Not perfect but pretty damned good.

[voluptuary_manque]

So, as of this morning, DOMA is dead and Prop 8 is on the way out. SCOTUS ruled just about the way I expected them too, unwilling to declare same-sex marriage legal across the nation but also unwilling to let discrimination take place against it where it is (or was!) already legal. Judge Walker's ruling is now the law of California. Of course, there will be months of legal wrangling, stone-walling and maneuvering before gay people can get married again but it is inevitable.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

So, as of this morning, DOMA is dead and Prop 8 is on the way out. SCOTUS ruled just about the way I expected them too, unwilling to declare same-sex marriage legal across the nation but also unwilling to let discrimination take place against it where it is (or was!) already legal. Judge Walker's ruling is now the law of California. Of course, there will be months of legal wrangling, stone-walling and maneuvering before gay people can get married again but it is inevitable.

Youre the first to complain about political threads here.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't think I've ever seen VM complain about the appropriateness of a thread. (Just for the record.)

At least this one is about sexuality.

 

[TE999]

So, as of this morning, DOMA is dead and Prop 8 is on the way out. SCOTUS ruled just about the way I expected them too, unwilling to declare same-sex marriage legal across the nation but also unwilling to let discrimination take place against it where it is (or was!) already legal. Judge Walker's ruling is now the law of California. Of course, there will be months of legal wrangling, stone-walling and maneuvering before gay people can get married again but it is inevitable.

The mills of Justice grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine.

 

[Stella_Omega]

the decision is based on a finding of discrimination, instead of some little technical flaw. So it speaks to a broad constitutional principle and ummm... whatchamajigger, and it can't be rewritten and put back in place.

What a crazy-ass night, politically speaking.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

the decision is based on a finding of discrimination, instead of some little technical flaw. So it speaks to a broad constitutional principle and ummm... whatchamajigger, and it can't be rewritten and put back in place.

What a crazy-ass night, politically speaking.

OK We now do politics on AH, you asked for it, enjoy.

 

[Stella_Omega]

OK We now do politics on AH, you asked for it, enjoy.

Taking this personally, are we? Gonna do your best to turn AH into your personal pig sty? Gonna blame it on someone else? What a surprise.

 

[JustaSCOUNDREL]

One of the thing to remember is not all of DOMA was not overturned. According to a friend of my wife a lawyer and after reading the SCOTUS decision she said the only part that was overturned was Sec. 3 which defined marriage as between one man and one woman. The remainder in intact so far.

I suppose with the SCOTUS decision many lower courts may overturn other sections, but it may be a long struggle to get where we need to be.

Mike

 

[TxRad]

Taking this personally, are we? Gonna do your best to turn AH into your personal pig sty? Gonna blame it on someone else? What a surprise.

No surprise. He just wants his hero and asshole buddy to come back from the GB.

 

[Stella_Omega]

One of the thing to remember is not all of DOMA was not overturned. According to a friend of my wife a lawyer and after reading the SCOTUS decision she said the only part that was overturned was Sec. 3 which defined marriage as between one man and one woman. The remainder in intact so far.

I suppose with the SCOTUS decision many lower courts may overturn other sections, but it may be a long struggle to get where we need to be.

Mike

yes, although that is already huge, and opens the way for federal benefits for same sex marriages. The next bit is requiring states to acknowledge legal marriages from other states.

Deja vu!

 

[sr71plt]

Well, his point is valid. Stella is the leading poster of and too political threads left on the AH (there's been a big decline--it didn't even bump up in the last presidential election). It depends on what her own agenda is on whether she says the political-tilting post should be here or not.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Taking this personally, are we? Gonna do your best to turn AH into your personal pig sty? Gonna blame it on someone else? What a surprise.

Tired of your whining about political threads, so maybe its time to pack several up your ass.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Well, his point is valid. Stella is the leading poster of and too political threads left on the AH (there's been a big decline--it didn't even bump up in the last presidential election). It depends on what her own agenda is on whether she says the political-tilting post should be here or not.

I would suggest that your perception is colored by animosity, futility, and the kind of frustrated need for attention that inspires you to stalk me across the forums. Jimmybits does it too, it's fucking funny.

Because I really do not start political threads, and I comment no more than anyone else does on the ones that do get started.

I do not know why I am so important to you-- or to little jimmy-- and it's not flattering in the least-- but there you go.

 

[TxRad]

Tired of your whining about political threads, so maybe its time to pack several up your ass.

Maybe you don't understand what makes a political thread in the mind of the site owner.

 

[sr71plt]

I would suggest that your perception is colored by animosity, futility, and the kind of frustrated need for attention that inspires you to stalk me across the forums. Jimmybits does it too, it's fucking funny.

Naw, just by observation. You ran a whole, heavy campaign on the AH to get rid of political threads (while indulging in them yourself--which you've already done on this thread) and then when the AHers actually voted you down in the polls you told them you were moving to Absolutewrite and called others to go with you.

My animosity comes from your demonstrated and zealous hypocrisy coupled with your propensity to go right to gender slurs against me on the forum (which also is hypocrisy).

I presume you'll be answering with another gender slur.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Tired of your whining about political threads, so maybe its time to pack several up your ass.

It takes a lot more than one person to get your garbage threads sent to the garbage forum. Don't blame your butthurt on me.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

It takes a lot more than one person to get your garbage threads sent to the garbage forum. Don't blame your butthurt on me.

Lots happening in the world. I'm confident I can attract lotsa posters and make your hair curl. Maybe a Hillary thread to get things started.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Naw, just by observation. You ran a whole, heavy campaign on the AH to get rid of political threads (while indulging in them yourself--which you've already done on this thread) and then when the AHers actually voted you down in the polls you told them you were moving to Absolutewrite and called others to go with you.

My animosity comes from your demonstrated and zealous hypocrisy coupled with your propensity to go right to gender slurs against me on the forum (which also is hypocrisy).

I presume you'll be answering with another gender slur.

Haha let's make this thread all about me! :

1) That was 2008, five years ago. There was some ugly devisive shit going on, and the forum was nothing but rightwingers and liberals attacking each other. I was aksing for an end to partisian politics,

2) Due in large part to your campaign, my suggestion was voted down, and 3)I think you have said more than once that you were sorry that you fought me so vociferously on that issue.

4) Since it was the opinon of the majority that politics could be discussed, I most absolutely have the right to make comments on political threads, although I cannot remember starting one in ages and ages. We have a gentleman's agreement, which I do my utmost to keep.

5) Stalking me makes you look rediculous

 

[Dyslexicea]

Last paragraph of Justice Kennedy's opinion.

"The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State. DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA in¬structs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the mar¬riages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its mar¬riage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is affirmed.

It is so ordered."

One of the thing to remember is not all of DOMA was not overturned. According to a friend of my wife a lawyer and after reading the SCOTUS decision she said the only part that was overturned was Sec. 3 which defined marriage as between one man and one woman. The remainder in intact so far.

I suppose with the SCOTUS decision many lower courts may overturn other sections, but it may be a long struggle to get where we need to be.

Mike

It's better today than it was yesterday. Yes we have a struggle ahead I just hope it's not to long.

Section 2 still stand but it hasn't yet been challenged in court. No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Section 1 is meaningless. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Defense of Marriage Act’’.

 

[sr71plt]

2) Due in large part to your campaign, my suggestion was voted down, and 3)I think you have said more than once that you were sorry that you fought me so vociferously on that issue.

Wishful thinking on the regrets. I was happy to oppose your hypocrisy on that issue. I agreed that the political threads were annoying--but held that you were the major one behind political threads yourself and objected to your trying to redecorate the AH to your specifications, especially since you are a drone here when it comes to contributing story product. I didn't even disagree with the milder versions of your positions.

And suggesting I'm stalking you is what is "rediculous."

I just noted that JBJ nailed you with this one--contrary to the reaction being given to what he posted.

At least you didn't finish with your customary gender slam. Congrats.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Wishful thinking on the regrets. I was happy to oppose your hypocrisy on that issue. I agreed that the political threads were annoying--but held that you were the major one behind political threads yourself and objected to your trying to redecorate the AH to your specifications, especially since you are a drone here when it comes to contributing story product. I didn't even disagree with the milder versions of your positions.

it sems to me that you don't ever notice milder versions of my positions, because you never talk about anythign except the most impassioned ones. Dude really get the fuck over it, that was five years ago. people change-- at least, some of us do.

And suggesting I'm stalking you is what is "rediculous."

I just noted that JBJ nailed you with this one--contrary to the reaction being given to what he posted.

Why do you feel such a need to note anything JBJ says, and why do you feel such an intense desire to berate and beshrew me as often as you do?

At least you didn't finish with your customary gender slam. Congrats.

customary?

 

[sheablue]

As someone who has not been here for years ... I see nothing wrong with this original posting. It's political, but it's also "news" and a lot of news gets posted here. I didn't think there were strict rules about what gets posted in the AH, since there is such a wide variety of topics.

If this discussion is fall-out from an argument you all had in 2008, maybe it's time to get past it and, like SCOTUS, realize that it is 2013.

 

[sr71plt]

Well, now. Stella is as hypocritical today as she was in 2008. That's exactly what JBJ posted to. And regardless of those who then hopped on him--and the asshat that he is--he was right.

I think this topic is enough in the wheelhouse of erotica and sexuality to be discussed on Literotica (and that's what I posted; only posted at all because I thought JBJ gave a false statement on VM's posting behavior). Of course it fits better in GBLT, but I haven't posted an objection to it being discussed here.

Each time a misleading yellow journalism report on a rape or abuse case is slapped on here, though, I groan. I didn't come here to read misleading rags successfully revving up the uncareful/undiscerning readers into a "let's boil them alive" frenzy. I don't think that reflects well on either the source or the reader/commenter, and it doesn't really have anything to do with what I come here to read. But I'm not going to launch a Stella campaign a la 2008 against it either.

That said, you probably should have been here in 2008 to see how "crazy on both sides" threads on the first Obama election campaign and results choked the AH. (And Stella was in there swinging on the content as well as decrying context that didn't suit her political agenda. And since I agreed with her mostly on the politics issues, I wasn't pursuing that particular agenda myself. I was just looking for someplace I didn't have to see all that partisan crap--including her extremist perception of it.)

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Haha let's make this thread all about me! :

1) That was 2008, five years ago. There was some ugly devisive shit going on, and the forum was nothing but rightwingers and liberals attacking each other. I was aksing for an end to partisian politics,

2) Due in large part to your campaign, my suggestion was voted down, and 3)I think you have said more than once that you were sorry that you fought me so vociferously on that issue.

4) Since it was the opinon of the majority that politics could be discussed, I most absolutely have the right to make comments on political threads, although I cannot remember starting one in ages and ages. We have a gentleman's agreement, which I do my utmost to keep.

5) Stalking me makes you look rediculous

There's been a ceasefire for a long time, till today. I suggest that you and your flying monkeys STFU and stick to writerly topics unless you want some drama.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

As someone who has not been here for years ... I see nothing wrong with this original posting. It's political, but it's also "news" and a lot of news gets posted here. I didn't think there were strict rules about what gets posted in the AH, since there is such a wide variety of topics.

If this discussion is fall-out from an argument you all had in 2008, maybe it's time to get past it and, like SCOTUS, realize that it is 2013.

STFU idiot.