Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<The president of Exodus, Alan Chambers, said late Wednesday on the ministry’s website that he had “conveniently omitted my ongoing same-sex attractions” but now accepts them “as parts of my life that will like always be there.” Addressing gays, Chambers, who is married to a woman, wrote: “You have never been my enemy. I am very sorry that I have been yours.” “I am sorry for the pain and hurt many of you have experienced,” he wrote. “I am sorry that some of you spent years working through the shame and guilt you felt when your attractions didn’t change.”>> Things are changing... too slowly perhaps, but there is no doubt where we are heading.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip ^^^ Source: <a href="http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/20/19056718-ex-gay-group-says-its-shutting-down-leader-apologizes-for-pain-and-hurt?lite" target="_blank">http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_new...urt?lite</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 ecdc also started a thread on this, and in the edited statement I read earlier online, it only mentioned the guy saying something like "in light of my own personal life..." which I figured was him saying "I'm still attracted to men" without actually saying it. But at least he DID actually say it. Good on him, on one level anyway. Actually, his full statement was surprisingly expansive and pretty challenging to his erstwhile religious-right allies.
Originally Posted By oc_dean This was only the largest "conversion" group out there, and I think Big-News. And since it's happening before the Supreme Court makes a ruling on DOMA, and Prop 8 ... I hope it makes a positive influence on those 2 decisions coming up very soon.
Originally Posted By planodisney I think the tide has been too overwhelming for the court to rule any other way than on the side of gay marriage. The media onslought has been almost unprecedented.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 So has, you know, science. And common sense. And straight people realizing, as more of their gay friends and family come out, that being gay is not what they were brought up to believe it was.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>The media onslought has been almost unprecedented.<< Southerners blamed desegregation on the media, too. They also framed it as a states rights issue.
Originally Posted By barboy ///I think the tide has been too overwhelming for the court to rule any other way than on the side of gay marriage/// From a strictly Constitutional point of view this type of "court bandwagoneering" can only endanger the republic. Anyone who studies US political theory should understand that the Supremes(and all US courts) are supposed to stand clear of political, social and media winds-------Key word being 'theory' of course. .....bottom line +1 for what is right and -1 for balance/checks
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "Anyone who studies US political theory should understand that the Supremes(and all US courts) are supposed to stand clear of political, social and media winds-------Key word being 'theory' of course." In theory, yes. In reality, the court has always taken account of the prevailing winds, and of course are part of the society where those winds are blowing. The court eventually decided that interracial marriage had to be legal in all 50 states based on the 14th amendment, but the 14th amendment had passed 100 years earlier. So really, interracial marriage should've been legal in all states from 1868. It took a full 100 years for the court to apply the 14th amendment standard of equal treatment under the law to the topic of interracial marriage. What a lot of people who complain about "judicial activism" don't seem to realize, is that inaction is also action. Interracial marriage should have been legal in all states 100 years before it was. That would have been the right thing. But the court wasn't ready to say it yet.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 In other words, "bandwagoneering" happens to the court not just to make a change, but also to preserve the status quo when they really shouldn't.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>From a strictly Constitutional point of view this type of "court bandwagoneering" can only endanger the republic.<< Seriously, dude? You're in danger of turning into a lampoon of yourself.
Originally Posted By ecdc Not only that, but arguably the Senate has been just as anti-"bandwagoneering" over the years as the Supreme Court. I'm reading Robert Caro's "Master of the Senate." Ostensibly the third part in his bio of Lyndon Johnson, this volume is also the single finest history and examination of the U.S. Senate in existence. Go get it. Now. Seriously. He effectively demonstrates that, since the Civil War, with only a small handful of historical exceptions, the Senate has refused to bow to public opinion, despite supposedly representing the people. For example, we remember Roosevelt's first 100 days because stuff actually got done. After 1937? Roosevelt didn't get a single domestic piece of legislation past the Senate. Uh, do I have a point? Yes. Go read the book. You'll be inclined to be A LOT less irritated with our current Senate. Or just depressed that our Republic has always been this way.
Originally Posted By barboy ///people who complain about "judicial activism" don't seem to realize, is that inaction is also action/// You bet!! Select cons and repubs use that catch phrase and really do not understand what they saying due to their "wacko jacko" bias.
Originally Posted By barboy I just fear 'court bandwagoneering' as a rule----just too dangerous, even when I applaud specific decisions. I was hoping that a proper complainant would have found his way before the Court whereby the Court would have struck down provisions of the VERY popular Patriot Act........ but I guess justices succumbed to what is popular and culturally en vogue. All I'm saying is that come same gender issues time I really hope the Court decides based on the Constitutionality and not based on cultural acceptance.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I was hoping that a proper complainant would have found his way before the Court whereby the Court would have struck down provisions of the VERY popular Patriot Act> It's actually a little early for that. It can take many years for someone with standing to prove harm and then have a case wind its way through all the lower courts (which by definition it has to do first.) It wouldn't surprise me if some aspects of the Patriot Act were indeed found to be unconstitutional eventually. <All I'm saying is that come same gender issues time I really hope the Court decides based on the Constitutionality and not based on cultural acceptance.> The same 14th amendment that was the basis for the Loving decision will eventually (but not this year, I don't think) be used for same sex marriage. This year I think I think they'll decide narrowly but still be on firm Constitutional ground, essentially punting on Prop 8 (I'm guessing), which will let the lower court decision stand and overturn it, and then deciding that DOMA steps on states rights by insisting that couples that 12 states now say are married are not married. States have always had different criteria for marriage, and yet if cousins could get married in State A but not State B, and DID get married in State A, the feds recognized them as married too. Interracial couples who were legally married in states that allowed that pre-Loving were recognized as married by the feds. DOMA overturns that precedent, so if MA or MN says a couple is married, it's well within Constitutional bounds for SCOTUS to rule that the feds have to recognize that, and NOT doing so is in fact unconstitutional.
Originally Posted By barboy I'm guessing ultimately the 14th will be all the Court really needs to finally put an end to this nonsense. Soon, legally, same gender marriage will be effectively tested and put to a rest. I'm happy for those who have been waiting for years. Some elders will finally get to formally unite with the one whom they love before they die.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Yes, ultimately I think we'll see a very similar decision to Loving on the question of same sex marriage. It really would shock me if THIS particular SCOTUS went there next week.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip The House has always been seen as the more "representative body", with number of seats determined by the state's population, being elected by district and having to stand for re-election every two years. Senators are elected on a statewide basis, two per state regardless of state population, and only stand for re-election once every six years. They have always been seen as the more "deliberative body", and consequently aren't as influenced by current popular opinion.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo I'm reading Robert Caro's "Master of the Senate.">> EXCELLENT Book. One of the best in my library as it pertains to political theory. Funny, I wrote the first part of this post after reading just the first line. After doing so, I completely concur. Johnson was a brutish politician at times, but indeed, a 'master of the Senate'.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<In theory, yes. In reality, the court has always taken account of the prevailing winds, and of course are part of the society where those winds are blowing.>> Exactly. Adjudicators usually try to prevent public fervor from tainting their rulings (Justice Souter famously removed his television and stayed away for media to this end), but it's nearly impossible to do so. This is especially true where judges are elect, but even the appointment process has fallen victim. There is also a legal theory (I have to go back to read 'Bench Press' by Keith Bybee to recall who) that rulings aren't necessarily designed to be given within the vacuum of merely Constitutional and precedential rulings, but the populace's readiness has to be a consideration in major ground-shaking ruling. Might have been Thurgood Marshall, but honestly don't recall.
