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
Normally I'd be against this, but a lawsuit needs to happen here. They backed out of a financial agreement at the last minute, but they also humiliated the deceased's family, putting them through much unneeded stress at this time of grief. Further proof you don't have to protest at somebody's funeral to be a bigot.
- We'll let you sit in our church.
- We'll pray over you.
- We'll help your family mourn you.
So long as you hide all proof that you were gay.
Assholes...
They had two daughters as well who deserved to be able to say a proper goodbye to their mother.
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - AszurA state senator from Kentucky wants to pass a bill that would force students to use school baths according to their biological sex, and give students 2,500 bucks (from the school) if they encounter a violation for the "trauma" they endure.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/01/15/3611920/kentucky-transgender-bathroom-ban/
He's also opposed anti-bullying laws because it dared to make sexual orientation and gender identity protected classes, so he's certainly consistent in being a prick at least.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Ooh. It would be pretty staggering if they overturned all the decisions making it legal.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"It must be an ad issue; that's a NY Times link.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Took its time.
Are there only two options? Marriage everywhere or nowhere?
If it's nowhere, then would invalidate all of those marriages that have been allowed in the past decade (or longer) and bring them back down to civil unions or domestic partnerships? Or would nothing change and it would keep coming at a slow crawl.
You gotta believe me when I scare you away, all that I wish for is that you would stayIf they ruled on the "gay marriage nowhere" side, the reaction would be huge. Yes, the anti-gay-marriage people tend to be very loud, but there are a lot of people who are for gay marriage who don't really say much, and there's also the people who are basically indifferent, but would be furious about all the marriages being annulled.
If they ruled on the "gay marriage everywhere" side, there would be complaints from the anti people, but they'd fade away pretty quickly once they realized their complaints weren't doing anything. That's kind of how it happened in Canada.
Their DOMA ruling gives a lot of hope to the pro-gay rights side.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
It's sad/funny how we aren't talking about them ruling on clear Constitutional principles.
Taking a third option is out of the question. Letting the people decide just leads to discrimination in states with a bigoted majority (or an apathetic majority easily charmed by the bigoted). Equality couldn't be trusted to the whims of the majority in the 1960s, and it can't be trusted to them now.
Because the way constitutional principles apply are very simple and clear. Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment reads:
I'd bet on an approval, they struck down DOMA after all. And yeah, the justices banning gay marriage period is out of the question, if they wanted to do that, they had a couple chances already. And justifying that with the constitution? Even I can't figure out what you'd use to do that.
Eh, applying constitutional principles is hardly ever simple. The US bends the heck out of the constitution all the time. The commerce clause is used to regulate pretty much any material good. Sure, you can make a clear easy argument. But I'm sure someone with enough time and an agenda could come up with a workable counter-argument. The easiest argument is to just classify homosexual relationships as different from relationships in general, thereby dodging the whole equal protection business.
edited 17th Jan '15 5:17:06 PM by Aqueos
Bet you didn't see that comingIn more heartwarming news, Trans kids who delay puberty turn out perfectly fine
, despite shrieking from conservative groups.

Urgh. What kind of message is that? "God is love... just don't show us any expressions of yours."
And, could they have been more crass?