Augustus Opposes Minnesota Gay Marriage Ban Legislation | The Boneyard

Augustus Opposes Minnesota Gay Marriage Ban Legislation

Status
Not open for further replies.
easttexastrash

easttexastrash

Stay Classy!
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
9,582
Reaction Score
13,224
Wedge issues such as this are very common in election cycles.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court is going to rule on this. It is my hope that they follow in the jurisprudence of Brown v Board of Education, which states that the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment does not allow for the notion of "Separate but Equal." This is not, however, as SCOTUS I have a ton of faith in.
 
HuskyNan said:
Just a request to keep this topic narrowly focused and away from politics.
Expand ...

I support and thank easttexas for her comments and link! It is not only a political issue,but it involves a star player on the defending WNBA Champions looking to win 2 in a row! Plus to make it related to basketball. She could decide that she does not want to play basketball in a state that has voted against her being legally married! This would have tremendous impact on the Lynx! It is great that her teammates and the organization is supporting her!

Also thanks Alex for all of your Basketball related posts and your post above! easttexas I really appreciate your being a member of this board:)
Ira
 
alexrgct said:
Wedge issues such as this are very common in election cycles.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court is going to rule on this. It is my hope that they follow in the jurisprudence of Brown v Board of Education, which states that the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment does not allow for the notion of "Separate but Equal." This is not, however, as SCOTUS I have a ton of faith in.
Expand ...
I'm still struggling with the corporation being equivalent in some ways to a person. Don't make no sense to me!
 
Each state has the right to determine what they want to allow or not allow.
 
FASTEDDY said:
Each state has the right to determine what they want to allow or not allow.
Expand ...
That doesn't work for a number of reasons. There are federal tax and interstate commerce issues at play here. Marriage, as a legal institution, can't be a states' rights issue.
 
SA quote in article:

"I've never seen a basketball player that looks like a beauty pageant winner. We go out here, we work hard, we sweat, we have our hair all over. It's a very physical sport. We have to have a certain body type in order to play this game."

If she hasn't seen at players who are gorgeous she hasn't looked very hard. I can't imagine what she means about needing a certain body type to play. Yeah, height can help, but it's not required. Any ideas on what she's talking about? Is she implying that being strong and fit aren't attributes of a 'beauty pageant winner'?
 
easttexastrash said:
I still do not understand the desire to suppress the rights of gays to marry, let alone amend the state constitution to do so. Why in the world Augustus want to continue to play in a state that takes such action? First the traffic incident and now this. Minnesota is not making Augustus feel very welcomed, I suspect.

http://espn.go.com/wnba/story/_/id/...ustus-speaks-minnesota-gay-marriage-amendment
Expand ...

I'm sure that Connecticut (as in Sun) would make her feel very welcome, and she and her partner could be legally married here. I believe Simone becomes a free agent in 2014. Just saying...
 
This is a social and political issue that has nothing to do with basketball. It doesn't belong on the board.
 
vtcwbuff said:
This is a social and political issue that has nothing to do with basketball. It doesn't belong on the board.
Expand ...

Interesting argument on a board that is currently sporting threads concerning Michael Vick and Felix Baumgartner. At least this concerns an actual women's basketball player.
 
I actually agree that the issue itself need not be discussed on this board.

Folks tend to feel very strongly on one side of the issue or the other - not always, IMHO, for the most well thought out reasons (on either side).

I am a member of a church congregation which lost a former pastor and about 200 members because of the denomination's stance on this issue. That included long time friends who found themselves seperated over an issue that, ultimately, is unlikely to have a personal affect on them.
 
vtcwbuff said:
This is a social and political issue that has nothing to do with basketball. It doesn't belong on the board.
Expand ...

Fortunately, the moderators decide what belongs here and what does not, and Nan has done some timely and effective moderating already. Don't you think they are capable of moderating this discussion?
 
FASTEDDY said:
Each state has the right to determine what they want to allow or not allow.
Expand ...
Allow, yes. But they do not have the right to deny rights to citizens without a compelling reason - particularly when such a ban violate the Constitution. (Banning gay marriage, for instance, is in direct contrast to Equal Protection of the 14th Amendment.)

It's only a matter of time before the Supreme Court overturns these absurd bans.
 
It is possible that she appreciates the strong support she receives from many fans, and is glad to represent herself as a model for the rights we all have under our constitution. I wish her the best I can, as a player and a person…time and the good will of millions of US Citizens are on her side.

 
Kibitzer said:
I hope Simone is successful in her Pursuit of Happiness. (This is not Constitutionally guaranteed, but remains one of the greatest and most noble aspirations of our Declaration of Independence, the other two being Life and Liberty.)
Expand ...
And it doesn't guarantee happiness either, only the ability to pursue.

Personally I would prefer the government stay out of the marriage business altogether (and the church stay out of the rights business). Let the government do contractual agreements (civil unions which bestow the rights and responsibilities) and let the churches do the marriages if people want them (which would have no standing with the government, i.e. no rights associated with them). But I doubt that's ever gonna happen.
 
meyers7 said:
And it doesn't guarantee happiness either, only the ability to pursue.

Personally I would prefer the government stay out of the marriage business altogether (and the church stay out of the rights business). Let the government do contractual agreements (civil unions which bestow the rights and responsibilities) and let the churches do the marriages if people want them (which would have no standing with the government, i.e. no rights associated with them). But I doubt that's ever gonna happen.
Expand ...

Amen!!! I mean, right on!!!
 
PacoSwede said:
SA quote in article:

"I've never seen a basketball player that looks like a beauty pageant winner. We go out here, we work hard, we sweat, we have our hair all over. It's a very physical sport. We have to have a certain body type in order to play this game."

If she hasn't seen at players who are gorgeous she hasn't looked very hard. I can't imagine what she means about needing a certain body type to play. Yeah, height can help, but it's not required. Any ideas on what she's talking about? Is she implying that being strong and fit aren't attributes of a 'beauty pageant winner'?
Expand ...

I don't think she means there aren't women who are beautiful in the WNBA. I took it to mean that women in the WNBA aren't concerned with their looks (hair, overly made up) to the point where a beauty pageant contestant is. Players would much rather play and win, than play and look good.

When you look at women in beauty pageants, they are all tall and skinny with big busts. Being skinny and in the WNBA don't really go together. In order to compete day in and day out, your body has to take the physical strain of the competition. There are many fit, lean, athletic women in the WNBA, but they aren't going to have the body type of a beauty queen because otherwise, her body wouldn't be able to take the physical stress.
 
meyers7 said:
And it doesn't guarantee happiness either, only the ability to pursue.

Personally I would prefer the government stay out of the marriage business altogether (and the church stay out of the rights business). Let the government do contractual agreements (civil unions which bestow the rights and responsibilities) and let the churches do the marriages if people want them (which would have no standing with the government, i.e. no rights associated with them). But I doubt that's ever gonna happen.
Expand ...

You will need to rethink this because it is the position I have held for more than two decades and I know that you can't agree with a position I hold. ;)
I resent the government using my time to execute their policy for marriage and then threatening to fine me if they don't receive the paperwork according to their demand.
 
Icebear said:
You will need to rethink this because it is the position I have held for more than two decades and I know that you can't agree with a position I hold. ;)
Expand ...
Well we both like our Huskies.
 
Icebear said:
You will need to rethink this because it is the position I have held for more than two decades and I know that you can't agree with a position I hold. ;)
I resent the government using my time to execute their policy for marriage and then threatening to fine me if they don't receive the paperwork according to their demand.
Expand ...

I would love to know the stance and the government's requirements but that may be better for a PM. Sounds interesting and frustrating.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
257
Guests online
1,849
Total visitors
2,106
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
164,035
Messages
4,379,409
Members
10,172
Latest member
ctfb19382


.
..
Top Bottom