«12. . .1,0651,0661,0671,0681,0691,0701,071. . .1,1431,144»
Actually, Berlusconi is kinda out of the game. He's been substituted by Salvini, who's the Italian Marie Le Pen.
He's racist, very dumb and a friend of Putin just like Silvio, however.
See, I guarantee Agr can't even find West Virginia on a map.
But even he knows.
We needed someone with facial hair to compete with Honest Abe's.
Statistically speaking, facial hair usually determines the course of a war. See: the Eastern Front (Stalin's Handlebar vs Hitler's Chaplain).
I can, actually. In case I ever plan a coast to coast holiday in the US.
Hiroito's epic mustache was defeated by Truman's clean shavedness, so it's false.
Pretty much, yeah. Our allies have decided that SSM is the LGBT issue of note, so now that American LGBT people have got that, many allies will think that it's all good and there are no more fights to be had. Never mind harassment, the ridiculously high rates of trans deaths, conversion therapy, trans people being banned from military service, difficulties finding employment due to social stigma, businesses being able to turn LGBT people away due to "religious freedom" in several states, and the plethora of other issues LGBT people face.
Truman's mustache was supplemented with Einstein's, however.
It's tough being a Corporatist in America.
Stonewall would wreck Garibaldi any day of the week.
And the leftover 'stache from FDR, who - being a Roosevelt - had a mustache even when he didn't.
This is not the end. It's not even the beginning of the end. It may not even be the end of the beginning. But it's a big step forward from where the world stood yesterday, or the day before, or the day before that. You don't get to see that kind of a change too often.
The practical effects of this decision may be limited, though I suspect that the plaintiffs - among many others - would dispute that. But the symbolic effects are huge.
Marriage is a sanctifying institution; it hallows relationships, sealing them with society's blessing and transforming them from sordidness into sanctity. When we extend that institution that to same-sex relationships, we are asserting the primacy of love and love alone among our values and in our judgments.
And when we make same-sex marriage legal across the nation, we are asserting that there is no longer a place in America for the idea that some loves are holier than others. That is a symbolic statement of enormous significance.
In short, I do not desire to dispute any of the misgivings that have been voiced by any of my friends here. I am, after all, not a member of the LGBT community; what right do I have to second-guess your concerns about what comes next?
But nonetheless, the world looks different to me this morning. And for that much, as a Christian and an American, I am as proud of my country as I have ever been.
Stonewall lost a war.
:3
Garibaldi cheated.
West Virginia is landlocked.
Have you forgotten that Ohio technically qualifies as a "sea" due to accumulated tears?
To be fair, I can understand the businesses who don't want to serve LGBT customers, and think they should be allowed to do so. There are certain services that are religiously sensitive, and there's no point in trampling on the civil freedoms of the religious to try and enable sexual freedoms. For instance, I can understand why a pastor wouldn't want to marry an LGBT couple, and he should be free to not marry the couple. In the same manner, if cake shop doesn't want to supply a wedding cake for a LGBT wedding because they believe the wedding itself is wrong, that makes sense. Compelling one segment of society to violate their freedom of conscience to benefit another segment of society is simply a national debate that doesn't have a good result.
But doesn't all of that ideological rhetoric apply also to interracial marriage? Obviously the situation there was a bit different, lacking (as far as I know) SCOTUS action, but I don't think that this philosophical impact you predict will occur.
Loving v Virginia?
Explain. This is not something I've read on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
There's a worringly number of cases the US achieved social reform only through judicial action, instead of legislative leap forwards.
Well, to be frank, I'd rather not support a business that would refuse to serve me because of moral convictions anyhow, so meh.
However, in, say, a small town, if everyone refuses to serve an LGBT customer, they're essentially cutting that person off from the amenities they need. My issue isn't with pastors not wanting to marry same-sex couples -- my issue is with business owners denying fellow human beings basic amenities.
And there's a large difference between a pastor not marrying an LGBT couple and a grocery store owner refusing to sell an LGBT person some bread. One is a reasonable accommodation to religious preference, the other is not. The trouble is that legislation to prevent discrimination is generally broad strokes and all in or all out.
Thank you, Norv. This is really quite touching, and made me smile.
Precisely.
It may be the only way, honestly, in our structure to create lasting reform.
Or close as we can come.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/its-legal-there
While we're on the topic of same-sex marriage, this made me laugh so hard.
«12. . .1,0651,0661,0671,0681,0691,0701,071. . .1,1431,144»
Advertisement