Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Damn, I missed it. What was it? Bacon bikini...really pretty innocuous. But I stand reprimanded. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 So do you support or oppose separate civil unions for same-sex couples and marriages for heterosexuals? Oh, and you missed a total fox wearing a canadian bacon-kini. Tres chic, but not law firm appropriate. Sigh... I support marriages for all. I'll have to look for that picture when I get home. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Ah crap now I'm going to get in trouble too... lol You've probably seen it, the two chicks with bacon covering their privates. In other words...Bacon Bikinis Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wendy Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Sorry, I just moved the whole thing out, but you guys are too fast for me! Yeah, NSFW. Or yunguns! Sorry to be so PC. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 I support marriages for all. Then I'm still unclear about your statement up top. You say you can see the civil union argument as more constitutional than the marriage argument, but if heterosexuals are allowed to marry and gays are not, don't you see that you're arguing that the Constitution would be denying rights to a minority of citizens? edit:...in favor of a separate-but-equal (thus unconstitutional) insitution of civil union? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Then I'm still unclear about your statement up top. You say you can see the civil union argument as more constitutional than the marriage argument, but if heterosexuals are allowed to marry and gays are not, don't you see that you're arguing that the Constitution would be denying rights to a minority of citizens? edit:...in favor of a separate-but-equal (thus unconstitutional) insitution of civil union? Well, the bigger problem is that civil unions right now aren't even equal to marriages, which is the main crux of the debate. My point above, which probably wasn't worded that well, was kind of predicated on the assumption that the rights afforded to civil unions would be the same as marriages. In other words, the absolutely only thing different was the name. That's where I think a more effective constitutional argument can be made...to make civil unions exactly equal. But until homosexuals are recognized as a suspect class (which I'm not sure how far away from that we are), I just think the marriage argument goes nowhere. I admit I'm getting a little tripped up because I'm trying to approach this from the standpoint of what I think would get us to where we want to go the fastest or most effectively. Which I still think is the slow process of people gradually voting for these rights in their respective states. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Why would you argue that 50 individual referenda are "more effective" than a federal Constitutional amendment? I really am curious. Again, if everything were exactly the same for marriages and CU's except for name and eligibility, then I would argue they were a separate but equal institution, through which only one specific group could be honored the "civil-sanctity" (let's all laugh at that) of marriage, and the other was just joined by some judge with piles and piles of friends. Edit: I'm also curious as to why you would argue GLBT persons aren't a suspect class? For YEARS they have been denied all sorts of privileges, and discrimination was only relatively recently outlawed for them in hiring, etc. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Why would you argue that 50 individual referenda are "more effective" than a federal Constitutional amendment? I really am curious. Again, if everything were exactly the same for marriages and CU's except for name and eligibility, then I would argue they were a separate but equal institution, through which only one specific group could be honored the "civil-sanctity" (let's all laugh at that) of marriage, and the other was just joined by some judge with piles and piles of friends. Edit: I'm also curious as to why you would argue GLBT persons aren't a suspect class? For YEARS they have been denied all sorts of privileges, and discrimination was only relatively recently outlawed for them in hiring, etc. Because I don't think a Constitutional amendment would ever pass. Plus, since the right of marriage isn't granted in the Constitution, I don't think one should pass. And, the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment should be enough on the grounds that GLBT persons aren't afforded the same rights that come with a heterosexual marriage. Plus, I think the tide is definitely turning with respect to people's attitudes towards this issue that majorities are just around the corner. I don't argue that they aren't a suspect class. I point out that they have never been designated as such, and I don't necessarily see that changing any time soon. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 I think that the government unconstitutionally intrudes on every aspect of our personal lives, including marriage and bacon bikinis. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Because I don't think a Constitutional amendment would ever pass. You're right, the fastest (and most effective) way I would see this happening is a number of lawsuits akin to the supreme court case in Iowa. In one of them, we likely will see GLBT persons classified as a suspect class, eventually leading to a watershed case. Bottom line, I think this will (and should) happen in the courts. Plus, I think the tide is definitely turning with respect to people's attitudes towards this issue that majorities are just around the corner. That's like me, here in Minneapolis, saying I'll walk around the corner to Beijing to pick up a gallon of milk. Some of your statements really do astound me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 That's like me, here in Minneapolis, saying I'll walk around the corner to Beijing to pick up a gallon of milk. Some of your statements really do astound me. You really don't think attitudes are changing, albeit slowly? I think Sullivan said the same thing in the post Good Old Neon kicked this thread off with. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 I'm sorry, but can you explain how "slowly" and "right around the corner" coincide? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 I'm sorry, but can you explain how "slowly" and "right around the corner" coincide? Grand scheme of things. Big picture. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Grand scheme of things. Big picture. = walking from Minneapolis to Beijing for a gallon of milk. I'll give $50 to every poster in this thread - nay, $100 - if gay marriage is legalized by 50 separate referenda before it is legalized by some other means. edit: Don't get me wrong - I stand by my 10-15 year projection, but it sure as hell ain't gonna happen through popular vote. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 = walking from Minneapolis to Beijing for a gallon of milk. I'll give $50 to every poster in this thread - nay, $100 - if gay marriage is legalized by 50 separate referenda before it is legalized by some other means. edit: Don't get me wrong - I stand by my 10-15 year projection, but it sure as hell ain't gonna happen through popular vote. I guess I apologize for being more optimistic about an eventual majority. And unless there is some drastic change in the makeup of the Supreme Court, I don't see it happening that way any time soon. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 the government should offer civil union licenses to any adults willing to apply for them and pay the requisite fee. period. any restriction based on race, gender, sexual preference or number or partners is based in religion, and therefore a no-no. marriages belong in arenas that in theory should have nothing to do with the government. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 unless there is some drastic change in the makeup of the Supreme Court, I don't see it happening that way any time soon. God, that's another thing that busts my nuts. Technically speaking, small-government conservatives should support same-sex marriage. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 God, that's another thing that busts my nuts. Technically speaking, small-government conservatives should support same-sex marriage. I do. The problem lies in finding a proper constitutional argument, of which there is really only a very narrow one based on the Equal Protection clause. That's a hard argument to make to strict constructionists. It's not about what they believe to be right. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Yeah. Get your laws off gay people's bodies! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 God, that's another thing that busts my nuts. Technically speaking, small-government conservatives should support same-sex marriage. There is no consistency in this regard. Strict constitutionalists and diehard small government conservatives go as far as their morality will allow and then will abandon it at that point. It's the same with the legalization of marijuana and abortion, in my opinion. Their morals supercede their political beliefs. I suppose this isn't necessarily a terrible thing, and I'm not necessarily criticizing those who believes these things, as we are all guilty of inconsistencies in our thoughts. It just always rings kind of hollow when a guy like Glenn Beck espouses the need for smaller government except when it comes to things like marriage. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Exactly, bobbob. I wasn't trying to call you out at all when I said that, bleedorange, but I think issues like this are where we see the clearest division of moral conservatives and small-government conservatives. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ih8music Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 to lighten the tone a bit around here... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Exactly, bobbob. I wasn't trying to call you out at all when I said that, bleedorange, but I think issues like this are where we see the clearest division of moral conservatives and small-government conservatives. No, you're right. The biggest problem is that these factions are moving the wrong ways. In the Republican Party, especially. The moral wing keeps moving further right and the economic wing keeps moving further to the left. Leaving someone like me wondering what in the hell to do. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 No, you're right. The biggest problem is that these factions are moving the wrong ways. In the Republican Party, especially. The moral wing keeps moving further right and the economic wing keeps moving further to the left. Leaving someone like me wondering what in the hell to do. Well, then you've got your Glenn Beck's who are moving as far as possible to the right in both ways. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 No, you're right. The biggest problem is that these factions are moving the wrong ways. In the Republican Party, especially. The moral wing keeps moving further right and the economic wing keeps moving further to the left. Leaving someone like me wondering what in the hell to do. Two Words: Bacon Bikini Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.