**Rainbow Flops: The GLBTQ Discussion Thread**

[Breanne1]

[QUOTE=tringlomane;31333583

Totally agree. Just because she could be a positive influence in this section, doesn't mean we could let her crap all over the rest of the forum..[/QUOTE]

Fair, I am really stupid sometimes if not all of the time. I really hope to not get banned though, as I need this thread and twss as well.

SGT RGT, possible to not get permabanned? Possible to ban me from bbv/bbv4l or something?

[SGT RJ]

Originally Posted by Breanne1

Fair, I am really stupid sometimes if not all of the time. I really hope to not get banned though, as I need this thread and twss as well.

SGT RGT, possible to not get permabanned? Possible to ban me from bbv/bbv4l or something?

I suggest PMing (or emailing) either Bobo Fett or one of the admins and explain your situation. You've previously trolled this site in the past, enough that you have several past banned accounts, but you are young and trans and really want to contribute to the TWSS community and are asking for permission to stay.

Say you agree to stay out of whatever forum(s) you've primarily trolled, and that you're sorry for being a PITA in the past.

The decision will ultimately be made by more than one mod, but appealing to the people at the top, who tend to be pretty reasonable and laid back, is the approach I would take.

Read the sticky at the top of About the Forums, which should have an email address you can use when banned.

[Protential]

http://www.reddit.com/r/transgender

http://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/

2 sections of an awsome website that many of our glbt members will get a lot of enjoyment, support, and useful information from.

reddit is like the cliffnotes of the internet. It is an awsome site.

[redralphross]

Originally Posted by SGT RJ

Kids are viciously cruel.

I was constantly tormented in HS (not for being gay, although there were jokes about that as well, even though I'm straight), and it took years to rebuild my confidence after that experience.

Programs targeting bullying in school might be some of the most important, IMO.

Did they make fun of you for sounding like a boy?

I listened to your video's on the husng website and I thought you were a guy. The content was very good though. Nice job!

[ftn_chris]

Originally Posted by redralphross

Did they make fun of you for sounding like a boy?

I listened to your video's on the husng website and I thought you were a guy. The content was very good though. Nice job!

[Protential]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...itutional.html

prop 8 ruled unconstitutional ^.^

[ITT666]

prop 8 ruled unconstitutional ^.^

You can't achieve big goals, without taking each and every step (no matter how small,) on the road to those big goals.

This is yet another one of those steps.

[Protential]

Originally Posted by ITT666

You can't achieve big goals, without taking each and every step (no matter how small,) on the road to those big goals.

This is yet another one of those steps.

yup yup! on to the supreme court! A ruling from them supposedly within a year.

[DonkeySlayer81]

Originally Posted by Protential

yup yup! on to the supreme court! A ruling from them supposedly within a year.

Congrats to all this has a positive effect on and sorry to the haters!

[ftn_chris]

there's a joke to be had somewhere about kennedy

hmm: some people were up in arms about vaughn walker, a gay judge, ruling on prop 8. but how will it be any different at the supreme court? if the SC rules on it, it's likely that it will come down to Anthony Kennedy's vote, and he's notorious for going both ways.

meh.


also, reading the opinion now. hella narrow.

[tringlomane]

Originally Posted by Protential

yup yup! on to the supreme court! A ruling from them supposedly within a year.

Time to hope that Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy, or Roberts want to randomly quit in the next year?

If all five of those guys vote along with their general political stance, it's a no-go. Thomas/Kennedy could possibly flip I guess. I think Kennedy is always the flip vote...lol But I really don't follow politics terribly close. I think Scalia would still vote "no" even if God told him to vote "yes" on gay marriage. Dude has 9 kids too...just wow.

And I took the time to reread the Constitution since I haven't really looked at it in years. I'm one of those technical guys, and personally I don't see anything explicit in the Constitution that would deem Prop. 8 unconstitutional. I think gay marriage should be allowed, but if there is a portion of the Constitution that protects gay marriage from being banned by passage of a law, I missed it. Maybe the preamble? I bolded the phrase that one could argue that gay marriage should be protected.

Originally Posted by The US Constitution

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

For now, the constitution explicitly defends very few rights explicitly, except in some of the amendments. Hence over these issues, it pretty much becomes a liberal/conservative argument. And most laws passed shouldn't be unconstitutional since the US Constitution is terribly outdated and vague, especially to a non-lawyer type like myself. The way the Constitution is written currently; there is plenty of wiggle room to find a "no" vote on gay marriage. I would have to base a "yes" vote on a 7-word phrase on the Preamble? That really blows.

The unfortunate part is that we failed (well, I didn't because I was unborn/too young) to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment in the 70s/80s. The ERA proposed:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

And Emeril says BAM!, much easier gay marriage protection due to the wording of this amendment. I would think that it could pass 9-0 then, or more likely, Prop. 8 probably would have never happened. This should have been passed in the 70s, imo, and would be beneficial to this country if it was passed in the future. And of course, a gay marriage amendment would be quite useful. However, I would sadly guess neither of these would have enough nationwide support for either of these to be ratified. The Bible belt holds a few more than 12 states last time I checked.

South Africa included equal rights for everyone and clearly pointed out equality on the basis of sex clearly in their constitution in 1996, which eventually led to the acceptance of gay marriage in 2006. Heck, their Bill of Rights may be longer than our entire Constitution...

http://www.info.gov.za/documents/con...96/96cons2.htm

I chose South Africa to look at since I saw a headline today saying Ruth Bader Ginsburg (obvious "yes" vote) that she suggested that the people of Egypt follow South Africa's lead in writing a new Constitution and NOT the United States. I totally agree with her; clarity is a good thing for everyone.

[ftn_chris]

Originally Posted by tringlomane

words

the constitution is way bigger than what's written in the constitution. but if you want an original source, it'd mostly be the 5th and 14th amendment...due process and equal protection. however, the courts help define what those words actually mean at any point in time.

look to lawrence v texas (kennedy wrote the opinion on that)

loving v virginia and evans v romer, too, i guess.

oh, and international law. kennedy loves looking at other countries! and europe is pretty gay.

i haven't really looked into the arguments in detail but i'd imagine those cases get some attention

[ftn_chris]

NB - the opinion was reallllllly narrow and specific to california. it's possible the SC doesn't rule on it, and if it does, it's also possible that it only rules on the question of gay marriage as it exists in california as a consequence of prop 8. page 6 of the opinion:

"We need not and do not answer the broader question in this case, however, because California had already extended to committed same-sex couples both the incidents of marriage and the official designation of 'marriage,' and Proposition 8's only effect was to take away that important and legally significant designation, while leaving in place all of its incidents. This unique and strictly limited effect of Proposition 8 allows us to address the amendment's constitutionality on narrow grounds..."

further down:

"Were we unable, however, to resolve the matter on the basis we do, we would not hesitate to proceed to the broader question--the constitutionality of denying same-sex couples the right to marry."

[tringlomane]

Originally Posted by ftn_chris

the constitution is way bigger than what's written in the constitution. but if you want an original source, it'd mostly be the 5th and 14th amendment...due process and equal protection. however, the courts help define what those words actually mean at any point in time.

look to lawrence v texas (kennedy wrote the opinion on that)

loving v virginia and evans v romer, too, i guess.

oh, and international law. kennedy loves looking at other countries! and europe is pretty gay.

i haven't really looked into the arguments in detail but i'd imagine those cases get some attention

Thank you. "Due process" is a horrible phrase for a layman. But yes, both of these amendments help the general cause. I'm pretty sure I would hate/be terrible at being a lawyer. Oh and the 9th amendment helps too, wiki article on lawrence v texas points that out. Enumerated rights in the Constitution is not an exhaustive list.

Reading a brief summary of Kennedy's opinion for lawrence v texas doesn't make me immediately think that he will vote the same way for gay marriage. But he's the only one of the group that might break rank for this issue; that's a near certainty.

[Gallopin Gael]

Originally Posted by ftn_chris

it's likely that it will come down to Anthony Kennedy's vote, and he's notorious for going both ways.

I chuckled.