Prop 8 Ruling this morning

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

As for why blacks are soo opposed to same sex marriage?

I honestly wonder if they are just pissed off that the gay rights movement is compared to the civil rights movement.

I'm sure that is icing on the cake but the culture is very anti gay from everything I've ever seen.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

As for why blacks are soo opposed to same sex marriage?

I honestly wonder if they are just pissed off that the gay rights movement is compared to the civil rights movement.

I'm sure that is icing on the cake but the culture is very anti gay from everything I've ever seen.

homophobia is rampant in African-American and Latino culture... however, that said, racism for some reason appears to be a problem in the glbt community (at least here in the Twin Towns)

[D1B]

Wrong T-man.

First off, what happens in Sweden and England is irrelevant to the United States.

And, there will be some over-zealous police/prosecutors - but you will see the ACLU, etc defend their rights to hate speech. I don't condone, nor agree with examples in your first quote (but would like links to research).

And do not use the homophobic (sorry JoltinJoe, but they are) Catholic League as a source - HB 1913 would not do what that bigot espouses.

Don't apologize to that dumbfuck lemming. He is a willing catholic bigot who would slit your throat if the pope told him to do it. If he aint homophobic then he's a hypocrit and a coward. Either way, hold him accountable for the actions of his church.

[Ibanez]

Homophobic- An Irrational Fear of Homosexuals.


Doesn't that word sound inproper? Who has an irrational fear of homosexuals? It's more on a unapproval of thier lifestyle. I know, I know, you say tomato, I say tomahto.

[JoltinJoe]

Wrong T-man.

First off, what happens in Sweden and England is irrelevant to the United States.

And, there will be some over-zealous police/prosecutors - but you will see the ACLU, etc defend their rights to hate speech. I don't condone, nor agree with examples in your first quote (but would like links to research).

And do not use the homophobic (sorry JoltinJoe, but they are) Catholic League as a source - HB 1913 would not do what that bigot espouses.

The Catholic League is a valid concept, but too reactionary and hyperbolic under its current leadership. They need to lighten up and simply call out instances of legitimate acts of intolerance and bigotry against Catholics. Crying wolf all the time, or engaging the political process in ways that have no affect on the expression of the Catholic faith, makes the Catholic League ineffective and the butt for jokes.

[Appaholic]

Wrong T-man.

First off, what happens in Sweden and England is irrelevant to the United States.

And, there will be some over-zealous police/prosecutors - but you will see the ACLU, etc defend their rights to hate speech. I don't condone, nor agree with examples in your first quote (but would like links to research).

And do not use the homophobic (sorry JoltinJoe, but they are) Catholic League as a source - HB 1913 would not do what that bigot espouses.

The Catholic League is a valid concept, but too reactionary and hyperbolic under its current leadership. They need to lighten up and simply call out instances of legitimate acts of intolerance and bigotry against Catholics. Crying wolf all the time, or engaging the political process in ways that have no affect on the expression of the Catholic faith, makes the Catholic League ineffective and the butt for jokes.

Sounds like the NAACP...

[D1B]

Wrong T-man.

First off, what happens in Sweden and England is irrelevant to the United States.

And, there will be some over-zealous police/prosecutors - but you will see the ACLU, etc defend their rights to hate speech. I don't condone, nor agree with examples in your first quote (but would like links to research).

And do not use the homophobic (sorry JoltinJoe, but they are) Catholic League as a source - HB 1913 would not do what that bigot espouses.

The Catholic League is a valid concept, but too reactionary and hyperbolic under its current leadership. They need to lighten up and simply call out instances of legitimate acts of intolerance and bigotry against Catholics. Crying wolf all the time, or engaging the political process in ways that have no affect on the expression of the Catholic faith, makes the Catholic League ineffective and the butt for jokes.

Then do something about it asshole.

[ATrain]

This is truly a sad day in America. Until we can convince people that sexuality is not a choice (as most people apparently believe I woke up one day and said "Oh, I'm going to be attracted to men from now on,"), then I fear we'll lose more battles than we'll win.

Also, the Christian church needs to change. If you look in the Bible, you can make arguments for slavery, racism, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, etc...but if you look at what Jesus said (and this includes NOTHING about homosexuality), then most of those arguments go out the window. I think the church needs to re-examine what it considers as scripture, or the fundamentalists need to get over their hypocrisy.

[Wedgebuster]

This is truly a sad day in America. Until we can convince people that sexuality is not a choice (as most people apparently believe I woke up one day and said "Oh, I'm going to be attracted to men from now on,"), then I fear we'll lose more battles than we'll win.

Also, the Christian church needs to change. If you look in the Bible, you can make arguments for slavery, racism, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, etc...but if you look at what Jesus said (and this includes NOTHING about homosexuality), then most of those arguments go out the window. I think the church needs to re-examine what it considers as scripture, or the fundamentalists need to get over their hypocrisy.

And we should burn at the stake anyone who tries to interject their "religion" into our politics, and laws.

[dbackjon]

T-man - Religion is already a protected class

JoltinJoe - It always is bad when a group gives a larger group a bad name, when radicals hijack it. What connection to the church does it have?

[ATrain]

This is truly a sad day in America. Until we can convince people that sexuality is not a choice (as most people apparently believe I woke up one day and said "Oh, I'm going to be attracted to men from now on,"), then I fear we'll lose more battles than we'll win.

Also, the Christian church needs to change. If you look in the Bible, you can make arguments for slavery, racism, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, etc...but if you look at what Jesus said (and this includes NOTHING about homosexuality), then most of those arguments go out the window. I think the church needs to re-examine what it considers as scripture, or the fundamentalists need to get over their hypocrisy.

And we should burn at the stake anyone who tries to interject their "religion" into our politics, and laws.

Nah, burning them at the stake wouldn't be "pro-life," as I like to call myself

[danefan]

Don't leave out the fucking mormons on this, they footed the bill for Prop 8. Think the next time they come knocking on my door I'll invite 'em in for a damn good ass buggering just to see how fast they retreat.

Maybe they can use that in an appeal to the SCOTUS.... Would the Mormon church funding the Yes On 8 campaign be a violation of seperation of Church and State?

No. The only thing that could be questioned is the the Mormon churche's tax exempt status. The separation of church and state has to do with state sponsored religion, not religion attempting to influence the state.

[Appaholic]

I'm just glad the queers won't be allowed to procreate...............

[Ivytalk]

I haven't studied this issue closely, but I didn't think the U.S. Supreme Court had placed sexual preference into the same group of Constitutionally "protected classes" as race, for example. My recollection is that the Romer Court applied a rational relationship test. Has the law changed since then?

[JoltinJoe]

I haven't studied this issue closely, but I didn't think the U.S. Supreme Court had placed sexual preference into the same group of Constitutionally "protected classes" as race, for example. My recollection is that the Romer Court applied a rational relationship test. Has the law changed since then?

No. To get where they want to get, they will need the court to overrule Romer, and that is doubtful at present.

[danefan]

I haven't studied this issue closely, but I didn't think the U.S. Supreme Court had placed sexual preference into the same group of Constitutionally "protected classes" as race, for example. My recollection is that the Romer Court applied a rational relationship test. Has the law changed since then?

No. To get where they want to get, they will need the court to overrule Romer, and that is doubtful at present.

I'm not so sure it would necessasrily be overruling Romer, would it? I thought Romer was really limited to the special characteristics of the challenged statute. I haven't read the case in a few years, but my recollection is that Kennedy didn't even apply a traditional rational basis test, but instead the variation of rational relationship?

Maybe I'm just misremembering.

The argument has got to be based on O'Connor's concurrence in Lawrence v. Texas. She left open the potential for a law like this to be stricken under the equal protection clause if the state coldn't meet rational basis. Isn't there a potential for that to be the argument - it serves no legitimate state interest?

[wkuhillhound]

Amen. pastor Dback!

If you are a SWM (straight white male) in this country, the deck is stacked in your favor in virtually every way. No wonder why most SWMs feel the way they do about someone that is different than them. They can't help it. It's in their nature. If I get flack for this post, oh well.

Hey Hillhound I just want you to know that I am not offended by you saying "It's in their nature". We all have our little prejudices so you are allowed yours as well. One thing to consider though. The high turnout of the Black male vote is one of the reasons that Prop 8 is the problem it is right now. I just think if we're gonna point fingers then maybe we should point them at all groups involved. Black men are traditionally very anti gay. It's in their nature.

That is strange to me. Glad I have never been exposed to that. Especially since the African-American race should be some of the MOST sympathetic to the cause. It wasn't that long ago since Brown vs. the Board of Education decision by the US Supreme Court. What gives them the right to stoop to such levels is hard to comprehend?

Secondly, thanks for your objectivity. Very few people do that these days.

[wkuhillhound]

As for why blacks are soo opposed to same sex marriage?

I honestly wonder if they are just pissed off that the gay rights movement is compared to the civil rights movement.

I don't think it's as much about the civil rights movement as it is the hip-hop culture's homophobia that is driving this.

[JoltinJoe]

No. To get where they want to get, they will need the court to overrule Romer, and that is doubtful at present.

I'm not so sure it would necessasrily be overruling Romer, would it? I thought Romer was really limited to the special characteristics of the challenged statute. I haven't read the case in a few years, but my recollection is that Kennedy didn't even apply a traditional rational basis test, but instead the variation of rational relationship?

Maybe I'm just misremembering.

The argument has got to be based on O'Connor's concurrence in Lawrence v. Texas. She left open the potential for a law like this to be stricken under the equal protection clause if the state coldn't meet rational basis. Isn't there a potential for that to be the argument - it serves no legitimate state interest?

I don't think you are "misremembering." Only baseball players do that.

In Romer, Kennedy did apply a variation of a rational relationship test. I think what is significant here, however, is that Kennedy declined to hold homosexuals to be a "protected class" or a "discreet and insular minority." In order to get where they want to go, I think Olson and Boies have to get the court to reconsider that determination.

[wideright82]

As for why blacks are soo opposed to same sex marriage?

I honestly wonder if they are just pissed off that the gay rights movement is compared to the civil rights movement.

I don't think it's as much about the civil rights movement as it is the hip-hop culture's homophobia that is driving this.

hip hop.... setting the black man back since pac died.

[danefan]

I'm not so sure it would necessasrily be overruling Romer, would it? I thought Romer was really limited to the special characteristics of the challenged statute. I haven't read the case in a few years, but my recollection is that Kennedy didn't even apply a traditional rational basis test, but instead the variation of rational relationship?

Maybe I'm just misremembering.

The argument has got to be based on O'Connor's concurrence in Lawrence v. Texas. She left open the potential for a law like this to be stricken under the equal protection clause if the state coldn't meet rational basis. Isn't there a potential for that to be the argument - it serves no legitimate state interest?

I don't think you are "misremembering." Only baseball players do that.

In Romer, Kennedy did apply a variation of a rational relationship test. I think what is significant here, however, is that Kennedy declined to hold homosexuals to be a "protected class" or a "discreet and insular minority." In order to get where they want to go, I think Olson and Boies have to get the court to reconsider that determination.

I thought saying I misremembered something worked perfectly there.

[wkuhillhound]

I don't think it's as much about the civil rights movement as it is the hip-hop culture's homophobia that is driving this.

hip hop.... setting the black man back since pac died.

A black man killed him too. Ridiculous.

[JoltinJoe]

I don't think you are "misremembering." Only baseball players do that.

In Romer, Kennedy did apply a variation of a rational relationship test. I think what is significant here, however, is that Kennedy declined to hold homosexuals to be a "protected class" or a "discreet and insular minority." In order to get where they want to go, I think Olson and Boies have to get the court to reconsider that determination.

I thought saying I misremembered something worked perfectly there.

Actually, I misremembered. It seems Kennedy actually largely by-passed the issue of whether to apply strict scrutiny, I'm gathering because it was Bowers that had held that gays were not a protected class. And although that aspect of Bowers has not been overruled, certainly the holding of Bowers has been overruled on privacy grounds.

Still, this Court has not shown any inclination to hold that gays are a protected class. Even in Lawrence, the Court struck down the statute on a rational basis test without making a finding that gays are a protected class. Plainly that is the barrier that Olson and Boies must overcome to prevail here.