[Role Modlin]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

But if you're not irrational or homophobic or engaging in extreme discourse... Then the satire doesn't really apply to you, does it?

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

I responded to you in private, but after re reading I thought I'd post something here after all. Your first post was stereotyping conservatives as being irrational and homophobic. Now you seem to be saying if the satire bothers you, it must apply to you. Or I shouldn't be bothered by the stereotyping of conservatives if the satire doesn't apply to me? I just don't find labeling all who oppose gay marriage as loons who are afraid Obamas going to eat their children to be funny I guess.

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

No, I was satirizing the discourse. Conservative or liberal, pro-gay marriage or not, it's all a McGuffin. I can switch out any name, any issue that doesn't go a person's way, and the joke still works. The Left's response to Bush (or whoever) can be equally visceral and equally reactionary. How many Lefties were running around declaring the End of the Republic when Bush was re-elected to a second term, or when Roberts/Alito were confirmed? Plenty. The target is discourse, not the ideology.



You said that, not me.

All he said was that if you are not participating in the things he mentioned...the satire is not directed towards you.

I think a valid point has been made. Both sides of any debate have those who engage in that sort of silliness. I don't think he was targeting or stereotyping conservatives specifically.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Does there need to be a non-religious thing like what marriage is right now? Likely somewhat. Once we divorce (no pun intended) religious marriage from the legal institution we can reasonably ask what purpose we want the legal institution to serve. From there determining who can and can't and when and why should be much easier.

I think the biggest thing it would accomplish is taking it out of the religious arena altogether. My guess would be that there would be a lot of things that could use some severe tweaking and might highlight the need for medical plans, wills, etc.

[Role Modlin]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I agree that religious marriage should be a purely religious matter.

Does there need to be a non-religious thing like what marriage is right now? Likely somewhat. Once we divorce (no pun intended) religious marriage from the legal institution we can reasonably ask what purpose we want the legal institution to serve. From there determining who can and can't and when and why should be much easier.

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

I think the biggest thing it would accomplish is taking it out of the religious arena altogether. My guess would be that there would be a lot of things that could use some severe tweaking and might highlight the need for medical plans, wills, etc.

Jerry...I agree with you 100%. The legal/civic institution and the religious institution do not have the same source or the same purpose. Why do we insist on forcing them to be the same thing. As a minister...I'd prefer to keep the religious and the civil sides separate. That doesn't mean that Christian/Jewish/Muslim/whatever couples couldn't apply for a civil union and the tax benefits that possibly come from it. Religious bodies would still be able to define religious marriage according to their view of their scriptures and the government would have absolutely no say so in it.

[bravesfan007]

And now it's on hold.

Activists vow to fight on after court puts same-sex marriages on hold - CNN.com

Ultimately, I believe this is going to end up before the Supreme Court.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by bravesfan007

And now it's on hold.

Activists vow to fight on after court puts same-sex marriages on hold - CNN.com

Ultimately, I believe this is going to end up before the Supreme Court.

I wouldn't be surprised if this stay lasted until the final appeal. And depending on how that goes it may be a long time indeed before we see another gay marriage in California. I'm not sure how SCOTUS would rule if it were in front of them at this very moment. Maybe the longer it takes the more it favors the prop 8 detractors.

[Bryan]

Court Rules No Gay Marriages Pending Appeal

"They claimed in papers filed with the 9th Circuit that gay marriages would harm the state's interest in promoting responsible procreation through heterosexual marriage."

they can't procreate! it is not possible for a gay couple to irresponsibly procreate! Never mind the fact that responsible procreation is not a criterion for straight couples to marry.

It's so sad the arguments that the opponents of Gay marriage give in court. The real reason is they think it is immoral, but that is not a valid reason to deny someone equality. They can't get up and court and say "Jesus says it is wrong so we the gov't should let them marry" because it won't stand up. So they come up with weak and bogus arguments that have no credibility.

There is no valid legal reason to deny marriage equality to gay couples. There is no compelling government interest to deny marriage equality to gay couples.

Originally Posted by slap_j

I wouldn't be surprised if this stay lasted until the final appeal. And depending on how that goes it may be a long time indeed before we see another gay marriage in California. I'm not sure how SCOTUS would rule if it were in front of them at this very moment. Maybe the longer it takes the more it favors the prop 8 detractors.

Seeing this in front of SCOTUS scares me. Scalia is a very conservative and influencial judge. I'm worried about that income.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Bryan

Seeing this in front of SCOTUS scares me. Scalia is a very conservative and influencial judge. I'm worried about that income.

Well, it may be the case that an appeal doesn't happen at all. The proper defendant here is the state of California. But they're refusing to appeal. So this group of prop 8 supporters who want to appeal have to prove they have legal standing to do so. If it's seen as a genuine issue it may move forward. If not...