Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

Quote (Sephiroth @ 12th August 2010 10:43)

To me I'm just being hit on by an individual I'm not attracted to. Just like if you get hit on by an ugly girl, you can politely say that you aren't interested and that will be the end of it.

You can't fault someone for being attracted to you. It isn't like the guy picked you out to hit on you because he knew you wouldn't like it..

Both of these. And regarding your parallel between being hit on by a homosexual vs someone ugly, in some ways I feel it's even worse in the latter scenario. If a gay guy hits on me, I'm flattered, and then I politely tell him I'm straight. We may chat for a bit and then separate, no worse for the wear (perhaps he considers his GAYDAR to be having a bad day). However, if an unattractive woman hits on me, I find it's a lot more awkward. If I say that I'm not interested, it could easily come across as an affirmation of her hideousness.

Quote (Neal @ 5th August 2010 16:39)

Not only that, but the judge cited a ruling by Scalia in his overturning of Prop 8, which will make it even more difficult for the Supreme Court to reverse the reversal if it comes down to it.

As sad as it is to admit, if there is one thing I've learned about the Supreme Court in my study of constitutional law, it's that legal principles can be easily manipulated to justify political ideals.

The current composition of the Supreme Court is still conservative. You can count on the four liberal judges voting that state gay marriage bans are unconstitutional. They will need to win over at least one other, either Anthony Kennedy, the usually swing voter, or one of the conservative justices.

I'll say this about Scalia, his opinions sometimes do lean more towards "libertarian," and he has ruled against federal regulations on issues like gun control and flag burning. However, for medical marijuana laws, he has had no problem saying that federal law trumps state law even when pot is not crossing state lines (most federal legislation over the states comes from Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce), a claim that I personally find dubious and contrary to his commerce clause rulings with respect to gun control. He does not believe in affirmative action or protected classes, but he has also purported that any denial of rights under the Constitution simply because of group characteristics violates the Equal Protection Clause. This would seem to fall under the latter category, so we'll see if he's consistent.

You can reasonably expect that Roberts, Alito, and Thomas will vote to uphold the laws because it speaks to "teh gay" and they are paleo-conservatives, which means they will start out with the political result they want and find the law to justify it.

Quote

and they are paleo-conservatives, which means they will start out with the political result they want and find the law to justify it.

I seem to doubt that this is a trait that is unique to paleoconservatives. If anything, I think that they would be one of the political groups least likely to be guilty of the practice, seeing as their core principle is a small, constitutionally defined government, which much more closely follows the direct interpritation of constitutional law, and therefore requires much less justification.

Mostly unrelated, but anyhow. Best of luck to keeping it reversed! I think it stands a fairly decent shot.

--------------------

Currently Playing : Final Fantasy V
Most Recently Beat : Elder Scrolls: Skyrim
Favorite Game : Final Fantasy X

The newest CoNcast is up! Have a listen!

I am very embarrassed to not be following all of this exciting Prop 8 news! As an avid news reader and gay-marriage supporter, I am ashamed.

Although I am not gay myself, I want all of my gay, bi, or whatever friends to be happy. We all deserve the right to have the opportunity to be happy, whether we actually achieve that is up to us. I'm apart of the Gay Straight Alliance in my school, and every year we have a day of silence to represent those homosexuals oppressed by their emotions or peers. Has anyone else done this?

--------------------

I say what I wanna say, I play how I wanna play.

Quote (Death Penalty @ 13th August 2010 10:45)

Quote

and they are paleo-conservatives, which means they will start out with the political result they want and find the law to justify it.

I seem to doubt that this is a trait that is unique to paleoconservatives.

Oh, of course not! Playing politics with the Constitution is a hallmark characteristic of the Supreme Court dating back to the early days. One can even argue whether or not Marbury v. Madison, the decision that gave the Supreme Court the power of constitutional review, is itself a valid interpretation of the Constitution! However, it's so ingrained in our legal system now that changing it is highly unlikely.

Quote

If anything, I think that they would be one of the political groups least likely to be guilty of the practice, seeing as their core principle is a small, constitutionally defined government, which much more closely follows the direct interpretation of constitutional law, and therefore requires much less justification

The problem is that your "direct interpretation" of the Constitution is going to differ from mine, and from other people's as well. Well, then, we seek the original interpretation of the Founders, right? Too bad they are all dead and we can't ask them any questions. Even relying on written records, etc., is not a surefire method to gauge "original intent" because the Constitution was a compromise between very different minded individuals, whose divided ideals on the role of state and federal government carry forward into today. The Constitution is, by its very nature, an interpretive document, as are all laws.

Therefore, political ideology will necessarily shape decision making, though of course rational minded individuals must seek to curb those influences and try to be as objective as possible. In many ways, the current conservative judicial activism of the Supreme Court is a reaction to the liberal judicial activisim of the 60's and 70's, notably during the Warren and Burger courts, and by Justices such as Brennan and Marshall. However, to say that paleo-conservatives are above that is just not true.

Quote (MetroidMorphBall @ 14th August 2010 15:30)

In many ways, the current conservative judicial activism of the Supreme Court is a reaction to the liberal judicial activisim of the 60's and 70's

The problem is that I wouldn't consider this a case of activism. It is clear that the only reason for denying gays the right to marry is discrimination, just as continuing segregation was discrimination. It is judicial responsibility to uphold this ruling. Whether conservative or liberal, it is their job to ensure that the rights of all Americans are protected.

This post has been edited by BlitzSage on 14th August 2010 20:12

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote (BlitzSage @ 14th August 2010 12:10)

The problem is that I wouldn't consider this a case of activism. It is clear that the only reason for denying gays the right to marry is discrimination, just as continuing segregation was discrimination. It is judicial responsibility to uphold this ruling. Whether conservative or liberal, it is their job to ensure that the rights of all Americans are protected.

Blitzsage, I agree with you. The plain language of the 14th Amendment says, "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Clearly, these state based gay marriage bans are denying to American citizens equal protection under their state marriage laws. The Equal Protection Clause has been used in the past to overturn various laws based on race, gender, disability, and other bases. As mentioned above, even Scalia has explained his opposition to Affirmative Action as "if someone is being denied rights then the law should be overturned, but no protected classes and no active benefits." This would clearly fall into the former category. That's why it will be funny to see how these so-called "plain meaning" conservatives wiggle their way out of overturning the laws.

Conservative commentators will so blindly apply the label of "judicial activist" to liberal judges. It's true that there is a history of liberal judicial activism. But it's also true that today the Supreme Court, and all but two federal circuits, are dominated by Republican appointees applying conservative principles to the Constitution. No doubt about it, the so-called "literal interpretation" of the Constitution is tempered by a desire to use the law to reach a desired political result. It cuts both ways, and it will be interesting to see how it unfolds in this case.

Quote (MetroidMorphBall @ 15th August 2010 16:08)

Conservative commentators will so blindly apply the label of "judicial activist" to liberal judges. It's true that there is a history of liberal judicial activism. But it's also true that today the Supreme Court, and all but two federal circuits, are dominated by Republican appointees applying conservative principles to the Constitution. No doubt about it, the so-called "literal interpretation" of the Constitution is tempered by a desire to use the law to reach a desired political result. It cuts both ways, and it will be interesting to see how it unfolds in this case.

That's because you can't completely stop bias. At one time, the Supreme Court upheld, separate but equal. And later, their opinion was that segregation was wrong. You can't stop it, but anyone, even those that believe in the Bible, ought to know that this is a case of discrimination. And they are using their religious beliefs to discriminate against others that might not share the same ideology.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Well I've come out to three friends recently. Just for they're privacy from this point I'm just gonna call them the first guy,second guy and last guy. The first was acceptant to an extent of course he is straight but he has no real problem with me being who I am.

Second one who is homosexual is highly acceptant he just like the last guy I met at the first guys house.

Now I had a conversation with the first friend I told who has known me since I was a child and the last friend I told who just recently met me. Because we all get together and drink Fridays I told them about a month or two ago about how I use to have a TV under my carport at home and would play video games with some of the neighborhood kids this was between when I was about 17 to about 22. I quit because neighbors mainly the new ones who didn't know me too well started looking at me funny. So I stopped because I didn't want them turning something innocent into a witch hunt.

We talked it through we all agreed that of course that they were just being concerned parents which I understand. So finally I was talking to the last guy I told just this Friday we were talking about my manic depression that I suffer from. He was asking why I was so depressed I said that I didn't want to tell him because I promised the first guy I told that I wouldn't talk about it with anyone but him and his homosexual friend.

But then the first guy I told said OK we are good enough friends that he guessed it would be alright. So I told the last guy about me wanting to be a woman and stuff. He says he had no problem with it. But then because him and the first guy live in my neighborhood he starts talking about I can do anything I want with him but not to mess with his kids. Referring to the other conversation we had a long while back. First that comes to mind is WTF. Why is he acting like this. So I tell him the truth that I would never hurt any child. He says alright as long as we got that straight.

So this morning I go to have coffee with the first guy he tells me that maybe we shouldn't had told the last guy about it because they were talking Saturday about me and the last guy had told him that he don't want his kids over at my house playing video games which I've never even talked to his kids before nor would I ask them to come play video games.

So now I'm dealing with him trying to make me out to be some kind of monster and am worried that he might start spreading sick rumors around my neighborhood if this happens I don't know what I'm gonna do. I don't want to move because I like my house and my neighborhood I grew up here. But if he does start stuff I may have no choice but to move.

--------------------

I treasure those who I love that love me in return. <3

I think that's an important piece of observation into this issue. So, you tell this guy about your situation, and he says that he has no problem, yet, he feels his kids are in danger?

This is based out of years of propoganda through the religious right in this country on this and other issues. You see it with the NYC/Murfreesboro mosque protests, anti-video game legislation, DADT and anti-gay marriage are all caused by this. They do this because they feel these things threaten them.

And this is despite the blatant hypocrisy. The guy's okay with it, and he knows your no threat to him, but his children are in danger? What does he think you're going to do, molest them? Murder them? Send them to a Satanic cult meeting? When you think about this man's logic, it's pretty sickening.

But the sad thing is, it's not his fault. Years of relentless and intense anti-homosexual propoganda have created an irrational fear, despite the fact that homosexuality has been accepted in cultures before even democracy. But the worse thing is, there isn't a complete answer I can give you or gay people, other than for everybody to keep fighting for rights, and getting "mad as Hell" till we can't take it anymore.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Hmm... Just to provide some theoretical insight a bad vibe could be caught when you realize somebody has been keeping such secrets from you for so long. It kinda makes one wonder what other sorts of secrets could be withheld as well. It's also possible that perhaps some of your own nervousness on the issue rubbed off on him. Another factor to consider is that some people also tend to think the greater androgyny of children appeals to gay people, since it pushes the threshold into the other gender. . .

Whatever happened, since he seemed to play it calm and cool at first, I seriously doubt the guy means you any malice or harm. He probably just feels a little threatened by the sudden revelation and has decided in his capacity as a parent, that he'd rather play it safer than sorry. "Getting mad as hell," while perfectly understandable if you decide to do such, would only serve to aggravate the situation and bring about the very conflict you wish to avoid. People who're put into an upset panic often do drastic things.

Since you're not particularly afflicted by the request, in your situation the best advice I can give is to play it calmly and cooly respect his wishes. In doing so you can at least hope he'll do likewise and mutually respect your own wishes on the scenario. In fact don't draw any more attention to the issue with this person since he's obviously proven that this fact makes him rather quite nervous. If you can bring yourself to just carry along with him like you never said anything at all, unless he mentions it first, it's possible that in time he'll calm down a bit after general exposure.

If you need to simplify the manner a bit, treat the man like he's recuperating from a bit of a mild phobia and I'm moderately certain that everything will work out for the best on this front. Yes, he shouldn't be reacting in this way but for whatever reason he does.

Also, I must congratulate you on taking this first major step for coming out of the closet. I don't swing the other way myself but trust me when I say I do know how you feel; Opening up to people must be rather difficult after keeping secrets for so many years can seem really quite nerve wracking and may bring about feelings of delirium. I'm not even sure I could bring myself to do it myself.

That being said it's a very important thing that must be done if you're to ever feel comfortable in your own skin and with the modern day's largely accepting society, I'm sure you can pull through if you don't grow too discouraged. At the same time do remember that this appears to be a large paradigm shift for everybody involved and that can sometimes be a little difficult to swallow, since people are most often comfortable with familiarity.

The best thing I can recommend for you is patience; patience for yourself and patience for others. If you can work through this slowly and steady with the people you're closest to, I think you'll eventually reach the point of social stability where you can be comfortaby up front enough with the general public so that it won't be so big of a factor in the future. It's truly a pity that we live in a world where people feel they need to remain hidden.

That's still a bit of a ways off from where you are now though so I'd avoid coming out to three people all in rapid succession. One at a time until you know where they stand may be more than enough for now. Just remember slow and steady wins the race. Also here's to wishing you good luck!

This post has been edited by Tonepoet on 4th October 2010 20:02

--------------------

Role reversal at its finest.