<p>
</p>
<p>They passed the bill illegally, and tried to violate a court order demanding they yield. How is THAT not Fascist? They tried to violate Seperation of Powers, that’s like Constitutional Law/US Government 101 Day 1 stuff. That’s the stuff they usually assume you should KNOW already in the intro class. That people who are already into their careers are trying to break those rules suggests that they’re dangerously crazy people. </p>
<p>I used slavery to show how a government taking a hands-off “let the states decide” approach didn’t work. It’s a perfectly apt comparison. It’s also to illustrate how just like being black, being gay is not a choice. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Loving v. Virginia. I can also cite Baker v. Nelson because we only lost that one on a technicality that, were it retried today, would not exist. I’m going to also be a bit of an ass and cite Perry v. Schwartznegger because of Judge Walker’s findings of fact. It’s still in legal limbo until the 9th and possibly the SCOTUS rule on it, but until that happens his findings of fact are still… well, factual. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But this ignores the fact that LGBTs want that legal requirement changed to “two consenting adults” (let’s not get into polygamy here okay? There aren’t enough precedents to address it and it’d only be used as a slippery slope fallacy to get a gut-charged reaction). That doesn’t make any mention of why those are the legal requirements or why they can’t be altered. That’s what’s being argued. That it’s a civil right is one of the ways it’s being argued. BECAUSE it’s a civil right, LGBTs should have access to it to marry the consenting partner that they love. If it’s a civil right, then it’s wrong to deny it to someone, if it’s wrong to deny it to someone then these anti-gay laws are unconstitutional, if they’re unconstitutional they’re struck down, if they’re struck down, gays can get married finally.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>■■■■■. I didn’t mention Hitler. Also, the context I was using it in doesn’t qualify for a Godwin kiddo. Not every Nazi/Hitler reference counts as envoking Godwin’s law. I wasn’t calling you “like Hitler” I was using “gassing the Jews” as an EXTREME example of where there is very clearly one right answer and one wrong answer. One that you couldn’t try to argue against. Genocide is something that’s VERY clearly wrong. Think about it - I couldn’t have used “It was wrong to kill that person” because you would say “Well, it depends, why’d I kill him?” “It was wrong to shoot the puppy” “What if it was rabid?” “Slavery was wrong” “I agree but states rights” see, you already disagreed with my Slavery premise, so nothing short of “Gassing the Jews” worked as a comparison of something clearly incorrect. It’s not a “well his points are equally valid to yours - all opinions are equal” argument it’s a “his points are valid and yours are invalid” argument. But you’ve noted that I used it three times now, it must REEAAALLLLLY bother you that I used that as a reference.</p>