Postmodernism anybody?

[Jeffret]

Americans overwhelmingly voted against homosexual marriage

You're way out of date. I realize that's a generally applicable criticism, but it's also tremendously applicable in this instance.

The other NOM, the National Organization for Marriage, used to crow about this line constantly. That was the stock anti-gay talking point, how the American public had never voted in favor of gay marriage. That was always the lead comment from Maggie Gallagher, Brian Brown, and all their friends. It went something like, "The American public has voted on gay marriage 32 times and every time they've rejected it." (I can't remember if it was 32 or 31.)

The refrain was getting pretty tiring. And then suddenly it vanished in 2012. It was no longer their lead statement. It was almost entirely ignored from that point forward.

What happened is that the tipping point was reached in November 2012. Prop 8 in California was pretty close -- 52-48%. Right up until the end there was hope that one would tip the other way. In 2000, the predecessor to Prop 8, the Knight Initiative had passed by 69-31%. Clearly public perception had shifted a lot by the time Prop 8 rolled around in 2008. I think the tipping point in California could have been reached as early as 2009 if the vote had been taken again. Prop 8 changed the landscape dramatically.

In 2012, four states had gay marriage ballot issues. All four resulted in favor of the gays. Voters in Maine, Maryland, and Washington voted to allow gay marriage. Voters in Minnesota declined to modify the state constitution to prohibit gay marriage.

This totally changed the narrative and the idea that voters didn't or wouldn't approve of gay marriage disappeared as soon as the ballots were counted.

You are five years out of date. (On this one point. On much of your other claims you're even more out of date. You're five years out of date on the Regnerus study, also. Many of your other claims of harm and damage were discredited and disproved longer ago than that.)

[Wonderment]

Dogbite's information is accurate and points out the problems of alt-right claims against the LGBT community.

It's really very difficult to find any credibility with political or religious groups that claim to have "scientific research" on gay people, such as redstate.com, or the FRC. The far right continually seeks to discredit the gay community, including Milo, who earns his living as a polemicist and provacateur. -- Wndr.

[Jeffret]

The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution puts it squarely in their jurisdiction especially when some states say they will not recognize marriages from other states. That's what the Full Faith and Credit clause requires of the individual states in recognizing contracts from other states.

That's why heterosexual marriages in one state are valid in all other states. Same with divorce granted in a state other than where the marriage was entered.

In case you're curious, that's not exactly the way it worked out. The court didn't use the Full Faith and Credit Clause in ruling for gay marriage in Obergefell. I can't remember the exact reasoning Kennedy used in writing the majority opinion. Full Faith and Credit didn't really play into the court cases and legal arguments leading up to it. Mostly, the courts relied on one or more of three prongs, Due Process (14th Amendment), Equal Protection (14th Amendment), and Marriage as a Fundamental Right. There were a few other ancillary arguments that were used in some places but didn't get a lot of attention, such as basing it on illegal discrimination based on sex. I can't recall which arguments Kennedy relied on, but his ruling was expansive and thorough.

Prior to the Obergefell ruling I read an essay by a legal expert on the applicability of Full Faith and Credit to gay marriage. It pointed out that the history of relying on that clause has been quirky and not always reliable. Sometimes it has been used as an essential legal doctrine and in other cases where it seems like it should apply, the court cases have not used or accepted it. The author said that relying on Full Faith and Credit might work but was not a very strong position in case law in a situation like this.

Under Obergefell all states have to treat gay couples equally with regards to marriage. Then the Full Faith and Credit clause comes into play as each state must (usually) accept the marriages the other states have recognized.

The legalities and case law get pretty complicated.

[Jeffret]

Let me clarify something from my last post.

If Obergefell had gone the other way, if SCOTUS had not ruled for marriage equality, then there would be a new flurry of cases based on other factors. Full Faith and Credit would have been raised from many quarters, for people who had married in states that provided marriage equality and then moved or traveled to states that prohibited it. If the essay I read was at all correct, that road would have been long, messy, and resulted in a patchwork set of rules and regulations for some time. It's possible that the courts would have been willing to rule quickly and easily based on Full Faith and Credit, but the case law suggests otherwise.

[alas]

Let me clarify something from my last post.

If Obergefell had gone the other way, if SCOTUS had not ruled for marriage equality, then there would be a new flurry of cases based on other factors. Full Faith and Credit would have been raised from many quarters, for people who had married in states that provided marriage equality and then moved or traveled to states that prohibited it. If the essay I read was at all correct, that road would have been long, messy, and resulted in a patchwork set of rules and regulations for some time. It's possible that the courts would have been willing to rule quickly and easily based on Full Faith and Credit, but the case law suggests otherwise.

Wasn't there a case where a couple was married in a state that accepted gay marriage and then moved to a state that did not, and SCOTUS decided not to review that case, but decided to review Obergefell instead?

I know my daughter and wife were married in California after it was legal there, and came back to Utah, where their marriage was not concidered legal by the state, but was recognized by the federal government. So, they could file US income tax jointly, but had to file state income tax as individuals. My DIL got my daughters work spousal benefits, because she worked for civil service. It was a really strange status for a while. Are they married or not? The federal government said yes, but the state government said no. They of course could have challenged Utah about it, but there were several cases ahead of them, so they just waited.

[Jeffret]

Wasn't there a case where a couple was married in a state that accepted gay marriage and then moved to a state that did not, and SCOTUS decided not to review that case, but decided to review Obergefell instead?

Possibly. I certainly don't remember all of the cases. Obergefell was just one of the many cases wending it's up the chain. SCOTUS decided to take that one and then decided all the others by default. I can't remember one that was making much progress that was based on Full Faith and Credit.

I know my daughter and wife were married in California after it was legal there, and came back to Utah, where their marriage was not concidered legal by the state, but was recognized by the federal government. So, they could file US income tax jointly, but had to file state income tax as individuals. My DIL got my daughters work spousal benefits, because she worked for civil service. It was a really strange status for a while. Are they married or not? The federal government said yes, but the state government said no. They of course could have challenged Utah about it, but there were several cases ahead of them, so they just waited.

That was based upon an Executive Order from Obama. He ordered that federal taxes could be filed based upon valid marital status in some state, independent upon the state in which they currently resided. He also extended benefits to spouses in federal employment in a similar fashion. Obama couldn't do anything directly about the state taxes.

Keep in mind that it was Utah that really got the ball rolling. First, the Mormons poured big money into Prop 8. That really changed the dynamic and the messaging. The Prop 8 trial laid all of the facts out on the table, or lack of facts on the anti-gay side. But it was the Utah court case regarding marriage equality that changed everything. The Utah State Attorney General office made a shambles out of the whole thing. First, they put on a very half-hearted defense of their prejudicial law, because of course everyone knew that gays were icky and gay marriage was wrong. They clearly thought they had the whole thing sewed up in a bag. Then the Attorney General was facing legal issues and ended up losing the position. The acting Attorney General didn't seem to know what was going on. They didn't bother filing an immediate request for a stay on the decision, because of course the decision would go their way. Judge Shelby ruled in a firm, striking manner in favor of marriage equality. He had no request for a stay, so the order went into effect immediately. Utah counties immediately started issuing licenses. By the time the state figured out what was going on and got their stay of execution, many couples had already married. This established a narrative and created an unstable situation. After the Utah decision, state by state followed the same pattern.

[Newme]

Thanks for your comments, Jeff & alas.

Try looking up homosexual agenda and “After the ball.” Or “The Overhauling of Straight America.” See how well you’ve been indoctrinated with mind control - even better than Mormonism!

Also search: US CDC and homosexuality for statistics based on nation-wide health reports. If you want anatomical facts regarding risks of anal sex, look up a medical book or just consider your last bowel movement.

Don’t let yourself get carried away with emotional reasoning while ignoring significant facts.

Oh and wonder, Google has been found to be very liberally biased so of course using them to search- you won’t find much objective data. (See my previous post for links.) Try a different search engine like bing.

[Jeffret]

I've got a better idea, Newme, why don't you try some real data and some real experiences of real people, instead of the prejudiced stuff you've been spouting from terribly unreliable sources?

As to "After the Ball" or "The Overhauling or Straight America", what exactly is wrong with an oppressed minority group seeking ways to better represent themselves and share what they are really like in contrast to the inaccurate representations you and others portray? That's exactly what Harvey Milk tried to do when he encouraged all his friends and associates to come out of the closet so that people could get to know what they're really like. They're not perfect but they're real people. Coming out of the closet has been quite successful for LGBT as it has helped people understand what they are really like instead of just listening to their enemies tell lies about them like you've been doing. Even though they lost Prop 8, it was a huge boon to gays precisely because of how so many people got to learn what they're really like.

As for your supposed CDC statistics, if you'd like to cite them, I'd be willing to reference them. It's not my job to go looking around untrustworthy sites trying to find the distorted references to them, though. Use whatever search engine you'd like to find them and share them. Otherwise, I'd have to say it sounds a lot like Paul Cameron's totally discredited writings.

[moksha]

Why is it that many here were strong conservatives and then suddenly they're liberal?

Might be a natural result of learning they do not have to jump into a volcano because there is no such thing as a brain cloud.

[Jeffret]

FWIW, here's a discussion and a link to The Overhauling Of Straight America. As Equality Matters notes, it was written 30 years ago. Few gays these days have ever heard of it. For that matter, even back when it was published few gays ever heard of it. The gay activists that know about it these days pretty much only know about it because of the anti-gays fondness for it. It wasn't terribly well received at the time. A lot of gays were pretty critical of it and didn't like the approach at all. It's certainly a huge stretch to say that this describes "The Gay Agenda", as if the essay were some foundational reference material that describes how everything was done.

That being said, the essay is pretty much a standard, run-of-the-mill marketing analysis. -- How do we market this thing that is different and unknown to most people? We pursue these different avenues and approaches. -- As it says at the beginning, "Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preference the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games: she likes strawberry and I like vanilla; he follows baseball and I follow football. No big deal." I fail to see the great conspiracy and terrible evil in that goal. It pretty accurately describes the situation. I'm still quite puzzled about how gays like what they like, but it really doesn't matter to me. He likes men; I like women; different tastes for different folks.

One of the authors of this essay also expanded on the topic in a full book, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ’90s. Marshall was a little optimistic but the fear and hatred has been overcome by many these days. (Though not all as Newme can attest to.) The reception to the book was similar. Some saw in it the outlines of a plan. Others objected to its approach. The vast majority never read it or even heard of it.

[dogbite]

I wasn't a strong conservative as a Mormon. My politics were socially liberal and fiscally conservative, Libertarian mostly and remain so.

[Enoch Witty]

Americans overwhelmingly voted against homosexual marriage

You're way out of date. I realize that's a generally applicable criticism, but it's also tremendously applicable in this instance.

[Jeffret]

If you want anatomical facts regarding risks of anal sex, look up a medical book or just consider your last bowel movement.

If you find that such a big deal every time you do it, you ought to try pushing a baby out. I've never done it personally, but from what I've observed and heard that's a really big deal. Leaves the body quite battered and in need of recovery.

[LaMachina]

It's good to see additional rational voices in this dumpster fire but I'm afraid as far as Newme is concerned it is likely a lost cause.

Your inquiries and challenges will be left unanswered and you will stand accused of being another of the brain-washed herd, unthinking and blinded by the evil, leftist, gay agenda and she (yes, she... in my many interactions with her I'm almost 100% sure she identifies as female) will remind you again how much she finds anal sex unappealing.

So, to finally justify one of her accusations I will indeed try to read her mind. No doubt a waste of my time and pointless but I guess I've been inspired as I just finished season 1 of Mindhunter.

I've been tempted to write her off as a troll but I've seen her interact in other threads reasonably sincerely so I personally concluded this couldn't be the case.

My most likely theory is she spent her years in Mormonism as one of those conspiracy theorists, convinced the world is run by the Illuminati and that the moon landing was a Hollywood production. You know, really bought into Joseph Fielding, Bruce R and Ezra Taft, all that mormon & christian paranoia etc. She is certainly not alone in this. I used to think these people were on the very fringes but very recent events have convinced me they are either far more numerous than I thought or their platform has expanded exponentially. So, while you may feel like a lone voice in the wilderness here Newme, don't fret. You are joined by a whole herd of like-minded individuals.

Anyway, I theorize that in between perusing alt-right websites and Infowars she stumbled across a website outlining logical fallacies. This caused great excitement and like a child with a new toy she began waving these around at every opportunity with little understanding of how they actually work. But that's ok, it has provided that sweet, sweet relief when she encounters people who view the world differently. She doesn't need to use God or the Q15 to justify her righteous views anymore but the simple fact that the human brain is fallible is enough to reinforce her worldview and piss on everyone else's.

It seems the real agenda we need to be afraid of is the utterly illogical claiming to use logic. It is Trumpism at it's finest.

But as I hinted at earlier, I'm secretly hoping that Newme is an alien life form. Much like the movie Arrival (I'm former mormon and Oscar nominee Amy Adams in this scenario ). Newme obviously possesses some form of intelligence but our ability to effectively comunicate is hindered by our completely incompatible understanding of language, definitions and logic. I'm hoping at some point it will click and my perception of linear time will disintegrate.

[Jeffret]

Oh, I've had this discussion many, many times, in different forms with a variety of different individuals. The harmful, hateful lies remain the same. The exact specifics vary sometimes. Mostly it's a matter of which particular lies and distortions are important to each individual.

It's rare that there's actually any success in convincing anyone who is so filled with prejudice and hate. It happens sometimes, but it's not a very reliable goal. For myself, I object to letting such lies and hate go unchallenged and unrefuted. It's really very harmful to the individuals in the oppressed minority for all of this vile to be directed their way without any challenge. I feel for those who might be the targets of such distorted, malicious attacks. I feel for the parents, friends, and family members of those that are so attacked. I worry that allowing such attacks and lies to stand unchallenged perpetuates an atmosphere of hate and discrimination. This furthers and increases the problems. Others will sometimes accept the distortions, sometimes unwittingly, and treat the targets poorly. I just think that prejudice, bigotry, fascism, nazism, etc., need to be challenged and exposed in all their forms and appearances.

Newme has brought in something that I haven't encountered before in these discussions, the interest in these old writings by Marshall Kirk. I see it's an area of excitement around many of the right-wing hate sites, as if they've uncovered some great secret conspiracy. The reality is much more mundane and less interesting.

It looks like you might be correct that Newme identifies as a woman. That part really surprises me. It's rare to see such a fascination with anal sex from a woman. It's also somewhat unusual to see such a single-minded focus on gay men, to the exclusion of others. Those two, especially in combination like this, are usually the hallmarks of a gay man trying desperately to deny and hide his sexuality.

[Jeffret]

I do recognize I've gotten to where I have less patience for this sort of lies and prejudice and more likely to call a spade a spade. In earlier renditions of these discussions, I was less likely to be as blunt with some of the terms, to call bigotry bigotry. I also realize that in the age of Trump, bigotry is kind of in vogue in various quarters. That doesn't mean I have to be any more willing to put up with it. In earlier days a lot of these lies and distortions were kind of standard fare. Lots of people just kind of assumed they were all true because that's what they had always heard, they never knew any gay people, and they had just been told over and over that gays were evil and dangerous. These days gays are a lot more visible and accepted by society in general. Gays were allowed to marry and the world hasn't ended. Marriages still occur, babies are still born, and kids still grow up. These days you kind of have to work hard at it to maintain the same level of commitment to the lies and hate.

[LaMachina]

I couldn't agree more Jeffret and I am grateful to you and others for your reasoned, insightful and kind contributions!

[Jeffret]

Maybe I should be less blunt and forceful. Maybe I should be more hopeful of getting real responses and a productive conversation. It's certainly more fun to dig through ideas together, each coming up with different insights and understandings. Unfortunately I haven't seen much evidence of any of that in this thread. Nor in past versions of this discussion where someone comes in with the same baseless accusations.

[Linked]

This thread has been fascinating. Thanks to Jeffret, LaMachina, and others for your thoughtful comments.

[Hermey]

It looks like you might be correct that Newme identifies as a woman. That part really surprises me. It's rare to see such a fascination with anal sex from a woman. It's also somewhat unusual to see such a single-minded focus on gay men, to the exclusion of others. Those two, especially in combination like this, are usually the hallmarks of a gay man trying desperately to deny and hide his sexuality.

Yes. Unless Newme is a sock puppet, she is female according to her introductory post.

Hello,

<snip>

....My husband is quite TBM and many of my family and friends are.

<snip>