Even if it is right -- I invite you to consider, how many of the Progressive causes over the past century have been right? -- it has been brought about by wrong means.
If you say that the ends are so good that they justify the means, this one time, then I submit you are on a very dangerous road.
I didn't say that. Democrat means have always been, and continue to be utterly contemptible. However, this is the last time that the *ends* are good, so there are no further means that can be justified, even to those that are inclined toward the notion that the ends justify the means
( ... )
Not really a partisan issue (although there have been large attempts to paint it as one). Both democrats and Republicans are on both sides of that particular issue.
The first state to decriminalize marijuana was the decidedly red Alaska, (1975), and some of the states with the harshest laws currently enforced are solidly blue.
More importantly though: Can we now shut up about this issue? Can this be the *last* time I hear about "gay rights"?
Are you kidding? Of course it's not the end. It will never be the end.
Just today I was downtown and some guys were taking surveys or some such about "gay rights in the workplace". If it wasn't for the fact that I was in a moving crowd and by the time I realized what he'd said I was past him, I would have asked, "What MORE rights do you want?!"
Please? This stupid, pathetic, divisive distraction of an issue has taken up entirely too much public attention over a time when we had real issues, important issues that were developing to crisis levels.Upending the entirety of society, taking away the rights of those who don't agree, and forcing their morality on us, all by changing the meaning of marriage to mean, "Whatever you want" is pretty darned serious
( ... )
Y' know, I think I have to agree with you on this.
The subject of the decision, meh. If a man wants to marry his dog, that's a matter between him and his Creator - and nobody else's business, yours or mine.
But that something this fundamental to American society should be imposed by imperial fiat - that neither we, the people of the United States nor our elected representatives were given any say in the matter - that, as you say, our right to disagree was simply taken away - this is deeply wrong. This was not a Constitutional Amendment, this was not any reflection of the will of the people - this was decided by half-a-dozen-plus one people sitting in a room in Washington DC.
A more blatant example of “legislating from the bench” could hardly be imagined. And there's nothing that can be done! An amendment can be overturned - and yes, a later Supreme Court could overturn this decision, in theory - but the precedent, that fundamental decisions about the basic fabric and structure of our society can be decided by Federal court
( ... )
It can't be the last you hear about gay rights until LGBT people have legal protection from employment discrimination. That hasn't come to be yet.
And we won't shut up as long as trans* people are being murdered.
It wouldn't be pathetic if it was *your* life partner whose bigoted family were barring you from visiting them in the hospital, or whose joint property you wouldn't legally inherit if they died without a will.
kharmii is right. "Special rights" shouldn't be extended to certain groups of people. Such as heterosexuals. That's what the Supreme Court agreed on Friday.
I agree there are larger problems; but there are few that should have been such a no-brainer for so long.
Ahh. Of course. There's always a next step isn't there? You do realize that that particular attitude makes compromise from the opposition a simple tactical error, right? If it provides no respite, just a quick celebration of taken territory and renewed hostilities, there's no reason for anyone to ever "give ground" with progressives. You do realize that, right
( ... )
Honestly, I was certain employment discrimination would be outlawed BEFORE marriage was legalised. Employment law affects everyone; marriage law only affects people who decide they want to get married. So it's not a "next step", it's a previous step which has been missed out.
"Trans*" is the way to encompass transgender, transsexual, genderqueer, and other gender-nonconforming identities.
Comments 35
You know perfectly well this isn't the end.
Reply
Reply
If you say that the ends are so good that they justify the means, this one time, then I submit you are on a very dangerous road.
Reply
Reply
Can this be the *last* time I hear about "gay rights"? Please?
No. It's all about power - and the hunger for political power is never satisfied. You can feed the beast, but it will only hunger for more - and more.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
For instance, the Rico laws (asset forfeiture) passed with strong bipartisan support, and the strongest resistance from Republicans.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/91-1970/s254
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/91-1970/h367
The first state to decriminalize marijuana was the decidedly red Alaska, (1975), and some of the states with the harshest laws currently enforced are solidly blue.
Reply
Are you kidding? Of course it's not the end. It will never be the end.
Just today I was downtown and some guys were taking surveys or some such about "gay rights in the workplace". If it wasn't for the fact that I was in a moving crowd and by the time I realized what he'd said I was past him, I would have asked, "What MORE rights do you want?!"
Please? This stupid, pathetic, divisive distraction of an issue has taken up entirely too much public attention over a time when we had real issues, important issues that were developing to crisis levels.Upending the entirety of society, taking away the rights of those who don't agree, and forcing their morality on us, all by changing the meaning of marriage to mean, "Whatever you want" is pretty darned serious ( ... )
Reply
Y' know, I think I have to agree with you on this.
The subject of the decision, meh. If a man wants to marry his dog, that's a matter between him and his Creator - and nobody else's business, yours or mine.
But that something this fundamental to American society should be imposed by imperial fiat - that neither we, the people of the United States nor our elected representatives were given any say in the matter - that, as you say, our right to disagree was simply taken away - this is deeply wrong. This was not a Constitutional Amendment, this was not any reflection of the will of the people - this was decided by half-a-dozen-plus one people sitting in a room in Washington DC.
A more blatant example of “legislating from the bench” could hardly be imagined. And there's nothing that can be done! An amendment can be overturned - and yes, a later Supreme Court could overturn this decision, in theory - but the precedent, that fundamental decisions about the basic fabric and structure of our society can be decided by Federal court ( ... )
Reply
Might as well burn the Constitution and start over. It certainly means nothing to our leaders anymore. They say what goes, and that's it.
I swear, I don't even recognize this country anymore.
Reply
http://baron-waste.livejournal.com/2266466.html
Reply
And we won't shut up as long as trans* people are being murdered.
It wouldn't be pathetic if it was *your* life partner whose bigoted family were barring you from visiting them in the hospital, or whose joint property you wouldn't legally inherit if they died without a will.
kharmii is right. "Special rights" shouldn't be extended to certain groups of people. Such as heterosexuals. That's what the Supreme Court agreed on Friday.
I agree there are larger problems; but there are few that should have been such a no-brainer for so long.
Reply
Reply
After the precedences set this week, I'm finally feeling hopeless it can't.
Reply
"Trans*" is the way to encompass transgender, transsexual, genderqueer, and other gender-nonconforming identities.
As far as trans murders, you can google as well as I can:
Trans Murder Monitoring Project
Seventh trans murder in Miami in 2015
Worldwide, one trans person is murdered every three days
Trans murders 50 percent higher than gays
Trans women of colour are particularly at risk
Reply
Leave a comment