Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest seicer

Gay / Transgender Rights

Recommended Posts

Here is a poll from CNN that includes gay marriage.

 

Breakouts are interesting...the overwhelming support (60%!) in the West for this.  And there is more suburban (57%) support than urban (53%).

 

The South is the only region that opposes it.  And my guess about the urban numbers is that they are related to African-American Christianity which tends to overwhelmingly oppose homosexuality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a poll from CNN that includes gay marriage.

 

Breakouts are interesting...the overwhelming support (60%!) in the West for this.  And there is more suburban (57%) support than urban (53%).

 

The most illuminating thing in that poll to me is that Tea Party supporters are much more likely to oppose legalizing marijuana than people who are neutral or opposed to the Tea Party. As clear an indication as I've seen that TPers are "statists".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I read this really insightful argument a few minutes ago, and I think I am starting to evolve on this whole marriage issue.

 

http://m.cincinnati.com/letters/article?a=43918&f=886

 

Wonder why this argument hasn't come up before. It's certainly quite persuasive, no?

 

Edit: Working link:

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/letters/2012/05/21/an-argument-against-gay-marriage/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There would be more than just a nice beach after they were gone......  You could surely count on some fabulously decorated cabanas as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now only if there was someone that supported gay marriage who had the power to do something about it.

 

Oh, wait...

 

Huh?  Are you suggesting there is "someone" with such power.

 

The only unilateral action I have seen one way or the other is Christie's veto in NJ.

 

Right, I forgot...Obama has no ability to influence policy in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I suppose you're right.  All he has to do is pull a complete 180 and join forces with the wingnuts to condemn homosexuality, declare any homosexual acts as being an utter abomination, and state his intent to fight against any gay rights til the goodeth Lordeth returneth.  Then, 95% of the most ardent gay marriage opponents will be forced to reevaluate their position.  After all, I suspect they would rather stand with the gays (albeit not too close to prevent unwanted arousal) than with Barack HUSSEIN Obama.  It would at least be a worthy social experiment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some interesting results here.  Dramatic shift in support from blacks.  Also, it is noteworthy that support amongst people who know someone who is gay is much stronger than those who don't (or, probably more accurately, *think* they don't)..... and the number of people who do know someone (or at least acknowledge knowing someone) who is gay is rising.

 

 

Strong Support for Gay Marriage Now Exceeds Strong Opposition

 

Strong public support for same-sex marriage exceeds strong opposition by a significant margin for the first time in ABC News/Washington Post polls, and African-Americans have moved more in favor, perhaps taking their lead from Barack Obama on the issue.

 

Overall, 53 percent of Americans say gay marriage should be legal, steady the past year but up from 36 percent in just 2006. Thirty-nine percent "strongly" support it, while 32 percent are strongly opposed - the first time strong sentiment has tilted positive. Six years ago, by contrast, strong views on the issue were negative by a broad 27-point margin.

 

Further, this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, finds that support for gay marriage has reached a new high among African-Americans in ABC/Post polls, up from four in 10 in recent surveys to 59 percent now.

 

Another result shows increasing exposure: Seventy-one percent of Americans now say they have a friend, family member or acquaintance who's gay, up from 59 percent in 1998. People who know someone who's gay are 20 points more likely than others to support gay marriage.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/strong-support-gay-marriage-now-exceeds-strong-opposition-040227742--abc-news-politics.html

 

LINK TO FULL POLL RESULTS - http://news.yahoo.com/strong-support-gay-marriage-now-exceeds-strong-opposition-040227742--abc-news-politics.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting thought. Do the wackos hate gays more than Obama. I'd say it's a toss up

 

 

As a certified card carrying wacko, I would say we hate Obama more.

 

 

As I have said before, Gays are irrelevant to most of us.

 

Tedolph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting thought. Do the wackos hate gays more than Obama. I'd say it's a toss up

 

 

As a certified card carrying wacko, I would say we hate Obama more.

 

 

As I have said before, Gays are irrelevant to most of us.

 

Tedolph

 

As a human being, that is offensive and idiotic!  No person should feel, be made to feel or perceived as they are irrelevant!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From electoral-vote.com:

 

 

Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage Collapses   

 

Joe Biden's announcement that he was OK with same-sex marriage may have pushed President Obama into seconding the motion a bit earlier than he had planned, but it doesn't appear to be hurting him politically. An NBC/WSJ poll shows that 17% of the voters are more likely to vote for Obama as a consequence of his announcement vs. 20% who are more likely to vote for Romney. Furthermore, Obama's announcement is driving public opinion. A new WaPo/ABC News poll shows that 53% of Americans now think same-sex marriage should be legal while only 39% now say it should be illegal. This is the lowest rate of disapproval ever recorded.

 

What is truly amazing is that to a large extent, Bush's Brain, Karl Rove, made the Republican opposition to gay marriage one of the pillars of the 2000 and 2004 campaigns. That was not so long ago and now the Republicans are completely silent on the issue. After Obama gave his interview, no high-profile Republican went on the air to denounce him. The electoral potency of the issue is completely gone, and in a historically short time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes about, Scalia and Thomas' dissent will be an interesting read.  Me thinks the 1st Circuit just walked them right into a trap...

 

Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, federal appeals court rules

 

On Thursday, a federal appeals court in Boston ruled that the government's ban on gay marriage, called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), violates the Constitution and should be struck down.

 

If the Supreme Court hears the case and upholds this ruling, it means that the federal government would most likely have to recognize the marriages of gay couples who were wed and reside in the six states that allow same-sex unions.

 

The First Circuit Court found that the federal government does not have a right to interfere in states' definition of marriage, but stopped short of arguing that gay people have a constitutionally protected right to legal marriage. The First Circuit court is the first federal appeals court to strike down the law, and the case is likely to be taken up by the Supreme Court next year.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/defense-marriage-act-unconstitutional-federal-appeals-court-rules-175257996.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, Thomas is enough of a libertarian that there's a slight chance he might go along with the liberals on this one. Scalia is safely conservative though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering Herr Scalia was, and frankly still is, vehemently opposed to gays being allowed to have sex legally (read his just "brilliant" Lawrence v Texas dissent), then I think it's safe to say he's an braindead sack of $hit who should be recused involuntarily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^Although he....ummmm...... 'creatively' reached his decision, Thomas did indeed dissent in Lawrence v. Texas.  That was a real shocker (sarcasm intended).  I don't see how any legitimate Libertarian could do so under those circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, Thomas is enough of a libertarian that there's a slight chance he might go along with the liberals on this one. Scalia is safely conservative though.

 

I personally adhere to the Thomas dissent in the Lawrence case.

 

Dissent (Thomas)

 

If I were a member of the Texas Legislature I would vote to repeal this law. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources. But I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty is to decide cases agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States. I can find neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a general right of privacy, or as the Court terms it today, the liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With that logic he's fine with states banning contraception and interracial marriages too. The guy is a loon with no respect for common sense, evolving cultures, and Supreme Court decisions pertaining to privacy matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With that logic he's fine with states banning contraception and interracial marriages too. The guy is a loon with no respect for common sense, evolving cultures, and Supreme Court decisions pertaining to privacy matters.

 

Not "fine" with it. The logic behind it is judicial restraint. From a judges standpoint, it doesn't mean that he or she is endorsing a "bad" state law. Only that the proper means of disposing of that bad law is through the legislative process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, Thomas is enough of a libertarian that there's a slight chance he might go along with the liberals on this one. Scalia is safely conservative though.

 

I don't think Thomas is a libertarian at all.  From everything I've read and heard, he's as much of an activist conservative justice as anyone currently on the court.  Just because he famously doesn't ask questions and often takes the role of a follower/nitwit, doesn't mean that he's not dead-red conservative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With that logic he's fine with states banning contraception and interracial marriages too. The guy is a loon with no respect for common sense, evolving cultures, and Supreme Court decisions pertaining to privacy matters.

 

Not "fine" with it. The logic behind it is judicial restraint. From a judges standpoint, it doesn't mean that he or she is endorsing a "bad" state law. Only that the proper means of disposing of that bad law is through the legislative process.

 

The problem is that he and the other conservatives on the bench only use judicial restraint in a manner that preserves conservative ideals.  Reading about the Citizens United vs. FEC case that, with a helping hand from Roberts and Kennedy, went from a limited case about election material in movies to a widespread declaration of corporations' ability to give campaign donations, ignoring numerous precedents along the way, and you'll see that these jokers only use "judicial restraint" when it suits the agenda they're trying to push.  I have little doubt that in cases of gay rights like the one that they'll see next year, they will use and twist the Constitution in whatever manner they can to stifle progress and freedom. 

 

As a side note, maybe we need a Supreme Court thread to discuss cases and outcomes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should clarify that by libertarian I meant that there is a chance that he feels the federal government should mind its own business and stay out of states rights. (I'm aware that libertarian is the wrong word there, but I'm using the word that he has used to describe himself.) With that in mind I think there is a chance that he'll go along with the idea that if MA or VT or whereever says that two men (or women) are married, the federal government should accept the state's definition of marriage and not seek to define what should be (in his opinion) a state issue.

 

As a side note, maybe we need a Supreme Court thread to discuss cases and outcomes?

As long as we're discussing cases dealing with gay rights, why not leave the discussion here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As long as we're discussing cases dealing with gay rights, why not leave the discussion here?

 

Yeah, but I'm just anticipating the need to discuss some of the important looming Supreme Court decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally adhere to the Thomas dissent in the Lawrence case.

 

If you do, then you must also believe it would be costitutional, even if horrible policy, for Texas to ban nonmarital sexual relations?  Or interracial sexual relations?  Or what about a law banning contraceptives?  Or a law requiring contraceptives in all sexual relations, married or not?  If there is no right to privacy, then the government would have much greater reign over our personal choices.  If you are not a strong advocate for the right to privacy, not simply a legislative grant of privacy, then you are not a true libertarian.  (Yes, I know several conservative leaning libertarian groups would disagree with that).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still waiting to find out if Scalia sodomizes his wife. If he feels that states can ban homosexual conduct and contact, then mr privacy-does-not-exist-constititionally should have grown a pair and answer the kid's question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally adhere to the Thomas dissent in the Lawrence case.

 

If you do, then you must also believe it would be costitutional, even if horrible policy, for Texas to ban nonmarital sexual relations?  Or interracial sexual relations?  Or what about a law banning contraceptives?  Or a law requiring contraceptives in all sexual relations, married or not?  If there is no right to privacy, then the government would have much greater reign over our personal choices.  If you are not a strong advocate for the right to privacy, not simply a legislative grant of privacy, then you are not a true libertarian.  (Yes, I know several conservative leaning libertarian groups would disagree with that).

 

The Constitution isn't written in stone. I want all of those privacy rights enumerated in plain english through the amendment process.

 

But, for some reason we like to forget we can do this. Wouldn't you agree that this would be the best result?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally adhere to the Thomas dissent in the Lawrence case.

 

If you do, then you must also believe it would be costitutional, even if horrible policy, for Texas to ban nonmarital sexual relations?  Or interracial sexual relations?  Or what about a law banning contraceptives?  Or a law requiring contraceptives in all sexual relations, married or not?  If there is no right to privacy, then the government would have much greater reign over our personal choices.  If you are not a strong advocate for the right to privacy, not simply a legislative grant of privacy, then you are not a true libertarian.  (Yes, I know several conservative leaning libertarian groups would disagree with that).

 

The Constitution isn't written in stone. I want all of those privacy rights enumerated in plain english through the amendment process.

 

But, for some reason we like to forget we can do this. Wouldn't you agree that this would be the best result?

 

No, I wouldn't.  The constitution is not written in stone and, where I disagree with your line of thought, it wasn't meant to be interpreted in stone.  We can't be forced to amend the constitution each and every time the verbiage chosen hundreds of years ago does not clearly and explicitly address modern situations.  And it's not supposed to be easy to amend (can you imagine trying to get through the ratification process in today's political climate?).  It can't ebb and flow at the whims of the mob.  That allows for the types of abuses we see in our state constitutions.  We might as well just rip it up and go to a pure statutory system if that's what you want, where majority rules all of the time and the minority (at the time) just has to live with it.

 

Your approach would go against hundreds of years of American jurisprudence on the subject of constitutional interpretation.  There is a plethora of rights not explicitly spelled out in the constitution.  The right to vote, the right to travel, the right to privacy, the right to a fair trial, the right to a jury of your peers, the right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty, THE RIGHT TO MARRY, the right to judicial review, the right to have children/procreate.  Show me where the constitution explicitly grants any of those rights.  Does that mean we don't possess these rights in your view?

 

It's the hypocrisy which irks me.  Let's say Massachussetts passes a law which bans heterosexual marriages...... do you honesly think Thomas would submit the same dissent?  Of course not.  He only pulls that crap when it forwards some conservative agenda.  That's not judicial restraint...... it's judicial activism in its worst form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that California anti-gay-marriage constitutinal amenedement  is going to be decided this month?

 

We should be seeing some good opinions from Scalia & Thomas on this, when it happens.  I figure the court will uphold the California referendum so we will get to see how the fit the legal logic to the decision. Could be either one or the other gets to write the majority opinion? 

 

The funnly thing about the gay marriage debate is that public opinion in the polls shows a swing towards acceptance, but the actual votes on the issue go the other way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^That's because most of the public opinion polls lump together people who wholly support gay marriage and those who support 'civil unions' but when it comes to use of the word marriage, their take is "IT'S MINE!!!!!  MINE!!!  YOU CAN'T HAVE IT!!!!  MINE!!!  MINE!!!!  MOMMY!!!!  MOMMY!!!!  HE'S TRYING TO STEAL MY WORD!!!"

 

I believe that when you take out those with Obama's earlier 'evolving' state of mind, then support is not as strong as the polling suggests...... although it is definitely improving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally adhere to the Thomas dissent in the Lawrence case.

 

If you do, then you must also believe it would be constitutional, even if horrible policy, for Texas to ban nonmarital sexual relations?  Or interracial sexual relations?  Or what about a law banning contraceptives?  Or a law requiring contraceptives in all sexual relations, married or not?  If there is no right to privacy, then the government would have much greater reign over our personal choices.  If you are not a strong advocate for the right to privacy, not simply a legislative grant of privacy, then you are not a true libertarian.  (Yes, I know several conservative leaning libertarian groups would disagree with that).

 

The Constitution isn't written in stone. I want all of those privacy rights enumerated in plain english through the amendment process.

 

But, for some reason we like to forget we can do this. Wouldn't you agree that this would be the best result?

 

No, I wouldn't.  The constitution is not written in stone and, where I disagree with your line of thought, it wasn't meant to be interpreted in stone.  We can't be forced to amend the constitution each and every time the verbiage chosen hundreds of years ago does not clearly and explicitly address modern situations.  And it's not supposed to be easy to amend (can you imagine trying to get through the ratification process in today's political climate?).  It can't ebb and flow at the whims of the mob.  That allows for the types of abuses we see in our state constitutions.  We might as well just rip it up and go to a pure statutory system if that's what you want, where majority rules all of the time and the minority (at the time) just has to live with it.

 

Your approach would go against hundreds of years of American jurisprudence on the subject of constitutional interpretation.  There is a plethora of rights not explicitly spelled out in the constitution.  The right to vote, the right to travel, the right to privacy, the right to a fair trial, the right to a jury of your peers, the right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty, THE RIGHT TO MARRY, the right to judicial review, the right to have children/procreate.  Show me where the constitution explicitly grants any of those rights.  Does that mean we don't possess these rights in your view?

 

It's the hypocrisy which irks me.  Let's say Massachussetts passes a law which bans heterosexual marriages...... do you honesly think Thomas would submit the same dissent?  Of course not.  He only pulls that crap when it forwards some conservative agenda.  That's not judicial restraint...... it's judicial activism in its worst form.

 

Hts. I apologize I don't have the time this conversation deserves to go into good detail. But I think the issue is important enough to keep the dialogue going. First, I am not defending Thomas across the board, but rather narrowly in this particular dissent. Second, I don't subscribe to the Constitution being a "living, breathing document." I agree most with the writings of Scalia in principle, yet I acknowledge he is absolutely a hypocrite who, like the other Justices, is wrongly treating the Supreme Court just like a quasi-legislature. Believe me, if it were me on the bench, and I thought my vote could make life easier for millions I would be very tempted to legislate from the bench against my principles; it's human nature. Third I don't believe rights arise out of the Constitution.  Re: your hypothetical, we are always in danger of terrible laws and that is why we need to be vigilant, active. Fourth, if our elected officials don't have the stomach for political controversy, we can vote them out.

 

By the way, I apologize in advance if you're already familiar, but you might be interested in a book by Professor Wilson Huhn. It's a pretty cool reference. You can definitely envision a Justice telling his clerks "here's my decision, now provide support for it."

 

The Five Types of Legal Argument succeeds both as a work of legal theory and as a practical guide to legal reasoning for law students, lawyers and judges. Huhn shows readers how to identify, create, attack, and evaluate the five types of legal arguments (text, intent, precedent, tradition and policy) and how to weave the different types of arguments to get the theoretical and practical themes of the work.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Types-Legal-Argument-Second-Edition/dp/1594605165

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Third I don't believe rights arise out of the Constitution.

 

Please explain (when you have the time) 

 

 

You can definitely envision a Justice telling his clerks "here's my decision, now provide support for it."

 

I have no problem with that.  I had a boss once that was always right for all of the wrong reasons that would give me the same direction.  Drove me nuts.  He always knew what the correct end result was even if he had no idea how to get there...... a weird instinct he had for "the way it should be"  Very, very successful guy in the legal field.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy is a friend of mine.  It's yet another example of why religious institutions should not be exempt when it comes to discrimination. 

 

Teacher claims he didn't get job because he's gay

 

A music teacher said Tuesday that Cincinnati Hills Christian Academy changed its mind about hiring him because he is gay.

 

The case is the latest in a string of local and national conflicts involving religious institutions firing employees based on what they say are religious reasons but what some critics say are discriminatory reasons.

 

Jonathan Zeng, a music teacher and singer who lives in downtown Cincinnati, says Cincinnati Hills, a nondenominational Christian school, offered him a teaching job there Friday after several days of interviews and observing him leading a third-grade class.

 

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120605/NEWS0102/306050100/Teacher-claims-he-didn-t-get-job-because-he-s-gay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy is a friend of mine.  It's yet another example of why religious institutions should not be exempt when it comes to discrimination. 

 

Teacher claims he didn't get job because he's gay

 

A music teacher said Tuesday that Cincinnati Hills Christian Academy changed its mind about hiring him because he is gay.

 

The case is the latest in a string of local and national conflicts involving religious institutions firing employees based on what they say are religious reasons but what some critics say are discriminatory reasons.

 

Jonathan Zeng, a music teacher and singer who lives in downtown Cincinnati, says Cincinnati Hills, a nondenominational Christian school, offered him a teaching job there Friday after several days of interviews and observing him leading a third-grade class.

 

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120605/NEWS0102/306050100/Teacher-claims-he-didn-t-get-job-because-he-s-gay

 

They should not be able to hide behind the First Amendment on issues such as these.  If you operate in the public sphere, you should play by the same rules as everyone else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that he currently teaches part time at a Catholic School

 

Well he is a self proclaimed Christian, so it isn't surprising he wants to continue teaching at religious organizations.  This is what boggles my mind about the religious right sometimes - it is as if no gay people are religious.  Gay people want to praise Jesus just as much as straight people do.  Myself not included, but you get my point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...