Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
31 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, GDR (3 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,616 Year: 16,652/19,786 Month: 777/2,598 Week: 23/251 Day: 0/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
jar
Member
Posts: 31258
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 196 of 1484 (802372)
03-15-2017 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Modulous
03-15-2017 7:31 PM


Re: related issues
Modulous writes:

You think Donald Trump won the election because of a dozen or so lawsuits/reports of regulatory breaches?

I think that helped play a big part.

Modulous writes:

Do you think this supports the notion that the 'rest of society' now considers same sex marriage as less important? Do you think these lawsuits are the causative factor in 'national outrage'?

I think that is a really stupid pair of questions that are classic bumper sticker conman tactics.

I'm not sure what 'national outrage' or the 'rest of society' are or why they would matter. What will determine what happens in the US over the next decade or so will depend to a great extent on what the folk like Faith think. The lawsuits won can be over turned far more easily than it might seem. The Party in Power in the US can fill the court system with justices that will make decisions based on criteria that can lead to results that overturn any lawsuits won in the past.

Modulous writes:

Do you have reason to suppose that other people think that the victory regarding the general right of same sex marriage is in danger of losing 'its import' as a result of people fighting for their rights in specific/individual cases?

It's not a matter of what other people think but rather about what the party in power wants.

Modulous writes:

Why is this not also true of the other side? Why is the argument that the important victories of religious freedom are also in danger as a result of people using it to discriminate against queerfolk not being brought up here? The bigots claim to be fighting for their rights to harm others, but this is not a concern for religious freedom rights where same-sex couples are fighting for their rights to not be harmed is being subject to finger wagging. This seems a little unfairly asymmetric to me.

That's simply. Ignorance. And do not think for a second that the reality in the US is that Religious Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association and may other things we have considered as settled are not also threatened.

But the response is that those issue only effect "THEM" and not us.

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin and left out half a word


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Modulous, posted 03-15-2017 7:31 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Modulous, posted 03-15-2017 8:48 PM jar has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 358 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 197 of 1484 (802375)
03-15-2017 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Tangle
03-15-2017 7:36 PM


don't rock the boat
You said we should 'calm down dear' meaning we are being hysterical or disproportionally emotional when we sue for being discriminated against.
You're objecting to something that I didn't say?

Well no, I'm objecting to what you did say:

quote:
quote:
If you're just nice and wait for the bigots to do the right thing, they'll do so?

Campaign hard until you win the main battle, then calm down dear.


I'm objecting to you saying 'we should calm down dear', by pointing out that taking legal action is calming down. It's the cold, dispassionate response to harm. Yelling, fighting, smashing property....that's the heated response to harm. That's the kind of action that merits 'calm down dear' in the aftermath of winning the 'main battle'. Saying 'Your honour, this person has harmed me, please evaluate my evidence and make a judgement as a disinterested arbiter' is the epitome of calm. I'm objecting to you switching your meaning of 'calm down dear' to 'don't take stressful actions by going to court', which doesn't make sense in your original points.

You weren't suggesting people not sue or complain to regulatory committees because its a stressful process. But because, to summarize, it creates more heat than light and turns people off the cause.

If you want to talk me through how your comment that people should 'calm down dear' meant 'don't put yourself through what might be a stressful action' I'm all ears.

Also, as a side note, quietly living with having been discriminated against is also stressful.

I think it's a possibility that people will become irritated if there is continued pursuance of trivial complaints, yes.

I'm fine with people being irritated. Hopefully they'll realize the bigots are the cause of the irritation, and not the people being harmed by them and asking the courts for justice.

Also, the fact that you think it is a trivial matter to be denied service because of who you are marrying is a strong indication you haven't lived through the years of discrimination without any recourse. You haven't felt the pain of institutional prejudice over and over and over again denying you access to one thing after another. You haven't felt the hurt of a lovely day planned to go out tasting cakes for your special day being soured by someone reminding you they think you are still awful and not deserving, that they can get away with it because 'whaddya gonna do about it'. The years of bullying, humiliation, the being driven to the depths of suicidal despair through death from a thousand cuts.

Sure, you say, one cut is nothing. It's trivial. Calm down dear. It's not one cut. It's not trivial. When a business sneers at you because of your sexual orientation, your race, your class, your sex, gender, age....it is a real psychological harm and it doesn't occur in a vacuum. When that business brags about how brave they are for doing it, and publishes your name and telephone number on their Facebook page - this has consequences, even if it is 'only' the consequence of causing fear, stress and sadness.

Trivial? Please don't trivialise other people's struggles, other people's pain.

And yes, I know that these things might seem important to the individuals involved.

They are important. So important in some cases, people are willing to risk stress and/or financial loss to seek remediation/vindication/validation/justice.

But allowing Christians to martyr themselves over and over publicly may not be smart.

I don't see why it's not smart. I think its smarter than allowing them to continue discriminating over and over again publicly. I think its smarter than living with having been discriminated against and having done nothing, with the knowledge sat their gnawing at you, plaguing you. With your happy wedding day being interrupted with those echoing voices of 'sorry we don't serve your kind' and the images of smug faces, of remembering that for every 1 person who is openly bigoted there are probably a thousand who won't tell you how they feel and will find ways to be shitty to you without detection such as spitting in food, saying 'sorry we're full', and all other ways of denying or tainting access to goods and services.

We are individuals, the problems that affect us are ours. If someone harms me, why should I think 'is this strategically wise for the Great Cause?' before I seek justice? What good does that do me? What is the better strategy, in your opinion? Ignoring the denial of services?

IF your girlfriend/wife/mother/sister was denied a job as a doctor or a programmer because they were a woman, if the business publicised that they had done this, and named your loved one as an example of them doing it... would you counsel them to just let it slide out of fear of harming the cause of feminism? What if they were denied entry to a restaurant, archery tutelage, access to a toilet facilities, the purchasing of furniture, or phone services, biscuits?

When does a service denial go from trivial in your mind to something one would be justified to taking action? What's the better strategy?

Do the same rules of not rocking the boat for fear of upsetting the cause apply to all protected classes, or just queers?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Tangle, posted 03-15-2017 7:36 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by jar, posted 03-15-2017 8:38 PM Modulous has responded
 Message 208 by Tangle, posted 03-16-2017 4:09 AM Modulous has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31258
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 198 of 1484 (802376)
03-15-2017 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Modulous
03-15-2017 8:23 PM


Re: don't rock the boat
Modulous writes:

When does a service denial go from trivial in your mind to something one would be justified to taking action? What's the better strategy?

That part is relatively easy to answer.

First, if the service denial is not something that effects safety, economic well being or health then the question should be asked is this the place to make a point?

Second, is the service denial institutional; that is is it government sanctioned? If it is not then the question should be asked is this the place to make a point?

Third, if the issue is denial of service at a particular shop or store and not systemic then the question should be asked is this the place to make a point?

There is no right to not be offended. Many might wish that were the case but it is not. There are areas I believe well worth fight over, the right to get married, the right to access in health care, the rights of inheritance and of adopting kids and holding a job and basic health care and so many, many other things. These are issue where a case can be made that there is a general benefit to all from anti-discrimination laws and enforcement.

The reality in the US right now though is that there is not just a possibility but rather a likelihood of a reactionary backlash that can easily undo any advancements made during the last half century or more and undo them in a manner that will preclude restoration within several generations.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Modulous, posted 03-15-2017 8:23 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Modulous, posted 03-15-2017 9:03 PM jar has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 358 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 199 of 1484 (802377)
03-15-2017 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by jar
03-15-2017 7:56 PM


don't tip the boat over
I think that helped play a big part.

Do you have evidence of this? Not just 'played a part' but a big part. Specifically the hearings related to denial of services for homosexuals.

I think that is a really stupid pair of questions that are classic bumper sticker conman tactics.

No, those questions are pertinent because that was what was being discussed. Watch:

I'm not sure what 'national outrage' or the 'rest of society' are or why they would matter.

Here is what you were replying to:

quote:
quote:
I'm making a general point that a very major battle has been won, it's a brilliant achievement, it would be a shame if it lost some of its import with the rest of society because of what you will object to me calling an over-reaction to petty bigotry - each one of which results in a national outrage polarising opinion and hardening views.

Yes, it'd be a shame. Is there any reason to suppose this is something that might happen in the case of same sex marriage?


What will determine what happens in the US over the next decade or so will depend to a great extent on what the folk like Faith think.

Folk like Faith will be anti-gay marriage, and pro-anti-gay-marriage candidates and judges until the day they die. She was that way when Christian business owners weren't getting successfully sued, after all. So I fail to see why we should worry about changing the likes of her kind of mind by abstaining from successfully fighting injustices in court now that we have the power to do so.

The lawsuits won can be over turned far more easily than it might seem.

Only those that still have lawful avenues of appeals left open. At least several of the few cases that have happened have already exhausted this avenue. You can't retroactively claim money back after you've been sued and lost your appeal, even if the law changes in the future.

The judicial culture could change such that those lawsuits can never happen again of course, but that would be an identical situation in practice to where the lawsuits are possible but nobody ever sues out of fear of changing the judicial culture so they will lose that power. So this is a bit of a dead end thought process I think.

It's not a matter of what other people think but rather about what the party in power wants.

I was talking to Tangle, who was talking about the ordinary man on the street. So take that point up with him, not me.

That's simply. Ignorance.

You're ignorant? Tangle is ignorant? OK, that might be want I'm insinuating in some fashion, but if you want to explicitly admit it...

And do not think for a second that the reality in the US is that Religious Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association and may other things we have considered as settled are not also threatened.

I don't think that. I'm just pointing out that saying 'don't sue over denial of services because you threaten the victories you've won' is an asymmetric point unless you also say 'don't deny services because you threaten the victories you won'.

But the response is that those issue only effect "THEM" and not us.

And the pain and harm of being denied services effects those denied the services. Saying 'sssh, don't take any action - you'll rock the boat' pretty much renders the victories meaningless. The entire point of fighting to get sexual orientation as a protected class that cannot be denied public accommodation was so that people can sue when they are denied goods and services because of their membership in said protected class!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by jar, posted 03-15-2017 7:56 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by jar, posted 03-15-2017 8:58 PM Modulous has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31258
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 200 of 1484 (802378)
03-15-2017 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Modulous
03-15-2017 8:48 PM


Re: don't tip the boat over
Modulous writes:

I don't think that. I'm just pointing out that saying 'don't sue over denial of services because you threaten the victories you've won' is an asymmetric point unless you also say 'don't deny services because you threaten the victories you won'.

And I would reply that that is simply a meaningless bumpersticker carny con job.

Life and reality are not symmetrical. Nor has anyone suggested 'don't sue over denial of services because you threaten the victories you've won' but rather don't sue over small annoyances or things that offend you unless you can make a marketable case that will stand up to public opinion as well as legalities.

Modulous writes:

And the pain and harm of being denied services effects those denied the services. Saying 'sssh, don't take any action - you'll rock the boat' pretty much renders the victories meaningless. The entire point of fighting to get sexual orientation as a protected class that cannot be denied public accommodation was so that people can sue when they are denied goods and services because of their membership in said protected class!

WOW. And here I thought it was to actually get public accommodation.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Modulous, posted 03-15-2017 8:48 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Modulous, posted 03-15-2017 9:12 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 358 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 201 of 1484 (802379)
03-15-2017 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by jar
03-15-2017 8:38 PM


Re: don't rock the boat
First, if the service denial is not something that effects safety, economic well being or health...

Denying someone any service because of their sexual orientation does in fact impact health. So the first point is met.

Second, is the service denial institutional; that is is it government sanctioned

Why is this on this list?

Third, if the issue is denial of service at a particular shop or store and not systemic

How would an individual know if their individual and evidenced case of discrimination was systemic? How is it trivial to be discriminated against if it isn't systemic?

...the question should be asked is this the place to make a point?

Suing people is not about making a point. It's about restitution after injury or loss.

There is no right to not be offended.

Same sex couples are not suing because they are 'offended'. They are suing because their rights have been denied. There is a right to sue for this, which is how they are in fact able to do this.

There are areas I believe well worth fight over, the right to get married, the right to access in health care, the rights of inheritance and of adopting kids and holding a job and basic health care and so many, many other things. These are issue where a case can be made that there is a general benefit to all from anti-discrimination laws and enforcement.

Yes, but once you have those rights - what's the point if private institutions just ignore them and there is no legal ramifications for so doing?

Homosexuals have the right to the same access to publicly available services as straight people. This right has been fought for and won. It cannot be a general benefit however, if you say 'but individuals shouldn't take specific cases where businesses deny this right to court or regulatory agencies'? If all individuals are discouraged from doing this, then the general benefit is non-existent.

The reality in the US right now though is that there is not just a possibility but rather a likelihood of a reactionary backlash that can easily undo any advancements made during the last half century or more and undo them in a manner that will preclude restoration within several generations.

There's always backlash in the aftermath of civil rights movements. Businesses got sued for failing to provide access to the disabled - some people thought it was unfair that businesses had to invest in wheelchair ramps etc. The same goes for black folk. And let's not forget the resistance to feminism.

Are queerfolk an exceptional case for some reason? Should we cower in the face of bigotry because bigots might fight back?

By not acting on the advancements, there is no actual advancement.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by jar, posted 03-15-2017 8:38 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by jar, posted 03-15-2017 9:32 PM Modulous has responded

  
MiguelG
Member (Idle past 230 days)
Posts: 63
From: Australia
Joined: 12-08-2004


Message 202 of 1484 (802380)
03-15-2017 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Faith
03-12-2017 7:48 AM


Re: False equivalence
"How amazing that nonChristians believe they can tell us what it means to be obedient to God or not."

What's even more amazing is that Christians think they can force their own dogmas on others. If not through legislation then through mean-spirited, bigoted denial-of-service.

The reason the latter shouldn't be allowed is that it allows Christians to discriminate against a group of people based on their sexuality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 7:48 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 358 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 203 of 1484 (802381)
03-15-2017 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by jar
03-15-2017 8:58 PM


Re: don't tip the boat over
And I would reply that that is simply a meaningless bumpersticker carny con job.

And I reply that you've found a meaningless new slogan and are trying to apply it everywhere you can.

Life and reality are not symmetrical.

Obviously.

Nor has anyone suggested 'don't sue over denial of services because you threaten the victories you've won'

Yes, they have.

rather don't sue over small annoyances or things that offend you unless you can make a marketable case that will stand up to public opinion as well as legalities.

The cases we are talking about are not small annoyances or merely things that offend. Denial of service because of your sexual orientation etc is very harmful. They lead to very bad places. Trust me. I've been in those bad places. Please stop trivialising things that have almost killed me multiple times as 'small annoyances'. Thank you.

WOW. And here I thought it was to actually get public accommodation.

*facepalm*

No jar. That's a carny conjob right there.

You make it a law prohibiting a practice so that action can be taking when the prohibited action takes place. The desired end result is hopefully, people stop taking the prohibited action - but this is unlikely to happen universally - especially not initially, due to the aforementioned backlash.

There is literally no point in enacting those laws, if you don't subsequently use them where applicable. Otherwise there is no deterrent to continuing to engage in the prohibited action.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by jar, posted 03-15-2017 8:58 PM jar has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31258
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 204 of 1484 (802382)
03-15-2017 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Modulous
03-15-2017 9:03 PM


Re: don't rock the boat
Modulous writes:

There's always backlash in the aftermath of civil rights movements. Businesses got sued for failing to provide access to the disabled - some people thought it was unfair that businesses had to invest in wheelchair ramps etc. The same goes for black folk. And let's not forget the resistance to feminism.

Are queerfolk an exceptional case for some reason? Should we cower in the face of bigotry because bigots might fight back?

By not acting on the advancements, there is no actual advancement.

Yawn.

And Yawn yet again.

You have every right to believe as you do.

Good luck.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Modulous, posted 03-15-2017 9:03 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Modulous, posted 03-15-2017 9:52 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 358 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 205 of 1484 (802383)
03-15-2017 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by jar
03-15-2017 9:32 PM


Re: don't rock the boat
Yawn.

And Yawn yet again.

You have every right to believe as you do.

Good luck.

Let me know when you want to re-engage with the subject matter.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by jar, posted 03-15-2017 9:32 PM jar has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15370
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 206 of 1484 (802386)
03-16-2017 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by Rrhain
03-15-2017 6:35 PM


Re: No case at all
I'm not running away.

But really what can be said to a lying bully who thinks he gets to dictate what I meant ? Even Faith hasn't sunk quite that low.

Remember, everyone can see your posts. They can see me correcting you again and again, they can see you trying to pretend you are right despite all that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Rrhain, posted 03-15-2017 6:35 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by Rrhain, posted 03-19-2017 2:33 AM PaulK has responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3754
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 207 of 1484 (802387)
03-16-2017 1:32 AM


Going for all or nothing may mean getting nothing
Just looking at GLBT rights from a political candidate and/or party position:

One may have the choice of pushing GLBT rights issues moderately or (for lack of a better term) extremely. Now "extreme" may be the progressive moral right thing to do, but...

If one chooses "moderate" and win the election, then moderate (or greater) gains are possible.

If one chooses "extreme" and looses the election (because of loosing the support of moderates or whatever), then moderate (or greater) gains possibilities are (severely?) reduced, and losses are a possibility.

It seems pointless to take the high moral ground is that is going to lead to a loss.

OSLT.

Moose


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by ringo, posted 03-16-2017 11:51 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7066
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 208 of 1484 (802388)
03-16-2017 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Modulous
03-15-2017 8:23 PM


Re: don't rock the boat
Modulous writes:

You weren't suggesting people not sue or complain to regulatory committees because its a stressful process. But because, to summarize, it creates more heat than light and turns people off the cause.

Correct, so drop all the other nonsense that you introduced.

I'm fine with people being irritated. Hopefully they'll realize the bigots are the cause of the irritation, and not the people being harmed by them and asking the courts for justice.

I'm fine with you being fine with it. I'm merely pointing out that it might turn out to be counterproductive.

Also, the fact that you think it is a trivial matter to be denied service because of who you are marrying is a strong indication you haven't lived through the years of discrimination without any recourse. You haven't felt the pain of institutional prejudice over and over and over again denying you access to one thing after another. You haven't felt the hurt of a lovely day planned to go out tasting cakes for your special day being soured by someone reminding you they think you are still awful and not deserving, that they can get away with it because 'whaddya gonna do about it'. The years of bullying, humiliation, the being driven to the depths of suicidal despair through death from a thousand cuts.

I understand why you may want to extract revenge for past harm and with the hope of warding off future harm. I'm merely pointing out that to do so by reacting to every slight of closed-minded bigots might turn out to be counterproductive.

Trivial? Please don't trivialise other people's struggles, other people's pain.

Please don't corrupt my argument. A cake is trivia and always will be. I understand that it stands for more than the cake, and I understand that you feel that you've suffered for being what you are, and it's fun to mess with bigots - maybe once.
But if there are continued national outrages caused by minor issues it may become counterproductive.

We are individuals, the problems that affect us are ours. If someone harms me, why should I think 'is this strategically wise for the Great Cause?' before I seek justice? What good does that do me? What is the better strategy, in your opinion? Ignoring the denial of services?

Because the main battle has been won. You can ride above the slights of the bigots and just ignore them when the issue is trivial. Like a bloody cake. You can't change them, you can only change society generally over time by simply being everyday citizens that don't reach for a law suit every time they feel offended by an idiot.

Do the same rules of not rocking the boat for fear of upsetting the cause apply to all protected classes, or just queers?

They apply to everybody. We all get annoyed by the behaviour of others. Some things are worth the effort of doing something about it, somethings aren't. As the the lawyers say, 'having principles can be expensive.' Sometimes it's better to just shrug it off.

I'm not attempting to tell individuals what to do - if you want to kick back at the bigots now that you can, go ahead, it makes for great reading. Everytime it happens I think great, bagged another bastard. But at some point it's going to look like you've got a real chip on your collective shoulders - deserved or otherwise.

If you want to win the hearts of the nation you've just conquered on the battlefield, it's generally thought a bad idea to bayonet their wounded. The word magnanimous springs to mind.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Modulous, posted 03-15-2017 8:23 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by jar, posted 03-16-2017 7:29 AM Tangle has responded
 Message 213 by Faith, posted 03-16-2017 8:57 AM Tangle has responded
 Message 238 by Modulous, posted 03-16-2017 5:13 PM Tangle has responded
 Message 368 by Rrhain, posted 03-19-2017 3:52 AM Tangle has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2074
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 209 of 1484 (802393)
03-16-2017 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
03-12-2017 7:23 AM


Gay Marriage is an attack on Christianity
I think that gay marriage is a direct attack on IS or ISIS.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 7:23 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31258
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 210 of 1484 (802395)
03-16-2017 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Tangle
03-16-2017 4:09 AM


What to do to support rights for LBGTs in the US
I think the important issue is what can be done in the US to prevent those battles that have been won from being lost for decades to come.

The rights will be determined in the US by the courts, by the legislature and by the position of the Executive Branch.

For at least the next four years the position of the Executive Branch is that protecting LBGT rights is NOT a Federal issue but rather should be decided at the State and even Local level.

The Courts are currently divided. There is one current opening at the Supreme Court with two or three more openings over the next decade likely. There are over 100 openings at Federal Judgeships.

Those positions will get filled by appointees selected by the Executive Branch and confirmed by the Legislative Branch.

Currently the Federal level Legislative Branch is dominated by a political Party that agrees with the Executive that LBGT (and many other civil rights issues) should NOT be a Federal mandate but rather decided at the State and Local level. These are the people who will confirm the court appointments.

At the State and local level there is fairly widespread (though not a majority) support to deny equal protection under the law on LBGT issues and disallow same-sex marriage.

If past gains relating to LBGT issues and Womens Rights and Religious Freedom and the Rights of Free Association and Freedom from unwarranted search and seizure are to be maintained and advanced the primary goal needs to be at the political level. Candidates that will support those positions must be identified and that information broadcast among those who will support such rights and every local, State and Federal election must be targets to change the makeup of the current Federal Legislature.

We cannot afford more Bernie/Hillary splits. We cannot afford to NOT address the elephant in the room called the Federal Court appointments.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Tangle, posted 03-16-2017 4:09 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Tangle, posted 03-16-2017 8:36 AM jar has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019