National Organisation for Marriage: "Drive wedge between Gays and Blacks." NOM NOM NOM.

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Also, they are called the National Organization of Marriage. NOM in short. I cant take em seriously, I just cant do it. I mean, seriously. NOM?

that makes it hard as shit to find anything about them on Tumblr. it's a cunning strategy.

ten.to.ten:
I don't know what evangelicals specifically have to do with it, lots of religions and religious people have fundamental objections to gay relationships. Some states voted as high as in the 80% range in support of constitutionally banning gays from having any sort of relationship recognition, obviously if it was just the evangelicals they would have never passed.

You said "fundamentalist" and the term is generally attached to Evangelicals particularly when discussing their allegedly "overwhelming" political influence. The truth is that they are a minority but they are a large enough one that has enough of a track record of actually going out to vote that people pander to them. It also doesn't help that attacking them often looks like an "attack against christianity" and most of the US are christian though not fundamentalist. If you are just talking about anti gay sentiment that exists far and wide and finds its roots in many things, not just fundie religion.
Note that apparently in Mexico only 17% of the population support same sex marriage where as in California, where they voted to institute a constitutional ban on gay marriage, 59% of the population apparently support full marriage rights for homosexuals. That's also about on par with the 60% approval in Argentina. Unfortunately people here don't fucking vote unless its for the President or American Idol.

I'll admit that I probably used the wrong word, and that I should have expanded on what I meant a bit more, the US Supreme Court justices obviously don't follow a platform set out by a political party but it would be denying reality to say that there isn't a fierce "conservative" and "liberal" ideological divide among the justices on highly politicised social issues. If you think this kind of thing is normal, it isn't, other countries aren't like this.

You don't get it. The "ideological divide" in the court is over how to interpret the law. There are several philosophies regarding this and all of them are useful and have their place. One philosophy is "Progressive" and this is where the divide comes from. The "Conservatives" tend to feel that "Progressives" are reading into the law that which is not already there and are therefore "legislating from the bench" or creating rather than interpreting law. This tends to be most prevalent in highly politicized issues because the "progressives" tend to be far more likely to be swayed to act in the interests of their sense of "justice" rather than simply interpreting law which was written how ever many years ago (depending on the particular law) by dead bigots and framed in dead social philosophies. The "conservatives" say its not their place to do such things, that perhaps those social philosophies are broken but it is not their job to replace them, that job belongs to the legislature. You can easily see why the political philosophy tends to go hand in hand with the judicial philosophy. And I can not imagine that jurisprudence has become so well settled in your country, or any other common law country, that there are not similar divides.

You've just been defending your county against Mexico, for Christ's sake, land of the free, home of the brave, greatest country in the world and all that, you shouldn't have to explain why your country denying the reality of loving gay families is as embarrassing as it looks like and that at least you're not as bad as Mexico

I was neither "defending the US against Mexico" nor trumpeting the glory of the US. I was pointing out a rather poor comparison in alleging the progressiveness Mexico has shown towards the issue of gay rights while ignoring that gay rights are actually far more likely to be trampled there than in the US. Its like Christians touting the great character of Muslims versus atheists because "At least they believe in god."

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked