Politics '13: Like Madden but with better music

[SnowFire]

Cideon: For some reason your post got me thinking some odd thoughts that are in disagreement with you, but not really.  Let's rephrase the debate some, in the comfortable terms of science fiction.  Aliens come to Earth, and say that the good news is that they'll use their amazing technology to beam up dying people and keep them alive forever with amazing medical care (that only works in space, so no coming back to Earth, but they can meet up with other people beamed up).  However, gay sex is just horrible, because.  In fact it's so horrible the aliens refuse to beam up gays to get the free end-of-life medical care.  Furthermore, they will punish places that permit the gays to do what they want.  Awhile back they broke out the full lasers & brimstone for the sky treatment for Sodom City, but lately the aliens just intervene in more subtle and insidious ways, and they're still totally willing to kill everyone if it came down to it, because gayness is just that bad, and it's for our own good that they're discouraging us and bringing nations to ruin that disobey.

In such a scenario, you can credibly argue that humanity should adopt the party line because, well, the greater and more powerful force says so, and we don't want to have our cities fried by fire & brimstone.  And to go against it is downright immoral, because it endangers the entire community.  Anyway, the aliens are more powerful than us, they wouldn't forbid teh gayz without a good reason, just like a parent scolding their child to take the bad-tasting medicine.  Who are we to question them?  So...  given this scenario, I don't think it's unreasonable to clamp down on gay rights.

The real world is weird because people disagree on if the aliens actually exist or not, and if they do, whether the aliens really dislike gays after all.  But given that some people really truly sincerely believe the aliens will inflict terrible punishment on those who condone homosexuality, it's not an evasion or "I don't want to think too hard about it;" it's a serious matter of life or death!  The more interesting question is whether such a powerful force that comes down and starts laying down such arbitrary laws is in fact worthy of worship and admiration, rather than the begrudging acceptance of a conquered people...  but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

[Grefter]

Well if you want to read more interesting stuff on the division of party stuff more locally I ran into this today.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-24/dunlop-future-of-politics/5041314

Discussing the fact that our two dominant parties are somewhat out of date and looking to be superseded (predicted to largely be replacements though if I catch the drift properly, just a question of who).

[Idun]

Something is very wrong with us.  This shouldn't be an issue.  I wish we could just be like New Zealand on this.  2 months ago they just went "WTF bro?  Gay marriage?  Yeah, do it." Everyone high fived and there was some pretty impressive back slapping afterwards.  Instead we tip toe around it and talk about how hard it is and how careful we have to be.  We wouldn't want to OFFEND people (that aren't gay) after all.

What's interesting about Windsor v. US is that DOMA was struck down purely for financial reasons as opposed to the moral ones we expect non-zealots to support through our first world perceptions of common sense. Apparently this left a sour, albeit -well, whatever let's get married-, taste in some mouths? Jim can jump in whenever, but it's different (?) than the ruling of Loving v. Virginia that actually targeted palpable and well-visible discrimination for "interracial relations." I hate even using that term, but I hate using "ethnicity" for slave-descendant US blacks as well, so whatever.

But yeah, that whole "offending" thing is Big Business. Everyone talks about white heterosexual normativity and nuclear families as the crême of white privileg(ing)e(d), and it's quite oppressive. I suppose my problem with even caring about news/editorials related to the issues, etc. is that all this baloney on re-thinking categories, new terms, blah blah detracts from actual substantive conversations or the simple fact that shit doesn't change until a special, special, special case pops up and targets social capital and late capitalism.
 
(/lame skeptic)

[Lady Door]

I completely agree.

[Grefter]

If you think columns and editorials about it are bad you should try comments section for pure unadulterated pettiness.  They can have marriage and just call it "Civil Unions" comes up so much that it hurts.  What the fuck are you even achieving with that other than maintaining segregation for the sake of a completely fluid term.

That is ignoring all the times people claim that marriage between a man and a woman is just natural and any other kind of relationship is wrong.  It is like they have no concept of history or how animals function.

Out of interest, what would you pinpoint as the economic function that triggered the current (staggered and troubled) shift on the topic we are seeing?

[Luther Lansfeld]

http://host.madison.com/8e584b76-c03b-55f5-a44d-13a4867e92ed.html

I wonder if more of these stories will crop up.

[Idun]

If you think columns and editorials about it are bad you should try comments section for pure unadulterated pettiness.  They can have marriage and just call it "Civil Unions" comes up so much that it hurts.  What the fuck are you even achieving with that other than maintaining segregation for the sake of a completely fluid term.

That is ignoring all the times people claim that marriage between a man and a woman is just natural and any other kind of relationship is wrong.  It is like they have no concept of history or how animals function.

Out of interest, what would you pinpoint as the economic function that triggered the current (staggered and troubled) shift on the topic we are seeing?

You know, it's funny.. free spaces in 19thc newspapers were full of fictional, hilarious serious moralizing commentary.. I really see that happening with e-comments, except multiplied by the nth degree. Washington Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, NYT's has the "better" comments, but yeah man. Brain sludge.

What would I pinpoint as the economic function triggering infotainment and faux rationalism? I wouldn't boil it down to one thing, but I would just say modernism and its many strands of mass production and consumer objectification that came with the rise of corporate culture (re: capitalism). I'm also not sure I'm answering your actual question.

[Grefter]

I think I misunderstood you more, I was thinking you were talking about a change in the political environment about Marriage rather than on reporting and social dialogue.

[Idun]

You didn't misunderstand, but I just ended on the 'boo infotainment' note.  But for a shift in marriage, I'd easily just say flat out discrimination and a gross invasion of privacy. People laugh about the good gentrification, where people actually stay in areas, but when they find out the thriving areas are full of paired gay white men (because: men & wages), they start simmering. So far in terms of economic potential, gay white men threaten heterosexual white men to the umpteenth degree.

[NotMiki]

Something is very wrong with us.  This shouldn't be an issue.  I wish we could just be like New Zealand on this.  2 months ago they just went "WTF bro?  Gay marriage?  Yeah, do it." Everyone high fived and there was some pretty impressive back slapping afterwards.  Instead we tip toe around it and talk about how hard it is and how careful we have to be.  We wouldn't want to OFFEND people (that aren't gay) after all.

What's interesting about Windsor v. US is that DOMA was struck down purely for financial reasons as opposed to the moral ones we expect non-zealots to support through our first world perceptions of common sense. Apparently this left a sour, albeit -well, whatever let's get married-, taste in some mouths? Jim can jump in whenever, but it's different (?) than the ruling of Loving v. Virginia that actually targeted palpable and well-visible discrimination for "interracial relations." I hate even using that term, but I hate using "ethnicity" for slave-descendant US blacks as well, so whatever.

But yeah, that whole "offending" thing is Big Business. Everyone talks about white heterosexual normativity and nuclear families as the crême of white privileg(ing)e(d), and it's quite oppressive. I suppose my problem with even caring about news/editorials related to the issues, etc. is that all this baloney on re-thinking categories, new terms, blah blah detracts from actual substantive conversations or the simple fact that shit doesn't change until a special, special, special case pops up and targets social capital and late capitalism.
 
(/lame skeptic)

Actually, Windsor is very much about the concept of morality, in the sense that it cast DOMA as moral disapproval vs. inherent dignity, with dignity taking the day.  The decision is high on rhetoric and low on clarity, which is to say vintage Kennedy writing on big-ticket social issues.

I recommend reading part III (starting page 13 of the opinion).  Kennedy is speaking, here, to both sides of the debate, and framing the position of opponents of gay marriage in about as gentle a way as he can.

When at first Windsor and Spyer longed to marry, neither New York nor any other State granted them that right. After waiting some years, in 2007 they traveled to Ontario to be married there. It seems fair to conclude that, until recent years, many citizens had not even considered the possibility that two persons of the same sex might aspire to occupy the same status and dignity as that of a man and woman in lawful marriage. For marriage between a man and a woman no doubt had been thought of by most people as essential to the very definition of that term and to its role and function throughout the history of civilization. That belief, for many who long have held it, became even more urgent, more cherished when challenged. For others, however, came the beginnings of a new perspective, a new insight.  Accordingly some States concluded that same-sex marriage ought to be given recognition and validity in the law for those same-sex couples who wish to define themselves by their commitment to each other. The limitation of lawful marriage to heterosexual couples, which for centuries had been deemed both necessary and fundamental, came to be seen in New York and certain other States as an unjust exclusion.

My take on opponents of gay marriage is that they are focused on gay sex.  Their understanding of homosexuality developed with parades of oiled-up, leather-clad pervos flaunting their promiscuity in the streets of San Francisco, and that's an association they can't shake.  Because their thinking about homosexuality starts and ends with sex acts they disapprove of, they are skeptical about the idea of homosexuality being an immutable trait, like they would be skeptical of claims that any sexual fetish is something you're born into.  To them, the gay rights movement smacks of insincerity; the idea that gays should be protected from firing makes as much sense to them as the idea that anyone with a really outlandish hobby should be protected.

The tremendous success of the gay rights movement has come as a result of buying into America's most cherished conservative institutions: marriage, the military, families.  Once the fight became about hospital visitation, about the right to serve the United States, to recognize a loving relationship, it gained irreversible momentum.  Opposition now consists mostly of a backlash against the old, separatist gay rights movement.  It'll pass.

I should add that I do not credit religious arguments against gay marriage even a little bit.  Religious conservatives see in the Bible what they want to see.  The parts of the Bible that conform to their previously-held beliefs are emphasized; the rest is diminished.  Nothing more and nothing less.

[Idun]

Would you say that the decision for Windsor came about from the economical issue of being financially responsible for a partner's estate that the respective city wouldn't observe due to discrimination? I know little of the actual opinions and literally just scrolled through them and saw ideas of privacy, sex, discrimination, etc, but how closely can one draw the correlation and the actual decision?

On 22 of court decision

By creating two contra- dictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect.

ps that is just a quick look and grab quote; will look at the actual document more after courses tomorrow

[NotMiki]

Would you say that the decision for Windsor came about from the economical issue of being financially responsible for a partner's estate that the respective city wouldn't observe due to discrimination? I know little of the actual opinions and literally just scrolled through them and saw ideas of privacy, sex, discrimination, etc, but how closely can one draw the correlation and the actual decision?

The decision really isn't about money.  Money is just the most convenient and concrete way to demonstrate a Constitutional "injury."  It's just a hook to demonstrate that the plaintiff deserves her day in court.  It's about...the liberty of individuals as protected by the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause?  The inherent protections of federalism (read: the right of states to set up same-sex marriage) that is impermissably infringed by DOMA?  Some free-floating idea of personal dignity that laws simply may not take away?  The idea that Congress simply may not make a law the sole purpose of which is to demonstrate disapproval of a class of individuals?  It's an opaque opinion.  But it's definitely about the big, cosmic stuff.  The contours of American government.  The direction of the country with respect to homosexuality.  Not dollars and cents.

[metroid composite]

So like ENDA vote on Monday and all that:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/10/31/the-last-remaining-obstacle-for-enda-religious-liberty/

It might soon no longer be legal to fire someone for being gay in america (unless you're a religion or religiously affiliated organization).

[NotMiki]

That's quite remarkable.  Senate actually negotiating in good faith over a bill, and an important and politically sensitive one at that.

alternately:

Compromise?! in MY Senate?!

[Pyro]

"Of course, then it’s up to the House of Representatives, where the GOP majority doesn’t appear all that concerned with getting on the right side of history."

TLDR: a few Republicans may not Filibuster it, but it has 0 chance of passing the house of reps, where Republicans get to pretend they live in Christendom.

[NotMiki]

VAWA was able to pass the house.  I'd say it's unlikely that this bill will right now, but it's not DOA.

[metroid composite]

ENDA passes the senate!  Yayness!

[superaielman]

https://newmatilda.com/2013/03/01/deported-tamils-brutally-tortured Warning: Graphic descriptions of sadistic rape and torture in the link. Australia is not covering themselves in glory with regards to refugees, is the long and short of it.

[metroid composite]

https://twitter.com/ODNIgov/status/408712553179533312

I'm told this is not a parody.

[Luther Lansfeld]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_12/a_disservice048114.php

The short of this being "Do it, pussy. If you want to be a sociopath, then be a sociopath!"

[Grefter]

http://globalnews.ca/news/1042861/supreme-court-strikes-down-canadas-anti-prostitution-laws/

Random topic of the many random topics that pass through my interests.  Prostitution law rejected as unconstitutional.  Rejecting one of the more interesting ways of trying to throttle prostitution I had seen. (Not one I agree with but it was unique to my limited knowledge).

Unfortunately also leading to a push to revise to pushing criminalization purely on to pimps and clients which has historically led to a more hostile working environment by pushing sex workers out of safe houses even more than the previous law that was targeting bordellos and places of residence did (by pushing the reasons for not using them on to clients rather than the workers/building owner).

[Pyro]

The American Family Association is designated a 'hate group' by the Southern Poverty Law Center. This is often whined about by conservatives who decry it as an assault on freedom of speech about the morality of homosexuality.

https://twitter.com/BryanJFischer/status/414086924962250753

This would be why the organization is a hate group.

[NotMiki]

That pretty much makes them a hate group, yup.

[Dunefar]

Closing this since it's the end of 2013. Onward to the '14 topic.