IntenseDebate - wkrick

10 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Open thread · 7 replies · +2 points

Denton! The home of happiness!
http://www.alicia-logic.com/capsimages/rhps_007De...

10 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Open thread · 10 replies · -9 points

Please, stop with the drama. I'm trying to make a serious point. I'm not saying that that couples don't have a right to protest and fight against discrimination. These bigoted clerks should definitely be called out by name and publicly shamed in the media until they lose their jobs. I'm just saying that LAWSUITS aren't the best choice as a long-term strategy. People (and definitely judges) are completely irrational when it comes to religion and I guarantee that there WILL be "religious discrimination" lawsuits that make it to the supreme court and they WILL win some of them. Think about that and then look how long it took for Baker v Nelson to be overruled.

10 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Open thread · 14 replies · -15 points

I don't think it's a good idea to sue in these cases. That's exactly what the religious right is counting on. They want cases of "religious discrimination" to make it all the way to the supreme court. They know that this court will come down on the side of religion and set precedents that will take a very long time to undo.

I know the clerks are in the wrong, but people should just go to the next closest county instead. Eventually the bigots will retire and/or die off.

10 years ago @ Equality on Trial - BREAKING: Supreme Cour... · 0 replies · +2 points

https://stancarey.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/explai...

10 years ago @ Equality on Trial - BREAKING: Supreme Cour... · 0 replies · 0 points

Why not link to the original source?
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2015/06/26/it-is-a...

10 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Minister Jailed for St... · 1 reply · +5 points

I think a good analogy is being nearsighted. When you're growing up, you don't know what is "normal". You don't know how other people see the world. I just assumed that things that are far away are supposed to be blurry... because they're far away. It wasn't until I was in the 4th grade that someone finally realized that I might have a problem and asked my parents to take me to an eye doctor. I'll never forget the car ride back from the doctor with my new pair of glasses. It was like seeing the world for the first time.

I know this will sound hard to believe, but once had a friend who didn't figure out that she was gay until her late 20s. She didn't know any gay women and had no frame of reference for what was "normal". It never even occurred to her that she might be gay because it was never presented as an option anywhere during her upbringing.

10 years ago @ Equality on Trial - A look at what's at st... · 7 replies · +10 points

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but here it is just in case...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspir...

Here is an excerpt:

As the Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of laws banning same-sex marriage later this month, few have noticed that the case can easily be resolved under existing precedent.

Laws banning gay marriage are unconstitutional because they discriminate on the basis of gender. If same-sex marriage is forbidden, Anne is allowed to marry Bob, but Charles can’t. Charles is denied the right to marry Bob, solely because Charles is a man. Denial of a legal right solely because of gender is the very essence of sex discrimination.

Laws banning gay marriage discriminate on the basis of gender even more clearly than on the basis of sexual orientation. Anne is still allowed to marry Charles, even if one of them happens to be gay or lesbian. Bob is denied that right whether he is gay or not. The Supreme Court has long held that laws discriminating based on gender must be presumed unconstitutional and invalidated unless the government can prove that they can pass rigorous, heightened judicial scrutiny.

10 years ago @ Equality on Trial - READ IT HERE: Same-sex... · 8 replies · +2 points

It kind of makes you wonder why we even need to have laws that specifically list all the classes of people that are protected from discrimination. This implies that there will always be some people that are not protected because they don't fall into one of the circles in the venn diagram of discrimination protection. Wouldn't it be easier and more logical to just pass a federal law or constitutional amendment that protects EVERYONE from discrimination without listing each separate class? Why is there a need to reserve the right to discriminate against some as of yet unnamed class of people?

10 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Equality news round-up... · 1 reply · +1 points

While it doesn't specifically address the percentage question, there was a beautiful book put out in 2004 called The Gay & Lesbian Atlas that attempted for the first time to extract statistical information from the US census about the distribution of gay and lesbian couples in the United States.
http://amzn.com/0877667217/?tag=3feetunder-20

10 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Equality news round-up... · 0 replies · +4 points

Malta the first country to outlaw forced surgical intervention on intersex minors
http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/international...

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with wkrick

People I'm following

wkrick