I believe the court says otherwise that Prop 8 was in violation of the Constitution. All Americans must receive ‘equal protection of the laws'. Our Constitution is not defined by your personal bias. Please go back to defending British Petroleum.
Yep, it will take two years for the appeal to make it to the US Supreme Court. DOMA is still in effect. Big name politicians still haven't come out in favor of same-sex marriage. Gay marriage is legal in only 6 states; Connecticut, DC, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont. Same-sex marriage is recognized in California, New York, Maryland, and Rhode Island. And gay marriage is legal in our neighboring country to the north. There are so many political agendas right now that same-sex marriage is on the back burner. Long time until... .
... so straight people (a group) marrying is unconstitutional too? Jewish or Christian people too? black, hispanic, asian? Marriage of redheads (a group) or short people (a group) are unconstitutional?
I'll be interested in Scalia's argument when it gets to that stage. To what extent will he distinguish the constitutional issue from his jesuitical education and his fervent religious beliefs? Of course I'm assuming that he'll argue against same-sex marriages, but I'd be happy to be surprised.
Today the court decided that our Constitution does not recognize groups (men or women) but all citizens equal protection under the law. (of which you agree). No matter how you might interpret the US Constitution, the court ruling does not specify qualifications to be a Citizen as being a member of a specific sexuality, religion or group. Unless of course your's is the final word on who is a United States Ciitizen .... which excludes gay and lesbians.
RM has read some of the language of the decision. It's a real stunner, folks. It finds as a matter of fact, not of law, many many things that are to me self-evident but that form the basis for denying the rights of gays and lesbians.
From p. 72: Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual. Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person’s identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group. Proponents’ assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence.
From p. 74: Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation.
From p. 76: California has no interest in asking gays and lesbians to change their sexual orientation or in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in California.
From p. 77: Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is same- sex or opposite-sex.
From p. 80: Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.
From p. 83: Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages.
From p. 84: The children of same-sex couples benefit when their parents can marry.
From p. 93: Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment. Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents.
From p. 95: The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.
From p. 98: Well-known stereotypes about gay men and lesbians include a belief that gays and lesbians are affluent, self-absorbed and incapable of forming long-term intimate relationships. Other stereotypes imagine gay men and lesbians as disease vectors or as child molesters who recruit young children into homosexuality. No evidence supports these stereotypes.
From p. 101: Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.
From p. 108: The campaign to pass Proposition 8 relied on stereotypes to show that same-sex relationships are inferior to opposite-sex relationships.
And these are all in the section of the decision that defines facts.
I think Scalia will do what he always does: he'll start by thinking about what a real a-hole in a position of power would do, then he somehow finds that the a formalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution totally mandates that he be an a-hole. Then he goes on a hunting trip with lobbyists.
No I don't find that reasoning very cogent. It proceeds on the false assumption that same-sex persons are barred from marriage when in fact no such inquiry is made. It fails to recognise the ways in which same-sex attraction is unnatural and potentially deleterious, and should therefor be discouraged, and is so wide in its ambit as to legitimise other forms of union for which there's little or no appetite. In effect, that way of thinking is like saying that the exclusion of same-sex pairings from the Wimbledon mixed doubles discriminates against gays and lesbians since they can't enter the competition as a team. In fact, Wimbledon doesn't inquire into a person's sexuality - it simply says that pairings must be of the opposite sex. Somehow I don't think the Lawn Tennis Association is about to change its rules on account of the kind of 'reasoning' coming out of your courts so that the term 'mixed doubles' is all of a sudden given to mean that any team can enter.
Basically it comes down to "you can't discrimninate against an individual based on his/her sexual preference" . . goes along with race, ethnicity, sex, nationality, etc.
I don't know why they don't treat it in 2 fashions: 1. legal - civil unions - legal contracts and declarations 2. religious - marriage.
all gays want is #1 ! They're tired of being penalized (legally) because the don't conform to the traditional definition of "marriage".
It's not that hard to see the inequality under the law - except for religious pinheads who are biased.
I'm right with you on this - government should not be involved in marriage (religious), only in legally upheld contracts.
Though as far as I am aware, aside the word marriage and an officially recognised ceremony, California law supports almost everything else - partner health coverage, visitation in hospital, etc. In fact in the case of hospital visitation/decisions I believe that a person should be able to nominate anybody as their proxy. Heck my family (aside from wifey) live over 4000miles away, it's totally impractical for a hospital to consult my nearest relative if both my wife and I are incapacitated.
I do wonder how this ruling stands as a precident. The last time CA voted to outlaw gay marriage, it was only a law that a judge overturned. This time it's part of the CA constitution - does that set a precident that a judge may overturn any part of a state constitution as "unconstitutional"??
Basically it comes down to "you can't discrimninate against an individual based on his/her sexual preference"
The claim that there's discrimination over marriage is false. I've given examples of homosexuals who got married without trying to change its meaning and could give others. By the same token the analogy made with race is also false as with other forms of real discrimination.
all gays want is #1 ! They're tired of being penalized (legally) because the don't conform to the traditional definition of "marriage"
Tax discrimination in favour of marriage is intentional. Those who think the policy is wrong should campaign for equal treatment of taxpayers rather than try to change the definition of marriage.
It's not that hard to see the inequality under the law - except for religious pinheads who are biased.
No I can't see it - but I agree that religious pinheads harm the case for the preservation of marriage rather than assist it.
1. If the state doesn't recognize the legal union, it's useless. That's the problem - most states don't recognize same sex unions legally. They see them as 2 individuals, not a legal partnership.
2. It's NOT just taxation- it's things like inheritance, it's legal issues like power of attorney, medical issues like being able to be considered "family" if someone is critically injured or hospitalized, there are tons of legal issues besides taxation. Different sex couples have them - same sex couples don't. Why? boils down to the individuals characteristics, and the way laws are tailored around religious beliefs.
1. If the state doesn't recognize the legal union, it's useless.
It's supposed to be useless i.e. for anyone falling outside the rules.
most states don't recognize same sex unions legally. They see them as 2 individuals, not a tlegal partnership.
That's because they are two individuals. Marriage doesn't mean "any union" but the union of one man and one woman. Like the tennis "mixed doubles": teams are made up of two individuals of the opposite sex. Presumably you would scrap any such competition on grounds that it discriminates against gay partners?
It's NOT just taxation- it's things like inheritance, it's legal issues like power of attorney, medical issues like being able to be considered "family" if someone is critically injured or hospitalized, there are tons of legal issues besides taxation.
Agreed - I was using taxation as a metaphor for all examples of unequal treatment.
Different sex couples have them - same sex couples don't. Why?
Essentially because homosexuality is an affliction affecting a small minority of persons rather than an equal and alternative sexuality. Instead of patronising those affected with the pretence that their proclivity is as natural as the wind and rain it's necessary to speak the truth so that legislators can turn their attention to what really counts - equality of all persons as individuals. Changing the meaning of marriage would equalise rights for gays but not for other singles so it would itself be discriminatory.
boils down to the individuals characteristics, and the way laws are tailored around religious beliefs.
No I don't agree with that... unnatural unions should be discouraged because they're potentially harmful - if religious persons happen to make that case on other grounds they're simply arriving at the right result for the wrong reasons.
Homophobe? You mean like President Obama? You have zero credibility on the homophobia front, mate, whether you changed your mind or not... and I would remind you that your own twisted and disgusting homophobia is up, hand-crafted, mounted and polished on the forum for all to see - unfortunately for you.
I was experiencing a little numbness in my legs. The doc said I needed to use them a little more rigorously. "Ass kicking", he said, "would be a suitable measure. Know any asses worth kicking?"
"Matter of fact, I do." says I.
So, Slick. I'm baaaaaaaaaaack! Better put a piece of plywood in the back of your BVDs, because your latest, undeniable (except for you) display of blatant, malicious, bigoted homophobia is a good place to start.
You've consistently shown your chops as an open, practicing homophobe, and this thread may have set an all time record for you. Oh yes, and you really need to get your head screwed on straight (after you've pulled it out of your butt, that is). I can't be a homophobe and a heterophobe at the same time. Make up your mind. And come out of the closet.
See? Be careful what you ask for. This "diehard" has come out of "exile" to remind you that this forum is not your private toilet wherein you can crap on anything that doesn't jive with your sanctimonious, sphincter-activated world view without having it rammed right back down your elongated throat.
"Essentially because homosexuality is an affliction affecting a small minority of persons rather than an equal and alternative sexuality."
Left-handedness used to have a very similar description. Heck the percentage of people "afflicted" by it is even around the same number. And it was discriminated against. There are still a number of arguments that could be made for suppressing left-handedness. It still is suppressed in some places. I have little doubt you would have been among those who argued against it and punished accordingly. Unless of course you were left-handed, then you might see their side of things.
Yeah left-handedness was mischaracterised as an affliction because the left hand is just as useful as the right... no afflictions are more to do with deviations from the norm incurring disbenefits, like allergies, epilepsy, stammering, haemophilia, homosexuality... things like that.
There is literature on the disbenefits (is this a word? anyway it's meaning is clear enough I guess) of left-handedness. And even the predominant theory of how left-handedness develops sounds like an affliction:
"Exposure to higher rates of testosterone before birth can lead to a left-handed child. This is the Geschwind theory, named after the neurologist who proposed it, Norman Geschwind. It suggests that variations in levels of testosterone during pregnancy shape the development of the fetal brain. Testosterone suppresses the growth of the left cerebral hemisphere and so more neurons migrate to the right hemisphere. The highly developed right hemisphere is now better suited to function as the center of language and handedness. The fetus is more likely to become left-handed, since the right hemisphere controls the left half of the body. The theory goes on to tie the exposure to higher levels of testosterone and the resultant right-hemisphere dominance to auto-immune disorders, learning disorders, dyslexia, and stuttering, as well as increased spatial ability."
"There isn't one... heterosexuality is the one and only norm."
You seem to disagree with the label homophobe. How about this one?
Russian sexologist M.Beilkin proposes to use the term "homonegativity" only for intellectual disapproval of homosexuality, leaving the term "homophobia" for description of emotions and feelings towards homosexuality, such as fear, hatred, aversion.
No that's misleading because it implies a role for value judgments where none exists. Do I disapprove of stammerers? No. As a matter of fact Michael Palin is a well-known inveterate stammerer and I respect him very much.
I just saw an interview with Michael Palin a few months ago. He was never a stammerer except when he played one. He got his particular stammering proficiency b/c his father had a bad stammer, and he emulated that. I respect him as well, and I would even if he actually had a stammer.
A. Or maybe you meant that Palin only acts like a stammerer just as homosexuals are only acting. B. Or maybe Palin's father was also named Michael. C. Or maybe you are just misinformed.
Your attempts to transfer your obvious flaws onto others is hilarious. Oh how I've missed your comedic endeavors. And which of my beliefs change from one day to the next, pray-tell? I'm pretty consistent in my belief that you're a bigot and a homophobe. Something that's gained a fair amount of traction hereabouts as a matter of fact, Mr. Affliction.
Saw that guy first in American Beauty and was struck by his talent, and I have been impressed with everything else I have seen him in. I remember Kevin Spacey saying that his own performance was boosted after he experienced Cooper's acting talent in "the hug" scene in the garage, because he saw that he had to step up and really try for a knockout performance to compete with Cooper's.
edit: I remember that I watched that movie again after a few years and realized that Cooper's wife in that movie, that living Norman Bates' mother on the couch, went on to become CJ from West Wing!
Cooper is, as far as I'm concerned, one of contemporary America's finest actors. He takes even bit roles and makes 'em huge. Very versatile and something of an "everyman." Because he doesn't have leading man looks it actually frees him up to do all sorts of things. Really enjoyed him in Peter Berg's explosive "The Kingdom." Great casting in that flick in general.
And yeah, Allison Janney rocks, too. Great comic timing with that one. Solid instincts.
For example, President Obama is homophobic, then all of a sudden he's not... BP badly need a pump at Deepwater Horizon, then they don't... even whether to face the music here at the forum - one day you're here, next day you run away, then you come back again, then you run away again... then you come back - holy smoke, can't you see how cotton-pickin' indecisive you are?
Nah, let's talk more about Chris Cooper. Last thing I saw him in was Adaptation with Cage and Streep. He blew me away again with the character he played. It was also the first movie I have liked Cage in in a while. Looked it up, it's from 2002! Man, I can get out of date over here.
Hoffman - agreed definitely. Let's go back further - Gene Hackman - not bad looking but no looker, but definitely a great actor. And even further back, Karl Malden - he blew me away in Streetcar Named Desire - though all the other beautiful people in it did also. The list for actors who have really gotten a lot of recognition is too short though. It really does help to be talented AND beautiful.
I guess you are more perfect than Jesus.Never wrong...
Jesus? As a relative newbie you won't recall the thread in which I said that Blair was at fault over Iraq only for DLC to point out that if he was mad he couldn't have been at fault... so no, it's not correct to say I've never been wrong.
Yeah, I never found Paxton so "taking" but Big Love kind of put me over the edge. I only saw Aliens once, yonks ago, but his performance in A Simple Plan has stayed with me, as was Billy Bob's, another great actor who is no looker.
Billy Bob as a person is one strange creature but his acting chops are certainly golden. His debut role in Sling blade stands the test of time, and yeah - his similar role in A Simple Plan was also well delivered. Even lighter fare like Pushing Tin works.
Check out Aliens again, all the same... his lines are the best. The best! Total pop culture at its finest.
Had to look up how old Russell is, he was born in 1951. Also had to click the link to Escape from New York, the first movie I remember seeing him in (he will always be "Snake" to me). That movie (released 1981) is supposed to have taken place in 1997. New York has yet to become a walled off cesspool full of people who never get back out again - has it? (:
No doubt, there are plenty of guys with chops but not the classic 'leading man' looks. Although I've long thought Hollywood tends to be lamentably conservative about their definitions of beauty anyway - both male and female.
Agreed that Depp has it all - a strong mix of looks, chops, and a refreshing ability to not be a public buffoon in his private life.
That might well be true. For whatever reason, he is a very private man outside of the film world. Not unlike Paul Newman, or a handful of actors who just don't need to feed the Hollywood beast - nor their egos.
Indeed, I would call Depp a textbook introvert. Yep Bogart is another great of course. I only knew Casablanca and the hard-boiled detective stuff (not that they aren't great) until I saw him in African Queen. He could do plain and sensitive too.
newman ~ excellent example of a pretty boy + supremely talented actor [without malice] ++ supremely respectable private life +++ killer taste in women. only bogie and bacall can compare tp newman and woodward, and both ladies have all the +++'s of their husbands.
@lan ~ k russell lite and entertaining ~ captn ron or overboard. russell on my crush list ~ tombstone, also the thing. he and goldie belong on that +++ list, too.
Kurt Russell also is not afraid to tackle cheesy roles, which makes me admire him all the more - playing Snake Plissken or his character in Big Trouble In Little China... it's kitschy stuff but he runs with it.
“There is no discrimination, Gays can marry anyone they choose… of the opposite sex.”
This assertion uses the same illogical “separate but equal” rationale that was used to justify racial bias and miscegenation laws. The argument prior to Loving vs. Virginia was that there was no discrimination in applying miscegenation laws as the whites and blacks were equally punished under those laws. The Supreme Court dismissed this idea that an immutable characteristic of an individual, the color of one’s skin, could be used as a legitimate state interest in discrimination. Similarly, to limit an individual’s marital choice based on an immutable characteristic of that individual’s being, where the state has no rational basis to discriminate against that characteristic is unconstitutional.
Still trying to make the analogy? It falls down I'm afraid... unlike men and women who are different blacks and whites are the same. In the US when you had those crazy racial restrictions people demanded the same rights everyone else enjoyed in the great big wide world to marry a bride or groom of their choosing within existing customs and the prevailing meaning of the word. Those old rules depended on ascertaining a person's race and then applying the discrimination. By contrast since there's never been any inquiry into a person's sexuality it can't put forward as a basis of discrimination. That's right, gays and lesbians aren't complaining that they're not allowed to marry because they are - they're complaining that they can't change the meaning of the word. Same sex 'marriage' however would be like same sex "mixed doubles' at Wimbledon - utterly preposterous.
Sorry, for the word salad interruption above. Anyway..
Big Trouble in Little China seemed to be in almost continuous loop on HBO at one point several years (decades?) ago. It looked interesting, but I don't think I ever got thru the whole thing.
The guy who played Lo Pan in that movie, James Hong must be the "go to" Chinese (or on occasion Japanese) guy for American movies. It is a little sad that there are so few Asian actors or so few roles for them in the US that it always has to come out like this. And the roles they are given tend to be so limited. James Hong was born in Minneapolis! I wonder if he really speaks like he does or if it is an affectation he is expected to have in his movies. I can't help but think of "The Hangover" when I think of depictions that bother me. Writers are sitting around thinking, we need one thing to make the show just that much funnier. I know, let's have a completely naked Chinese man jump out of the back of a car and jump around making stereotypical kung fu sounds...