Topic: Amurica!
http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/a-30 … fects-you/
Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Amurica!
http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/a-30 … fects-you/
"This decision does not affect you in any way."
If China and India nuke each other it doesn't affect me in any way either.
Its a non argument.
"In my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be, between a man and a woman," she said to boos and applause at the pageant on April 19, 2009.
Celebrity blogger Hilton did take offense and went on the attack, calling Prejean a "dumb b----." He later apologized, offering to take Prejean out for coffee and a "talk."
"I was floored," Hilton told ABCNews.com the day after the pageant. "I haven't said this before, but to her credit, I applaud her for her honesty. However, she is not a politician, she's a hopeful Miss USA. Miss USA should represent everyone. Her answer alienated millions of gay and lesbian Americans, their families and their supporters."
Prejean was chosen runner-up, while Miss North Carolina, Kristen Dalton, took the title.
"She lost it because of that question. She was definitely the frontrunner before that," Hilton said.
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/car … cya6zvWaSo
WASHINGTON -- A leading opponent of the effort to legalize same-sex marriage in Maryland used a high-profile congressional hearing Tuesday to allege that the Internal Revenue Service leaked a list of its donors to an adversarial group just as it was mounting a campaign to put gay marriage on the ballot.
John C. Eastman, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, told the House Ways and Means Committee that the disclosure of its tax records last year may have chilled potential donors. He called on lawmakers to investigate how the documents became public.
"You can imagine our shock and disgust over this," said Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University in California. "We jealously guard our donors as almost every other nonprofit does, particularly on the issues that we deal with, which are so contentious."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/0 … 88357.html
SACRAMENTO — The artistic director of the California Musical Theater, a major nonprofit producing company here in the state’s capital, resigned on Wednesday in the face of growing outrage over his support for a ballot measure this month that outlawed same-sex marriage in California.
The Sacramento Bee
Scott Eckern.
Related
Mormon Church Draws Protest Over Marriage Act (November 9, 2008)Bans in 3 States on Gay Marriage (November 6, 2008)
(November 6, 2008)
The artistic director, Scott Eckern, came under fire recently after it became known that he contributed $1,000 to support Proposition 8, which amended the state Constitution to recognize only male-female marriages. The measure was approved by 52 percent of California voters on Election Day. (Same-sex marriages had been performed in California since June.)
In a statement issued on Wednesday morning, Mr. Eckern said that his donation stemmed from his religious beliefs — he is a Mormon — and that he was “deeply saddened that my personal beliefs and convictions have offended others.”
His donation was brought to light by online activists angry about the measure’s success at the polls.
“I understand that my choice of supporting Proposition 8 has been the cause of many hurt feelings, maybe even betrayal,” Mr. Eckern said. “It was not my intent. I honestly had no idea that this would be the reaction.”
But the swift resignation was not met with cheers by those on either side.
Marc Shaiman, the Tony Award-winning composer (“Hairspray”), called Mr. Eckern last week and said that he would not let his work be performed in the theater. “I was uncomfortable with money made off my work being used to put discrimination in the Constitution,” Mr. Shaiman said. He added, however, that the entire episode left him “deeply troubled” because of the potential for backlash against gays who protested Mr. Eckern’s donation.
“It will not help our cause because we will be branded exactly as what we were trying to fight,” said Mr. Shaiman, who is gay. “But I do believe there comes a time when you cannot sit back and accept what I think is the most dangerous form of bigotry.”
Supporters of the marriage ban said that critics of Mr. Eckern were attacking freedom of expression, and they chastised the theater’s board for subjecting Mr. Eckern to a political litmus test.
“No matter your opinion on Prop. 8, we should all agree that it is wrong to intimidate or harass anyone for exercising their constitutional rights,” said a letter to the theater’s board president on Tuesday by Frank Schubert, campaign manager for Protect Marriage, the leading group behind the ballot measure.
For its part, the theater disavowed Mr. Eckern’s donation and issued only a brief statement on Wednesday accepting his resignation, while emphasizing that it would not “impinge on the rights of its employees to engage in political activities.” A longtime employee, Mr. Eckern had been artistic director since 2002.
The outrage over Mr. Eckern and the subsequent dismay voiced by Mr. Shaiman are the most recent evidence of the tension running through the entertainment industry since Election Day, particularly in California.
http://theater.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/t … .html?_r=0
Oh sure it will not affect you. As long as you have the right attitude.
No, gay marriage does affect me. By expanding the franchise, it entrenches women and their sex cartel (marriage) even further. Instead, marriage ought to be abolished, and people who have weddings should be arrested for prostitution.
the federal court in Perry v Schwarzenegger said gays have the right to the cultural oomph of marriage.
Dumping marriage so everybody is equally unmarried is bigotry against gays! they want the white dress and sunshine!
I don't care what the supreme court says. It's no longer a legitimate institution.
In fact, our entire government is no longer legitimate. They are no different from pirates and mobsters. My only "loyalty" is to do the minimum to keep that mafia off my back.
that's it
you're through in musical theater!
Ahhhhh crud...pushed the wrong button.... oyvay....tried doing a quote, hit report instead.
DISREGARD!
I'm so embarresed.
http://www.explosm.net/comics/3217/
I liked that argument the first time I heard it
when people said we were nuts and decriminalizing sodomy had nothing to do with gay marriage.
Read the gay marriage decisions. Your dislike of goat banging is based on a narrow religious tradition which cannot be the basis for law in a diverse secular society. There is no valid public goal served by arbitrarily banning goat banging. Therefore laws against it must be void regardless of what the majority think. The fact that a majority refuse to legalize goat marriage is proof of the unfairness of the burden suffered by the goat marriers.
As Scalia said in 2003:
One of the benefits of leaving regulation of this matter to the people rather than to the courts is that the people, unlike judges, need not carry things to their logical conclusion. The people may feel that their disapprobation of homosexual conduct is strong enough to disallow homosexual marriage, but not strong enough to criminalize private homosexual acts--and may legislate accordingly. The Court today pretends that it possesses a similar freedom of action, so that that we need not fear judicial imposition of homosexual marriage, as has recently occurred in Canada (in a decision that the Canadian Government has chosen not to appeal). See Halpern v. Toronto, 2003 WL 34950 (Ontario Ct. App.); Cohen, Dozens in Canada Follow Gay Couple's Lead, Washington Post, June 12, 2003, p. A25. At the end of its opinion--after having laid waste the foundations of our rational-basis jurisprudence--the Court says that the present case "does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter." Ante, at 17. Do not believe it. More illuminating than this bald, unreasoned disclaimer is the progression of thought displayed by an earlier passage in the Court's opinion, which notes the constitutional protections afforded to "personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education," and then declares that "[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do." Ante, at 13 (emphasis added). Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), "[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring," ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution," ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case "does not involve" the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. Many will hope that, as the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g … 2#dissent1
Views which among the Left were ridiculed. I don't (and won't) subscribe to the Nation to get their article, here's one from Yale:
The ruling and the opinion are remarkable, but it is Justice Antonin Scalia's biting, sarcastic dissent that has drawn keen attention. Even for an impassioned disagreement, his tone seems to breach the bounds of decorum.
...In the Lawrence case, Scalia fearlessly dishes out anger and accusation while making some scary predictions. Writing for himself, and for Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas, Scalia charges that the majority "has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda" and "taken sides in the culture war." The ruling, he warns, entails "a massive disruption of the current social order." It effectively calls for "the end of all morals legislation" against "bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity," he writes.
...In addition to being condescending and sometimes mean, Scalia's Lawrence dissent is unmistakably antagonistic. It's written with contempt for what Scalia views as the logical contradictions and legal fallacies of the Kennedy opinion. It's hard not to see it as personal: Kennedy, the object of his scorn in the Texas case, was also a co-author -- with Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and David Souter -- of the Casey opinion.
...Scalia is considered an intellectual leader of the court he has served on since 1986, but his stance as a dissenter seems anti-institutional and self-defeating. How could he persuade Kennedy or other justices to adopt his point of view in a subsequent case? With judicial temperament a bipartisan standard for judging judges, how could he burst into tantrums so injudiciously? And what about the impact on the Supreme Court: Don't his dissents undermine its authority? Isn't it time for him to bite his tongue?
http://www.law.yale.edu/news/4615.htm
These judges on the Supreme Court insist they can overturn a law that has "no valid purpose". The fact that a solid majority have, and always have had throughout US history, is not only no defense of the law, it is evidence of the pernicious malice behind the law.
You imagine goat marriage is bad and ridiculous.
You have no authority to say so.
I don't know most goat marrying, goat banging falls under bestiality. With the current laws stipulating marriage between man and woman, man and man, then woman and woman, doesn't say anything about Man and Beast, Woman and beast, or beast and beast, or even two beasts not of the same species, other than those of the human species.
Knowing that most goats will kick, seems kinda inherently dangerous to go around trying to screw an animal that's more than likely gonna bust your balls.
But I suppose if you don't wish to have your balls busted by a man or a woman, but by a beast insead, knock yourself out.
Good luck finding a justice of the peace, catholic, protestant, rabi, indi, or high cleric, to marry you and an animal. Although there was a peruvian incident where a man married a llama....
goat marriage?
...dont pull ideas like that
you'll regret!
if goats marrie eazh other, where will do Arby get sex??
I don't know most goat marrying, goat banging falls under bestiality. With the current laws stipulating marriage between man and woman, man and man, then woman and woman, doesn't say anything about Man and Beast, Woman and beast, or beast and beast, or even two beasts not of the same species, other than those of the human species.
Those yahoos on the Court have said:
Gay marriage is against the law
gay marriage is against the law for reasons related to religious values
Not everybody has to share religious values
therefore not everybody has to agree with the law
but most people share those values
so it is really religious oppression to outlaw gay marriage
judges can see through that
judges should be able to overturn laws against gay marriage.
With that logic there's no foundation to deny bestiality or polygamy.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Amurica!
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.