LGBTQ+ Rights and America

...Whatever. Still a pansexual.

The fact that you guys elect judges just baffles me. That's the one branch of government that shouldn't be subject to public opinion.

edited 9th Nov '12 1:29:01 PM by Rationalinsanity

Agreed. The idea just makes my skin crawl. You want judges to at least pretend to be impartial, dammit!

What Judges?

edited 8th Nov '12 10:47:11 PM by DeviantBraeburn

I'm still fuming that my state re-elected the Supreme Court justice who told the real Supreme Court to sit and spin when they said he couldn't have a monument to the ten commandments in his courthouse. Then again, this is    Alabama   ; that was probably his campaign slogan. Personally I prefer the George Carlin version of the ten commandments anyway.

I don't understand electing judges either. I can understand retention votes, but electing judges is kind of ridiculous.

@Euodi: Were you a gymnast? Kind of obscure terminology to throw around there. :P

edited 9th Nov '12 6:27:06 AM by Completion

Gotta disagree. The Supreme Court shouldn't of got involved in matter regarding local courts decoration, even if it does contain religious imagery. It's an over extension of federal powers.

Um... did gym as a lass... <.< Flic-flac is obscure? People seriously don't watch the Olympic Floor and/or Beam exercises? <confused>

Oh... and I'm all for "Asymmetric Bars". "Uneven Bars" don't sound so good. Or as potentially dangerous (she says, rubbing her scarred lip). Oh... and am also all for getting rid of Rhythmic Gymnastics and replacing it with the Granddaddy of all disciplines. Acrobatic: team and individual, men's and women's.

And, about retention votes: yes, I get those. It's a good way to force the Bar to get rid of a dunce with his head in the clouds and no connection to the views of those in the area, should one happen (like with some of the overtly homophobic/ religious people in the seriously wrong places, for instance). But, for electing anybody with the responsibility when it comes to sentencing others... the best suited to understand the merits needed... are a collection of peers, with a specialist, independent arm (with teeth) supervising (and checking). Just in case.

edited 10th Nov '12 5:11:08 AM by Euodiachloris

Well, on our side of the pond, we just call them "backflips".

But, a backflip can also refer to a Twisted Arab Spring (particularly off the horse or beam or on the trampoline)... and that's not the same thing at all...

@Jojo: He's also called homosexuality evil in court decisions, so there's that. He doesn't belong on the bench, is what I'm getting at.

Exactly. The first amendment prohibits the government from promoting religion. He violated the Constitution he was supposed to uphold, and thanks to good old democracy, the people have given him the opportunity to do it again.

edited 10th Nov '12 10:29:02 AM by Morgikit

A violation of the Constitution at the lowest level of government is just as wrong as a violation at the highest, and the Supreme Court has the same interest in ensuring it is resolved.

Tony Perkins expects a revolution if the SCOTUS ever rules Loving-style, (I would think ardent, extreme pro-lifers would be offended that that would cause a revolution and not Roe, but nobody seems to care), a Maine anti-gay group vows to repeal the law via another ballot, Eugene Delguadio is under investigation for using public employees to help him raise money for anti-gay causes, and SCOTUS is expected to announce if it'll hear appeals on DOMA and Prop 8 on November 26th. (It's almost certain to hear DOMA considering how many cases have come to it, like 7 or 8 at least.)

edited 10th Nov '12 11:19:44 AM by occono

I'm of the opinion that the supreme court failed to make the distinction between the endorsement of religion and the use of the religion imagery in public works of art, so I have to oppose their final rule on the 10 commandments display on principle.

Am I glad the guy got his job back? Heck no. The man is a clearly politically motivated wing nut who is unfit to hold court by any standard.

edited 10th Nov '12 10:29:46 PM by joeyjojo

I'm siding with @joeyjojo on this.

I think prominently displaying the ten commandments in front of a public building (and in a way that clearly implies that said public institution endorses it — i. e., not as a form of protest against it) is endorsement of religion.

If the guy wants his ten commandments statue, he can have it put in his own yard (assuming he doesn't live in the courthouse). On his own money.

Well was it displayed in a way that implied that the public institution endorsed it?

I need to see pictures before I make a sound judgement.

But I think you people might be overreacting. You see Lady Justice at several courthouses, and no claims its endorsing the old Roman Pagan Religion.

edited 11th Nov '12 5:38:48 AM by DeviantBraeburn

But the Roman Pagan Religion is (officially at least) dead, and Lady Justice has been absorbed in cultures that don't believe in Jupiter. Kind of like Santa Claus is slowly being absorbed, but is still in a grey area.

The Ten Commandments today are symbolic of Abrahamic religions, which are for the most part alive and kicking.

Hey there are still followers today. Why should it matter how many followers a faith has? Does the law discriminate on large religions?

And Santa Claus is just a marketing scheme that took its name from a Saint.

edited 11th Nov '12 6:02:59 AM by DeviantBraeburn

In theory, it could matter to someone looking for justice from their court system. The Ten Commandants has implications for how the judiciary looks upon the law that something rather more obscure might not.

Implications are subjective.

Regardless to prevent further Off-topicness we should drop the subject.

Yeah, I know, that's why I added "In theory". And yeah let's move on.

One last thing:

http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/santa/cocacola.asp

Cartoonish corruption and the Anti-gays. Unlimited.

I used to live in Sterling, VA. Good to know that the county supervisor is such a ... ahem ... sterling representative of the community. Maybe we could lynch him?