<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: &#8220;The Most Significant Cases These 9 Justice Have Ever Considered, And Probably Will Ever Decide&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/11/30/51500/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/11/30/51500</link>
	<description>News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 13:48:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hyhybt</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/11/30/51500/comment-page-1#comment-185087</link>
		<dc:creator>Hyhybt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2012 22:51:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=51500#comment-185087</guid>
		<description>2035 is too far away. They won&#039;t do it, but if the court *did* use the Prop 8 case to declare it a right throughout the country, that WOULD be a permanent change. It wouldn&#039;t be one everybody would *like*, obviously, but it would nonetheless be permanent. Objectors&#039; numbers would, perhaps after a brief jump, continue to decline, and in the meantime people could actually take advantage of marriage a whole generation sooner. (Not that I agree it will take anywhere near until 2035 anyway, but any delay that is not absolutely necessary is time lost that can never be recovered, especially for those who die during the extra wait.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>2035 is too far away. They won&#8217;t do it, but if the court *did* use the Prop 8 case to declare it a right throughout the country, that WOULD be a permanent change. It wouldn&#8217;t be one everybody would *like*, obviously, but it would nonetheless be permanent. Objectors&#8217; numbers would, perhaps after a brief jump, continue to decline, and in the meantime people could actually take advantage of marriage a whole generation sooner. (Not that I agree it will take anywhere near until 2035 anyway, but any delay that is not absolutely necessary is time lost that can never be recovered, especially for those who die during the extra wait.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben In Oakland</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/11/30/51500/comment-page-1#comment-184073</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben In Oakland</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2012 16:55:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=51500#comment-184073</guid>
		<description>Thanks. I&#039;m glad SOMEONE read it.

Sniff.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks. I&#8217;m glad SOMEONE read it.</p>
<p>Sniff.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JFE</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/11/30/51500/comment-page-1#comment-184023</link>
		<dc:creator>JFE</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:15:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=51500#comment-184023</guid>
		<description>@Ben

Great post.

Another thing that could happen is about fifteen or so states legalize it in the next ten years, another fifteen in the next ten, and the Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage protected under the Fourteenth Amendment in about 2035 to cover the rest of the states.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Ben</p>
<p>Great post.</p>
<p>Another thing that could happen is about fifteen or so states legalize it in the next ten years, another fifteen in the next ten, and the Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage protected under the Fourteenth Amendment in about 2035 to cover the rest of the states.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben In Oakland</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/11/30/51500/comment-page-1#comment-183398</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben In Oakland</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Dec 2012 20:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=51500#comment-183398</guid>
		<description>BTW, although many will disagree with me on this, I really don&#039;t want them to mandate marriage equality across the board, even thogh I think it&#039;s the right thing to do and a goal I fervently want to see achieved. But I want to see it achieved from the bottom up, rather than the top down.

There are a number of reasons for this.

1) It gives the religious right yet another issue to exploit for twenty years or so, much as they have exploited abortion since 1971. They use it for fundraising, political power, judiciary packing, electioneering, you name it. They use it for weveyrthing to convince people to vote against their own interests and for the sake of those unknown and unknowable unborn babies.  The progressive and moderate wings in this ocutnry really don&#039;t need to give them another issue.

2) From the bottom up means that eventual victory  will indeed be permanent.

3) It will require that gay people who want marriage, who want this vicious, stupid prejudice to end, will actually have to step up to the plate and come out, to live their lives as openly gay people, to be a part of their communities as gay people, to make that personal/political statement. 

I have long maintained that the enemy is not the religious right and the antigay bigots. Ultimately, I don&#039;t think they matter so much. The enemy is, and always has been, their enforcement mechanism-- the closet. The closet is what convinces us to oppress ourselves, so they don&#039;t have to dirty their hands doing so, and can spend their time, energy, and resources on other groups.

We&#039;re never going to reach the people who are irretrievably poisoned by hate, by fear, by religious paranoia, by their wholly imaginary superiority, their lust for power and money and dominion, or their own very dark secrets. That&#039;s the definition of irretrievably poisoned. So there is no sense worrying about them.

The only reason we are winning is that more and more gay people are standing up and being counted-- to themselves, in their families, churches, communites, and in their political jurisdictions. When we hide, we&#039;re invisible and easy to dismiss as the other. When we stand up, people have to make a choice.

Decent people-- and i think the majority of americans are kind, decent people-- realize that they can&#039;t vote against people they know, love, and respect. They just can&#039;t. Look at what has happened in so many Christian denominations by the simple facts of people standing up and demanding recognition.

If we want to eradicate this prejudice, not just in our country but in others, then ending the closet is the only path. And ending the closet is the long term goal.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>BTW, although many will disagree with me on this, I really don&#8217;t want them to mandate marriage equality across the board, even thogh I think it&#8217;s the right thing to do and a goal I fervently want to see achieved. But I want to see it achieved from the bottom up, rather than the top down.</p>
<p>There are a number of reasons for this.</p>
<p>1) It gives the religious right yet another issue to exploit for twenty years or so, much as they have exploited abortion since 1971. They use it for fundraising, political power, judiciary packing, electioneering, you name it. They use it for weveyrthing to convince people to vote against their own interests and for the sake of those unknown and unknowable unborn babies.  The progressive and moderate wings in this ocutnry really don&#8217;t need to give them another issue.</p>
<p>2) From the bottom up means that eventual victory  will indeed be permanent.</p>
<p>3) It will require that gay people who want marriage, who want this vicious, stupid prejudice to end, will actually have to step up to the plate and come out, to live their lives as openly gay people, to be a part of their communities as gay people, to make that personal/political statement. </p>
<p>I have long maintained that the enemy is not the religious right and the antigay bigots. Ultimately, I don&#8217;t think they matter so much. The enemy is, and always has been, their enforcement mechanism&#8211; the closet. The closet is what convinces us to oppress ourselves, so they don&#8217;t have to dirty their hands doing so, and can spend their time, energy, and resources on other groups.</p>
<p>We&#8217;re never going to reach the people who are irretrievably poisoned by hate, by fear, by religious paranoia, by their wholly imaginary superiority, their lust for power and money and dominion, or their own very dark secrets. That&#8217;s the definition of irretrievably poisoned. So there is no sense worrying about them.</p>
<p>The only reason we are winning is that more and more gay people are standing up and being counted&#8211; to themselves, in their families, churches, communites, and in their political jurisdictions. When we hide, we&#8217;re invisible and easy to dismiss as the other. When we stand up, people have to make a choice.</p>
<p>Decent people&#8211; and i think the majority of americans are kind, decent people&#8211; realize that they can&#8217;t vote against people they know, love, and respect. They just can&#8217;t. Look at what has happened in so many Christian denominations by the simple facts of people standing up and demanding recognition.</p>
<p>If we want to eradicate this prejudice, not just in our country but in others, then ending the closet is the only path. And ending the closet is the long term goal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben In Oakland</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/11/30/51500/comment-page-1#comment-183331</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben In Oakland</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Dec 2012 17:47:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=51500#comment-183331</guid>
		<description>My guess is, they&#039;ll decline to hear prop. 8. No political firestorm there.

Re DOMA: they&#039;ll say that it is unconstitutional for the feds not to recognize valid marriages. I&#039;m pretty sure that they&#039;ll say the states have to recognize valid mariages performed elsewhere, but don&#039;t have to allow it within their borders.

They will not do a Roe, however, and mandate marriage equality. However, I think that really depends on roberts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My guess is, they&#8217;ll decline to hear prop. 8. No political firestorm there.</p>
<p>Re DOMA: they&#8217;ll say that it is unconstitutional for the feds not to recognize valid marriages. I&#8217;m pretty sure that they&#8217;ll say the states have to recognize valid mariages performed elsewhere, but don&#8217;t have to allow it within their borders.</p>
<p>They will not do a Roe, however, and mandate marriage equality. However, I think that really depends on roberts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Priya Lynn</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/11/30/51500/comment-page-1#comment-182510</link>
		<dc:creator>Priya Lynn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Dec 2012 15:37:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=51500#comment-182510</guid>
		<description>Your reasoning is sound Hyhybt, but I&#039;ve often seen a possible future that seems extremely improbable happen, that&#039;s why I try to make sure I never say any future event based on what people might do &quot;definitely *won’t*&quot; (or will) happen.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your reasoning is sound Hyhybt, but I&#8217;ve often seen a possible future that seems extremely improbable happen, that&#8217;s why I try to make sure I never say any future event based on what people might do &#8220;definitely *won’t*&#8221; (or will) happen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hyhybt</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/11/30/51500/comment-page-1#comment-182222</link>
		<dc:creator>Hyhybt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Dec 2012 08:04:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=51500#comment-182222</guid>
		<description>&quot;I think its rather poor judgment to say any future happenings or lack thereof is a certainty.&quot;---In most situations, I&#039;d agree, but this particular assertion is safe, and if you look at *why* the abortion thing has dragged on the way it has, it&#039;s obvious this isn&#039;t of the same sort. Roe v Wade pushed abortion into the spotlight, but there&#039;s no real movement either way in public *opinion* on the subject, probably because the single biggest factor in which side a person takes is when they believe life to begin, a question that&#039;s not only inherently unanswerable, but perhaps even nonsensical. There&#039;s just no handle to grab, so to speak.

But on marriage... well, the biggest difference is that public opinion isn&#039;t both centered and static. Like the other, it&#039;s at about halfway, but it&#039;s very clearly moving, consistently and fairly quickly. Is there really a reason, other than not wanting to declare any result impossible, to think that a court ruling would stop people who otherwise would, sometime in the next few years, decide that it&#039;s OK for gay couples to marry after all from doing so? Nobody I&#039;ve seen raise that fear has provided one, that&#039;s for sure.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;I think its rather poor judgment to say any future happenings or lack thereof is a certainty.&#8221;&#8212;In most situations, I&#8217;d agree, but this particular assertion is safe, and if you look at *why* the abortion thing has dragged on the way it has, it&#8217;s obvious this isn&#8217;t of the same sort. Roe v Wade pushed abortion into the spotlight, but there&#8217;s no real movement either way in public *opinion* on the subject, probably because the single biggest factor in which side a person takes is when they believe life to begin, a question that&#8217;s not only inherently unanswerable, but perhaps even nonsensical. There&#8217;s just no handle to grab, so to speak.</p>
<p>But on marriage&#8230; well, the biggest difference is that public opinion isn&#8217;t both centered and static. Like the other, it&#8217;s at about halfway, but it&#8217;s very clearly moving, consistently and fairly quickly. Is there really a reason, other than not wanting to declare any result impossible, to think that a court ruling would stop people who otherwise would, sometime in the next few years, decide that it&#8217;s OK for gay couples to marry after all from doing so? Nobody I&#8217;ve seen raise that fear has provided one, that&#8217;s for sure.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Russ</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/11/30/51500/comment-page-1#comment-182079</link>
		<dc:creator>Russ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2012 23:52:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=51500#comment-182079</guid>
		<description>Goldstein is a little excited, and it shows in his thinking.  Isn&#039;t &quot;most significant case&quot; a hubristic claim?  On a par with a Hollywood poster:  &quot;the most important movie of the year/decade/century&quot; etc., etc.

And notice the little twist in his thinking - at the very same time he&#039;s slobbering about &quot;most significant case&quot; as if that&#039;s something wonderful, he&#039;s slamming the rule of law that our civilization is based on:  &quot;five justices . . . can strip the people of power.&quot;  Which is like saying, OH FUCK this is the most AWESOME baseball game EVER . . . but shit, ONE REFEREE can decide the outcome, and that sucks the big one.&quot;  What?

Get a grip, Goldstein.  Everything comes down to a majority of five in our system of government, if it gets pushed that far.  That&#039;s the rule of law, and apart from it you just have anarchy with tea partiers shooting off their guns and liberals shooting off their mouths.  It&#039;s just how the game is played, and what sensible alternative is there?  A little more calm and patience needed here, guys.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Goldstein is a little excited, and it shows in his thinking.  Isn&#8217;t &#8220;most significant case&#8221; a hubristic claim?  On a par with a Hollywood poster:  &#8220;the most important movie of the year/decade/century&#8221; etc., etc.</p>
<p>And notice the little twist in his thinking &#8211; at the very same time he&#8217;s slobbering about &#8220;most significant case&#8221; as if that&#8217;s something wonderful, he&#8217;s slamming the rule of law that our civilization is based on:  &#8220;five justices . . . can strip the people of power.&#8221;  Which is like saying, OH FUCK this is the most AWESOME baseball game EVER . . . but shit, ONE REFEREE can decide the outcome, and that sucks the big one.&#8221;  What?</p>
<p>Get a grip, Goldstein.  Everything comes down to a majority of five in our system of government, if it gets pushed that far.  That&#8217;s the rule of law, and apart from it you just have anarchy with tea partiers shooting off their guns and liberals shooting off their mouths.  It&#8217;s just how the game is played, and what sensible alternative is there?  A little more calm and patience needed here, guys.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Priya Lynn</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/11/30/51500/comment-page-1#comment-182054</link>
		<dc:creator>Priya Lynn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2012 21:12:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=51500#comment-182054</guid>
		<description>&quot;One thing it definitely *won’t* be, despite fears (or perhaps, in some cases, hopes) some have expressed: it won’t be another Roe.&quot;


I think its rather poor judgment to say any future happenings or lack thereof is a certainty.  Reminds me of all the Republicans I argued with before the election who assured me it was a certainty that Romney would win.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;One thing it definitely *won’t* be, despite fears (or perhaps, in some cases, hopes) some have expressed: it won’t be another Roe.&#8221;</p>
<p>I think its rather poor judgment to say any future happenings or lack thereof is a certainty.  Reminds me of all the Republicans I argued with before the election who assured me it was a certainty that Romney would win.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hyhybt</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/11/30/51500/comment-page-1#comment-182043</link>
		<dc:creator>Hyhybt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2012 20:10:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=51500#comment-182043</guid>
		<description>One thing it definitely *won&#039;t* be, despite fears (or perhaps, in some cases, hopes) some have expressed: it won&#039;t be another Roe.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One thing it definitely *won&#8217;t* be, despite fears (or perhaps, in some cases, hopes) some have expressed: it won&#8217;t be another Roe.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
