Members Lucky Posted October 15, 2011 Members Posted October 15, 2011 SFGate.com reports: With more than half of Americans in a recent poll accepting same-sex marriage, gays and lesbians need no judicial protection from laws passed by Congress, House Republicans argued Friday in a San Francisco court in defense of a law denying federal benefits to same-sex spouses. "Homosexuals have a great deal of political power" and are not entitled to the safeguards that courts have established for laws that discriminate against racial minorities or women, attorney Paul Clement said in a filing supporting the Defense of Marriage Act... ...House Speaker John Boehner chose Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general, to take over the defense in a series of pending Defense of Marriage Act cases after President Obama announced in February that he considered the law unconstitutional and would no longer defend it. Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/14/BANT1LI0F4.DTL#ixzz1ap1nQO3d Our fellow poster Epigonos is an avowed Republican who opposes the Obama administration. Does he support this horrendous claim? Quote
Members MsGuy Posted October 15, 2011 Members Posted October 15, 2011 In one of those cases Karen Golinski, a federal court attorney, is seeking family insurance coverage for her wife, which an Obama administration office denied because of the 1996 law. Clement argued that Congress had legitimate reasons for granting marital benefits only to opposite-sex couples - tradition, the "unknown consequences of a novel redefinition of marriage," and the government's "interest in maintaining the link between marriage and children." Golinski's lawyers contend the law must be overturned unless its defendants can show compelling reasons for withholding benefits to same-sex couples. Clement countered that courts have applied such a protective standard only to groups that can't protect themselves in the political process. ---- One might argue that the very existence of a law denying the group in question a federal spousal benefit available to all other federal employees is itself fairly strong evidence that the group cannot protect itself through the normal political process. ---- That said, some might also argue that the following quote makes a prima facie case that Lucky misses the bare knuckle brawls of the other board: "Our fellow poster Epigonos is an avowed Republican who opposes the Obama administration. Does he support this horrendous claim?" .... Quote
Members Lucky Posted October 15, 2011 Author Members Posted October 15, 2011 Epigonos and I enjoy teasing each other about our political beliefs. The smiley was placed to let others in on the joke. I am sure that he abhors the idea that some right wing republicans would use our very gains politically against us, but I can't help teasing him that he is their fellow traveler, thus the use of the old cliche "avowed.". I had a little fun with bishop Finn too, and I hope he understands that his indictment is a source of amusement to many of us. Yesterday a 78-year old monsignor in New York tried to molest two underage boys in the same day, and it had nothing to do with Bishop Finn, so I wanted to point that out in his defense. (dailynews.com) (P.S.- Conservatives in Britain have learned that you do NOT bring your boyfriend into government meetings!) Quote
Members Lucky Posted October 15, 2011 Author Members Posted October 15, 2011 "That said, some might also argue that the following quote makes a prima facie case that Lucky misses the bare knuckle brawls of the other board:" Ah, MsGuy. After all these years do we not understand each other? I do not come here to play the wounded kitten role. I am here for honest give and take, discussion of hot issues, amusement at life's foibles, and a general sense of gay male camaraderie. I admit to creating posts with an intent to provoke. For me, the last thing one should want here is the boredom of general agreement. As you know, my background is as a trial lawyer. Day after day I would go into court and argue. Yes, argue. Not like in the US Senate, where you call the enemy "your esteemed colleague" before you rip him a new asshole. The courtroom allowed for argument on important matters that still left the opposing parties the liberty to leave the building and share a drink together. A badge of honor was the reputation of being fair, yet persuasive. We don't have the more formal rules of the courtroom here, and the consequence is that some feathers get ruffled that we didn't intend to ruffle. But that's one reason I like provoking Epigonos- he can take it and then some. If an opposing lawyer in a courtroom responded to something I said with the comment, "Oh, Lucky, you are so sweet," we would both have been laughed out of court. I am not here to be sweet, but, hopefully, fair, yet persuasive. Not always right, but always interesting. (If someone wants to think I am sweet, that's great(ness), just don't tell anyone!) Quote
Members MsGuy Posted October 15, 2011 Members Posted October 15, 2011 Ah, MsGuy. After all these years do we not understand each other? LOL, thus is my prima facie case thoroughly refuted. I concede the field. My only remaining defense, poor though it be, is to draw your attention to the and the that concluded my post. You're not the only one who likes to stir the pot on occasion. I do not come here to play the wounded kitten role. (If someone wants to think I am sweet, that's great(ness), just don't tell anyone!) TIGER, tiger, burning bright In the forests of the night, What immortal hand or eye Could frame thy fearful symmetry? In what distant deeps or skies Burnt the fire of thine eyes? On what wings dare he aspire? What the hand dare seize the fire? And what shoulder and what art Could twist the sinews of thy heart? And when thy heart began to beat, What dread hand and what dread feet? What the hammer? what the chain? In what furnace was thy brain? What the anvil? What dread grasp Dare its deadly terrors clasp? Lucky, not even Hito could envision you as a trembling kitten but I suspect he's right about the sweetness underneath. ---- P.S. Thanks for the post about Fox. I was wondering if that was what was ginning up the fuss about his "special friend". The English press hint but don't come right out with it. Quote
Members lookin Posted October 15, 2011 Members Posted October 15, 2011 I am here for honest give and take, discussion of hot issues, amusement at life's foibles, and a general sense of gay male camaraderie. (If someone wants to think I am sweet, that's great(ness), just don't tell anyone!) Your secret's safe with us. Quote
Members MsGuy Posted October 15, 2011 Members Posted October 15, 2011 As usual, lookin says it best! Quote
