timschochet
Footballguy
its like rain on my wedding day.If anyone knows about making arguements full of irony, it is Tim.
its like rain on my wedding day.If anyone knows about making arguements full of irony, it is Tim.
No. He's arguing that the law passes rational basis review because the legislature could conceivably believe the law benefits society.Hes not arguing for the justices to uphold the state laws because they're Constitutional; he's arguing for them to uphold the state laws because in his view limiting marriage to a man and a woman benefits society. Isn't that a contradiction of the traditional conservative meme that the SC should turn a blind eye to all issues other than whether a law is constitutional or not? That anything other than that was judicial activism?I think that's an unfair characterization. The lawyer raises the out of wedlock birth issue to support the legitimacy of the state actions being challenged here. And if you don't think a right is recognized by the Constitution, or you believe that the law in question overcomes the requisite level of scrutiny under a Constitutional analysis, that position is not the same thing as "arguing for the Justices to ignore the Constitution."And then of course there's this old classic:
John J. Bursch, the lawyer for the opponents of same-sex marriage, argued in response that if people no longer believe that marriage and creating children have anything to do with each other, there will be more children born out of wedlock, which he said was a problem for society.
The ironic part about this argument is that, even if one were to accept it on its face, the lawyer here is arguing for the justices to ignore the Constitution and create law based on what is supposedly good for society. Hardly a conservative position.
No. He's arguing that the law passes rational basis review because the legislature could conceivably believe the law benefits society.Hes not arguing for the justices to uphold the state laws because they're Constitutional; he's arguing for them to uphold the state laws because in his view limiting marriage to a man and a woman benefits society. Isn't that a contradiction of the traditional conservative meme that the SC should turn a blind eye to all issues other than whether a law is constitutional or not? That anything other than that was judicial activism?I think that's an unfair characterization. The lawyer raises the out of wedlock birth issue to support the legitimacy of the state actions being challenged here. And if you don't think a right is recognized by the Constitution, or you believe that the law in question overcomes the requisite level of scrutiny under a Constitutional analysis, that position is not the same thing as "arguing for the Justices to ignore the Constitution."And then of course there's this old classic:
John J. Bursch, the lawyer for the opponents of same-sex marriage, argued in response that if people no longer believe that marriage and creating children have anything to do with each other, there will be more children born out of wedlock, which he said was a problem for society.
The ironic part about this argument is that, even if one were to accept it on its face, the lawyer here is arguing for the justices to ignore the Constitution and create law based on what is supposedly good for society. Hardly a conservative position.
To be fair - Most people paying attention in this world could tell a conservative what they were going to be told to think before they could.Tim knows what all conservatives think. He tell us on every issue.
You could say the same thing about liberal dumb ####s. It this kind of non-sense that makes people hate politics. .To be fair - Most people paying attention in this world could tell a conservative what they wereTim knows what all conservatives think. He tell us on every issue.
going to be told to think before they could.
What would a liberal dumb ### say?You could say the same thing about liberal dumb ####s. It this kind of non-sense that makes people hate politics. .To be fair - Most people paying attention in this world could tell a conservative what they wereTim knows what all conservatives think. He tell us on every issue.
going to be told to think before they could.
Yeah, in the context of this debate. I'm curious as well.What would a liberal dumb ### say?You could say the same thing about liberal dumb ####s. It this kind of non-sense that makes people hate politics. .To be fair - Most people paying attention in this world could tell a conservative what they wereTim knows what all conservatives think. He tell us on every issue.
going to be told to think before they could.
OK. I see your point; I stand corrected.No. He's arguing that the law passes rational basis review because the legislature could conceivably believe the law benefits society.Hes not arguing for the justices to uphold the state laws because they're Constitutional; he's arguing for them to uphold the state laws because in his view limiting marriage to a man and a woman benefits society. Isn't that a contradiction of the traditional conservative meme that the SC should turn a blind eye to all issues other than whether a law is constitutional or not? That anything other than that was judicial activism?I think that's an unfair characterization. The lawyer raises the out of wedlock birth issue to support the legitimacy of the state actions being challenged here. And if you don't think a right is recognized by the Constitution, or you believe that the law in question overcomes the requisite level of scrutiny under a Constitutional analysis, that position is not the same thing as "arguing for the Justices to ignore the Constitution."And then of course there's this old classic:
John J. Bursch, the lawyer for the opponents of same-sex marriage, argued in response that if people no longer believe that marriage and creating children have anything to do with each other, there will be more children born out of wedlock, which he said was a problem for society.
The ironic part about this argument is that, even if one were to accept it on its face, the lawyer here is arguing for the justices to ignore the Constitution and create law based on what is supposedly good for society. Hardly a conservative position.
blah blah blah fairness blah blah blah racist blah blah blah equality blah blah blah homophobic blah blah blahWhat would a liberal dumb ### say?You could say the same thing about liberal dumb ####s. It this kind of non-sense that makes people hate politics. .To be fair - Most people paying attention in this world could tell a conservative what they wereTim knows what all conservatives think. He tell us on every issue.
going to be told to think before they could.
I agree. Seems like a pretty good rationale to me, but my opinion on the subject carries slightly less weight than the Chief Justice.Chief Justice John Roberts brought up what I've thought all along is the best legal argument against bans on same-sex marriage:
Counsel, I’m not sure it’s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve the case. I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn't that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?
Banning gay marriage discriminates based on sex, not sexual orientation (at least directly). And discrimination based on sex invites heightened scrutiny.
It would be truly a great development if this case both comes out the right way AND is written with Roberts applying intermediate scrutiny instead of Kennedy applying some form of scrutiny that he hasn't been able to articulate for two decades.Chief Justice John Roberts brought up what I've thought all along is the best legal argument against bans on same-sex marriage:
Counsel, I’m not sure it’s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve the case. I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn't that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?
Banning gay marriage discriminates based on sex, not sexual orientation (at least directly). And discrimination based on sex invites heightened scrutiny.
to the extent he's conducting a civil marriage, he's an instrument of the State.Maurile Tremblay said:JUSTICE SCALIA: Is it conceivable that a minister who is authorized by the State to conduct marriage can decline to marry two men if indeed this Court holds that they have a constitutional right to marry?
ME: The 14th Amendment guarantees people equal protection under the law, not equal protection under church doctrine. It says that states can't discriminate arbitrarily, not that priests can't. Even after Loving, no priests have been required to marry interracial couples. So yes, it's conceivable that even if the Petitioners prevail in this case, no priests would be required to marry gay couples. It's not just conceivable -- it's virtually certain.
And do it with hand puppets.fatguyinalittlecoat said:Now do one where you pretend you're the Justices asking questions and then insert the real lawyers' answers.
Maurile Tremblay said:JUSTICE ALITO: Well, how do you account for the fact that, as far as I'm aware, until the end of the 20th century, there never was a nation or a culture that recognized marriage between two people of the same sex? INSERT A MILLION THINGS HERE
Actually the correct answer is that it is not true. I would have loved hearing Maurile explain that Christians banned gay marriage when they gained control of Rome.Maurile Tremblay said:JUSTICE ALITO: Well, how do you account for the fact that, as far as I'm aware, until the end of the 20th century, there never was a nation or a culture that recognized marriage between two people of the same sex? INSERT A MILLION THINGS HERE
I think the slippery slope argument at the time was regarding letting children voteJon Stewart on the slippery-slope argument: "When women fought for suffrage, how come nobody was like, 'Well what if someday a dog wants to vote?'"
Well, there is a movement.....I think the slippery slope argument at the time was regarding letting children voteJon Stewart on the slippery-slope argument: "When women fought for suffrage, how come nobody was like, 'Well what if someday a dog wants to vote?'"
Surprised they did not propose 3/5ths as a compromise.Youth suffrage, or children's suffrage, is the right of youth to vote and forms part of the broader youth rights movement. Until recently Iran had a voting age of 15; Argentina,Austria, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador and Nicaragua have a voting age of 16; and Indonesia, East Timor, Sudan, and Seychelles have a voting age of 17.
In the United States, suffrage originally could not be denied on account of age only to those 21 years of age or older; this age is mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified on July 1, 1971, lowered that age to 18. The primary impetus for this change was the fact that young men were being drafted to fight in the Vietnam War before they were old enough to vote. There have been many proposals to lower the voting age even further. In 2004, California State Senator John Vasconcellos (D-Santa Clara) proposed a youth suffrage constitutional amendment called Training Wheels for Citizenship that would give 14-year-olds a quarter vote, 16-year-olds a half vote, and 17-year-olds a full vote.[2]
In 2013, Takoma Park, Maryland became the first U.S. city to allow 16 and 17 year olds the right to vote.[3][4] On January 5, 2015, Hyattsville, Maryland joined Takoma Park in lowering the voting age to 16.[5]
They should have asked Alito why he thinks the rest of the world should dictate the protections afforded US citizens by the US Constitution.Maurile Tremblay said:JUSTICE ALITO: Well, how do you account for the fact that, as far as I'm aware, until the end of the 20th century, there never was a nation or a culture that recognized marriage between two people of the same sex? INSERT A MILLION THINGS HERE
Now that's funny.Well, there is a movement.....I think the slippery slope argument at the time was regarding letting children voteJon Stewart on the slippery-slope argument: "When women fought for suffrage, how come nobody was like, 'Well what if someday a dog wants to vote?'"
Surprised they did not propose 3/5ths as a compromise.Youth suffrage, or children's suffrage, is the right of youth to vote and forms part of the broader youth rights movement. Until recently Iran had a voting age of 15; Argentina,Austria, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador and Nicaragua have a voting age of 16; and Indonesia, East Timor, Sudan, and Seychelles have a voting age of 17.
In the United States, suffrage originally could not be denied on account of age only to those 21 years of age or older; this age is mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified on July 1, 1971, lowered that age to 18. The primary impetus for this change was the fact that young men were being drafted to fight in the Vietnam War before they were old enough to vote. There have been many proposals to lower the voting age even further. In 2004, California State Senator John Vasconcellos (D-Santa Clara) proposed a youth suffrage constitutional amendment called Training Wheels for Citizenship that would give 14-year-olds a quarter vote, 16-year-olds a half vote, and 17-year-olds a full vote.[2]
In 2013, Takoma Park, Maryland became the first U.S. city to allow 16 and 17 year olds the right to vote.[3][4] On January 5, 2015, Hyattsville, Maryland joined Takoma Park in lowering the voting age to 16.[5]
I think most people know I'm pretty progressive on social issues and the kind of person who is repulsed by the Family Research Council and everyone involved with it. But the reaction to and treatment of this Duggar guy by my fellow progressives really rubs me the wrong way. If my math is correct this guy did these terrible things when he was 14 -15 years old. The entire reason we have a separate justice system for juveniles with sealed records and an alternate approach to sentencing is because we've decided as a society that we don't hold children responsible for their behavior the same way we do with adults. We don't get to throw that concept out the window and hold an adult fully accountable for what he did as a child just because the child in question turned into a dooshbag adult who works for a horrible organization.Not sure where to post this, but since he worked for the anti-gay marriage Family Research Council, this thread seemed the most appropriate.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/05/21/josh-duggar-apologizes-resigns-from-family-research-council-amid-molestation-allegations/
Josh Duggar apologizes, resigns from Family Research Council amid molestation allegations
In the wake of a tabloid report alleging that he molested several underage girls while he was a teenager, reality-television star Josh Duggar said Thursday that he "acted inexcusably" and was deeply sorry for what he called my wrongdoing."
The 27-year-old Duggar, a member of the family that stars on TLCs "19 Kids and Counting," also resigned his post with the Family Research Council.
In an exclusive statement to People magazine, Duggar said:
"Twelve years ago, as a young teenager, I acted inexcusably for which I am extremely sorry and deeply regret. I hurt others, including my family and close friends. I confessed this to my parents who took several steps to help me address the situation. We spoke with the authorities where I confessed my wrongdoing, and my parents arranged for me and those affected by my actions to receive counseling. I understood that if I continued down this wrong road that I would end up ruining my life." [...]
Josh Duggar is the oldest child in the family that stars in the popular TLC show, "19 Kids and Counting." Duggar, his wife Anna and their three children live in Washington, where Duggar worked as executive director of FRC Action, the non-profit lobbying arm of the Family Research Council.
The Family Research Council, a conservative Christian organization led by Tony Perkins, is known for its advocacy against same-sex marriage, "with the mission to champion marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society"
Urine idiot. Hahahahahahahaha.http://patch.com/pennsylvania/doylestown/father-and-son-married-one-same-sex-couples-story
Father and son marry in Bucks county. They debase one relationship before they debase another!
As bad as that is, I read that the investigation was dropped because the investigating trooper was arrested for child porn and is serving a 56 year sentence. Then it was picked up some time later (via Oprah) but the statute of limitations had passed.Not sure where to post this, but since he worked for the anti-gay marriage Family Research Council, this thread seemed the most appropriate.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/05/21/josh-duggar-apologizes-resigns-from-family-research-council-amid-molestation-allegations/
Josh Duggar apologizes, resigns from Family Research Council amid molestation allegations
In the wake of a tabloid report alleging that he molested several underage girls while he was a teenager, reality-television star Josh Duggar said Thursday that he "acted inexcusably" and was deeply sorry for what he called my wrongdoing."
The 27-year-old Duggar, a member of the family that stars on TLCs "19 Kids and Counting," also resigned his post with the Family Research Council.
In an exclusive statement to People magazine, Duggar said:
"Twelve years ago, as a young teenager, I acted inexcusably for which I am extremely sorry and deeply regret. I hurt others, including my family and close friends. I confessed this to my parents who took several steps to help me address the situation. We spoke with the authorities where I confessed my wrongdoing, and my parents arranged for me and those affected by my actions to receive counseling. I understood that if I continued down this wrong road that I would end up ruining my life." [...]
Josh Duggar is the oldest child in the family that stars in the popular TLC show, "19 Kids and Counting." Duggar, his wife Anna and their three children live in Washington, where Duggar worked as executive director of FRC Action, the non-profit lobbying arm of the Family Research Council.
The Family Research Council, a conservative Christian organization led by Tony Perkins, is known for its advocacy against same-sex marriage, "with the mission to champion marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society"
Way to bury the lead. Not a fan of their original actions but when you are left no choices you do what you need to do. Good for them.http://patch.com/pennsylvania/doylestown/father-and-son-married-one-same-sex-couples-story
Father and son marry in Bucks county. They debase one relationship before they debase another!
That's a good point. But what do you think the Family Research Council would say about a man who fondled boys when he was a teenager?I think most people know I'm pretty progressive on social issues and the kind of person who is repulsed by the Family Research Council and everyone involved with it. But the reaction to and treatment of this Duggar guy by my fellow progressives really rubs me the wrong way. If my math is correct this guy did these terrible things when he was 14 -15 years old. The entire reason we have a separate justice system for juveniles with sealed records and an alternate approach to sentencing is because we've decided as a society that we don't hold children responsible for their behavior the same way we do with adults. We don't get to throw that concept out the window and hold an adult fully accountable for what he did as a child just because the child in question turned into a dooshbag adult who works for a horrible organization.
You too?But what do you think the Family Research Council would say about a man who fondled boys when he was a teenager?
You too?But what do you think the Family Research Council would say about a man who fondled boys when he was a teenager?
19 cancellations and counting:Not sure where to post this, but since he worked for the anti-gay marriage Family Research Council, this thread seemed the most appropriate.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/05/21/josh-duggar-apologizes-resigns-from-family-research-council-amid-molestation-allegations/
Josh Duggar apologizes, resigns from Family Research Council amid molestation allegations
In the wake of a tabloid report alleging that he molested several underage girls while he was a teenager, reality-television star Josh Duggar said Thursday that he "acted inexcusably" and was deeply sorry for what he called my wrongdoing."
The 27-year-old Duggar, a member of the family that stars on TLCs "19 Kids and Counting," also resigned his post with the Family Research Council.
I think we do when it involves molesting underage siblings. There are some things as teenagers we can overlook. This is not one of them.We don't get to throw that concept out the window and hold an adult fully accountable for what he did as a child just because the child in question turned into a dooshbag adult who works for a horrible organization.
It did:Ireland to vote via nationwide referendum on constitutional amendment to recognize gay marriage.
Polls suggest it will pass overwhelmingly.