"I see no evidence anymore that anyone thinks there should still be hate laws." In the very same post you cite someone who feels black and white people shouldn't date, which most would argue is a very hateful thought. The cognitive dissonance is staggering.
Factually the American south had zero intention of implementing anything the Civil Rights Act of 1965 passed. So I guess we should have just waited a little longer? When is enough to bring a case to the SC or bring legislation to Congress? They waited 100 years! Toytoy even brought up MS never ratified the 14th Amendment until the fucking movie Lincoln came out in 2008. Also, we aren't talking about a person's personal belief system. Nothing that transpired over the past week has anything to do with limiting free speech or expression of those thoughts (legally, internet thought police is another thing). In regards to the flag and to gay marriage, these are so government cannot discriminate. States rights only goes so far. Actively discriminating Americans based on race, sexual orientation, or gender is against the federal law. Flat out. Edit: just so it doesn't look like I'm picking on the south, there were northern states which outlawed interracial marriage. Even my mom remembers that. She's 65.
There isn't any cognitive dissonance at all. I plainly state it's a twisted view, but it doesn't mean those people think black people should be lynched. There are lots of things people are against, but it's when you put force behind it that it becomes truly bad. My point was I live in one of the most backwoods and backward areas of the most backwoods and backward states, and the people here still don't think there should be hate laws. Of course that doesn't mean everyone.
Oh, I didn't take it that way - I'm just acknowledging what appears to be a deeper level of expertise on the topic than I have. If there was a better way to address this, I am willing to listen. I simply agree with the overarching need, which was that, left alone, the states were unwilling to protect a minority group and needed to be strong-armed into it. I'm not sure "separate but equal" is acceptable, though, and the very deep conservative social roots in many states does not provide a lot of hope that there was going to be change. Overall, sure, the country's opinion on gay rights has been shifting, but it's not equality to just shrug and say - "well, if you don't like it, move." If you want to remove the context of atrocities, what about the 19th amendment? Some of the same states that rejected gay marriage were hold-outs against womens' rights and refused to approve the amendment. Hell, Mississippi didn't ratify it until after I was born - a fact that blows my mind. If a bunch of backwards hicks want to stand by their beliefs that certain groups don't deserve the human rights they have, then I have a really hard time wagging my finger at the supreme court for stepping in and relieving them of that decision.
(sorry, was away from the computer for a bit and am catching up on the discussion) As long as laws exist where two married people are treated differently than two unmarried people, there must be equality. Are you/Robbie saying that marriage shouldn't legally exist at all? Sure - call all partnerships a civil union and ignore the word "marriage" altogether. I agree with that, but I suspect you'd get about as much resistance to that as gay marriage - and angry remarks from social conservatives with many of the same remarks as now, as "an attack on traditional families." Other minorities or marginalized groups have had to be protected in this manner. The fact is that these groups are often not able to protect themselves - a minority is, by definition, disadvantaged in a democracy. Either the majority must look out for them, or the lawmakers must do it themselves. What is the alternative? Just let some states stumble through another 50 years of suppressing 5% of the population?
I'm slightly confused by the whole gay marriage thing. Couldn't gay people just go to a justice of the peace and get married in any state, or is that what this Supreme Court ruling just made possible? If that's the case, I don't see what the fuss is all about. The only thing I would find wrong with it is if it forced churches to engage in marrying same sex couples against their beliefs. I would find that just as wrong as preventing people from being legally married on the basis of their gender. I have a great idea. Why don't we all just leave each other the fuck alone?
No, they could not do that before. That's what the ruling made possible: legal marriage. In some states couples could get married, but in others they could not, and some states would not recognize same-sex wedding certificates. Religious marriage and legal marriage have nothing to do with each other - this ruling wasn't about standing in front of a pastor, it was about the ability to be legally married. I agree, there's no reason why any specific church should be forced to perform or not perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. Just like some churches won't marry two people who are not of the same religion.
The shenanigans states pulled with the Full Faith and Credit Clause:, from Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause Spoiler: Spoiled For Length The Full Faith and Credit Clause has been applied to orders of protection, for which the clause was invoked by the Violence Against Women Act, and child support, for which the enforcement of the clause was spelled out in the Federal Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act (28 U.S.C. ยง 1738B). Until the Supreme Court struck down all laws banning interracial marriage in 1967, a number of states banned interracial marriage and did not recognize marriage certificates issued in other states for interracial couples. The full faith and credit clause was never used to force a state to recognize a marriage it did not wish to recognize.[17] However, the existence of a common-law marriage in a sister state (still available in nine states and the District of Columbia) has been recognized in divorce or dissolution of marriage cases. The clause's application to state-sanctioned same-sex marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships is unresolved. In 1996 the U.S. Congress specifically passed a statute, known as the Defense of Marriage Act, which stated that states need not recognize same-sex marriages performed outside the state. This is interpreted to relieve states of their duty under the full faith and credit clause. Between 1996 and 2004, 39 states passed laws and constitutional amendments that defined marriage as consisting solely of different-sex couples. Most also explicitly prohibited the state from honoring same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries. By October 2014, many of these state laws had been struck down in federal courts, effectively making same-sex marriage legal in 24 states (in CA, CT, IA, IN, MA, NJ, NM, OK, OR, PA, UT, VA, and WI by court decision; in DE, HI, IL, MN, NH, NY, RI and VT by the state legislature; and in ME, MD and WA by popular vote) as well as the District of Columbia. In Kentucky a District Court has held that marriages of same-sex couples from other states must be recognized.[18]
Dude, how liberal were the hippies in the 1960's? How well did all that social activism turn out when they came of age? The generational argument is patently weak. My thought is that America has an infuriating tendency to do just enough at the last possible second before it's too late. One major thought is that the conservative white Christian majority is eroding. That would make the liberal, or progressive surge seem logical. Or there isnt a balanced view in the media.. I do think this will affect straight people in good ways as well. We will have to revisit and newly discuss things like gender roles in divorce, domestic violence and childcare as a result of this ruling.
Or, you know, change their mind. 1972, Capital Punishment is illegal! Hurray, a win for convicted murderers. 1976, Capital Punishment okay again, as long as they're executed just the right way, a win for lethal needle manufacturers.
Yeah, that's not what I'd consider to be "serious"... there's nothing about that guy to take seriously, except for his ability to think highly of himself.
So I don't know how this will work but I will try it anyway; this is happening right now: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/28/us-eurozone-greece-idUSKBN0P40EO20150628 If this thread can expand to a different topic; it might be interesting to discuss the global financial system and it's current level of health. Based on the ongoing drama in Greece and the rumblings in Puerto Rico, can such small countries and commonwealths can the global market's sentiment to the extent that it causes a market crash? Looking at the chinese markets, while unlikely the root cause, this event seems to be precipitating just that: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...eignite-rally-grexit-fears-weigh-global-marke Is having such an interconnected financial system a good thing? Are these just growing pains for a system that on a longer timeline will be beneficial to the entire population even though trillions of "wealth" can essential vanish overnight in some instances?
Wut? In the end, I have no sympathy for Greece. They got into the EU by basically lying on the application about how stable they were (and Goldman Sachs helped cover it up after the fact), they're incredibly corrupt, had too many public workers that didn't work long enough (way, way early retirement), nobody is paying the taxes they should which is causing the country to fail, and, from what limited bit I can read about, aren't taking their recovery options seriously. Yeah, they're going to default tomorrow, and I think before too long you'll see incredibly devalued Drachmas hit the streets, all of their Euros will be taken, there will be 6 months of chaos, followed by a huge influx of tourism because they will be the new Mexico. They will hit rock bottom and will slowly climb their way back up out of the ashes. The morons that put them in that position will have long ago transferred their cash to US dollars someplace offshore, and will shrug their shoulders, say, "whattareyagonnado?", and move. The people that are working and living there will go through hell. Just my naive, non-economist $0.02.
What I would love to know, and haven't been able to find anywhere, is a description of what the typical Greek citizen is going to go through for the next 6 months. As it sits right now, there are insane lineups at ATM's with very restricted withdrawal limits, so unless they kept their cash buried in the back yard in Euros, they're pretty well getting everything taken away from them. How does this affect a normal, working stiff? What about a pensioner who is relying on their retirement benefits? Anyone have any insight into this?
On the gay marriage tip, I have a simple statement. Discrimination should never, ever be put into the form of law, and it's that simple. You can disagree with what people do in a consenting fashion with other adults, but lawmakers should not have any sway in that department. Gladly, now they don't. It's always sad to see the cracks in your heroes, but my fathers posts on this subject have made me think less of him as a person.
It seems like California is taking heat here and there for passing a bill that forces the vaccination of public school kids. I have no idea how this doesn't come under universal praise, especially considering anti-vax retards being put on blast the past year.
Anti-vaxers are the worst kind of ignorant, and them forcing their unvaccinated kids on the public is bullshit child endangerment. You don't want to vaccinate your kids? Fine, keep them the fuck home. Home school them and teach them whatever stupid bullshit you want. If my kid somehow comes down with an easily vaccinated against disease she caught from some anti-Vaccine wackjob's kid, I would bury them under a massive lawsuit. Throw the school and state in there, too, and make the courts sort it out. I'm surprised I don't hear about more people suing when their kids get sick because of one of these idiots.
I think it's mostly because the sane, educated people shrugged and said, "...oh, yeah, that's a pretty good idea" and moved on with their lives, while the only people you're hearing from are the fringe crazies.