Elf Sternberg

"force private institutions that receive no government funding to behave in ways contrary to their beliefs. That ought to be a final recourse, brought about by legislation and with strict sunset requirements"

That's a nice "ought", but I don't see anyone who actually pressures for, lobbies for, agitates for, political parties for, or writes legislation goaled for 'curing various social ills, changing closed minds, or promoting desired things', agree with you on that.

"This ruling comes across as an economic attack on a successful, church-based dating service, "

Comes across? That's what it is. What else could it possibly be? This is members of the LGBT cohort proving they can be just as ugly as they claim their opponents to be.

Years ago, in one of the religion based newsgroups, I was fighting the good fight for same sex marrage, and one of the common comebacks is "if this is allowed, they will use the courts to force religious organizations to perform those kind of marrages".

And I thought they were being stupid and silly in that fear.

Now I see that they were right, and that I was dead wrong with it being a stupid and silly fear.

I am all for same sex marriage. I loved seeing my sister get married, and my cousin get married last month.

But I'm getting more and more annoyed with my fellow proponants...

Edited Date: 2008-12-02 07:57 pm (UTC)

From:

grum

"you are not a US citizen unless you are born within the borders of the US"

This is the part that I was wondering about. How literally true is that statement without any other context? Just what are the rules regarding people born to US citizens that intend to return to the US? How are they written, how are they enforced? Is it different for a "normal" citizens and those who run for president?

And, for a topic change, if you've spent your entire life living in the US, but agitating for "anti-American" causes. Are you then not an American? And do you deserve to be able to run for president?

From:

"The University of Toledo is free to not associate with Ms. Dixon."

And if the causes were reversed? If she was fired from for publically speaking some progressive opinion? Belonging to the Church of the Sub Genus? Supporting gay marriage? Being outed as poly?

From:

>Given that coming tidal wave, why would you think about crippling our student's knowledge at so early an age?

Because Gwad Jay-zuss blessed THIS HERE YOUNITED STATES, not that ragheaded pack of hellbound heathens. In the coming Tribulation (any time now!), Gwad Jay-zuss will coming soaring through the clouds to check the ideological correctness of the faithful, not their science-testing scores (which, as we know, are tools of the Atheistic Humanist Conspiracy Front to begin with). Gwad Jay-zuss will come save us before those godless generations rise to power; therefore, it doesn't matter what their scores in Science class may be. Unless they have accepted the true Word of Gwad Jay-zuss, those Indian "honor students" will burn forever in the Lake of Fire.

That's why.

From:

Mel Gibson ought to think about that point more often. :)

From:

You know what, I actually do work with and associate with some really hardminded conservative people, who think that Rush is maybe too liberal.

And I've driven hours across rural landscapes where the only thing on the radio is christian rock, christian country, and rightwing talk radio.

And I've not ever heard anyone actually talk like the parody you are spouting.

I'm sure it makes you feel good to believe that your opponents are like that, so you don't actually have to figure out how to engage with them.

Edited Date: 2008-12-02 08:11 pm (UTC)

From:

I'd be annoyed. I might even boycott. That's my ox being gored. But no, in general I'm opposed to the state dictating required associations.

From:

And I've not ever heard anyone actually talk like the parody you are spouting.

You've never met someone from the Westboro Baptist Church, then. Yes, they really do talk like that.

Besides, Rush is neither liberal nor conservative; he's bloviating.

From:

Although I respectfully grant you that I exaggerated the accent for effect, I myself attended an evangelical university retreat during a born-again phase in the late 1970s. I've also spent most of my life in either Virginia, Georgia or North Carolina, and worked at several bookstores where the Left Behind series (which essentially turns my comment into an extended narrative) sold like candy. Given my own experiences and observations, I can assure you that although I may have been exaggerating the preacher accent (although not much), the sentiment is very much one I have heard spoken with all seriousness by many so-called "True Believers." They're just not usually that blunt about it (aside from Regan's Secretary of the Interior James Watt, of course, who said that in almost as many words regarding the environment and Chris's eminent return).

By the way, I'm not anti-Christian; I'm anti-stupid people. (http://satyrblade.livejournal.com/247378.html)

From:

sirfox.livejournal.com

devil's advocate here, but can a church refuse to perform a wedding for a straight couple, if it finds them objectionable? (For any particular reason)

I don't know, off the top of my head. Still, if the right to marry is there, it provides only that the state will recognize the union if performed by anybody with the civil authority to marry, and there are any number of non-religious-affiliated persons capable of doing so. I'd think that there wouldn't be a need to force what amounts to a private institution to do something against their stated charter. (like boy scouts still requiring religious-oriented oaths and heterosexuality)

Unfortunately, marriage is one of the last areas where state and religion still overlap too much, so it'll continue to be a gray area until somebody sets down a clear delineation on it.

From:

Westboro is one family. They were thrown out of every conservative church in their city for being hateful and bugfuck crazy.

They are emphatically not welcome when they show up at gatherings of other conservative churches.

From:

And that's my problem. If energy for arguments of principle come from if it's your ox being gored, it's not principled.

That's that very basis for the story/proverb of "first they came for..." story.

Edited Date: 2008-12-02 09:40 pm (UTC)

From:

"exaggerated the accent for effect" pushes one of my buttons hard, in that that is the arena that "progressives" are the most hypocritical, that they conflate regional accents with "those stupid evil people over there".

From:

sianmink.livejournal.com

OneNewsNow, the American "Family" Association's press outlet, is whining that "radical left-wing" organizations are seeking to stifle a "20 years policy ... that allows teachers to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of all scientific theories."

This is a problem?
I have yet to see a developed theory for intelligent design.

Theory. I think this word does not mean what they think it means.

From:

I don't understand the basis of your complaint. I'm being pretty clear here: I don't think the state should enforce associations. Do you?

On the other hand, if a private business takes actions I think are irresponsible and abhorrent, I ought to have every right to express my distate for their actions. I can protest a business that fires people for being gay; I ought not be dissed for refusing to protest a business that fires people for being anti-gay.

The principle here is clear: if Ms. Dixon wins her case, it'll be a loss for civil liberties, because state power will have informed the school that it's freedom of association can be blithely ignored.

From:

In this case, its not even grey legal church/state/society/relationship mess that is legal marriage that is the question, but a dating site.

There exist dating sites that are designed and marketed for black people to find black people to date. By this ruling, they can be compelled to provide a matching site for white people to find white people, asian people to find asian people, etc etc.

But back to my statement, I don't see the people who pushed this lawsuit stopping at dating sites The same uglyness that backed this, will when some high profile "enemy of gay rights" like say the Catholic Church refuses to perform a gay marriage, a simular suit will be filed, in a sympathetic court, and the judge there will look at this case.

From:

So? Why is that relevant? They're still Christians. They still believe in the Nicean creed. They're still a church. And yes, someone actually talk[s] like that parody.

What claims are you trying to deny them?

From:

I get that. However, I've spent most of my life in the South, and have plenty of familiarity with that regional accent, "those stupid evil people," and both of them combined.

(Remind me to tell you sometime about Domestic Abuse Central - the Richmond building I lived in for three years where I learned to hate Southern accents with a passion.)

From:

I am all for complete unfettered freedom of association as well.

But what I *see* implemented in law and in the "yeah yeah" vs "boo hiss" is that progressively favored people, group,s and opinions are legally protected with enforced association, and when they are not, then they are not.

That feels like hyrocratcy of principle to me, which is a very different sort than the form that Stephenson softshoes in Diamond Age.

From:

I like my Southern accent.

What if I hated a Jewish accent, or a black urban accent, or a hispanic accent? Somehow I doubt that protesting "but they are really like that honest" and "I dont hate the people, just the accent" would get much traction.

From:

Because answering the question "why would you think about crippling our student's knowledge at so early an age?" with the statement "these dozen crazy hateful people there would do so because of X, Y, and Z", while phrasing and framing it like its many many people, is neither useful, nor honest.

From:

blaisepascal

This is not true. The current US Law says that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

It should be noted that at the time of the Constitutional Convention there was no one who was born in the US who was old enough to serve as President. So some natural lee-way for what it means to be a "natural born citizen" had to be included a the start.

From:

blaisepascal

Downthread I cited current law concerning US citizenship at birth. There are several groups of people who are US Citizens from birth (or are considered to have US citizenship from birth), not just those who were born on US soil.

The law doesn't care about your future intent, but rather you past behavior. The child of two (married) US Citizens abroad is a US Citizen as long as at least one parent resided in the US at some point (if the son of two expatriots spends a month living with grandparents in Kansas when he was 14 marries the daughter of two expatriots, any children they have are US Citizens). The child of a US Citizen married to a non-citizen is a US Citizen if the citizen-parent has spent at least 5 years in the US, two of which were after the age of 14.

Because of US Servicemen leaving bastards behind wherever they went, the rules are different for children born out of wedlock. If the mom is a US Citizen who has lived in the US for at least a year, the kid is a US Citizen. If the dad is a US Citizen (and mom isn't), then the parentage has to be proven, the paternity legitimized, acknowledged, or adjudicated before the age of 18, and the dad has to provide support (or promise in writing to) until the age of 18.

Agitating for "anti-American" causes is very American. The 1st Amendment says the Government can't stop you. Sounds very American to me. Anyone who meets the Constitutional qualifications can run for President, but probably won't be elected.

From:

tagryn

Also, a naturalized citizen is a citizen of the United States, just not a natural-born citizen. See Title III, Chapter 2 of the Immigration and Nationality Act

From:

Hey, I've got a bit of one myself, as befits someone who grew up in Virginia and spent his adult life between 18 and 38 in either Richmond or Atlanta. It doesn't dull the memory of the wife-beating,meth-headed, perpetually drunken troglydytes who used to be my neighbors and whose accents (and stupidity) make Southern stereotypes seem generous by comparison. (Ironically, the only proud specimens of southern manhood in that building who actually had jobs were the drag queen next door and the black dude upstairs who worked at the hospital. The white dudes were all on welfare or "disability" - said disabilties apparently unaffected by their love of drinking, drugging and fighting.)

As for ghetto, barrio and Yiddisha accents, did somebody stop making fun of them while I wasn't looking? I hadn't noticed those stereotypes going out of style, either.

From:

I've seen very little convencing evidence that stupid evil drunken meth'ed out wifebeating trogs are any more common in "the South" than they are anywhere else. I've had vile (distantish) neighbors everywhere, and the local news has been full of stories of the exploits of such wastes of meat in every city.

I could go on about the trogs I encounter in Boston, in Alaska, in San Francisco, in Salt Lake City, and here in Seattle. But I don't make implications that "$place == stupid evil people".

That your experience with such trogs happened to be in the South is not convincing evidence of forming the rule-of-thumb "Southern equals evil stupid people opposed to all that we support".

There are a lot of people in the South who share your causes, because there are a lot of different people in the South, like there are lots of different people everywhere.

And for the people in the South, and elsewhere, who do not agree with your causes, well, if you want to advance your agenda and have it actually stick, you will have to actually engage with people you think are "stupid", and be convincing and persuisive.

Making fun of accents doesn't help. And saying "will I have that accent too" doesnt help either.

Edited Date: 2008-12-03 02:40 am (UTC)

From: