Just in, Sec of Defense and the Military just put in writing that they will honor all marriages for all military personal. This change will go into effect ASAP.

So gays in the military who are married will have the same rights as any other married couple.

Three cheers for the Military.

River

Because the Military will now treat all its members equally what happens when they are stationed in states that do not allow gay marriage?

Gay marriage may become the law of the land sooner then we think.

Riverwind (imported) wrote: Sat Jun 29, 2013 5:28 pm And you both beat me, I just watched the second marriage in San Francisco on the Rachel Maddow show LIVE.

Yes California did not take long to get the marriage licenses going again.

Prop is just a bad memory that ultimately failed, it failed because it denied equality.

And what do you have to say about this MOI?

River

See message #27.

So sayeth Moi

See message #27.

So sayeth Moi

What are you talking about my post was in response to your post number 27.

So do they still have the "buddy" enlistments in the Navy? You know, when if you and your friend enlisted, they would send you to the same boot camp and place you on the same assignment...?

I knew two guys that I grew up with did that, one of them was married to the sister of the other one... they did their tour of duty on an aircraft carrier. I forget which one, though.

...just wondering...

Then read yours, then read Message #27.

It still works.



Thus spaketh Moi

I'm too happy about DOMA going down in a ball of flames, and prop 8 withering on the vine to respond in a very thoughtful way. So there will be very little debate about anything from me. I will say this however, inequality under the law was dealt a severe blow, and no matter how conservative people say this Supreme Court is they honored the constitution. Life is good!

People would be wise to remember that Prop 8 wasn't overturned by the Supreme Court, they instead ruled the people defending it did not have standing to bring the appeal from the 9th circuit to the Supreme Court, which threw it back to the 9th circuit. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, did have standing as the people who brought the case to the 9th circuit to begin with because they were the people claiming "injury" in the case.

And remember, it was Ahnold "Get to the Choppah" Swarzenegger - Republican, who first stopped defending the proposition.

I never thought I'd see the day that Justice Scalia would rule in such a way as to allow gay marriage anywhere. It was a strange 5-4 split. You had 2 conservative justices joining with 3 liberal justices and by refusing to rule on the case and send it back to the 9th circuit, they defacto allowed same sex marriages to occur in California.

Basically what they did is say that it is the responsibility of the State Attorney Generals or Governors to defend the intiatives or state laws, not random groups of people or special interest groups. Normally Supreme Court cases are things like Joe Smith vs. (insert state or locality here) when a state or local law is being challenged.

So Moi, the people did step up and the Supreme Court decided. Your rationale has no where else to go except, maybe, to armed insurrection.

--LT

moi621 (imported) wrote: Sat Jun 29, 2013 2:44 pm The part of the Proposition 8 story that I find problematic

is the Government of the State of California unwilling to step up to the plate.

Rose Bird was a Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court.

The people of California approved a capitol punishment law.

Rose Bird judiciously did not enforce and practiced obstructionism.

No capitol punishment was executed on her watch.

My mother supported her. And we discussed.

The people of California eventually "recalled" Rose Bird.

The people did not have the same energy over the State's refusal to defend Prop. 8.

Yes an individual may be against capitol punishment or against Proposition 8.

If that individual is operating as an agent for the State of California, I do believe they owe it to the people to put their individuality aside except under more "extreme" circumstances.

And the Supreme Court did not nullify Prop 8 as I understand but rather ruled those representing the cause had no legal standing. It the State abdicates this responsibility and no one else steps up to the plate, I do believe a voluntary organization of people should have been heard by their Supreme Court.

Let the beatings begin.

Moi

Californian and a people too.

"Putting individuality aside" is the most heinous crime against humanity that I can imagine ever being espoused or committed.

Putting individuality aside led to Kitty Genovese being ignored as she was dying.

Putting individuality aside led to people serving the national interest during the Nazi regime's mass murdering of people like me, people who are unable to conform to some utterly tragic, self-referentially psychotic, social construction of reality.

Putting individuality aside led to the lynching of James Earl Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Henry Schwerner.

Putting individuality aside led to the December 7, 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Putting individuality aside led to every criminal death sentence in all of history.

Putting individuality aside led to every form of child abuse ever to have happened.

Putting individuality aside is the ultimate and proximate cause of anything and everything that can usefully be labeled as "evil."

So I have observed, without exception, throughout my entire life.

I find no fault with people who have put individuality aside, as I find no fault with people who advocate putting individuality aside.

In a world of real choices that is early enough in its evolutionary achievements, it is necessary to test various hypotheses for their pragmatic utility. If there is a set of testable hypotheses with no way yet evolved for testing them, some form of chaotic process may lead to testing such hypotheses in innumerably many ways that are destructive because they are actually false, though there has not yet evolved any method to falsify them.

Such is, methinks, the actual nature of the rule of law when it is of any sort of adversarial process.

The way in which I am autistic seems to make morality trivially simple for me...

If it is helpful, it is right. If it is right, it is helpful.

If it is hurtful, it is wrong. If it is wrong, it is hurtful.

It is right to learn what is hurtful and right to learn how to avoid what is hurtful, otherwise, there is no way to prevent what is hurtful.

No act that ever happens is actually wrong, no actual wrongdoing is ever actually possible, and no actual wrongdoers can ever actually exist.

Whatever happens, as it happens, is inescapably necessary and sufficient, if only because nothing else ever happens.

Actually demonstrate the actual happening of one actually-avoidable mistake or accident, and I shall proclaim that my weltanschauung is wrong.

So far during my life, I have not found anyone who can do that demonstration, in the absolute absence of any demonstrated avoidable mistake or avoidable accident, I am left with the notion that the happening of an avoidable event of any form whatsoever is an absolute existential impossibility.

Believing that absolute existential impossibilities really happen is, to me, the essence underlying social (socialization?) mechanism of the putting aside of individuality.

For me to put aside my individuality would be my effective suicide, and I simply am not the least bit suicidal.

Had I not asserted my individuality, and gotten what seem to have been profoundly effective cancer risk minimizing surgeries (orchiectomy, colectomy, duodenal polypectomy, et cetera), I would have knowingly chosen to commit suicide, and would, my best guess has it, be as dead as my dad and brother are.

"Put aside my individuality?" Not over, under, around, or through my living body.

Originally the lower court ruled that prop 8 was unconstitutional, it is now dead let the marriage between loving couples start.

And moi, this was the state making a stand the the Supreme court standing behind them, sort of.

River

Losethem (imported) wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2013 12:07 am People would be wise to remember that Prop 8 wasn't overturned by the Supreme Court, they instead ruled the people defending it did not have standing to bring the appeal from the 9th circuit to the Supreme Court, which threw it back to the 9th circuit. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, did have standing as the people who brought the case to the 9th circuit to begin with because they were the people claiming "injury" in the case.

And remember, it was Ahnold "Get to the Choppah" Swarzenegger - Republican, who first stopped defending the proposition.

I never thought I'd see the day that Justice Scalia would rule in such a way as to allow gay marriage anywhere. It was a strange 5-4 split. You had 2 conservative justices joining with 3 liberal justices and by refusing to rule on the case and send it back to the 9th circuit, they defacto allowed same sex marriages to occur in California.

Basically what they did is say that it is the responsibility of the State Attorney Generals or Governors to defend the intiatives or state laws, not random groups of people or special interest groups. Normally Supreme Court cases are things like Joe Smith vs. (insert state or locality here) when a state or local law is being challenged.

So Moi, the people did step up and the Supreme Court decided. Your rationale has no where else to go except, maybe, to armed insurrection.

--LT

Agree.

The problem is with the State of California Governor and Attorney General who failed to take on a kamikaze mission they were bound by their Oath of Office to take. Defend Prop. 8.

With those State officials abdicating their roll, then . . . or require them to fulfill their roll.

I mean who respects the 9th District except when it is convenient.

It has always been treated in a less then normal way by their peers.

Moi