Discussion of religion in the context of LGBTQ+ rights is only allowed in the LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion Thread
.
Discussion of religion in any other context is off topic in all of the "LGBTQ+ rights..." threads.
Attempting to bait others into bringing up religion is also not allowed.
Edited by Mrph1 on Dec 1st 2023 at 6:53:59 PM
Lost in Space
Mikon :3
If Alabama can ignore federal law, can I ignore Alabama law? That's what laws are right? Polite suggestions that are debatable?
A procrastination in of itself
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
And then re-elected. If the electorate agree with them doing whatever they were impeached for there seems to be no way to keep them from office.
edited 10th Jan '16 7:03:42 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
*Holds up shovel* Well, there's one way, but...
edited 10th Jan '16 7:07:31 AM by Elfive
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
I think that's almost a loophole or something. Once impeached, permanently ineligible to hold at least the position you were impeached from.
Or possibly a deliberate loophole, so that if the people really approve of someone, they can override impeachments (which are an elite-driven action).
Accountability in the judicial system is supposed to be through the appeal process. Until you reach the US Supreme Court, any bad decision can be appealed to a higher power, which gives recourse for the defendant/plaintiff. But no matter how deliberately bad the decision, the judge cannot be held liable beyond the loss of their job.
Now, that only holds for the decisions themselves. If they are found to have taken bribes to influence their decisions, that's still a crime, just that the decision itself is still not actionable.
Professional Forum Ninja
I got this from a comment underneath an article I found, but the judge ran as the only Republican and most Alabamians tend to vote straight Republican without looking.
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."
Of course they do.
Mikon :3
I didn't vote for him. Can I have a license? I don't even really want a license. I just don't think some asshole in Montgomery should be able to say no when Washington, D.C. says yes.
God-Mayor of Sim-Kind
That should sound like a good idea but I can't shake the feeling that publicly advertising like that will just paint a giant target on the school.
It's technically segregative. Integration and education would be better, but we are talking about the deep south.
This is a signature.
Basically Obama is trying to have the Civil Rights Act interpreted that the protections to Sex in the document should apply to Gender (thus protecting Lesbians, Gays, and Transgender) with regards to protections in the workplace. And that this may end up going through Judicial review, to the Supreme Court.
Field Marshal of Cracked
and of course the Republicans will complain all the way and try to stop it
advancing the front into TV Tropes
Lost in Space
Oh, yes, the idea that the Constitution might forbid them to discriminate against anyone for any reason is anathema.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
A nice butterfly
Are you suggesting that the FOUNDING FATHERS approved of GAY REVELRY and HOMOS!?!?
Why, that is so insulting I might just need to exercise m'right to use GUNS in your COMMIE LOVING GAY FACE.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
Using the Sex/Gender equality clause to cover LGBT individuals was how Canadian courts eventually ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, among other issues. Its not a bad approach to take but I have to wonder if the politicized circus that is the American judicial system will make easy or even possible.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
The Mod with the Migraine
And in the two steps back department, Michigan Senators decide to re-criminalize anal and oral over, you know, saving their constituents from poisoning.
Some would argue that such a bill targets the gay community specifically, but according to the adult film streaming site “Red Tube,” anal sex is in the top three search terms for those who identify as heterosexual. Oral sex is number two. Basically, the bill is just another attempt by those who believe they’re better than anyone else because of their often hypocritical prudish beliefs to control what happens in the bedrooms of America.
Here’s how they did it, those clever nellies: The bill in question has a clause that addresses bestiality, specifically “sodomy,” which is defined in human terms as anal sex, oral sex and bestiality. The bill then states that it is a felony to engage in “the abominable and detestable crime against nature with mankind or with any animal.”
“With mankind.” Now sure, most people would agree that doing such things to your cat would definitely qualify as “detestable,” because the cat is innocent and has no say in the matter. If you’re anally raping squiggles you should, at least, have your head examined if not spend some time behind bars. People, however, are inherently free, inherently curious and absolutely sentient. Our personal choices in the bedroom are not only none of the Republican party’s f*cking business, they’re constitutionally protected.
Not all of the GOP Senators have put their support behind the sneaky move, because what their compadres are doing is guaranteeing that if it becomes law it will be struck down, leaving the original intentions of the bill, to protect animals, back at square one. Republican Rick Jones said:
The minute I cross that line and I start talking about the other stuff, I won’t even get another hearing. It’ll be done. Nobody wants to touch it. I would rather not even bring up the topic, because I know what would happen. You’d get both sides screaming and you end up with a big fight that’s not needed because it’s unconstitutional.
Jones is obviously in the minority in America’s majority party. It seems they live to have fights for no reason other than to hear themselves shout. It gets them re-elected in their gerrymandered districts.
The bill is heading to the Michigan House where hopefully, the wording that includes the private, intimate activities of millions of men and women can be separated from a bill that could greatly benefit animals.
God-Mayor of Sim-Kind
And why can't they just omit the "with mankind" part to avoid the inevitable shitstorm of anyone who does that in Michigan? And how will the mankind part be enforced without invading an couple's privacy? And why does history repeats itself like this, I have no idea...
A procrastination in of itself
Remember due to them not being able to charge anyone under the sodomy ban there's no standard of proof for arresting people. If I remember right the way it works is they will arrest gay people under the ban and hold them for the maximum amount of time you can hold a person before having to charge them (I belive a few days, might be less) then release them. That's at least how it's apparently done in other states where sodomy laws are still on the books but not enforceable.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Pomeranian Lover
http://www.snopes.com/michigan-senate-crime-against-nature/
According to Snopes, the law (which is vague and is mentioned as being unenforceable) is not a new one, and what IS new is the parts added about animal cruelty.
A procrastination in of itself
That because the old law has been added to a genuine animal cruelty bill, some guy is actually trying to stop animal abuse and has had his bill hijacked.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
SB 219 amends several sections of the Michigan penal code, including the sodomy law that is still on the books. For the existing text of the law, it just simplifies some phrasing, and then it adds a new subsection that anyone convicted under said law is to be prohibited from owning an animal for a period of time. The "with mankind" part is still as unenforceable as it has been since the ruling of Lawrence v Texas
Queen of Good Things, Honest
It must be so frustrating to be a politician.
- "So, like, there should be a law against f*cking goats. I can't believe we need to make a law about that, but there should be."
- "Mmm. I like it. I'll agree to it BUT we're also outlawing buttsex. It's basically the same as goat-f*cking."
- "Goddammit."
It still strikes me as odd. There must be some accountability somewhere in the judicial system... Cops have Internal Affairs, judges should have something similar.
Edit: Added quote because pagetopper.
edited 10th Jan '16 4:01:27 AM by Medinoc
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."