NorthSideSox72 Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 QUOTE (YASNY @ Nov 14, 2008 -> 03:00 PM) Stop trying to twist my words. That's exactly what I meant. Forgive me. I've seen an awful lot of generalizations worded this way, about any groups that people disagree with, in here. Its a pet peeve of mine. During the election, I tried to distinguish the difference between candidates and individuals, versus their followers or voters. But society as a whole has a bad habit of applying the behavior of the worst of a group, and applying it to the entire group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 14, 2008 -> 03:05 PM) Forgive me. I've seen an awful lot of generalizations worded this way, about any groups that people disagree with, in here. Its a pet peeve of mine. During the election, I tried to distinguish the difference between candidates and individuals, versus their followers or voters. But society as a whole has a bad habit of applying the behavior of the worst of a group, and applying it to the entire group. No problem. However, I do find it interesting that you focused on the word "they" instead of the word "terrorism". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 QUOTE (YASNY @ Nov 14, 2008 -> 03:18 PM) No problem. However, I do find it interesting that you focused on the word "they" instead of the word "terrorism". That's because I see no lack of clarity there. I agree, that was an act of terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 14, 2008 -> 03:25 PM) That's because I see no lack of clarity there. I agree, that was an act of terrorism. Fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 This type of stuff probably happens more often than you guys hear about, it just doesn't get reported. Kind of like threats to the President (doubly true for Obama) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 They've tried noisy protests, consumer boycotts, and the odd act of minor terrorism. Now supporters of gay marriage have unveiled a new weapon in their war against the Mormon Church: satire. The creators of the cartoon South Park, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, are planning to stage a Broadway musical based on the lives and (many) loves of typical members of the Church of the Latter Day Saints. It will be co-written by the composer Robert Lopez, who wrote Avenue Q, the award-winning musical which sends-up another all-American institution, Sesame Street. Cheyenne Jackson, an openly-gay Broadway star who appeared in the film United 93, said this week that he has agreed to play the lead role, a Mormon missionary, in the show, which is currently being work-shopped and is slated to open in 2009. "It's hilarious: very acerbic and biting," he told the New York Post. "It offends everybody, but does what South Park does best, which is [that] by the end it comes around and has something great to say." Though he didn't reveal details of the plot, or say who else would be starring in the show, Jackson added that it has the working title of Mormon Musical. "I play the main missionary, Elder something," he said. Lucy Harris smart smart smart, smart smart smart smart smart.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted November 20, 2008 Author Share Posted November 20, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 California's Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) confirmed Monday that it will investigate allegations that the LDS Church failed to report nonmonetary contributions to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign. An independent nonprofit organization, Californians Against Hate, called for the investigation after the measure passed earlier this month, effectively ending same-sex marriages in that state. "They read my letter and I guess came to the conclusion that there's something worth looking into," said Fred Karger, who heads Californians Against Hate, which was formed to track donations in support of the ballot initiative. "I'm hopeful that the LDS Church will cooperate and share all the records and all the information they have about their activities in the Proposition 8 campaign." Karger, a retired political consultant, alleged in his complaint that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints failed to report money invested to organize phone banks, send out direct mailers, provide transportation to California, mobilize a speakers bureau, send out satellite simulcasts and develop Web sites as well as numerous commercials and video broadcasts. Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I know I'm bumping up an old thread here, but the Mormon church keeps changing its story. First, they hadn't donated anything. Then, it was a few thousand. Now, its a couple hundred thousand. http://www.fox40.com/pages/landing/?blockI...&feedID=190 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 9th Circuit rejects Prop. 8 San Francisco (CNN) -- California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution, a federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled Tuesday. In a split decision, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the state's Proposition 8 "works a meaningful harm to gays and lesbians" by denying their right to civil marriage in violation of the 14th Amendment. Supporters of same-sex marriages cheered the decision when it was announced outside the courthouse Tuesday morning. This is inevitably being appealed to the SC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clyons Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 01:32 PM) 9th Circuit rejects Prop. 8 This is inevitably being appealed to the SC. Yes, but Jeffrey Toobin isn't so sure it will get heard. Says ruling may be too narrow to intrigue the justices, but I can think of four who would love to get their hands on it. http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/07/toobi...ates/?hpt=hp_t1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 That's a good point, this ruling only applies to California's specific history and implementation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Ilya Somin has a sort of Equal Protection 101 post detailing why SSM bans are sex discrimination and not sexual orientation discrimination: http://volokh.com/2012/02/07/same-sex-marr...discrimination/ Consider the hypothetical case of Anne, Bob, and Colin. If same-sex marriage is forbidden, Anne is allowed to marry Colin, but Bob cannot do so. This is so even if Anne and Bob are identical in every respect other than gender. Bob is denied the legal right to marry Colin (and all other men) solely because of his gender. Denial of a legal right solely on the basis of gender is the very essence of sex discrimination. By contrast, sexual orientation actually has no effect on the way the law operates. Anne is still allowed to marry Colin, even if one of them happens to be gay or lesbian. Bob is denied that right regardless of his sexual preferences. There are actually lots of real world cases where gays or lesbians have entered into opposite-sex marriages, such as the famous example of former New Jersey Governor James McGreevey, a closeted gay man who was married to a woman for many years. McGreevey’s marriage was not illegal, even if his actions were morally dubious. All of this simply underscores the reality that a ban on same-sex marriage discriminates on the basis of gender rather than orientation – even if the motivation for the discrimination is hostility towards gays and lesbians. Under the Supreme Court’s approach to sex discrimination, any “statutory classifications that distinguish between males and females” are subject to heightened judicial scrutiny. A ban on same-sex marriage pretty obviously “distinguish[es] between males and females.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts