to contort things into your worldview rather than consider that you are wrong.


It sounds to me like you're trying not to let me concede the point.


Quote:

The California ruling sets a bad precendent, and I hope that it gets appealed. People should not be able to take away others rights, just because there is more of them. It's not the ideals that this country is about. It's bullying, plain and simple.


Yes -- it is bullying, and no, they shouldn't be able to do that. But the game of "is this fair?" is not the game we're trying to win here. Eyes on the prize.

And the ruling doesn't set a bad precedent because it doesn't relate to any other gay rights law or issue on the table. It's a very specific case dealing with a very small detail of Californian law and has nothing to do with the other court rulings that were in our favor. It's not a ruling on, for example, the constitutionality of banning gay unions from the institution of marriage, which is the question that seems to keep being answered in our favor.
Post Tue May 26, 2009 3:01 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Embryo



Joined: 31 Dec 2002
Posts: 6359
Location: http://www.myspace.com/pogopark
 Reply with quote  

futuristxen wrote:
California needs to figure out how to change their amendment process though. Like last week. Because they won't be a state much longer with that. You can't run a democracy with that kind of mickey mouse shit going on. Let alone run a government.



bingo. i mean you know that the reason the state's government and budget are broken is due to the proposition process right? it's fucking absurd. this is just one in a long line of Ls taken by the california amendment proecss.
Post Tue May 26, 2009 3:03 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19373
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

Cali has like what...2 months before it goes bankrupt and probably ceases to function as a state?

In New California there will be gay marriages for everyone!!
Post Tue May 26, 2009 3:05 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Embryo



Joined: 31 Dec 2002
Posts: 6359
Location: http://www.myspace.com/pogopark
 Reply with quote  

futuristxen wrote:
Cali has like what...2 months before it goes bankrupt and probably ceases to function as a state?

In New California there will be gay marriages for everyone!!


hahaha word.
Post Tue May 26, 2009 3:09 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
the mean
Certified O.G.


Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 6497
Location: philly/sacto/kauai/ohio
 Reply with quote  

Embryo wrote:
the more gay marriage exists, the less people stress about it.

Embryo wrote:
displays of oppression of a minority at the hands of a majority such as in Prop 8's passing is actually good for the gay rights movement as it turns sympathy in our direction.

So more gay marriage = good for gay people. And more oppression = good for gay people. Looks like you have all the bases covered.

Sullivan is fitting his sexuality into his conservative framework, and you are buying it hook, line and sinker.
Post Tue May 26, 2009 3:09 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Embryo



Joined: 31 Dec 2002
Posts: 6359
Location: http://www.myspace.com/pogopark
 Reply with quote  

dude you don't have any basis for making assertions like that and it's really disrespectful and useless. can we have a rational discussion here? why are you always so quick for the jugular? is it just about trying to reduce intractable points of philosophical disagreement to something you can compartmentalize?

sullivan has been an effective advocate for gay rights for many, many years. you can't expect me to take you seriously when you box him into his stated worldview and make vast, unverifiable claims about his motives and internal thought processes.

there's a right way to do things and -- well, in this case, a less-right way. even when the thing you're trying to do is fundamentally good.

and yes, gay marriage is good in some ways for gay marriage and no gay marriage is good in other ways. does this break your brain or can you admit that is a pointless line of thinking?
Post Tue May 26, 2009 3:13 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Jared Paul



Joined: 15 Jul 2002
Posts: 3720
Location: www.PrayersForAtheists.org
 Reply with quote  

RI FOLKS:
Emergency Prop 8 protest tonight in Providence

RI Supreme Court
250 Benefit Street
(South Main Street entrance)
Providence
Tonight- May 26th, 2008
7pm

*I'll be there with members of the RI Mobilization Committee. Come if you can. Bring a friend.
Post Tue May 26, 2009 3:18 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Captiv8



Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8547
Location: Third Coast
 Reply with quote  

This is just a temporary setback. The important thing is that the issue is actually up for legislative debate, which is a far cry from where this issue was ten years ago. I'd like progress to move a little faster, but California will get there, as will the other states, as Iowa and New Hampshire have already set that ball in motion. Boo for now.
Post Tue May 26, 2009 3:35 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
the mean
Certified O.G.


Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 6497
Location: philly/sacto/kauai/ohio
 Reply with quote  

Embryo, we fundamentally disagree on this issue, and have for years. There has not been a huge backlash to recent court decisions, regardless of how hard you try to paint it as being so.

I support full marriage rights for gay people however we can get them.
Post Tue May 26, 2009 3:40 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Embryo



Joined: 31 Dec 2002
Posts: 6359
Location: http://www.myspace.com/pogopark
 Reply with quote  

the mean wrote:
Embryo, we fundamentally disagree on this issue, and have for years. There has not been a huge backlash to recent court decisions, regardless of how hard you try to paint it as being so.


Hmm. I don't remember discussing this particular aspect of this issue before. What is your basis for saying this?

Secondly, if you don't think there was a backlash against the MA ruling, or if you don't think it's at all instructive, you are just plain trippin', Mr. Mean.


Quote:

I support full marriage rights for gay people however we can get them.


word. I do too. But I also think there's a silver lining here.
Post Tue May 26, 2009 3:44 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Sat Nov 22, 2014 3:42 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon