ot. marriage is totally gay.

[ltsddd]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=ltsdd][quote=FlyerInHi]

Failure of public health policy blinded by religious resurgence at the time.
[/quote]

How so?[/quote]

There is tons of info on the Reagan’s Administration’s inaction on AIDS from indifference to lack of funding, to deference to the religious right.

I didn’t know that, but apparently Diane Feinstein’s budget for AIDS as mayor of SF was larger the Federal budget for the same for the first 2 years of the epidemic.

http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/Narrative/QQ/p-nid/87

With no cure and no vaccine, educating the public on how AIDS was transmitted, who was at risk, and how to protect oneself was the only way left to slow the spread of the disease. Since this task fell under the mandate of his office, Koop concluded that “if ever there was a disease made for a Surgeon General, it was AIDS.” Nevertheless, for the first four years in office, the nation’s top health officer was prevented from addressing the nation’s most urgent health crisis, for reasons he insisted were never fully clear to him but that were no doubt political.[/quote]

Let’s put this in context a bit here. AIDS wasn’t identified until 1981. At that time, the country was in the midst of double-digit inflation and on the verge of a recession with unemployment reaching double-digit. Then there was this little pesky thing called the USSR that we had to play a potentially deadly chess game with.

So it was some kind of a conspiracy that AIDS did not get more attention? Even though, it was merely just identified and little was known about it let alone a cure? How much attention or $$ should the gov’t pour into each and every newly identified disease for it to not to be demonized? Would you say the same thing wrt to the $$ and effort the gov’t putting into research for Ebola?

[SK in CV]

[quote=ltsdd]

So it was some kind of a conspiracy that AIDS did not get more attention? Even though, it was merely just identified and little was known about it let alone a cure? How much attention or $$ should the gov’t pour into each and every newly identified disease for it to not to be demonized? Would you say the same thing wrt to the $$ and effort the gov’t putting into research for Ebola?[/quote]

It wasn’t a conspiracy. It was an administration unwilling to lift a finger or spend a dollar on a gay disease. You can compare it to Ebola. But the two don’t look the same. Billions were and will be spent on Ebola this year. There have been less than a dozen cases in the US and 2 deaths. Reagan announced his big push to find a cure for AIDS more than 4 years after it was identified, and after more than 25,000 were already dead. Within 3 years another 125,000 would be dead.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=AN] I want to done right. I don’t want it to be rush which open the door for possible overturn later. As I said, the way they did it today, it gives precedence to future over turning it if we ever get a 5-6 right leaning justices. I also don’t want 9 unelected people deciding what’s right/wrong for the country. I want to people to have a say in what they want from their country. Rightly or wrongly (to a certain extent), it’s up to Americans to decide their own destiny.[/quote]

I had a lunch w/ my lawyer friend today and we talked about this.

2 important points. The Supreme Court can overturn its own decision. But Congress and state legislatures can also change the laws they pass.

A Supreme Court decision that gay marriage is constitutionally guaranteed is superior to laws passed by the states to allow gay marriage. The ruling becomes the framework within which the legislatures must operate.

The principle of stare decisis is well-established. The Court only very reluctantly overturns its own decisions.

But when the court does overturn prior rulings it’s because it’s well aware that society and public opinions have changed (such as in the cases of interracial marriage, segregation, and sodomy).

The case that probably would get overturned in the future is Citizens United, depending on where society stands when the issue comes back to the court.

[NotCranky]

These polyamorous people didn’t waste much time.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/03/us-usa-polygamist-montana-idUSKCN0PD0BQ20150703

[an]

[quote=FlyerInHi]I had a lunch w/ my lawyer friend today and we talked about this.

2 important points. The Supreme Court can overturn its own decision. But Congress and state legislatures can also change the laws they pass.

A Supreme Court decision that gay marriage is constitutionally guaranteed is superior to laws passed by the states to allow gay marriage. The ruling becomes the framework within which the legislatures must operate.

The principle of stare decisis is well-established. The Court only very reluctantly overturns its own decisions.

But when the court does overturn prior rulings it’s because it’s well aware that society and public opinions have changed (such as in the cases of interracial marriage, segregation, and sodomy).

The case that probably would get overturned in the future is Citizens United, depending on where society stands when the issue comes back to the court.[/quote]
Well, I hope your lawyer friend is right. As I stated, I fully support gay marriage. I just wanted it to be done right where it won’t be overturned as easy as a different mix of justices. I hope it sticks permanently.

[an]

[quote=Blogstar]These polyamorous people didn’t waste much time.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/03/us-usa-polygamist-montana-idUSKCN0PD0BQ20150703%5B/quote%5D
It would be very interesting to see how this turn out. Now that both the SCOTUS and POTUS say that marriage is a constitutional right, I wonder how the defending lawyer(s) would argue for denying people their constitutional right.

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN][quote=Blogstar]These polyamorous people didn’t waste much time.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/03/us-usa-polygamist-montana-idUSKCN0PD0BQ20150703%5B/quote%5D
It would be very interesting to see how this turn out. Now that both the SCOTUS and POTUS say that marriage is a constitutional right, I wonder how the defending lawyer(s) would argue for denying people their constitutional right.[/quote]

Neither the court nor the president said exactly that. The difference is technical but significant. What the court said is that denying same-sex couples the same rights as straight couples is a violation of due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment. Whether a polygamist marriage would be similarly protected is arguable. No inference can be drawn from this court decision.

[an]

[quote=SK in CV]Neither the court nor the president said exactly that. The difference is technical but significant. What the court said is that denying same-sex couples the same rights as straight couples is a violation of due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment. Whether a polygamist marriage would be similarly protected is arguable. No inference can be drawn from this court decision.[/quote]Technically, you might be correct (I’m not a lawyer). However, I hope the court will draw the same conclusion that denying polygamist families the same rights as straight/gay couples is a violation of due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment. I just hope we all are equal in the eyes of the law. We will find out soon enough.

Interesting articles about marriage being a constitutional right:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2015/06/26/supreme-court-rules-same-sex-marriage-is-a-constitutional-right/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gay-rights-supporters-push-beyond-marriage-to-broader-legal-protections/2015/06/27/25f822dc-1cdf-11e5-93b7-5eddc056ad8a_story.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/gay-marriage-legal-in-the-united-states-of-america/396947/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/05/17/jeb-bush-no-constitutional-right-to-same-sex-marriage/

Rubio: No constitutional right to ‘gay’ marriage

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/gay-marriage-supreme-court-politics-activism/397052/
http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/06/supreme-court-ruling-gay-marriage-a-constitutional-right/
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/Supreme-Court-Gay-Marriage-Obergefell-Hodges–310069401.html

So, although you might be right in saying that technically, the SCOTUS and POTUS didn’t say that exactly. I don’t know if the technical difference is that significant if all the news media and all the people on both side of the isle interpret it as that.

Hillary said marriage should be a constitutional right: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/04/15/shifting-position-clinton-says-gay-marriage-should-be-a-constitutional-right/. So if she wins in 2016, that technical difference wouldn’t matter. Assuming she would follow through and declare marriage as a constitutional right.

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN]
Hillary said marriage should be a constitutional right: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/04/15/shifting-position-clinton-says-gay-marriage-should-be-a-constitutional-right/. So if she wins in 2016, that technical difference wouldn’t matter. Assuming she would follow through and declare marriage as a constitutional right.[/quote]

I think you know better than that. Presidents don’t have the power to make declarations like that. Only the supreme court can decide, with any legal authority, whether a law is constitutional.

[an]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=AN]
Hillary said marriage should be a constitutional right: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/04/15/shifting-position-clinton-says-gay-marriage-should-be-a-constitutional-right/. So if she wins in 2016, that technical difference wouldn’t matter. Assuming she would follow through and declare marriage as a constitutional right.[/quote]

I think you know better than that. Presidents don’t have the power to make declarations like that. Only the supreme court can decide, with any legal authority, whether a law is constitutional.[/quote]
Yes, but president can appoint justices and the bench is already leaning in the direction of marriage being a conditional right. So having a president who believe it should be doesn’t hurt. Again, we’ll find out soon enough.

[FlyerInHi]

When it comes to polygamy, the county clerk just relies on a statement by the parties that they are unmarried before issuing a license.

It you answer the marriage license application truthfully, you could denied a marriage license for being already married. There is no violation of due process since all who are not unmarried would be denied.
So the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage would not apply. Polygamists have their own fight. I wish them luck.

[NotCranky]

When I commented to scaredy that it wasn’t all great in the 70’s for gays , I wasn’t thinking about aids. There were other things, coming out of the closet seemed pretty tragic for a lot of people, and you had to be a Madonna fan. Well maybe it’s not all better, now you have to have everybody wonder if you are only gay because it’s hip and you have to be a Hillary fan.

[FlyerInHi]

Can you be gay like you would eat kale because it’s trendy?

In the old days, only the most obviously gay people came out. But now I know many gay people: a teacher, military officer, a cop, doctors, a pilot. My cousin came out and married a Russian-Jewish guy in New York. They had a baby daughter through surrogacy and want to take a trip to Russia to meet the grandparents.

My deceased uncle (dad’s eldest brother) has many pictures from the 1930s and 1940s with sweet notes from handsome male friends. He married and had a family. My grandmother said he was dashing and handsome so she didn’t understand why he married the first plain girl he met.

He was known to be quiet and withdrawn (after being very gregarious in his youth). He spend all his free time reading books. We are wondering if he was gay but could not come out because of society.

[FlyerInHi]

It’s amazing how the conversation has flipped ever since the court decision. More than I expected.
People seem to be much more open and at ease. Today in line, a guy told a stranger he’s cute . No apprehension.

I saw cirque du soleil Zumanity show in Vegas. It’s very gay with a drag queen as the MC who asked the audience who’s gay, lesbian and straight. Good crowd response. There’s a new act with 2 men dancing in a cage and kissing at the end.

Wirh Caitlin Jenner all over the news, it’s hard to ignore trans issues, I don’t understand why anyone would want to change sex, but I guess if Caitlyn wants to do it, all the more power to her. It would be douchy to be against.

A friend who is in his late 40s said that, back in the 80s, in his house, his parents said that Bruce Jenner was gay. So it’s no surprise to them. I never heard that’s when I was young.

[scaredyclassic]

Gay people will be sadder. I was reading about Gay friendships, extended networks of friends arevlovers, arising because they don’t couple up and defend coupled against the world. Routine Gay marriage will NE them and their lives dull. SCCEPTED But dull, I SUPPOSE Is The PrICE paid

[Author]

Posts