The Rainbow Connection [LGBTS Club]

[FreakyLocz14]

That whole thing is ridiculous. Judge Walker heard both sides of the case and made an informed decision and gave incredibly detailed reasoning behind his ruling. That reason was basically that the case against gay marriage was paper-thin while the case for gay marriage had several expert and lay witnesses who actually delivered their case strongly. I read a leaked court transcript to that effect shortly after the decision was first made.

The attorneys for Prop 8 just can't accept the fact that they messed up and couldn't find any legitimate constitutional reasons why gay people shouldn't be able to get married.

It is in the job description of a judge that he or she be completely impartial. If he had felt he was unable to do so, he would have recused himself. As it happens, he did not. Hypocritically, the only way the Judge could have proven to the Prop 8 attorneys that he was indeed impartial would be to rule in their favour.

I'm not saying I agree with them, but I can see how someone would think it's fishy. He is in a same-sex relationship, is a resident of California, and wishes to marry his partner. It seems like he has something gain from the case.

 

[-ty-]

That's who he's attacking. He's right that children are discouraged from discussing Jesus and Christmas in schools.

So Obama and Congress have made legislation that discourages students from discussing Jesus and Christmas? That is not right at all.

Also name on statute that prohibits speech about Jesus or Christmas in school.

He is attacking Obama for something he has not done. He is attacking "the left" for something that is not true. Now let me ask again, is there any specific federal statute or action taken by Obama that has taken the child's right to celebrate Christmas or talk about Jesus in school?

And to the other topic about the gay judge in the prop 8 case...I think that he should have recused himself so he wouldn't have had to deal with all of this; he should have known that those idiots would attack his sexuality. So now gay partners have to wait longer, when another judge would have made the same judgement as he would. But aside from that point, there is no reason why it was unlawful of him not to recuse himself. It's like saying a black judge should not be able to oversee a case involving biracial marriage, or any black civil rights; or maybe any religious rights cases should be overseen by a Christian, no wait, an atheist, no wait, both might be partial because they have religious or lack of religious beliefs therefore something to gain...yes, like Andy said, it is RIDICULOUS to have race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religious beliefs as prerequisites for impartiality because the laws of the land affect everyone directly in constitutional rights cases.

Judges mainly face the decision to recuse themselves when there is a personal conflict, not a broad ideological conflict. Most of the time personal conflicts arise in criminal/civil cases when the judge is acquainted to the plaintiff(s) or defendant(s), not constitutional law.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

So Obama and Congress have made legislation that discourages students from discussing Jesus and Christmas? That is not right at all.

Also name on statute that prohibits speech about Jesus or Christmas in school.

He is attacking Obama for something he has not done. He is attacking "the left" for something that is not true. Now let me ask again, is there any specific federal statute or action taken by Obama that has taken the child's right to celebrate Christmas or talk about Jesus in school?

He's not attacking Obama specifically. He's attacking liberals through their culture and even some court opinions that prohibit prayer in school.

 

[-ty-]

He's not attacking Obama specifically. He's attacking liberals through their culture and even some court opinions that prohibit prayer in school.

Verbatim he said, "Obama's war on religion." That is a specific, although not exclusive, attack and accusation.

Courts are non-partisan, not liberal in nature. I would like you to specify some opinions that prohibit a student from praying in school so I understand where you are coming from. I don't think that there are any statutes or case laws that specify that a student is not allowed to pray in school. If it's the case that there is not any primary authority, then how is he going to make any changes to a non-existent hypocracy?

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Verbatim he said, "Obama's war on religion." That is a specific, although not exclusive, attack and accusation.

Courts are non-partisan, not liberal in nature. I would like you to specify some opinions that prohibit a student from praying in school so I understand where you are coming from. I don't think that there are any statutes or case laws that specify that a student is not allowed to pray in school. If it's the case that there is not any primary authority, then how is he going to make any changes to a non-existent hypocracy?

In Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, the Court ruled that student-initiated prayer is not allowed. This isn't state-sponsored. The prayer is initiated by students.

 

[Esper]

News: Prop 8 proponents likely to succeed in keeping cameras out of the courtroom, unsure on issue of Judge Walker's failure to recuse himself.
https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/08/BAVL1MA76L.DTL

I wonder what their reasoning for that is. Why would they not want cameras in the court? Afraid public opinion would hear their arguments and it would hurt them?

 

[-ty-]

In Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, the Court ruled that student-initiated prayer is not allowed. This isn't state-sponsored. The prayer is initiated by students.

Case Brief

"The Court held that the policy allowing the student led prayer at the football games was unconstitutional. The majority opinion, written by Justice Stevens depended on Lee v. Weisman.[2] It held that these pre-game prayers delivered "on school property, at school-sponsored events, over the school's public address system, by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of school faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer" are not private, but public speech. "Regardless of the listener's support for, or objection to, the message, an objective Santa Fe High School student will unquestionably perceive the inevitable pregame prayer as stamped with her school's seal of approval."

The students are allowed to pray, they just cannot use the school property to project their prayer over the loudspeaker to address the public. Students are permitted to have a prayer circle, but they are not allowed to use school resources because essentially the school would be endorsing the religious beliefs, which is unconstitutional.

So again, a student is allowed to pray in school. That right has never been taken away.

I wonder what their reasoning for that is. Why would they not want cameras in the court? Afraid public opinion would hear their arguments and it would hurt them?

I know, isn't it ridiculous? Cases like the Casey Anthony Trial should have been private because it was so high profile, the public viewing caused tremendous problems! Yet cases like these that dispute civil liberties are swept under the rug.

 

[Ineffable~]

Welcome to the club Phantom! :) Have a nice time here and STAY ACTIVE BECAUSE WE LIKE ACTIVITY <3

We were just talking about asexual bi/homoromantic people a few pages ago I think . . . soooo you came about just a bit too late! I mean, no it's never too late!

Ignore me, I need sleep.

 

[Keiran]

Oh, hello there Phantom. :D

Also...

 

[U.Flame]

Damn image/video/whatever that was isn't showing up on my computor. What is it?

 

[Nakuzami]

@Keiran777 - Lolololololololol
I have no idea who/what that is, but I think I'm in love xD

On the whole reiligion-in-schools thing: Well, I don't really see how it's not allowed, or whatever, at all. I mean, in my school I'm sure they'd allow us to pray and everything. I say it like that because it's not like anybody really tries to, most people I know could probably care less, lol.
Although, this came to mind when I was in Chorus class earlier: a lot of the songs we sing in chorus seem to be religious. Two songs that we're doing are Fum Fum Fum (it's in Spanish, but it talks about Jesus) and God Rest You Merry Gentlemen (dude, it says God in the name, and then it goes on to talk about Bethelhem and everything) and in past years we've done songs about Hanukkah and everything . . . uh . . . where was I going with this? Oh, I think I was going to say that religion is openly expressed, and that I don't see any restrictions or anything at all.
The closest thing I can see for that is when people (teachers mostly) say "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry/Happy Christmas" or "Happy Hanukkah."

 

[Oryx]

@Nakuzami, that's Stephen Colbert, amazing comedian with a daily "news" show on Comedy Central.

The education website for the government has a bunch of restrictions on what teachers can and can't do that seem pretty reasonable. They can't lead a class in prayer but students can pray with each other, they have to give the same allowances to a religious after-school club as a normal one, etc. Although I really do feel like I've heard stories where that hasn't been respected, but I would think of that as the exception since the official government statement on it is pretty clear.

 

[Shining Raichu]

Welcome, PhantomX0990! I just added you to the member list so you're officially one of us!

OK, so here's something that's going on in Australia right now. The sister of the former Prime Minister (and current Foreign Minister) of Australia has quit the Labor Party (kind of like our Democrats equivalent) because they have decided to change their stance and support gay marriage. The whole disgusting article can be found here. But in case you can't be bothered reading (though I strongly suggest you do), here are some choice quotes:

"I no longer liked the direction the Labor Party was going at state or federal level and I couldn't work for a party that had endorsed homosexuals marrying."

"I don't believe gay marriage is good for the community"

"It is a horrible thing for them to be discriminated against and that's why my brother introduced laws so they are not discriminated against.
"But to make that huge leap from their rights to breaking a commandment of Moses, to say homosexuals' relationships is marriage, is utter nonsense."

 

[Esper]

Welcome, PhantomX0990! I just added you to the member list so you're officially one of us!

OK, so here's something that's going on in Australia right now. The sister of the former Prime Minister (and current Foreign Minister) of Australia has quit the Labor Party (kind of like our Democrats equivalent) because they have decided to change their stance and support gay marriage. The whole disgusting article can be found here. But in case you can't be bothered reading (though I strongly suggest you do), here are some choice quotes:

I'm starting to hate when people get all upset over gay marriage and make a big deal of how they can't support it. It's not hurting anyone else's marriage - if anything it's probably helping to keep gay people from entering loveless marriages. (I dunno, does that still happen?)

I mean, it's like they think they're "strengthening traditional marriage" by trying to keep gay people from having the right to marry. This means one of two things is going on. Either 1) 'traditional' marriage is already so perfect everywhere and in every way that there's no way to improve or strengthen it directly so they can only focus on the 'dangers' trying to make marriage worse (in which case what is the threat from gay marriage?) or 2) they don't actually care about 'defending' marriage and are just using it as a vehicle to channel their bigotry.

It makes me mad, and I don't even care about marriage.

 

[Ineffable~]

I mean, it's like they think they're "strengthening traditional marriage" by trying to keep gay people from having the right to marry. This means one of two things is going on. Either 1) 'traditional' marriage is already so perfect everywhere and in every way that there's no way to improve or strengthen it directly so they can only focus on the 'dangers' trying to make marriage worse (in which case what is the threat from gay marriage?) or 2) they don't actually care about 'defending' marriage and are just using it as a vehicle to channel their bigotry.

This reminds me of my favourite glib argument in this direction: "So a man and a woman who hate each other can be married, but two (wo)men who love each other can't be married?" I've never heard anyone actually respond to this, and I wonder what people would try to say to argue it.

 

[Mew~]

idk if you guys have actually discussed this yet :x but we were having a good conversation with a cool supply we had for Physics, and we came to the subject of sexuality (nothing to do with physics, I know), and someone said they didn't like how gay people flaunted their sexuality about or something along those lines, and should keep it to yourself. I wanted to know what you guys think about this subject, I mean, a lot of people don't mind it when you see a girl and a boy snogging in a public place. Sorry if it's already been discussed.

 

[Esper]

idk if you guys have actually discussed this yet :x but we were having a good conversation with a cool supply we had for Physics, and we came to the subject of sexuality (nothing to do with physics, I know), and someone said they didn't like how gay people flaunted their sexuality about or something along those lines, and should keep it to yourself. I wanted to know what you guys think about this subject, I mean, a lot of people don't mind it when you see a girl and a boy snogging in a public place. Sorry if it's already been discussed.

I'm pretty sure it has been discussed before, but it's one of those topics that never really goes away because someone inevitably feels a need to say they don't like gay people flaunting their gay-itude.

This person you mention is probably not very aware of how much straight people "flaunt" their sexuality. Some people just don't like public displays of affection, but among that group you get people who are more against gay PDA than straight PDA. Like, for instance, they don't notice or care if a heterosexual couple is holding hands, but when a gay couple do it it's "flaunting." You just have those people out there who don't realize that because we live in a heteronormative world where straight is default and doesn't stand out a lot of it goes unnoticed. Or rather, not unnoticed, but not seen as standing out.

 

[Sydian]

Wasn't there a thread about that? I'm uncomfortable with heavy PDA in general, I don't care if it's a straight couple, gay couple, interracial, alien, etc. That's just me. It makes me uncomfortable and reminds me that I'm forever alone. The flaunting their sexuality thing idk...it's kind of annoying when they're like constantly finding a way to mention they're gay. I was drying silverware at work Friday night and there were two guys helping me, one of which was a screaming rainbow. Everything he said, he made sure to heavily imply he was gay, and it was really annoying. I was already pissed off and annoyed because we ended up working til 1 AM and I was on my 6th rack of silverware with more to go, so him saying all that didn't help. He was really agitating. This goes for anyone that finds the need to imply they're straight all the time, too. It's just like "okay are you insecure about you're sexuality? cause i get it. you're gay/straight/whatever. fantastic. shut up. do dishes."

/mini rant sorry

 

[Ineffable~]

Regarding the current topic, I'm mad at Scarf for saying exactly what I wanted to I think gay people flaunt their gaiety exactly as much as straight people flaunt their straightity. A woman saying "my boyfriend did this yesterday blah blah blah" isn't "keeping it to yourself" that she's straight (or maybe bi/pan, whatev). Does that make it flaunting? No, or at least I hope not. It's okay to mention things that would make you gay. Me talking about my girlfriend to people is a clear indicator that I'm gay, but it's something I would mention whether or not I were gay. On the other hand, running around saying "LOL I'M A LESBIAN HAHAHA" all the time can be considered flaunting. Public displays of affection are a grey area in my opinion. I love displays of affection, but I wouldn't really like to be seen in public all over each other so I'm willing to tone it down. Whether straight or gay, seeing two people on a bus doing everything short of stripping down and having sex is a bit of an eyesore.

In my opinion I find it almost "flaunting your straightity" to announce to people how you don't like gay people flaunting their gaiety, since it's like "well of course I'm superior to you! It's how the world is!" It's just, you don't need to turn your own sexuality into a discussion topic.

I was drying silverware at work Friday night and there were two guys helping me, one of which was a screaming rainbow. Everything he said, he made sure to heavily imply he was gay, and it was really annoying. I was already pissed off and annoyed because we ended up working til 1 AM and I was on my 6th rack of silverware with more to go, so him saying all that didn't help. He was really agitating. This goes for anyone that finds the need to imply they're straight all the time, too. It's just like "okay are you insecure about you're sexuality? cause i get it. you're gay/straight/whatever. fantastic. shut up. do dishes."

Lol, wow, you don't need to mention it in every sentence. xD

 

[Esper]

In my opinion I find it almost "flaunting your straightity" to announce to people how you don't like gay people flaunting their gaiety, since it's like "well of course I'm superior to you! It's how the world is!"

Truer words were never spoken.

Has anyone seen something called Explaining Gay Rights to People Who Make the Huge Leap That If We Legalize Gay Marriage It Will Open the Doors to all Sorts of Ridiculous Things Life Marrying Your Toaster, Children, The Dead or your Dog? It's kind of amazing, but also kind of sad that such a thing is necessary.