<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

	
		

<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Analysis: Supreme Court update</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.365gay.com/news/analysis-supreme-court-update/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.365gay.com/news/analysis-supreme-court-update/</link>
	<description>The daily news source for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:11:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: 366gay</title>
		<link>http://www.365gay.com/news/analysis-supreme-court-update/comment-page-1/#comment-77451</link>
		<dc:creator>366gay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:42:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.365gay.com/?p=10039#comment-77451</guid>
		<description>Deep in Austin, yes two straight heterosexual attorneys, conservatives by action, are preparing a Supreme Court challenge to Prop 8, in a machiavellian fashion.

Remember the CSSC challenge to Prop 8. Gloria Allred, straight hetero, and her law firm delivered to weak and failed anti-Prop 8 brief.

I think that we need more gays in law schools and less in classrooms.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Deep in Austin, yes two straight heterosexual attorneys, conservatives by action, are preparing a Supreme Court challenge to Prop 8, in a machiavellian fashion.</p>
<p>Remember the CSSC challenge to Prop 8. Gloria Allred, straight hetero, and her law firm delivered to weak and failed anti-Prop 8 brief.</p>
<p>I think that we need more gays in law schools and less in classrooms.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DaveW</title>
		<link>http://www.365gay.com/news/analysis-supreme-court-update/comment-page-1/#comment-74154</link>
		<dc:creator>DaveW</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 12:45:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.365gay.com/?p=10039#comment-74154</guid>
		<description>As someone who has financially supported the case in NH and others, I would like to clarify.  The reporter is correct, the theocratic judge in NH sought to have his cake and eat it too.  In a nod to the SCOTUS he ruled no federal law can impose the pledge but tried to say NH&#039;s local jurisdiction doing exactly the same thing is mere ceremony.  There is no way this can stand and we are appealing.

It is a sad commentary on the political ideologies of our judiciary.  He should know that ruling was untenable and that it made him out to be a judge chasing an ideology, someone not fit for the bench.  I see this as bad as a judge ruling favorably on a family member&#039;s case in clear violation of precedent.

Oh well, knuckle dragging theocrats are slowly being seen for what they are.

Randy, I don&#039;t see deists as a religious group.  They are &quot;athiest light&quot;.  They basically couldn&#039;t fathom how the universe was created so left open the option of a non-personal god, who has long left the scene and has no impact on the world anymore.  A mere vestige of doubt, in my opinion.  Over the years it has been dangerous, even life threatening, to admit disbelief and I think this is where Deism found its most strength.

Jujubees:  no school i would willingly attend is run like a military!  I don&#039;t know what you mean by that.  If you mean there are rules students must abide by, then why don&#039;t you call our society Martial Law?  I don&#039;t see a difference.

I was one of the students who did not stand up for the illegal theocratic pledge.  I argued with my parents, teachers and fellow students about it.  I would have refused to stand even if they required a note from my parents which I would not give on principal.  They knew me well enough to not challenge this.

Think about it: a young person knows that forcing kids to lie about our country (we are not, by constitution, &quot;under god&quot;...thanks McCarthy) has to first get his parents to say it is ok to refuse to lie?  That is ridiculous and it will have to be re-addressed in a case that has better facts to support the correct outcome.

the pledge is illegal and Nedow will help us get it back to the original.  It is simply child abuse to continue to force this on kids whose family&#039;s don&#039;t accept it or who do not themselves.  They already have a very slim chance to not be brainwashed.

I wonder if everyone realizes &quot;under god&quot; was added in the middle of the last century in response to hyped up fear of communisim.  All those efforts have been discredited but since our politicians fear the god-fearing voters, it will take some time to go back to our original god less pledge and our original godless motto.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As someone who has financially supported the case in NH and others, I would like to clarify.  The reporter is correct, the theocratic judge in NH sought to have his cake and eat it too.  In a nod to the SCOTUS he ruled no federal law can impose the pledge but tried to say NH&#8217;s local jurisdiction doing exactly the same thing is mere ceremony.  There is no way this can stand and we are appealing.</p>
<p>It is a sad commentary on the political ideologies of our judiciary.  He should know that ruling was untenable and that it made him out to be a judge chasing an ideology, someone not fit for the bench.  I see this as bad as a judge ruling favorably on a family member&#8217;s case in clear violation of precedent.</p>
<p>Oh well, knuckle dragging theocrats are slowly being seen for what they are.</p>
<p>Randy, I don&#8217;t see deists as a religious group.  They are &#8220;athiest light&#8221;.  They basically couldn&#8217;t fathom how the universe was created so left open the option of a non-personal god, who has long left the scene and has no impact on the world anymore.  A mere vestige of doubt, in my opinion.  Over the years it has been dangerous, even life threatening, to admit disbelief and I think this is where Deism found its most strength.</p>
<p>Jujubees:  no school i would willingly attend is run like a military!  I don&#8217;t know what you mean by that.  If you mean there are rules students must abide by, then why don&#8217;t you call our society Martial Law?  I don&#8217;t see a difference.</p>
<p>I was one of the students who did not stand up for the illegal theocratic pledge.  I argued with my parents, teachers and fellow students about it.  I would have refused to stand even if they required a note from my parents which I would not give on principal.  They knew me well enough to not challenge this.</p>
<p>Think about it: a young person knows that forcing kids to lie about our country (we are not, by constitution, &#8220;under god&#8221;&#8230;thanks McCarthy) has to first get his parents to say it is ok to refuse to lie?  That is ridiculous and it will have to be re-addressed in a case that has better facts to support the correct outcome.</p>
<p>the pledge is illegal and Nedow will help us get it back to the original.  It is simply child abuse to continue to force this on kids whose family&#8217;s don&#8217;t accept it or who do not themselves.  They already have a very slim chance to not be brainwashed.</p>
<p>I wonder if everyone realizes &#8220;under god&#8221; was added in the middle of the last century in response to hyped up fear of communisim.  All those efforts have been discredited but since our politicians fear the god-fearing voters, it will take some time to go back to our original god less pledge and our original godless motto.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick365</title>
		<link>http://www.365gay.com/news/analysis-supreme-court-update/comment-page-1/#comment-74147</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick365</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:54:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.365gay.com/?p=10039#comment-74147</guid>
		<description>The use of the statement, &quot;The Supreme Court has not become a reliably hospitable place for LGBT people&quot; as a lede in the left column is disingenuous at best. Nothing in this article demonstrates that the Supreme Court has become an inhospitable place for LGBT people. Bowers v. Hardwick was decided in 1986 (23 years ago); Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas occurred afterwards and could be used to demonstrate that the Supreme Court has become a hospitable place for LGBT people, as could the court&#039;s rejection of the school&#039;s appeal in Hudson Area Schools v. Patterson. The quoted statement is not supported in the article and the other cases in this article aren&#039;t even relevant.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The use of the statement, &#8220;The Supreme Court has not become a reliably hospitable place for LGBT people&#8221; as a lede in the left column is disingenuous at best. Nothing in this article demonstrates that the Supreme Court has become an inhospitable place for LGBT people. Bowers v. Hardwick was decided in 1986 (23 years ago); Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas occurred afterwards and could be used to demonstrate that the Supreme Court has become a hospitable place for LGBT people, as could the court&#8217;s rejection of the school&#8217;s appeal in Hudson Area Schools v. Patterson. The quoted statement is not supported in the article and the other cases in this article aren&#8217;t even relevant.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Deep in Austin</title>
		<link>http://www.365gay.com/news/analysis-supreme-court-update/comment-page-1/#comment-74145</link>
		<dc:creator>Deep in Austin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:44:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.365gay.com/?p=10039#comment-74145</guid>
		<description>I thought two prominent attorneys were preparing to petition the US Supreme Court to overturn California&#039;s Proposition 8. No mention was made of it in this article.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I thought two prominent attorneys were preparing to petition the US Supreme Court to overturn California&#8217;s Proposition 8. No mention was made of it in this article.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JC</title>
		<link>http://www.365gay.com/news/analysis-supreme-court-update/comment-page-1/#comment-74143</link>
		<dc:creator>JC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 23:49:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.365gay.com/?p=10039#comment-74143</guid>
		<description>Thanks for this! I hope to see more of these &quot;updates&quot; in the future.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for this! I hope to see more of these &#8220;updates&#8221; in the future.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: randy</title>
		<link>http://www.365gay.com/news/analysis-supreme-court-update/comment-page-1/#comment-74130</link>
		<dc:creator>randy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:32:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.365gay.com/?p=10039#comment-74130</guid>
		<description>&quot;God&quot; is deist?  I doubt they have a name for a supreme being.  Even so, deists are a small religious group, who believe in the supernatural based on their interpretation of natural evidence, not a book.

It&#039;s far more likely that &quot;God&quot; is the Christian name for god, that Christians simply don&#039;t care if anyone else accepts.  It&#039;s not just about atheists.  What about people who call their god &quot;G-d&quot;?  or &quot;Allah&quot;?  Or &quot;Bhagwan&quot;?  Or &quot;Waheguru&quot;? etc.

Is it ceremonial when witnesses take the oath to tell the truth?  Is it ceremonial when congress and the president take their oath of office?  Words have meanings.  This is why we make people say them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;God&#8221; is deist?  I doubt they have a name for a supreme being.  Even so, deists are a small religious group, who believe in the supernatural based on their interpretation of natural evidence, not a book.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s far more likely that &#8220;God&#8221; is the Christian name for god, that Christians simply don&#8217;t care if anyone else accepts.  It&#8217;s not just about atheists.  What about people who call their god &#8220;G-d&#8221;?  or &#8220;Allah&#8221;?  Or &#8220;Bhagwan&#8221;?  Or &#8220;Waheguru&#8221;? etc.</p>
<p>Is it ceremonial when witnesses take the oath to tell the truth?  Is it ceremonial when congress and the president take their oath of office?  Words have meanings.  This is why we make people say them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jujubees</title>
		<link>http://www.365gay.com/news/analysis-supreme-court-update/comment-page-1/#comment-74129</link>
		<dc:creator>jujubees</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:29:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.365gay.com/?p=10039#comment-74129</guid>
		<description>It seems to me that in refusing to hear the various appeals cited, the court is acknowledging -- even if only by default -- that the lower courts got it right. While it would be nice to have a legal opinion that reaches as high as the Supreme Court, I&#039;m glad to see that there was no attempt to reverse clearly reasonable decisions. On the standing for the pledge thing, there is another point of view, and it has nothing to do with the pledge. To a certain extent a school is run like the military -- if kids don&#039;t do what they&#039;re told, everything gets out of hand. Certainly we don&#039;t want to turn out a bunch of robots, but I don&#039;t think it&#039;s all that unreasonable for a kid to bring in a permission slip that says he/she doesn&#039;t have to stand, when they need one before they can even get an aspirin for a headache! I&#039;m sure some disagree, I just think more damage is done by tolerating rebellion for rebellion&#039;s sake, rather than a matter of principle.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems to me that in refusing to hear the various appeals cited, the court is acknowledging &#8212; even if only by default &#8212; that the lower courts got it right. While it would be nice to have a legal opinion that reaches as high as the Supreme Court, I&#8217;m glad to see that there was no attempt to reverse clearly reasonable decisions. On the standing for the pledge thing, there is another point of view, and it has nothing to do with the pledge. To a certain extent a school is run like the military &#8212; if kids don&#8217;t do what they&#8217;re told, everything gets out of hand. Certainly we don&#8217;t want to turn out a bunch of robots, but I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s all that unreasonable for a kid to bring in a permission slip that says he/she doesn&#8217;t have to stand, when they need one before they can even get an aspirin for a headache! I&#8217;m sure some disagree, I just think more damage is done by tolerating rebellion for rebellion&#8217;s sake, rather than a matter of principle.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin A Evans</title>
		<link>http://www.365gay.com/news/analysis-supreme-court-update/comment-page-1/#comment-74121</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin A Evans</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:18:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.365gay.com/?p=10039#comment-74121</guid>
		<description>&quot;benign deism&quot;?  What kind of masqueraded bullshit for religion is that?  What nonsense.  Religion is religion and &quot;God&quot; comes out of that.  How silly.  The kid should be able to sit and he or she should be able to not say the pledge if he/she wants, naturally.  It&#039;s only insecure chuckleheads who need full participation in this archaic, outdated, transparent tradition.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;benign deism&#8221;?  What kind of masqueraded bullshit for religion is that?  What nonsense.  Religion is religion and &#8220;God&#8221; comes out of that.  How silly.  The kid should be able to sit and he or she should be able to not say the pledge if he/she wants, naturally.  It&#8217;s only insecure chuckleheads who need full participation in this archaic, outdated, transparent tradition.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
		
	
