The people passing out the civil rights literature were students who had just come back from Freedom Summer in Mississippi.  The were not - at least in the beginning - left-wing, though they were decidedly liberal.  (You can't blame them, the whole Kennedy/60's deal made being liberal somehow attractive.)  And, - AND, there can be little to no doubt about this - there were on the right side of history. 

And DOMA is on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of progress, the wrong side of what is right, and for sure (and for three different and equally compelling reasons, one of which was a leading cause of the Civil War for Pete's sake!) on the wrong side of the Constitution.  And it's very much opposed to the direct interests of the vast majority of people on this forum.  So I'm wondering how this became about DiFi (who's on our side, not that you can tell from some of the posts) and not about the Neanderthal, knuckle-dragging, conservatives who still oppose this.  Shouldn't we be going after them?


***
You understand that Trans persons (of all stripes at that) and all sorts of different sexual persuasions and arrangements, as well as people from all over the world, Nobel Prize winners, computer multi-millionaires and stinky drum-circle wookies in all their crunchiness all live in Berkeley and no-one is getting hassled anymore than anyone else?  And precisely because it is a left-wing (and what really, really smart places aren't) loon bin it's extremely safe - or at least not anymore unsafe - for trans persons, and has been for a long time now.  Yeah, it's  tolerant to a fault, and part of that fault is the 'streetpeople' deal that almost only a few places on earth would tolerate.  But then again, for anyone who fall outside the parameters of most parts of 'normal' society, yet yearns to be 'normal' without really moving any closer to it, then pretty much Berkeley is like heaven on earth.  It's nice and warm, sitting on the western facing side of a hill, usually sunny, fairly high income except for the parts hard up against Oakland, cultural offerings so frequent and varied that you really never need to leave Berkeley, first-rate schools, and a place to go to college as well as a marina.  What more do you want?

Back to DOMA. Is the Supreme Court going to be able to package those appeals along with Prop 8? Or are we going to see multiple appeals hearings?

Wow time flies, it was almost 25 years ago that I visited the Bay Area.

No, but it could take the findings of the Prop 8 court decision as part of it's rejection of DOMA, those that outlined where Prop 8 was unconstitutional because it violated both due process as well as equal-protection.  The third part of DOMA, the most interesting in many ways, is the circumvention of the Constitutional provision that the legal actions of one state are valid in all states.

Quote from: SandraJane on November 15, 2011, 02:23:40 AM
So what is the cost of repealing DOMA in the eyes of Senator John Cornyn?

Cornyn on DOMA

It sounds like he's in favor of putting all marriages on hold until we solve our national debt problem.

Quote from: toxicblue on November 19, 2011, 11:02:34 PM
It sounds like he's in favor of putting all marriages on hold until we solve our national debt problem.

Gonna have to help me out with that one, toxicblue. As far as I've seen Cornyn is only interested in keeping homosexual marriage contracts from becoming a reality. He made absolutely no mention of eliminating the marriage contract altogether that I noticed.

BTW, can the distinguished gentleman please enlighten me on something as my silly little female mind in male body is just too dumb to understand this.

Don't we ALL pay into social security and medicare regardless of marital status and/or sexual/gender identity? So if that in fact is the case, we ALL are entitled to collect when the time comes regardless of whether we have a same sex partner or not.

One thing that truly has not come up (and I can't wait for this logic bomb to drop) is take for example a couple that is half genetic female and half trans woman. Let's just say they are married as man and woman, but then that "man" transitions to being female.
Well from my understanding that is a pretty big grey area in most states and at the Federal level is still a valid marriage.

So here's the real humdinger. Seeing as how most folks on the right would say that that trans woman is in fact a man would they then back off on the same sex marriage and benefits witchhunt? They would practically have to admit that that "man" is ACTUALLY a woman to hold up their arguments with the current rounf of logic.

Oh the joy of seeing ignorant heads explode when confronted with their own false logic.

Jaded1, you're assuming that DOMA's defenders can understand and apply logic. They can't. The entire argument for DOMA is one gigantic mess of moral panic, straw men galore, and countless false associations. There's not a lick of logic in the entire defense of DOMA, because the law itself is illogical. I mean, come on! Cornyn tried to say:

"Passing out marriage benefits to homosexuals, who are outnumbered by heterosexuals more than 100:1, would add too much of a burden to the US deficit. Therefore we should not give them access to marriage benefits. But passing out those same benefits to heterosexuals, who again outnumber homosexuals more than 100:1 adds an insignificant financial burden and is thus acceptable practice."

Captain! Retard off the port bow!

Quote from: Sailor_Saturn on November 26, 2011, 05:06:57 PM
Jaded1, you're assuming that DOMA's defenders can understand and apply logic. They can't. The entire argument for DOMA is one gigantic mess of moral panic, straw men galore, and countless false associations. There's not a lick of logic in the entire defense of DOMA, because the law itself is illogical. I mean, come on! Cornyn tried to say:

"Passing out marriage benefits to homosexuals, who are outnumbered by heterosexuals more than 100:1, would add too much of a burden to the US deficit. Therefore we should not give them access to marriage benefits. But passing out those same benefits to heterosexuals, who again outnumber homosexuals more than 100:1 adds an insignificant financial burden and is thus acceptable practice."

Captain! Retard off the port bow!

Don't get me wrong, I assume nothing. My post was intended to highlight the lack of logic not the search thereof.

You may be seeing retards off the port bow - they are however the side currently winning there oh enlightened one.  Perhaps underestimating their opponents is the first way stupid people lose.

Quote from: tekla on November 26, 2011, 11:57:54 PM
You may be seeing retards off the port bow - they are however the side currently winning there oh enlightened one.  Perhaps underestimating their opponents is the first way stupid people lose.

I do agree that they should not be underestimated, but I don't agree that they are winning. DOMA will fall and in short order. DADT went and most polls show that the majority of the country either supports or doesn't give a hoot about gay marriage. If the dems don't screw everything up (something I always count on them to be champions at) then there will be a shot at repeal in TwObama.

Quote from: tekla on November 26, 2011, 11:57:54 PM
You may be seeing retards off the port bow - they are however the side currently winning there oh enlightened one.  Perhaps underestimating their opponents is the first way stupid people lose.

I wouldn't say they're winning. From all accounts I've heard DOMA is a ship full of holes, and its defense is becoming progressively more difficult to justify. Its proponents are losing ground, not gaining it or holding it. Public opinion is turning against them, and that's really the only strength their side ever had. Why else would they be so desperate as to release that crazy thunderstorm ad when lots of states started ratifying gay marriage? They're scared.