Gays, lesbians, bisexuals

[Nurvingiel]

Whoops, missed your post Browners.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

yes and no

you can not appeal directly to the supreme court... first, you must find a case that illustrates the case... then, bring it through the normal court system (local, state supreme, federal supreme)

I don't get it, "case that illustrates the case"? What if there's no precedent for your particular situation?

I don't think you can appeal directly to the Supreme court here either.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

also, the supreme court can pick and choose which cases they wish to hear with little or no reasoning given

I guess that's good in the sense that people can't deliberately waste the court's time, but does that mean they can refuse to hear a case that has appealed to them through the proper channels on legitimate grounds? (< that face looks a little too scared for what I really mean here.)

[Butterbeer]

how do you spell TOPIC again?

*hold hands firmly in ears as an ear-splitting screech of thousands of pots calling the kettle black shatters the glass in the greenhouse as someone casts a stone - ... it could have been the first one ...*






got to rate as one of my cheekiest posts!

best all, BB

[Nurvingiel]

I heart you BB.

On topic now.

But in my defence, the original law discussion was in relation to gay rights in the USA and Canada.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

were debating? about what?....umm dude I haven't denied anything, in my neck of the woods there has been no discrimination or protests or nothing almost a non-issue

Well welcome to the real world where its been a page one issue for years now. The issue even pushed Bush over the top during the 2004 election as anti-gay marriage folks came out of the wood work to vote to discriminate against gays. We aint in Kansas anymore eh toto?

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

i personally have never seen anyone discriminated against because he/she was of a different orientation.

That is lucky.
But:
1. discrimination exists on the workplace; we know that from the statistics
2. discrimination is overt in the government (marriage, military, second parent adoption...)
3. derogatory remarks against gay people are still rampant, even in school
4. violence against LGBT people because of their orientation exists

[Spock]

but then it is true about most any peoples....poles, germans, jews, arabs, etc. etc. etc. from times ancient and modern.

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

actually i've never even seen a gay who wanted to marry

I have.

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by Spock

but then it is true about most any peoples....poles, germans, jews, arabs, etc. etc. etc. from times ancient and modern.

That fact that other people have been discriminated is hardly a justification for discriminating people now

[Spock]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

That fact that other people have been discriminated is hardly a justification for discriminating people now

It's not a justification, it's called LIFE and how it's conducted.

.....it ain't about to change anytime soon by review of current trends.....

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Whoops, missed your post Browners.
I don't get it, "case that illustrates the case"? What if there's no precedent for your particular situation?

I don't think you can appeal directly to the Supreme court here either.
I guess that's good in the sense that people can't deliberately waste the court's time, but does that mean they can refuse to hear a case that has appealed to them through the proper channels on legitimate grounds? (< that face looks a little too scared for what I really mean here.)

even if there is no precedent, you can bring any case to court... the lower courts are kinda of meant to weed out the cases worthy of attention

and yes, they can refuse to hear cases... most often because they believe that the issue needs to be hashed out more in the lower courts before being presented to them (i.e. the particular case might not be illustrative enough of a particular issue)

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

That fact that other people have been discriminated is hardly a justification for discriminating people now

much like the interracial marriage issue, it will take time... i personally think that equal rights for gays at all levels is inevitable, but it will take time

it took african americans and women a good 100+ years after their fights began... and the fight for gay rights is relatively recent

what will finally bring about change is familiarization... 50+ years from now, all the people still living will have grown up in an environment where equal treatment of gays is almost a given... they will all have seen openly gay people in the media and in real life since they were born... and much like we are a generation that is 95% use to viewing blacks as perfectly "normal"... so will a few generations from now view gays

[-elfearz-]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

much like the interracial marriage issue, it will take time... i personally think that equal rights for gays at all levels is inevitable, but it will take time

it took african americans and women a good 100+ years after their fights began... and the fight for gay rights is relatively recent

what will finally bring about change is familiarization... 50+ years from now, all the people still living will have grown up in an environment where equal treatment of gays is almost a given... they will all have seen openly gay people in the media and in real life since they were born... and much like we are a generation that is 95% use to viewing blacks as perfectly "normal"... so will a few generations from now view gays

This is such an optimistic thought. I think it's true too

[The Gaffer]

Hear hear. I too hope, and believe, it will be so. The more the general public are exposed to "out" GLB people just doing normal things, the more this will be the case.

HOWEVER, there remains much to do, especially in certain sectors, and I'm thinking about religious and cultural attitudes here. Today I read how a Jamaican AIDS worker and gay rights activist was murdered in his own home. The police are refusing to recognise that it was a homophobic attack.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Well welcome to the real world where its been a page one issue for years now. The issue even pushed Bush over the top during the 2004 election as anti-gay marriage folks came out of the wood work to vote to discriminate against gays. We aint in Kansas anymore eh toto?

*sigh*

look i don't want to debate on the gay marriage thing man, i just was posting on the legality of the majority, and the actual rights issue.
i guess that discussion was off topic, i don't really have a big opinion on gay marriage i guess its like my cynical professor said, if he has to suffer marriage he figures everyone else should; just to make sure we have equal suffering for all.

[-elfearz-]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

i don't really have a big opinion on gay marriage i guess its like my cynical professor said, if he has to suffer marriage he figures everyone else should; just to make sure we have equal suffering for all.

hahaha
I love bitter old professors

sorry..OT

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Nurv

I don't get it, "case that illustrates the case"? What if there's no precedent for your particular situation?

I think BJ means a case that illustrates the situation - like "I am a gay man. I want to marry this other gay man. The state of XYZ refuses to grant us a marriage license." Not a precedent, but what is called a 'test case' where someone 'tests' the law by intentionally conflicting with it to see if the law is constitutional.

And the Supreme Court can deny certiorari (ie refuse to hear the case) if fewer than 4 of the 9 justices want to hear the case. Usually it is denied if they feel the lower court got it right and there is no need for the Supreme Court to get involved.

Originally Posted by Spock

It's not a justification, it's called LIFE and how it's conducted.

Ah, but the issue isn't just personal discrimination, which is unlikely to go away by legislation, but legal discrimination as well. And that is NOT how life is supposed to be conducted. I don't have to associate with you... but I can't make the law discriminate against you.

[Nurvingiel]

I get the case thing now, thanks CC and Brownie.

RohirrimTR, that's one way to look at it!

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

what will finally bring about change is familiarization... 50+ years from now, all the people still living will have grown up in an environment where equal treatment of gays is almost a given... they will all have seen openly gay people in the media and in real life since they were born... and much like we are a generation that is 95% use to viewing blacks as perfectly "normal"... so will a few generations from now view gays

I agree. For a lot of people, this is already the case (viewing gays as normal) and the number will only grow.

Gay people will be accepted a lot sooner in North America and Europe than other places though (I'm quite sure there will be exceptions, but generally). Change will come eventually though.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Ah, but the issue isn't just personal discrimination, which is unlikely to go away by legislation, but legal discrimination as well. And that is NOT how life is supposed to be conducted. I don't have to associate with you... but I can't make the law discriminate against you.

Ahh, but enough people thinking and voting the same agenda can in effect make a law.

Personally why not just ship 'em all to France.
don't get yer knickers up in a snot, it's only my pre coffee mind working now

[Tamuril Sirfalas]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

LOL
no, actually i've never even seen a gay who wanted to marry, but thats beside the point i suppose.

i have ... my uncle wants to get married but his partner doesn't want to so they are settling for a long trm committment with rings and all that. its the same as getting married but my uncles boyfriend doesn't think so.

[inked]

These girls wanted to so badly they had to sue the KoC for injury for refusal to rent the hall!!!! OH CANADA!

http://magicstatistics.blogspot.com/...-columbus.html

Hey, Nurv, is that Canadian policy now - since it isn't law- to get 1000 $(Canadian) for injured feelings? I could get a load off entmoot if my skin wasn't so thick!

edit: then I found these less radical comments:
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/003054.html

edit 2: then there's this for jolly old E
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...910542,00.html