quote:

---

Originally posted by ch3ckm4t3:
The post is about racism and utilizes sarcasm. So close.

Do you read the news Josh?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshSherman:
Not really, but I'm not sure what that has to do with your post not making sense. I read it five times and still didn't get it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
Yeah, I didn't get it either. I tried every form of bias and sarcasm and it still just came out as nonsense.

---

__________________
This message brought to you by MOTL's very own fancy biologist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
Yeah, I didn't get it either. I tried every form of bias and sarcasm and it still just came out as nonsense. That being said, though, I actually agree with the ruling. I despise affirmative action - I think it is everything this country isn't supposed to be - and Sotomayor's decision was basically a giant endorsement of that policy. I'm glad it was overturned.

---

The other thing to remember is, I think this was not "Sotomayor's ruling", but rather a panel of judges of which she was ONE. (Not sure about that--I haven't followed it closely enough.) This decision like most others of a judicial nature, was not made in a vacuum. It's a bit like blaming one senator for the actions of the senate.

As a liberal, I too felt this ruling was inappropriate nd I am glad it got overturned, but I recognize there are factors I am likely not aware of. And as an adult I recognize that "qualified judge" does not equal "judge who's decisions I always agree with".

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
Marriage should just be stricken from the realm of the state entirely. I've always been confused as to why the government is allowed to control it - seems to be more of a religious thing than a government thing, and it's only caused like a zillion problems and with no benefits other than some people get to abuse it to get tax benefits and extra welfare.

---

For example, say you are childless. Your wife dies and leaves no will, who is automatically the beneficiary by law? Without a civil institution of marriage it can be a thorny legal problem. Maybe your estranged sister in law will decide she gets half your house.

And so on.

This isn't an unusual thing, we have lots of civil categories or characteristics that are in place so as to have a codified system of justice that recognizes things that we take as given. Such as for example, a child's parent has some say in various aspects of that child's life. The parent-child relationship is recognized by the state for a number of legal reasons. The spousal relationship must be likewise recognized.

And because it must be recognized, a system of justice that does not recognize a union between people of the same gender is inherently unjust. Period.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon:
There are civil implications to conjoined unions that form the basis of families that extend into all manner of legal protections--you simply can't ignore all that and have a functioning system. While I agree that the religious aspects of marriage are something the state should keep it's nose out of, the recognition of the civil aspects of marriage is not.

For example, say you are childless. Your wife dies and leaves no will, who is automatically the beneficiary by law? Without a civil institution of marriage it can be a thorny legal problem. Maybe your estranged sister in law will decide she gets half your house.

And so on.

This isn't an unusual thing, we have lots of civil categories or characteristics that are in place so as to have a codified system of justice that recognizes things that we take as given. Such as for example, a child's parent has some say in various aspects of that child's life. The parent-child relationship is recognized by the state for a number of legal reasons. The spousal relationship must be likewise recognized.

And because it must be recognized, a system of justice that does not recognize a union between people of the same gender is inherently unjust. Period.

---

You're missing the point. The US is doing me a massive favor every day by not committing mass genocide against gay people. I should be thankful that I'm allowed to exist. I shouldn't push it, or else they might reconsider allowing me to exist.

__________________
This message brought to you by MOTL's very own fancy biologist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pyr0ma5ta:
You're missing the point. The US is doing me a massive favor every day by not committing mass genocide against gay people. I should be thankful that I'm allowed to exist. I shouldn't push it, or else they might reconsider allowing me to exist.

---

The sarcasm is not lost on me, dear pyr0. The unabashedly bigotted rep in question is clearly Santorum-lite.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon:
There are civil implications to conjoined unions that form the basis of families that extend into all manner of legal protections--you simply can't ignore all that and have a functioning system. While I agree that the religious aspects of marriage are something the state should keep it's nose out of, the recognition of the civil aspects of marriage is not.

For example, say you are childless. Your wife dies and leaves no will, who is automatically the beneficiary by law? Without a civil institution of marriage it can be a thorny legal problem. Maybe your estranged sister in law will decide she gets half your house.

And so on.

This isn't an unusual thing, we have lots of civil categories or characteristics that are in place so as to have a codified system of justice that recognizes things that we take as given. Such as for example, a child's parent has some say in various aspects of that child's life. The parent-child relationship is recognized by the state for a number of legal reasons. The spousal relationship must be likewise recognized.

And because it must be recognized, a system of justice that does not recognize a union between people of the same gender is inherently unjust. Period.

---

I understand and agree with you that there civil necessities to marriage (the examples you pointed out were great), but I think the problem lies with the actual term used - "marriage." Because the term has and always will have religious undertones and is explicitly linked to the church, it is guaranteed to come along with some religious baggage that may be irrational garbage. When the state recognizes the term, people just assume (or even demand) that the garbage you find in the religious realm transfers over to the state realm. This is, from a theoretical legal standpoint, untrue, but nobody gets that. For that reason, I think the state should get out of the "marriage" business entirely and only be able to perform "civil unions," or whatever you want to call it. This would deal with the gay issue along with a boatload of other problems because it would be crystal clear that the state doesn't care about what you believe or what the term marriage "means before god" - all it cares about is seeing that people get their legal rights.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
I understand and agree with you that there civil necessities to marriage (the examples you pointed out were great), but I think the problem lies with the actual term used - "marriage." Because the term has and always will have religious undertones and is explicitly linked to the church, it is guaranteed to come along with some religious baggage that may be irrational garbage. When the state recognizes the term, people just assume (or even demand) that the garbage you find in the religious realm transfers over to the state realm. This is, from a theoretical legal standpoint, untrue, but nobody gets that. For that reason, I think the state should get out of the "marriage" business entirely and only be able to perform "civil unions," or whatever you want to call it. This would deal with the gay issue along with a boatload of other problems because it would be crystal clear that the state doesn't care about what you believe or what the term marriage "means before god" - all it cares about is seeing that people get their legal rights...

---

A perfect example I can think of was the Newdow challenge on "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. He was right of course, in a society with separation of church and state and statutes against endorsement of any one religion, those two words have no business being in the Pledge of Allegiance. But religious people went absolutely bonkers. For example:

"After today, this court will decide whether America remains one nation under God or whether we shake a fist in God's face."
-- Rev. Rob Schenck, president of the National Clergy Council

If people are going to jump to emotionally charged and inflammatory imagery like "shaking a fist in God's face" when we're simply talking about adhering to the laws of our own nation, you can pretty much forget about making minor changes to wording. When the first presidential dollar coin moved the phrase "IN GOD WE TRUST" (who's "we", by the way?) to the edge of the coin, I shortly thereafter read an editorial in a local paper hereabouts where the editor railed against the change as insulting to God.

So in that regard, I figure, pick your battles. And in my opinion it's more important to fight so that gays and lesbians are fully equal to any other American. I'll worry about the wording on the Marriage License when that's accomplished. ;-)

I apologize if anyone found the above arrogant or self-righteous.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ch3ckm4t3:
I'm a dumb racist hypocrite.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ch3ckm4t3:
pigs feet

---

Wait, so white people don't eat disgusting things? So what goes into your all-American July 4th hot dog then? Yeah, that's what I thought. Pig's feet.

So yeah, take your racist trolling somewhere else plz.

Edit: I hear Stormfront is recruiting.

__________________
This message brought to you by MOTL's very own fancy biologist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ch3ckm4t3:
(which apparently include Puerto Rican food, like pigs feet)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ch3ckm4t3:
liberal Bush

---

...

In other news, why do you still have an account?

If the best you can come up with re: Sotomayor is that she made that remark and she made one affirmative-action ruling you disagree with, then basically you have nothing. Thanks. These are not serious reasons why she should not be a supreme court justice.

And secondly, please spare me the details of how much you hate Bush, etc. I've listened to you champion that jerk for years.

Just an add on anyone who constantly refers to themselves as the wise <insert race> <insert gender>, is also racist and insane.

What if John Roberts always referred to himself as a wise white male. And claimed his experiences in life were the richest based on his heritage (including foods). He might as well throw in a white men wrote the constitution so he can relate better.

Obama only considered judges based on race and gender. Most of you here seem fine with this and with her stump speeches.

I know she is a smart woman, but she scares me...

quote:

---

Originally posted by ch3ckm4t3:
I never said anything bad about Puerto Rican food (or pig or chickens feet for that matter, I have tried many varieties of chicken feet when I was in China).

---

No, you certainly didn't imply anything judgemental when you referred to pig's feet dismissively and derisively.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ch3ckm4t3:
Just an add on anyone who constantly refers to themselves as the wise <insert race> <insert gender>, is also racist and insane.

---

So what does that say about you? Mister wise white man?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ch3ckm4t3:
What if John Roberts always referred to himself as a wise white male. And claimed his experiences in life were the richest based on his heritage (including foods). He might as well throw in a white men wrote the constitution so he can relate better.

---

wut.

It is possible to be a wise white male. Nobody ever said that it's not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ch3ckm4t3:
Obama only considered judges based on race and gender. Most of you here seem fine with this and with her stump speeches.

---

Orly? Were you intimately involved with his vetting? No? Then maybe you should have a seat.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ch3ckm4t3:
I know she is a smart woman, but she scares me...

---

To be fair, anyone Obama nominated would have scared you. This statement means nothing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ch3ckm4t3:
If anyone was confused by my sarcasm, Clarence Thomas is one of my heros.

---

Too little, too late, buddy.

__________________
This message brought to you by MOTL's very own fancy biologist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon:
So in that regard, I figure, pick your battles. And in my opinion it's more important to fight so that gays and lesbians are fully equal to any other American. I'll worry about the wording on the Marriage License when that's accomplished. ;-)

---

Agreed - I do think that civil unions for all would be biting off too much politically and would probably damage the gay rights cause. The one thing I am afraid of, however, is that once the gay movement passes and their unions are recognized, the window of opportunity will have closed. Oh well, I guess there's nothing to be done about it. The religious have too great an iron fist over America.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ch3ckm4t3:
When anyone starts claiming their experiences in life are "richer" than others based on ethnicity or gender. Those rich experiences (which apparently include Puerto Rican food, like pigs feet) will make her a better judge than a white male. Its racist and insane.

---

I actually have to agree with this on principle, although practically you are completely wrong and your posting style is terrible. I'm not sure what context in which Sotomayor said this (coming from you, ch3ckm4t3, it's probably blatantly out of context), but racial background not theoretically be part of a court nomination. Judges should be appointed based on their qualifications and ability to read the law, not what race they are. I do also see truth in checkmate's point (although stated without much tact) that if a well-raised, white American were to ever allude that his background made him qualified, that would instantly be frowned upon. However, if done by a minority, the opposite is true - people praise the decision because it is seen as "diverse." This is hypocritical and creates double standards. If it were possible, I would do away with this sort of thing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ch3ckm4t3:

If anyone was confused by my sarcasm, Clarence Thomas is one of my heros.

---

I'm so glad your "heros" is a person that falls asleep while hearing supreme court cases and the only member of the court that believed strip searching a 13 year old for Advil was constitutional.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ch3ckm4t3:
I never said anything bad about Puerto Rican food (or pig or chickens feet for that matter, I have tried many varieties of chicken feet when I was in China).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ch3ckm4t3:
Just an add on anyone who constantly refers to themselves as the wise <insert race> <insert gender>, is also racist and insane.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ch3ckm4t3:
What if John Roberts always referred to himself as a wise white male. And claimed his experiences in life were the richest based on his heritage (including foods). He might as well throw in a white men wrote the constitution so he can relate better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ch3ckm4t3:
Obama only considered judges based on race and gender. Most of you here seem fine with this and with her stump speeches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ch3ckm4t3:
I know she is a smart woman, but she scares me...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ch3ckm4t3:
If anyone was confused by my sarcasm, Clarence Thomas is one of my heros.

---

__________________
This message brought to you by MOTL's very own fancy biologist.