Michigan GOP votes to fine gay-friendly colleges

[hotatlboi]

My issue isn't really with the universities, it's with certain people who always seem to defend anti-gay politicians attempting to author anti-gay legislation here. It's always something.

 

[Kulindahr]

Don't be naive.

These legislators are proposing to fine colleges that treat gay people well because they despise gay people. Any other reasoning is an obfuscation and a denial of reality.

It could be argued that the legislators are being generous: since those colleges are breaking the law, there's really no obligation to fund them at all.

Like the price of fast food has anything to do with LGBT civil rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

Thank you for pointing out what you're doing: pointing to something other than the point at hand in order to distract from the argument.

 

[JB3]

My issue isn't really with the universities, it's with certain people who always seem to defend anti-gay politicians attempting to author anti-gay legislation here. It's always something.

I think you might be stretching by claiming that the people you're referring to are defending it. They aren't.

 

[bike10]

More of the GOP and its anti gay policies.

 

[construct]

Uh, isn't there already a remedy for violating an injunction? Couldn't the university be found in contempt and sanctioned? I'm just not sure that I see the need for this law. Has this not occurred those of you who are busying yourselves with "pointing out the law"?

 

[rareboy]

See my thread on the Canadian Census.

 

[BostonPirate]

take a step back and look at the big picture.

Its immoral to do what the republicans have done, even in writing the law.

it needs to be called out and shown so that the voters here and elsewhere know what michigan is and how to deal with it.

ME?

I think they are a bunch of losers and the good people need to leave that cesspool and move to east coast civilisation.

we still remember what american values reallyare, as we invented the nation, and we protect it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Uh, isn't there already a remedy for violating an injunction? Couldn't the university be found in contempt and sanctioned? I'm just not sure that I see the need for this law. Has this not occurred those of you who are busying yourselves with "pointing out the law"?

I personally think it's silly and a waste of time. The remedies you suggest are the more sensible way to go. That these Republicans aren't taking it shows even more their contempt for government.

I think they are a bunch of losers and the good people need to leave that cesspool and move to east coast civilisation.

we still remember what american values reallyare, as we invented the nation, and we protect it.

Who "invented the nation"? If you mean democrats, it was founded equally as much by republicans -- and remember that Jefferson didn't trust democracy much at all.

 

[JB3]

Yup. The aim of the GOP is surely to shut up people like me, and sadly its coming from inside the LGBT community as well...

No one's telling you to shut up. We're asking you to actually make a rational argument to refute what Kuli is saying.

 

[JB3]

I guess we need to just accept laws, and be all politically quiet because some people think speaking up is just improper. I guess we just need to accept the laws because some don't think civil disobedience is a proper course of action.

Protesting can influence the state.

By the way, please don't compare either political party with the founding fathers. That was a far different time. The GOP is a joke, and some here just eat into the lies they spread. And some in the gay community obviously bought into those lies because they believe the libertarian MYTH.

That's not at all what's being said, so stop being intellectually dishonest with your argument.

The law is wrong; that is not under discussion here.

What IS under discussion is that the law exists, and until it is challenged state-funded universities and colleges still have to abide by it. It is not a choice.

 

[Kulindahr]

I guess we need to just accept laws, and be all politically quiet because some people think speaking up is just improper. I guess we just need to accept the laws because some don't think civil disobedience is a proper course of action.

Protesting can influence the state.

By the way, please don't compare either political party with the founding fathers. That was a far different time. The GOP is a joke, and some here just eat into the lies they spread. And some in the gay community obviously bought into those lies because they believe the libertarian MYTH.

So I guess you would have no problem with Texas deciding to practice "civil disobedience" by enforcing sodomy laws.

More to the point, your post is addressing things that haven't been said, in both major paragraphs.

 

[archive]

That's not at all what's being said, so stop being intellectually dishonest with your argument.

The law is wrong; that is not under discussion here.

What IS under discussion is that the law exists, and until it is challenged state-funded universities and colleges still have to abide by it. It is not a choice.

why are you even trying ....

 

[JB3]

Is the law constitutional under federal law? Because I'm sure those universities do get federal money.

It doesn't matter right now if the law is constitutional for the discussion and topic of this thread. No one has challenged that yet. (though I'd imagine the challenges are coming) And we're not talking federal money here. The state of Michigan's money cannot be legally used to pay for same-sex benefits, so state universities (which get the majority of their funding from the state) are not allowed to give those benefits. The law being discussed here has to do with the state fining universities that refuse to change their benefits to meet state law.

What am I being intellectually dishonest about? I guess for conservatives it's best to keep your mouth shut even though an unjust law is on the books.

You were bringing up arguments that no one in this thread has made as the basis for your comments and a way for you to attack those with which you disagree. No on is arguing to keep the law, so again, you're being intellectually dishonest in your argument. The discussion that myself and others are having isn't about the unjustness of the law; its whether universities funded using state money are following what state law says about how those funds are used.

 

[JB3]

Excellent. Glad to hear you are in favor of this law and will go to any lengths to defend it. Now I know where you stand.

In other words, don't say anything... don't protest these laws... just be quiet and maybe they'll go away because some lawyers will do it. Yeah, we relied on lawyers enough here in California.

I'm not being intellectually dishonest. You've already proved disingenuous several times. Let me wonder... a gay conservative? Isn't that an oxymoron?

Anyways, I'm off. Have a nice day.

Where did I say I'm in favor of the law? In fact, I'll do you a favor and quote myself in previous posts in this thread:

The law is wrong; that is not under discussion here.

Yes, it is unjust, and no it is not right.

So no, I'm not defending the rightness or wrongness of the law, and have in fact stated that the law is unjust and should be struck down. Nor did I say we shouldn't protest these laws.

What I HAVE said is that the law exists, and until they are challenged the universities must abide by it. They do not get to choose what laws they follow, just like you or I do not get to choose what laws we follow. The ONLY course of action the universities have while the law is challenged, or until there is an injunction preventing its implementation, is to follow it.

So yes, you are being intellectually dishonest. If you continue to be so, we'll continue to have to smack you in the face with the truth. Have a nice night. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out!

 

[construct]

And it's no small number either.

The MI House of Representatives approved an amendment to the education budget that would fine universities and colleges which extended benefits to same sex couples a full 5% of their budget.



The amendment's sponsor had to make a jab at the Democrats of course...




Read More

Alrightee then. To return to the subject. Ahem.

So it now goes to conference committee. What are the chances of this amendment being in the bill that is reported out?

 

[Kulindahr]

Is the law constitutional under federal law? Because I'm sure those universities do get federal money.

That was addressed earlier in the thread, but it is a key point, and in fact the point of resolution: if DOMA is ruled constitutional, then Wisconsin's law is fine; if DOMA falls, Wisconsin's law is toast.

BTW, this isn't so much an unjust law (the one penalizing colleges) as a stupid one. As I mentioned before, it totally shows the disrespect for law these Republicans have -- they treat it like a game in middle school... except that's an insult to some middle school game clubs I'm aware of (chess, especially), where they take the games and rules and proper procedure very seriously indeed.

 

[CowboyBob]

Fines are an excellent source of revenue and since Republicans refuse to raise taxes on those who can afford it, these can be considered taxing those who sympathize with us.

Michigan needs cash. Fine (or fees as they like to call it now) the poor, scholars and gays to enhance revenue. Don't raise taxes on millionaires.

 

[Kulindahr]

Fair enough. But... I'm not lazy. And I'm not disinteresting in communicating. Okay maybe a bit lazy after all the work I was doing for a paper today... but I was still addressing the topic at hand.

I'm a leftist. I'm not a Rush Limbaugh supporter. I leave that to some of the others on here.

I also don't need a lesson on how to quote other posts. I'm not stupid.

I understand working on papers. For that matter I've notice that I post differently, not infrequently, after finishing editing a chapter for my story here -- generally more flippant and humorous, though it can vary with the tone of the chapter.

So use the quote function! Think of it as helping the rest of us follow the conversation.

 

[rareboy]

Where did I say I'm in favor of the law? In fact, I'll do you a favor and quote myself in previous posts in this thread:





So no, I'm not defending the rightness or wrongness of the law, and have in fact stated that the law is unjust and should be struck down. Nor did I say we shouldn't protest these laws.

What I HAVE said is that the law exists, and until they are challenged the universities must abide by it. They do not get to choose what laws they follow, just like you or I do not get to choose what laws we follow. The ONLY course of action the universities have while the law is challenged, or until there is an injunction preventing its implementation, is to follow it.

So yes, you are being intellectually dishonest. If you continue to be so, we'll continue to have to smack you in the face with the truth. Have a nice night. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out!

So obviously, the way to go is to use the taxpayers' money to challenge this in court and apply for a stay while it works its way up to the Supreme Court over the next decade.

Works for me.

 

[JB3]

So obviously, the way to go is to use the taxpayers' money to challenge this in court and apply for a stay while it works its way up to the Supreme Court over the next decade.

Works for me.

Wouldn't even take taxpayer money. I'd wager the ACLU or other entities would be willing to find lawyers to take the case without payment.