Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Isn't she the one who proclaimed her bias when she said that "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion, then a white male who has not lived that life"?
You are pinning your hopes on a quasi-racist?
How is that quasi-racism? There are a lot of things that a white male, in his position of privilege, simply cannot experience in his life. A lot of them feel very okay with not examining their privilege, and that's how you end up with people similar to many of those that post in this sub-forum.
How is that quasi-racism? There are a lot of things that a white male, in his position of privilege, simply cannot experience in his life. A lot of them feel very okay with not examining their privilege, and that's how you end up with people similar to many of those that post in this sub-forum.
Way off topic.
However I doubt you'd find most white males, say, in the heart of rural Appalachia to be very privileged.
How is that quasi-racism? There are a lot of things that a white male, in his position of privilege, simply cannot experience in his life. A lot of them feel very okay with not examining their privilege, and that's how you end up with people similar to many of those that post in this sub-forum.
Please be so kind as to inform me of my special privileges as a white male so that I may begin to take advantage of them.
How is that quasi-racism? There are a lot of things that a white male, in his position of privilege, simply cannot experience in his life. A lot of them feel very okay with not examining their privilege, and that's how you end up with people similar to many of those that post in this sub-forum.
Yeah, we noticed that. We also noticed that the SCOTUS was forbidden from doing so. If the court determines the plaintiffs had no standing to sue, it has a duty to dismiss the case and not consider the merits.
The fact remains that SCOTUS did not say that gays have a right to marry in Hollingsworth v. Perry.
So then what do we have, separate but equal? Sorry, but that has been proven to not work and besides, the 1049 rights that go with civil marriage are granted by the federal government, not the states or the church. And the federal government has already stated that they will not recognize civil unions, nor domestic parnterships, that those unions should be commuted to marriage, since all the rights are already in place with just a simple marriage license. Unless conservatives expect that gay couples should receive less rights in their unions than straight people do, there is no reason to create a separate designation for gay couples unions if all the rights are the same. When they declared all bans on interracial marriage nulled, those unions were afforded the same rights, the same privileges and the same protections, not different, not separate. SEPARATE IS NEVER EQUAL.
Why not simply abolish government from being involved in the marriage business?
If a state has legal protections called marriage, the state has to show how denying those legal protections to a segment of society will further a compelling state interest in order to legally deny that segment equal legal protections. The state has not been able to do so in the case of same sex marriage in any of the cases that have come before the court.
Example.
The state has licenses that a person has to get to be allowed to legally drive on public roads.
The state has a vote to deny drivers licenses to a segment of society.
*1. age
*2. gender
If the state can show how the denial of licenses promotes a compelling state interest those restrictions can stand.
*1. age. allowing 10 year olds to drive would cause more traffic accidents.
*2. gender. Denying males would not further a compelling state interest, so males are not denied drivers licenses.
That is how equal protection of the law works.
Utah was not specifically denying anyone from getting married.
Its law defined what marriage is - a union between a man and a woman.
I'll repeat it....no one is interested in your marriage or your kids. No one. No one gives a crap about your marriage or your kids. Do you understand now?
Utah was not specifically denying anyone from getting married.
Its law defined what marriage is - a union between a man and a woman.
It is very possible to define something in a manner that denies something to somebody. Even my 6 year old niece understands that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
