Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Reply To Thread

I knew it was going to happen, but...Follow

#1 Feb 17 2012 at 8:40 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,349 posts
NJ Gov. Chris Christie vetoed the Gay Marriage bill that passed in the legislature. He made it clear he had always intended to, but he hadn't made any statement since they passed it, leading to many groups to hope that he wouldn't. Christie says he supports putting it up to the popular vote.

My favorite part, though, is his pre-prepared statement:
Quote:
"I have been just as adamant that same-sex couples in a civil union deserve the very same rights and benefits enjoyed by married couples — as well as the strict enforcement of those rights and benefits,’’ Christie said in a prepared statement.

"Discrimination should not be tolerated and any complaint alleging a violation of a citizen’s right should be investigated and, if appropriate, remedied."


The last line is what is so absurd. Christie is against courts ruling in the case. He doesn't want this issue investigated, he doesn't want to find if there's a violation of rights here. He wants the majority to rule over the minority.

What makes it even more absurd is that the legislature ruled that gay marriage was necessary because the existing civil union law was failing to provide equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples, and that it was (in addition) stigmatizing them.

Really shouldn't be as upset as I am--I knew it was coming. Still though, I suspect this bottle of wine will be much less full in the morning.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#2 Feb 17 2012 at 9:27 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:

Quote:
"Discrimination should not be tolerated and any complaint alleging a violation of a citizen’s right should be investigated and, if appropriate, remedied."


The last line is what is so absurd.


Not really.

Quote:
What makes it even more absurd is that the legislature ruled that gay marriage was necessary because the existing civil union law was failing to provide equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples, and that it was (in addition) stigmatizing them.


First off, legislatures don't rule. They legislate. Occasionally, they make determinations or findings, but they don't rule.

The question here (and I'll admit to knowing very little about the NJ civil union legal status) is if the finding that civil unions were failing to provide the same rights and benefits as marriage was because the actual state law treats them differently, or if individuals and groups within the state are. If the former, then there's certainly a case to be made. But if the latter, then Christie's statement makes complete sense. He's saying that the solution to the problem lies not in changing the requirements for marriage, but in enforcing the existing law. If people/hospitals/businesses/whatever are treating civil unions differently, then that's a "violation of a citizen's rights (and) should be investigated and, if appropriate, remedied".


The state is only responsible for the benefits and rights granted by the state. That the federal government may treat a civil union differently than a marriage is a whole different issue.

Edited, Feb 17th 2012 7:27pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#3 Feb 17 2012 at 9:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,886 posts
Gordon St Tonight is an Australian variety and interview show. It's highly interactive, and one of the things it does is mock-grant audience wishes. One lesbian couple want to get married, but can't yet in Oz. One of the women got down on her knees and proposed, and the host, Adam Hills, said that they can't legally marry them, but that they'd host a "TV wedding" for the couple. They put that off for a later episode, so they could set it up.

Then apparently they got flooded with mail from other gay couples wishing they could be mock married too. So instead of hosting the wedding the next episode, Adam Hills announced that they were throwing open the invitation for a mass mock wedding of any queer couples that wanted to join in. They were contacting celebrities to be the mock Celebrant of the mass mock wedding.

In other news, three different bills are before the Australian Federal parliament, from three different parties, to legalise gay marriage, in three different ways. *sigh*
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#4 Feb 17 2012 at 9:46 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
The question here (and I'll admit to knowing very little about the NJ civil union legal status) is if the finding that civil unions were failing to provide the same rights and benefits as marriage was because the actual state law treats them differently, or if individuals and groups within the state are. If the former, then there's certainly a case to be made. But if the latter, then Christie's statement makes complete sense. He's saying that the solution to the problem lies not in changing the requirements for marriage, but in enforcing the existing law. If people/hospitals/businesses/whatever are treating civil unions differently, then that's a "violation of a citizen's rights (and) should be investigated and, if appropriate, remedied"


From what I understand of NJ Civil Union law, though, it's pretty much an issue of not being equal under the law.

Wikipedia wrote:
The New Jersey Legislature enacted the Domestic Partnership Act, P.L.2003, c. 246, on January 12, 2004, which came into effect on July 10, 2004. The law made domestic partnerships available to all same-sex couples, as well as to different-sex couples aged 62 and older. The domestic partnership statute provides "limited healthcare, inheritance, property rights and other rights and obligations" but "[does] not approach the broad array of rights and obligations afforded to married couples."[4] For example, as Lambda Legal states, the law "required health and pension benefits [only] for state employees—it was voluntary for other employers—and did not require family leave to care for an ill partner."


So it's not that they are being discriminated against - they literally are not granted the same rights as a marriage, which is pretty wrong in my book.
____________________________
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I have a racist anus.
#5 Feb 17 2012 at 10:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,349 posts
Oh good, gbaji's here.

And, what IDrownFish said. Plenty of cases where civilly united couples faced issues exercising their basic rights, like ability to visit your spouse in the hospital or deal with custody issues from kids.

Plus the whole second-class citizen issue. If the state is designating one group of people as being separate from the rest, they are inherently discriminating against them.

[EDIT]

To be more specific, civil unions are in theory supposed to apply all the state-level rights and benefits that marriages do. In practice, they were not. Not by a long shot.

Add in the "second class citizen" thing and you have a sizable problem.

Edited, Feb 18th 2012 12:24am by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#6 Feb 18 2012 at 2:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The only issue here is that Christie wants to pander to his homophobic GOP base and yet not ball up and admit it so he's kicking the can down the road with talk of a future referendum on the topic. If the population at large votes for it, he can say "Hey, they did it and not me" since he's not signing legislation. He's a sniveling coward, nothing more. It's baffling how the GOP fluffs this guy up as such a tough guy.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#7 Feb 18 2012 at 2:53 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,246 posts
I liked the part where someone calls him on pandering to the 2016 primary electorate. Tosser.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#8 Feb 18 2012 at 3:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
25,561 posts
Oh goodie, a new gay thread for Alma and Gbaji to act retarded about how it's not discrimination because gays can marry someone of the opposite gender if they wanted to get married or whatever other bullsh*t argument they have this time around.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#9 Feb 18 2012 at 8:10 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,349 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The only issue here is that Christie wants to pander to his homophobic GOP base and yet not ball up and admit it so he's kicking the can down the road with talk of a future referendum on the topic. If the population at large votes for it, he can say "Hey, they did it and not me" since he's not signing legislation. He's a sniveling coward, nothing more. It's baffling how the GOP fluffs this guy up as such a tough guy.

This. So much this.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#10 Feb 18 2012 at 12:14 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
Quote:
It's baffling how the GOP fluffs this guy up as such a tough guy.
Those GOP Fluffers...
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#11 Feb 18 2012 at 10:30 PM Rating: Good
Governor Christie should maybe veto the dessert menu a bit more often before denying people their rights.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#12 Feb 19 2012 at 12:07 AM Rating: Excellent
The GOP- truly the party of homophobes.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#13 Feb 19 2012 at 1:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Governor Christie: Concerned about what other men put in their mouths, but not his.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#14 Feb 19 2012 at 7:37 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Oh goodie, a new gay thread for Alma and Gbaji to act retarded about how it's not discrimination because gays can marry someone of the opposite gender if they wanted to get married or whatever other bullsh*t argument they have this time around.



And you claim that I'm the only one who talks about this stuff when every other thread is about this stuff...Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#15 Feb 19 2012 at 7:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Oh goodie, a new gay thread for Alma and Gbaji to act retarded about how it's not discrimination because gays can marry someone of the opposite gender if they wanted to get married or whatever other bullsh*t argument they have this time around.



And you claim that I'm the only one who talks about this stuff when every other thread is about this stuff...Smiley: oyvey
I'm pretty sure his only claim is that you are borderline retarded on the issue.


Edited, Feb 19th 2012 8:50am by Lubriderm
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#16 Feb 19 2012 at 9:36 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,811 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Oh goodie, a new gay thread for Alma and Gbaji to act retarded about how it's not discrimination because gays can marry someone of the opposite gender if they wanted to get married or whatever other bullsh*t argument they have this time around.



And you claim that I'm the only one who talks about this stuff when every other thread is about this stuff...Smiley: oyvey
I'm pretty sure his only claim is that you are borderline retarded on the issue.


Edited, Feb 19th 2012 8:50am by Lubriderm


Even though that is stupid claim with no basis, I was making cross thread shenanigans to another claim that I only participate in "sexual" threads, when every other thread here fits the criteria previously mentioned, i.e. this one.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#17Almalieque, Posted: Feb 19 2012 at 9:40 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Even though that is stupid claim with no basis, I was making cross thread shenanigans to another claim that I only participate in "sexual" threads, when every other thread here fits the criteria previously mentioned, i.e. this one.
#18 Feb 19 2012 at 9:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
25,561 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Oh goodie, a new gay thread for Alma and Gbaji to act retarded about how it's not discrimination because gays can marry someone of the opposite gender if they wanted to get married or whatever other bullsh*t argument they have this time around.
And you claim that I'm the only one who talks about this stuff when every other thread is about this stuff...Smiley: oyvey
I'm pretty sure his only claim is that you are borderline retarded on the issue.
Even though that is stupid claim with no basis, I was making cross thread shenanigans to another claim that I only participate in "sexual" threads, when every other thread here fits the criteria previously mentioned, i.e. this one.
It helps when you actually reply to the person who made that claim if you're trying to do any sort of cross thread shenanigans.

And it's not a "stupid claim with no basis", it's an observation.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#19 Feb 19 2012 at 12:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
In related GOP Gay news, Arizona sheriff and Congressional candidate Paul Babeu who was an outspoken advocate of tightening AZ immigration laws has been exposed as gay. By his Hispanic lover who Babeu allegedly threatened to deport if he ever revealed Babeu's secret.

Keep being classy, Republicans.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#20 Feb 19 2012 at 1:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
Almalieque wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Oh goodie, a new gay thread for Alma and Gbaji to act retarded about how it's not discrimination because gays can marry someone of the opposite gender if they wanted to get married or whatever other bullsh*t argument they have this time around.


And you claim that I'm the only one who talks about this stuff when every other thread is about this stuff...Smiley: oyvey

No, he said you only talk about this stuff, not that you're the only one who talks about this stuff. This is why people laugh at you and say you lack basic reading comprehension skills.
#21 Feb 19 2012 at 1:55 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
25,561 posts
Jophiel wrote:
In related GOP Gay news, Arizona sheriff and Congressional candidate Paul Babeu who was an outspoken advocate of tightening AZ immigration laws has been exposed as gay. By his Hispanic lover who Babeu allegedly threatened to deport if he ever revealed Babeu's secret.

Keep being classy, Republicans.
having a long term gay relationship with an illegal immigrant while you proclaim to be anti illegal immigration and anti gay (not 100% sure on the last one, but given that it's GOP he sure ain't pro gay)...
Goooooo hypocrites!
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#22 Feb 19 2012 at 2:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
As sheriff, I doubt he has a record on homosexuality one way or the other. I didn't know he was a chair on Romney's campaign though... read he stepped down today under the allegations.

Babeu's lover is being referred to in the media as only "Jose" with his last name withheld since his legal status is in question.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#23 Feb 19 2012 at 4:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
***
3,199 posts
It would be lovely if Jose was a plumber.
____________________________
For Truth, Justice, and the Norrathian Way!
Tinkering is a trade skill which will not prevent the mobs from hitting you.
#24 Feb 20 2012 at 10:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
3,633 posts
Jonwin wrote:
It would be lovely if Jose was a plumber.

Probably his pool boy.
____________________________
Mistress Darqflame wrote:
Sorry, anything representing or remotely resembling a dildo is a nono.
gigasnail wrote:
i'm lighting the freak signal here, sara help me out ~
Redding wrote:
Same ol' Sara now with 50% less hidden penis
#25Almalieque, Posted: Feb 21 2012 at 3:32 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Well that was kind of the point. The comment was made that that's all I talk about, when in fact, that's all this forum talks about.
#26 Feb 21 2012 at 8:03 AM Rating: Excellent
******
41,289 posts
SillyXSara wrote:
Jonwin wrote:
It would be lovely if Jose was a plumber.
Probably his pool boy.
Cabana boy.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#27 Feb 21 2012 at 10:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,403 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
To be more specific, civil unions are in theory supposed to apply all the state-level rights and benefits that marriages do. In practice, they were not. Not by a long shot.

Add in the "second class citizen" thing and you have a sizable problem.


How could you say that. Didn't you know 'separate but equal' is an eloquent solution that has been proven to stand the test of time? Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Feb 21st 2012 8:47am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#28 Feb 21 2012 at 12:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
12,969 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
SillyXSara wrote:
Jonwin wrote:
It would be lovely if Jose was a plumber.
Probably his pool boy.
Cabana Cabin boy.
Screenshot
____________________________
Banh
#29 Feb 21 2012 at 1:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,003 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The only issue here is that Christie wants to pander to his homophobic GOP base and yet not ball up and admit it so he's kicking the can down the road with talk of a future referendum on the topic. If the population at large votes for it, he can say "Hey, they did it and not me" since he's not signing legislation. He's a sniveling coward shrewd politician, nothing more.

FTFY
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#30 Feb 21 2012 at 5:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,623 posts
Well, those terms are really interchangeable, now aren't they?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#31 Feb 21 2012 at 7:55 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
IDrownFish of the Seven Seas wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The question here (and I'll admit to knowing very little about the NJ civil union legal status) is if the finding that civil unions were failing to provide the same rights and benefits as marriage was because the actual state law treats them differently, or if individuals and groups within the state are. If the former, then there's certainly a case to be made. But if the latter, then Christie's statement makes complete sense. He's saying that the solution to the problem lies not in changing the requirements for marriage, but in enforcing the existing law. If people/hospitals/businesses/whatever are treating civil unions differently, then that's a "violation of a citizen's rights (and) should be investigated and, if appropriate, remedied"


From what I understand of NJ Civil Union law, though, it's pretty much an issue of not being equal under the law.

Wikipedia wrote:
The New Jersey Legislature enacted the Domestic Partnership Act, P.L.2003, c. 246, on January 12, 2004, which came into effect on July 10, 2004. The law made domestic partnerships available to all same-sex couples, as well as to different-sex couples aged 62 and older. The domestic partnership statute provides "limited healthcare, inheritance, property rights and other rights and obligations" but "[does] not approach the broad array of rights and obligations afforded to married couples."[4] For example, as Lambda Legal states, the law "required health and pension benefits [only] for state employees—it was voluntary for other employers—and did not require family leave to care for an ill partner."


So it's not that they are being discriminated against - they literally are not granted the same rights as a marriage, which is pretty wrong in my book.


Except that you quoted from the section about the NJ Domestic Partnership law, which was replaced in 2006 by its civil union law (which is what we're actually discussing here). The relevant portion from the same Wiki page:

Wikipedia wrote:
On December 14, 2006, the New Jersey Legislature passed a bill providing for civil unions[6] which was signed into law by the Governor Jon Corzine on December 21, 2006. The Civil Union Act came into effect on February 19, 2007.

Same-sex couples who enter into a civil union are provided almost all of the rights granted to married couples under New Jersey state law. However, under the provisions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA, same-sex couples in marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships do not have any right or entitlement to the 1,138 rights that a married couple has under federal law.[7]

The law provides[6] for the creation of a Civil Unions Review Commission that will evaluate the law's effectiveness and any problems resulting therefrom, and will report every six months for three years following enactment to assess the impact of the law. The first meeting of the Civil Unions Review Commission took place on June 18, 2007. The Commission elected a chair, Frank Vespa-Papaleo, the current Director of the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights, and the Commission plans on meeting monthly as well as conducting periodic public meetings.[8]

According to the new civil union law,[6] when a same-sex couple receives a civil union, their domestic partnership is automatically terminated by the civil union. However, those couples who remain in domestic partnerships and elect to not enter into a civil union will be allowed to remain as domestic partners.


As I stated earlier, the state itself is only responsible for rights and benefits it grants. So DOMA does not represent a problem with the civil union law itself since those are not things that the state is providing in the first place. At the state level the two statuses are equal under the law. Now if you want to make this an issue about federal recognition of marriage, that's a whole different issue. But that kinda doesn't have anything to do with Christie, or his statement.



OH. And just in case anyone's thinking of using my own re-use of the same terms used by others as agreement, let me say for the record that we're still really talking about benefits, not rights. Just want to make that clear right now. Gaining access to your partners pension is a benefit, not a right.

Edited, Feb 21st 2012 5:58pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#32 Feb 22 2012 at 2:44 AM Rating: Excellent
******
21,715 posts
I don't know why it's taken me this long, but I've finally added Gbaji to my ignore list. That makes 2 now.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#33 Feb 22 2012 at 7:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
OH. And just in case anyone's thinking of using my own re-use of the same terms used by others as agreement, let me say for the record that we're still really talking about benefits, not rights. Just want to make that clear right now. Gaining access to your partners pension is a benefit, not a right.
I'd say that having access to the same benefits as any hetero married couple is a right.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#34 Feb 22 2012 at 7:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
12,969 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
I don't know why it's taken me this long, but I've finally added Gbaji to my ignore list. That makes 2 now.
I don't even have a problem not reading his posts without the ignore feature, I just use it so I only have to scroll for 25% of the time to get to the bottom of a page.
____________________________
Banh
#35 Feb 22 2012 at 8:20 AM Rating: Excellent
******
41,289 posts
Just using the End key makes the lengths he goes to delude himself pretty irrelevant.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#36 Feb 22 2012 at 8:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Governor Christie is such a fat slug that the weight loss associated with HIV would actually prolong his life.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#37 Feb 22 2012 at 8:47 AM Rating: Excellent
******
41,289 posts
Screenshot
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#38Almalieque, Posted: Feb 22 2012 at 10:24 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) It seems to be working quite fine with women and men bathrooms, living quarters, changing rooms, showers, etc..
#39 Feb 22 2012 at 10:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,403 posts
Almalieque wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
To be more specific, civil unions are in theory supposed to apply all the state-level rights and benefits that marriages do. In practice, they were not. Not by a long shot.

Add in the "second class citizen" thing and you have a sizable problem.


How could you say that. Didn't you know 'separate but equal' is an eloquent solution that has been proven to stand the test of time? Smiley: rolleyes


Edited, Feb 21st 2012 8:47am by someproteinguy


It seems to be working quite fine with women and men bathrooms, living quarters, changing rooms, showers, etc..

For the millionth time, the U.S. racial "separate but equal" didn't work not because it was separate, but because it wasn't equal. If it were equal, I'm sure we would still be heavily segregated still.


Have you seen some of those things they pass off as Women's restrooms?

Couches, drinking fountains, there's actually soap in the dispensers and toilet liners in the stalls. Seriously, we're getting the short end of the stick here.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#40Almalieque, Posted: Feb 22 2012 at 10:39 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yes, but the argument that the overall concept of "separate but equal" doesn't work is usually misleading. Just because it's called "separate but equal" doesn't necessarily mean it represents it.
#41 Feb 22 2012 at 10:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
For the millionth time, the U.S. racial "separate but equal" didn't work not because it was separate, but because it wasn't equal.
idiggory wrote:
To be more specific, civil unions are in theory supposed to apply all the state-level rights and benefits that marriages do. In practice, they were not. Not by a long shot.

mmhmm...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#42 Feb 22 2012 at 10:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,403 posts
Almalieque wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:


Have you seen some of those things they pass off as Women's restrooms?

Couches, drinking fountains, there's actually soap in the dispensers and toilet liners in the stalls. Seriously, we're getting the short end of the stick here.


Yes, but the argument that the overall concept of "separate but equal" doesn't work is usually misleading. Just because it's called "separate but equal" doesn't necessarily mean it represents it.


So I should rephrase as "separate but equal: not always working as intended" or something like that?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#43 Feb 22 2012 at 10:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Guru
**
715 posts
Almalieque wrote:
For the millionth time, the U.S. racial "separate but equal" didn't work not because it was separate, but because it wasn't equal. If it were equal, I'm sure we would still be heavily segregated still.


Are you saying that if the two educational facilities had been identical, Brown vs Board of Education would have ruled differently?
#44 Feb 22 2012 at 11:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
12,969 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Screenshot
I have almost that complete card set in a box somewhere. Smiley: lol
____________________________
Banh
#45 Feb 22 2012 at 5:07 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Quote:
OH. And just in case anyone's thinking of using my own re-use of the same terms used by others as agreement, let me say for the record that we're still really talking about benefits, not rights. Just want to make that clear right now. Gaining access to your partners pension is a benefit, not a right.
I'd say that having access to the same benefits as any hetero married couple is a right.


Why? What definition of "rights" allows you to make this statement?

I'll give you a hint: You're half right, but half wrong. The loss of rights occurs to everyone when they are required to pay for those benefits. The receiving of benefits is not a right. What is going on is that the society chooses to allow their rights to be infringed in order to provide benefits to a group of people. Those people do *not* have a right to those benefits. The rest of us choose to give them those benefits. If the purpose for which we made that choice is being served by the application of said benefits, then the infringement is acceptable. If it is not, then it is not.

We can debate whether it's an acceptable infringement of our rights to provide benefits to just heterosexual couples who marry, or to expand that to include gay couples. But that's a separate discussion, and it requires that we first realize that no one has a "right" to receive those benefits. If those benefits are a right, then isn't *everyone* being denied them having their rights infringed? Follow that line of reasoning and you should come to the conclusion that benefits are not rights and no one has a right to receive benefits. To believe otherwise leads quickly to absurd outcomes.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#46 Feb 22 2012 at 5:11 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Dozer wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
For the millionth time, the U.S. racial "separate but equal" didn't work not because it was separate, but because it wasn't equal. If it were equal, I'm sure we would still be heavily segregated still.


Are you saying that if the two educational facilities had been identical, Brown vs Board of Education would have ruled differently?


If the two educational facilities had been identical, the case would have never come up. The case over turned Plessy vs Ferguson, in which the court specifically stated that segregation was permissible as long as the results were equal. It was exactly because the results were demonstrably not equal that the Brown case came to light in the first place.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#47 Feb 22 2012 at 5:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,246 posts
ITT: Gbaji doesn't believe homosexual couples should be allowed visiting rights when one of them is seriously injured in hospital.


Also, if the whole "tax benefit" thing is such a problem, take it away from hetero couples, too. I never see you kick up a stink about that. Oh and corporations. Especially those, because they're people too, right? You do the exact opposite there.

Edited, Feb 22nd 2012 6:47pm by Nilatai
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#48 Feb 22 2012 at 5:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,349 posts
Huh, it's almost like they didn't even make it clear in Brown v Board of Education that it was impossible for segregated facilities to provide equality.

Quote:
To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs:

Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system.


The case was never about funding, quality of teachers, or any of that. It was about the fact that the government was stigmatizing one group of people in favor of another.

It was a ruling that specifically stated that separate but equal was a fundamentally paradoxical theory that was incompatible with democracy, freedom, and equality.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#49 Feb 22 2012 at 6:09 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,289 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Also, if the whole "tax benefit" thing is such a problem, take it away from hetero couples, too.
It's a pretty nifty loophole. You can say we shouldn't allow it because it's a loss of rights to people who don't want it but still have to pay for it. At the same time, if you suggest removing it all together it's a loss of rights to the people that already benefit from it and we just can't do that.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#50 Feb 22 2012 at 6:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'll invite everyone to read one of the 10,000 other SSM threads to see why Gbaji is a 'tard and save myself the hassle of participating in this one. I assume he'll be using the same faulty logic, history fails, strawman arguments and "It's just obvious!" tactics he has in all of those.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#51 Feb 22 2012 at 6:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Guru
**
715 posts
gbaji wrote:
If the two educational facilities had been identical, the case would have never come up. The case over turned Plessy vs Ferguson, in which the court specifically stated that segregation was permissible as long as the results were equal. It was exactly because the results were demonstrably not equal that the Brown case came to light in the first place.


Ah, geez, now I see what he is saying. You guys are (he is) talking about it "didn't work" by referring to the catalyst of the lawsuit, not the actual outcome of it which halted 'separate but equal'. You are (he is) referring to one domino back in the chain of events. It is hard to read that statement and not get thrown off because the court's ruling is that by being separate they are inherently unequal which is counter to his "not because it was separate", but I see he isn't really referring to the court outcome as much as the catalyst of it.

I really hope, for humanity's sake, that even if they had been equal, someone would have come up with the same notion Brown did and litigated. And someone in the court system would have been wise enough to hear it.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 57 All times are in CDT
feelz, JennockFV, RavennofTitan, Timelordwho, Anonymous Guests (53)