799 comments posted · 3 followers · following 0

10 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - President Trump's ban ... · 0 replies · +2 points

Rick, Here's an attempt to get the link that didn't work in your post. A really filled-out story.

And the whole HOUR LONG address can be heard here. An hour well spent with someone we can only hope to eventually be on the SCOTUS - after the Trump debacle pulls its walls in on itself.

10 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - President Trump's ban ... · 0 replies · +2 points

That link is 404, but Judge Reeves can be witnessed at this URL... and he should be. Powerful, a must see. This link is free but repeated views will trigger a paywall.

13 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - Federal district court... · 0 replies · +1 points

Paywall... can you summarize what this is about?

16 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - Quick SCOTUS update an... · 0 replies · +4 points

It surely looks like the State blinked here, and Masterpiece gets to discriminate...

18 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - Open thread 2/12 · 0 replies · +3 points

I found that summary puzzling as to what the lawsuit in question was about, so I translated the page linked. My short take is that the couple were challenging the decision of the Civil Registry that refused to accept their petition to marry. Chile has a Civil Union Agreement that purports all the rights of marriage but not the title for same sex partners. The challenge is based on a constitutional guarantee of equality. The case was dismissed based on a standing law that defines marriage as between opposite sexes. The Appeals Court has reversed that decision (as it is the constitutionality of that law that is the actual question) and allows the challenge to go forward. It's not a decision on the merits, but a go-ahead to engage the suit.

20 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - Open thread · 0 replies · +2 points

Just FYI, if a page blocks copy, right click and VIEW PAGE SOURCE. You'll find the text and will be able to copy it from there. You'll need to edit some HTML tags out before posting.

25 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - Happy holidays open th... · 1 reply · +2 points

I think that's the wrong link.

28 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - SCOTUS not likely to a... · 1 reply · +3 points

The idiocy isn't even that sane. The actual talking point is that Gays don't reproduce, so if allowed, the human race would die out.

This line of course seems to presume that being gay is sooooo compellingly appealing that an overwhelming majority of otherwise straight, child-bearing people would go gay if they only knew.

The same argument (unable to reproduce to fill new gay ranks "naturally") is pushed to explain that obviously new gays can only occur through "recruitment" of innocent children by molestation or propaganda.

29 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - Open thread and SCOTUS... · 0 replies · +4 points

So he didn't challenge the system he participated in until he lost.

Surely he is genuine enough that we believe that he would have challenged in the case of his victory as well.

In a pig's eye.

39 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - Open thread and news 9/17 · 1 reply · +3 points

While I appreciate your enthusiasm, identity documents have value in identifying. And while gender definitions can be ambiguous in some cases, on the whole they validly describe. Just as race, hair color, eye color, height, weight, age can individually fail to be appropriate descriptors in individual cases. Actually, gender neutral as a descriptor is a valid identifying aspect that increases accuracy of the identification.

Whether in a police search or finding a child's parent at a park, it would not benefit anyone to be unable to describe the missing person, and gender remains the most primary sorting characteristic. And NEUTRAL as an option helps that sort's validity. Removal of the field entirely would not serve the purpose of identity documentation.