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
DOMA was enacted by Clinton as a compromise so he wouldn't have to face a full-on anti-gay marriage law and/or constitutional amendment. Of course, if we had passed one, it might have reached SCOTUS sooner and been struck down by now.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
Well no one's going to form a mob to beat you up if you happen to be gay if that's what you mean.
In news pertaining to my home state Santa Fe County New Mexico has begun a push for clerks to issue same sex marriage lisnces, arguing that since their is now law pertaining directly to it in New Mexico, there is nothing to stop it.
(Which is true, New Mexico has literally nothing pro or con against same sex marriage on the books, I know that the State Legislature has a Bill in the works that would legalize it, but the chances are dicey)
edited 19th Mar '13 3:39:27 PM by LMage
Know that feel bro.
yeah... No. :)
edited 19th Mar '13 3:42:42 PM by joeyjojo
hashtagsarestupid
It depends on the wording of a the local marriage statute: if it refers to "man and woman", then no dice. If it refers to "husband and wife", then some smart-alec might be able to argue that "husband and wife" can mean two men or two women, but the chances of that (very strained) construction surviving a court of law would be minuscule.
Still, it's a decent piece of activism however we might quibble over its effectiveness.
edited 19th Mar '13 3:54:25 PM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der Parteiedited 19th Mar '13 4:00:12 PM by LMage
Good Lord, I walk away from the thread for a few days and you guys go crazy.
I'm sorry if you took the impression that I thought gay marriage was equivalent to child marriage. I do not. All I was trying to do was point out that Michigan's position looked a lot less unreasonable when it regarded a marriage we can all agree is unacceptable. While I'm not defending opponents of gay marriage, I will say that allowing all reservation laws to carry over into different states seems like a terrible idea to me, considering the reservations aren't bound by the rules of the Constitution.
I apologize if you found my (probably poorly worded) post offensive. I will also say that I would've been glad to answer a civil inquiry regarding my post via PM while I was gone from the thread (don't bother now, I'm back). There was no need to get carried away and spiral the situation into the argument I just read. I would've thought that after God knows how many posts here, you guys would've noticed that neither Starship nor I holds some of the positions you accused us of.
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.New Mexico Officials Still Unclear If Same-Sex Couples There Can Marry
The Westboro Baptist Church have new neighbours - a gay rights community who have bought a house right across the road from their compound - and painted it with the rainbow colours. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/19/westboro-equality-house-aaron-jackson-rainbow_n_2906337.html
Really is. They've called the place "Equality House" and will be used for pro-LGBT actions. Apparently the group normally focus on things like conservation, orphanages and assorted other things, but have decided to go to war with WBC. After seeing an article about the group, a key figure in the group looked up the church, saw the For Sale sign across the road and leapt at the opportunity. Having been looking for a way to get into gay activism for some time, it's the perfect way to do so!
My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username.Freedom of speech cuts both ways. I'll be quite interested to see how this goes.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The problem is that just asking is a common tactic. Like, "If we allow blacks to live with whites, what's to stop them from stealing our women?" or "if we let Obama implement Obamacare, what's to stop him from implementing a commufascist dictatorship?" That's just asking questions, but that doesn't make it much better than saying, "If we allow blacks to live with whites, they will steal our women," or "If we let Obama implement Obamacare, he'll implement a commufascist dictatorship." Just because you are phrasing it in a question doesn't make it ok or unoffensive. This is the concept of just asking questions, aka JAQing off
.
edited 20th Mar '13 8:25:52 AM by deathpigeon
I think the way it was phrased did carry Unfortunate Implications of "gay leads to pedophilia", even if it was not the author's intent (hence why such implications are "unfortunate").
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

Also I don't know how tolerant NYC is of gay people. In some areas I'm sure it's great but I'm not sure about the whole of the city.
edited 19th Mar '13 10:10:21 AM by Wildcard