Court says rights for some, but not others, is unconstitutional

Wow… the very first paragraph is “if you’re so tolerant, how come you don’t tolerate my intolerance? Gotcha, ya hypocrite!” It just goes downhill from there.

And then I read the comments… God, why do I always read the comments?

I had already written a few responses before seeing yours. Here is what I wrote:

“A few more thoughts: you mentioned that you’re already contributing to the govt through what you pay for workers’ comp and insurance for your employees (I assume you’re talking about unemployment insurance, bc liability insurance is probably being paid to a private company). I generally have funds deducted from my paycheck for workers comp and unemployment–not sure if it works like SS and Medicare, where 50% comes from the employee’s salary/wages and 50% from the employer. But in any case, you’re not paying 100% of that–your employees are paying part of it.

“Second, back to the analogy: the equivalent might be that the family’s health insurance premiums are coming from the dad’s salary. Great! Does that absolve him from contributing to the household expenses in other ways, or for expecting his wife to cover the lion’s share of them? I don’t know your earnings relative to [your wife’s], but if you’re making a lot more than she is, I don’t think you’d treat her that way.

“Final thought: you asked about my thoughts re: the nature and benefits of capitalism. I think it’s great that start business, invest and earn profits. But I also think that people should contribute to the greater good of society–and not simply through giving to charity. (I have worked for nonprofits for years, including in fundraising, so I know very well why charity, while important, is inadequate to meet the broad-based needs of society. If you’d like, I’ll share some of that with you).

“Oh, one more thing: the people not paying taxes in this analogy might be the children in the family–who aren’t paying any of the bills because they have little or no income. But in a family, we don’t demonize children for that–instead, we prepare the for a future in which they can be contributors.”

Based on his writing I really don’t see why any weight should be given to  Volokh’s opinion. 

I wish I could say you’re right but it’s likely to be a 5/4 vote and those can never be considered sure things.  Alito, Thomas and Scalia have already made up their minds.  Roberts will might (although I may be optimistic there) at least listen but will probably side with them.

Considering that exactly this is what happened in LDS’ early history you’d think he would be a bit more sensitive.

The Washington House has now passed their marriage equality bill. The next stop is the Governor’s desk, where it will be signed into law. It’ll be interesting to see how the Prop 8 ruling influences the (inevitable) attempt to overturn the law by popular vote. 

 I suppose that was the thing I’d read about him as an obsession, and I never knew enough to just say he was wrong.

Did think he was, but didn’t know how to prove or suggest it other than “That sounds like a stupid conspiracy theory,” which isn’t the best proof in the world.

On other boards I’ve declared that there’s nothing innately immoral about homosexuality, and some posters acted like I was from Neptune. Most of this group posted the expected non-rebuttals about biblical authority, or offered implicitly theological arguments involving nature, but a few seemed to treat “homosexuality is immoral” as self-evident. It doesn’t make sense to me why anyone would care so much about another person’s sexual orientation. Unless the first person is romantically interested in the second, it should matter as little as the second person’s preferences in pizza toppings.

More like “Ewww, guy-on-guy anal sex”.  Now I’ll admit, the idea of watching a couple of guys have sex (I’ve become aclimated to kissing nowadays) squicks me a tad.  so you know what?  I DON’T WATCH GAY PORN!  That’s it.  And those of you who are squicked by male-on-male oral or anal should do the same and stop having anxiety attacks about what they might be doing in the privacy of their own homes or wether they are doing so with or without the benefits of marriage, because it’s none of your damn business.

I’ve said many times that the difference between someone who is socially Liberal and someone who is socially Conservative is not squicks*, it’s how the person reacts to the squick. A Conservative sees something that makes her uncomfortable and says, “Stop doing that! It’s grossing me out.”. A Liberal sees something that makes her uncomfortable and says, “Not lookin’ over there any more.” 

*Squicks = strictly personal preferences and issues. For example, I consider them entirely separate from issues of consent. 

More like “Ewww, guy-on-guy anal sex”.

Absolutely.
My mom usually follows it with, “When plenty of heterosexual couples do it, so that’s still not even a reason.”

Personally, I’m not interested in the idea between *heterosexual* couples either, so two men doesn’t quick me out any more or less–mostly it just does nothing for me, and in the contexts in which I could actually stumble across visible anal sex, it means I click a little “X” and move on. Seems like it would be a lot of effort to stop other people from engaging in a sexual activity I don’t want to be involved in.