Mrebo

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

This is a strange pattern of argument that occurs in the “culture” threads and Star Wars threads.

Person A gives an opinion. Person B calls that opinion irredeemably horrible. Person A explains why that isn’t the case. Person B repeats that it is irredeemably horrible. Person A tries again to get Person B to see some shade of grey. Person B asks why Person A cares so much and is making such a big deal out of it. And all the person did was express an opinion and defend it when challenged. It’s a relentless shaming of Person A that I don’t understand.

If it goes on long enough, someone will declare its all semantics.

I’m glad you’ve pointed this out, because you’ve exposed the real issue at the heart of this.

That’s an overstatement. The mode of discussion doesn’t qualify as the “heart of this.”

Um… okay.

De nada.

Person B is rarely (if ever at all) saying something is “irredeemably horrible.” It’s almost always just Person A overreacting and assuming they are.

To be precise about this case, it was a series of snarky and dismissive jabs. But reading between the lines isn’t that difficult. Maybe you think I exaggerate with “irredeemably horrible,” but I think you can get the essence of my meaning.

It’s not just semantics, it’s people imagining things that aren’t really being said.

Maybe the discussion hasn’t gone on long enough, but I have faith you’ll get there.

I’m not wrong. Just calling someone a “dick” is pretty fucking far away from “irredeemably horrible.” It’s a gap that goes beyond hyperbole, and won’t be closed no matter how long the discussion goes on for.

This smells like semantics to me. Granted I enjoy the probably unintended irony of “a gap that goes beyond hyperbole” which attempts to chart the supposed outer limits of hyperbole. Answer: there are none.

Sometimes the claim is that an opinion or phrase is racist or sexist, sometimes like here just jerkish. I was explicitly writing about a general pattern. What appears to be exaggeration (at least regarding the current discussion) isn’t the “heart” of my incisive commentary.

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

This is a strange pattern of argument that occurs in the “culture” threads and Star Wars threads.

Person A gives an opinion. Person B calls that opinion irredeemably horrible. Person A explains why that isn’t the case. Person B repeats that it is irredeemably horrible. Person A tries again to get Person B to see some shade of grey. Person B asks why Person A cares so much and is making such a big deal out of it. And all the person did was express an opinion and defend it when challenged. It’s a relentless shaming of Person A that I don’t understand.

If it goes on long enough, someone will declare its all semantics.

I’m glad you’ve pointed this out, because you’ve exposed the real issue at the heart of this.

That’s an overstatement. The mode of discussion doesn’t qualify as the “heart of this.”

Person B is rarely (if ever at all) saying something is “irredeemably horrible.” It’s almost always just Person A overreacting and assuming they are.

To be precise about this case, it was a series of snarky and dismissive jabs. But reading between the lines isn’t that difficult. Maybe you think I exaggerate with “irredeemably horrible,” but I think you can get the essence of my meaning.

It’s not just semantics, it’s people imagining things that aren’t really being said.

Maybe the discussion hasn’t gone on long enough, but I have faith you’ll get there.

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I actually kind of like this barista, to be honest. At least we all know how much of an asshole he is. Everyone else pretends to be a decent person, but at least this fucker is a proud pile of garbage unlike everyone else.

sheesh.

It’s ok, he didn’t mean it.

DuracellEnergizer said:

It’s all semantics.

Whoever currently holds the championship belt for Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo needs to give it to you pronto.

This is a strange pattern of argument that occurs in the “culture” threads and Star Wars threads.

Person A gives an opinion. Person B calls that opinion irredeemably horrible. Person A explains why that isn’t the case. Person B repeats that it is irredeemably horrible. Person A tries again to get Person B to see some shade of grey. Person B asks why Person A cares so much and is making such a big deal out of it. And all the person did was express an opinion and defend it when challenged. It’s a relentless shaming of Person A that I don’t understand.

If it goes on long enough, someone will declare its all semantics.

Whoohoo! Waited all day for this thread!

Neglify said:

I got my hands on a bottle of Everclear, 194 proof. I’m durnk as fcuk.

At least have the wherewithal to misspell appropriately.

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

More surprises!

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/07/02/nyc-private-school-end-racial-segregation-policy-homerooms/

wtf? How was this allowed in the 21st century? I thought Brown v. Board of Education made this unconstitutional? Why would the school even try it in 2018? What f___ made them think it was a good idea in this day and age???

It’s for a similar reason that we racially gerrymander congressional districts. It is supposed to be empowering.

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:
As Jay said this isn’t difficult to understand. He and I both pointed out that national change has often happened because states had freedom to act.

You used slavery as a really bad example, I remember that. States wanting to legalize or outlaw slavery is what started the Civil War.

Slavery is a perfectly fine example of how state autonomy brought about the end of slavery. It’s only an extreme example because it necessitated war.

What necessitated the war was the state autonomy. Look up the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

Usually the states rights justification is dismissed as a basis for the war. I think slavery was the reason. The fact that each state had autonomy and could foster moral opposition free from economic benefits allowed us to get to the point of demanding a national solution.

Another example was gay marriage. Another appears to be marijuana, a subject near and dear to you. It’s staring you right in the face why state autonomy is preferable to a national law that criminalizes it.

Nothing is near and dear to me. State autonomy is better than a national law that criminalizes it, but if it’s not federally illegal, then fascist states criminalizing it are definitely not better.

Well you live in a fascistic world I guess. Let me know if you have a solution to that.

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

I don’t know that your second question makes too much sense. It’s sort of like asking whether I am a Constitutional absolutist. That Amendment states:

Let try to re-word it. You said you were not a “states rights absolutist”. Are situations where you are not absolutist in that regard, situations where we either

1. are dealing with a power delegated to Feds by the Constitution

and/or

2. are dealing with a power prohibited to the states by the Constitution

When you say you are not a “states rights absolutist”, you mean that you are not pro-states-rights in situations where the Constitution is not pro-states-rights, correct?

When I say I am not a “states rights absolutist” I mean the states don’t always win. Health insurance was an example.

It does not mean I think the federal government should exercise its authority to the maximum extent under the Constitution. There are areas where the federal government can act under the Constitution but I think should exercise restraint and instead respect state laws (eg marijuana).

How about medical marijuana?

The FDA should regulate that. In states where pot is legal it may not make much of a difference, but allow people in other states to have approved medication.

I’m not in favor of legalization and I never had an interest in the stuff. So my desire for the federal government to step back isn’t self-serving. It’s partly based on my view that the federal government is overstepping the bounds of its authority and partly on the view that there is value in states forging their own paths, especially where an activity is so broadly practiced with relatively little harm.

Okay, so the federal government can’t ban you from imbibing a substance, but the state can? Why is that any better? This is what I mean when I complain that states’ rights is bullshit when it’s all about the rights that states can deprive you of.

Because people disagree. In a democratic system that is a really important fact. If I had my way, pot wouldn’t be legal. That is the law at the federal level. So ask the people in the nine states where recreational use or 30 states where medical use is legal “how that is better.”

I get your impulse of wanting your policy preferences enacted everywhere. Who doesn’t want that? But of course that’s not how reality works. Where the federal government is the first and last stop, change is stifled. The constituencies of the various states have different views so let them make the laws they want. Granted you won’t like all choices in all states, but that is inevitable no matter what level of government choices are made.

As Jay said this isn’t difficult to understand. He and I both pointed out that national change has often happened because states had freedom to act.

Nonetheless, the differences in state laws can cause inconveniences. Sometimes the state boundary lines can go right through a house, meaning that pot could be legal in on part of the house but illegal in another part.

Can you cite an actual example? That sounds awesome.

Yeah, Warbler sounds like a bong half empty kind of guy.

More surprises!

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/07/02/nyc-private-school-end-racial-segregation-policy-homerooms/

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

I don’t know that your second question makes too much sense. It’s sort of like asking whether I am a Constitutional absolutist. That Amendment states:

Let try to re-word it. You said you were not a “states rights absolutist”. Are situations where you are not absolutist in that regard, situations where we either

1. are dealing with a power delegated to Feds by the Constitution

and/or

2. are dealing with a power prohibited to the states by the Constitution

When you say you are not a “states rights absolutist”, you mean that you are not pro-states-rights in situations where the Constitution is not pro-states-rights, correct?

When I say I am not a “states rights absolutist” I mean the states don’t always win. Health insurance was an example.

It does not mean I think the federal government should exercise its authority to the maximum extent under the Constitution. There are areas where the federal government can act under the Constitution but I think should exercise restraint and instead respect state laws (eg marijuana).

How about medical marijuana?

The FDA should regulate that. In states where pot is legal it may not make much of a difference, but allow people in other states to have approved medication.

I’m not in favor of legalization and I never had an interest in the stuff. So my desire for the federal government to step back isn’t self-serving. It’s partly based on my view that the federal government is overstepping the bounds of its authority and partly on the view that there is value in states forging their own paths, especially where an activity is so broadly practiced with relatively little harm.

Okay, so the federal government can’t ban you from imbibing a substance, but the state can? Why is that any better? This is what I mean when I complain that states’ rights is bullshit when it’s all about the rights that states can deprive you of.

Because people disagree. In a democratic system that is a really important fact. If I had my way, pot wouldn’t be legal. That is the law at the federal level. So ask the people in the nine states where recreational use or 30 states where medical use is legal “how that is better.”

I get your impulse of wanting your policy preferences enacted everywhere. Who doesn’t want that? But of course that’s not how reality works. Where the federal government is the first and last stop, change is stifled. The constituencies of the various states have different views so let them make the laws they want. Granted you won’t like all choices in all states, but that is inevitable no matter what level of government choices are made.

As Jay said this isn’t difficult to understand. He and I both pointed out that national change has often happened because states had freedom to act.

Nonetheless, the differences in state laws can cause inconveniences. Sometimes the state boundary lines can go right through a house, meaning that pot could be legal in on part of the house but illegal in another part.

There are well-established ways of dealing with many inconveniences. chyron’s mom could tell you about some of them. Sounds awfully convenient to have a “pot room” in your house if that’s your thing.

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

I don’t know that your second question makes too much sense. It’s sort of like asking whether I am a Constitutional absolutist. That Amendment states:

Let try to re-word it. You said you were not a “states rights absolutist”. Are situations where you are not absolutist in that regard, situations where we either

1. are dealing with a power delegated to Feds by the Constitution

and/or

2. are dealing with a power prohibited to the states by the Constitution

When you say you are not a “states rights absolutist”, you mean that you are not pro-states-rights in situations where the Constitution is not pro-states-rights, correct?

When I say I am not a “states rights absolutist” I mean the states don’t always win. Health insurance was an example.

It does not mean I think the federal government should exercise its authority to the maximum extent under the Constitution. There are areas where the federal government can act under the Constitution but I think should exercise restraint and instead respect state laws (eg marijuana).

How about medical marijuana?

The FDA should regulate that. In states where pot is legal it may not make much of a difference, but allow people in other states to have approved medication.

I’m not in favor of legalization and I never had an interest in the stuff. So my desire for the federal government to step back isn’t self-serving. It’s partly based on my view that the federal government is overstepping the bounds of its authority and partly on the view that there is value in states forging their own paths, especially where an activity is so broadly practiced with relatively little harm.

Okay, so the federal government can’t ban you from imbibing a substance, but the state can? Why is that any better? This is what I mean when I complain that states’ rights is bullshit when it’s all about the rights that states can deprive you of.

Because people disagree. In a democratic system that is a really important fact. If I had my way, pot wouldn’t be legal.

I really don’t care what your “way” is. You wanting a harmless, and often helpful substance outlawed because of your preference is totally irrational, unfair, and unAmerican. I don’t believe any state should have the right to outlaw marijuana.

You are ignoring the point. Feel whatever you want, that doesn’t make you right nor does it change the law.

That is the law at the federal level. So ask the people in the nine states where recreational use or 30 states where medical use is legal “how that is better.”

Well, they made the less totalitarian decision. If you live in a shithole that has it outlawed, then you’re not so lucky.

If it’s only a matter of luck…and not hard fought democratic change, your argument is totally senseless.

I get your impulse of wanting your policy preferences enacted everywhere. Who doesn’t want that? But of course that’s not how reality works. Where the federal government is the first and last stop, change is stifled. The constituencies of the various states have different views so let them make the laws they want. Granted you won’t like all choices in all states, but that is inevitable no matter what level of government choices are made.

I don’t believe that anyone has the right to decide what substances adults can ingest.

Cool.

As Jay said this isn’t difficult to understand. He and I both pointed out that national change has often happened because states had freedom to act.

You used slavery as a really bad example, I remember that. States wanting to legalize or outlaw slavery is what started the Civil War.

Slavery is a perfectly fine example of how state autonomy brought about the end of slavery. It’s only an extreme example because it necessitated war.

Another example was gay marriage. Another appears to be marijuana, a subject near and dear to you. It’s staring you right in the face why state autonomy is preferable to a national law that criminalizes it.

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

I don’t know that your second question makes too much sense. It’s sort of like asking whether I am a Constitutional absolutist. That Amendment states:

Let try to re-word it. You said you were not a “states rights absolutist”. Are situations where you are not absolutist in that regard, situations where we either

1. are dealing with a power delegated to Feds by the Constitution

and/or

2. are dealing with a power prohibited to the states by the Constitution

When you say you are not a “states rights absolutist”, you mean that you are not pro-states-rights in situations where the Constitution is not pro-states-rights, correct?

When I say I am not a “states rights absolutist” I mean the states don’t always win. Health insurance was an example.

It does not mean I think the federal government should exercise its authority to the maximum extent under the Constitution. There are areas where the federal government can act under the Constitution but I think should exercise restraint and instead respect state laws (eg marijuana).

How about medical marijuana?

The FDA should regulate that. In states where pot is legal it may not make much of a difference, but allow people in other states to have approved medication.

I’m not in favor of legalization and I never had an interest in the stuff. So my desire for the federal government to step back isn’t self-serving. It’s partly based on my view that the federal government is overstepping the bounds of its authority and partly on the view that there is value in states forging their own paths, especially where an activity is so broadly practiced with relatively little harm.

Okay, so the federal government can’t ban you from imbibing a substance, but the state can? Why is that any better? This is what I mean when I complain that states’ rights is bullshit when it’s all about the rights that states can deprive you of.

Because people disagree. In a democratic system that is a really important fact. If I had my way, pot wouldn’t be legal. That is the law at the federal level. So ask the people in the nine states where recreational use or 30 states where medical use is legal “how that is better.”

I get your impulse of wanting your policy preferences enacted everywhere. Who doesn’t want that? But of course that’s not how reality works. Where the federal government is the first and last stop, change is stifled. The constituencies of the various states have different views so let them make the laws they want. Granted you won’t like all choices in all states, but that is inevitable no matter what level of government choices are made.

As Jay said this isn’t difficult to understand. He and I both pointed out that national change has often happened because states had freedom to act.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

I don’t know that your second question makes too much sense. It’s sort of like asking whether I am a Constitutional absolutist. That Amendment states:

Let try to re-word it. You said you were not a “states rights absolutist”. Are situations where you are not absolutist in that regard, situations where we either

1. are dealing with a power delegated to Feds by the Constitution

and/or

2. are dealing with a power prohibited to the states by the Constitution

When you say you are not a “states rights absolutist”, you mean that you are not pro-states-rights in situations where the Constitution is not pro-states-rights, correct?

When I say I am not a “states rights absolutist” I mean the states don’t always win. Health insurance was an example.

It does not mean I think the federal government should exercise its authority to the maximum extent under the Constitution. There are areas where the federal government can act under the Constitution but I think should exercise restraint and instead respect state laws (eg marijuana).

How about medical marijuana?

The FDA should regulate that. In states where pot is legal it may not make much of a difference, but allow people in other states to have approved medication.

I’m not in favor of legalization and I never had an interest in the stuff. So my desire for the federal government to step back isn’t self-serving. It’s partly based on my view that the federal government is overstepping the bounds of its authority and partly on the view that there is value in states forging their own paths, especially where an activity is so broadly practiced with relatively little harm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6eAcFOSOY0

“Escape from LA” ending eerily similar to TLJ.

.

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

I don’t know that your second question makes too much sense. It’s sort of like asking whether I am a Constitutional absolutist. That Amendment states:

Let try to re-word it. You said you were not a “states rights absolutist”. Are situations where you are not absolutist in that regard, situations where we either

1. are dealing with a power delegated to Feds by the Constitution

and/or

2. are dealing with a power prohibited to the states by the Constitution

When you say you are not a “states rights absolutist”, you mean that you are not pro-states-rights in situations where the Constitution is not pro-states-rights, correct?

When I say I am not a “states rights absolutist” I mean the states don’t always win. Health insurance was an example.

It does not mean I think the federal government should exercise its authority to the maximum extent under the Constitution. There are areas where the federal government can act under the Constitution but I think should exercise restraint and instead respect state laws (eg marijuana).

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:
Not all states’ rights people are absolutist (I’m not).

You’re not?

You read right.

Could you elaborate? In what way aren’t you a states’ right absolutist? Are you a 10th amendment absolutist?

For example, I think the federal government has the authority to regulate health insurance. And as a matter of policy I can’t say it is best for the states to regulate it. That doesn’t mean I think the federal government can do anything it wants relating to health insurance nor that anything it might do is good, but it’s one area where I’m not opposed to the federal government regulating instead of states.

I don’t know that your second question makes too much sense. It’s sort of like asking whether I am a Constitutional absolutist. That Amendment states:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

I absolutely believe in that…but I don’t know that that answers much.

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I’ve never understood the argument of states’ rights people. Their arguments have been the same since before the Civil War and they just make no sense to me. It all boils down to, it’s okay for the states to infringe upon your rights, but it’s not okay for the federal government to stop states from infringing on your rights. That’s how it’s always been, whether we’re talking about slavery, women’s suffrage, worker’s rights, civil rights, public education, abortion, gay rights, marriage equality, and now trans rights.

That’s like me saying your point of view boils down to saying it’s okay when the federal government infringes your rights but not the states.

I’m saying that neither is okay and if the federal government needs to step in in order to protect your rights, then I’m fine with that.

If you think an issue belongs to the federal government - for example defining marriage - then based on history, gay marriage would have been federally prohibited, foreclosing the option many states took to allow gay marriage.

What it really boils down to is an acceptance of the federal system established by our Constitution and a belief that injustice can be cured on the state level.

I don’t think that’s the case. It’s a pretty selfish view of justice if you want to be state by state.

Not at all selfish.

Oftentimes change only happens at the national level because states have the freedom and authority to make those changes. It builds a momentum that wouldn’t exist if the federal government held all the cards.

That’s not the case in any of the examples that I listed.

That’s the case for most of the issues you list. In addition to marriage as I noted above, the fact that northern states had the freedom to forbid slavery set the stage for ending it altogether.

moviefreakedmind said:

I’ve never understood the argument of states’ rights people. Their arguments have been the same since before the Civil War and they just make no sense to me. It all boils down to, it’s okay for the states to infringe upon your rights, but it’s not okay for the federal government to stop states from infringing on your rights. That’s how it’s always been, whether we’re talking about slavery, women’s suffrage, worker’s rights, civil rights, public education, abortion, gay rights, marriage equality, and now trans rights.

That’s like me saying your point of view boils down to saying it’s okay when the federal government infringes your rights but not the states.

What it really boils down to is an acceptance of the federal system established by our Constitution and a belief that injustice can be cured on the state level. Oftentimes change only happens at the national level because states have the freedom and authority to make those changes. It builds a momentum that wouldn’t exist if the federal government held all the cards.

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

But I recognize the sincere argument, that you previously made, that a person can support state authority and also limited federal action without offending the 10th Amendment.

I made that argument?

You said:

Warbler said:

I think I even brought up federal benefits to argue that the feds had to have some say over marriage, I forget the argument that you and/or Ferris used against me.

Not all states’ rights people are absolutist (I’m not).

You’re not?

You read right.

The fact I can recognize a sincere argument doesn’t mean I agree with it.

it seemed like you were agreeing with it.

Mrebo said:

DOMA did at least concern federal benefits that states don’t naturally have the authority over, so it wasn’t clearly a 10th Amendment violation.

The fact that a reasonable argument can be made and that I can recognize that doesn’t mean I agree with it.

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

DOMA did at least concern federal benefits that states don’t naturally have the authority over, so it wasn’t clearly a 10th Amendment violation.

It defined marriage as between a man and woman, something you, Ferris and many other states rights conservatives have repeatedly said was up to the states to decide. If gay marriage is truly up to the states to decide, I don’t know how you could justify a federal law that defines marriage. I think I even brought up federal benefits to argue that the feds had to have some say over marriage, I forget the argument that you and/or Ferris used against me. If it weren’t so hard to search this site, I’d try to find the conversation.

In many areas I would defer to the states. I still think DOMA went too far and infringed on state authority. But I recognize the sincere argument, that you previously made, that a person can support state authority and also limited federal action without offending the 10th Amendment. Not all states’ rights people are absolutist (I’m not). The fact I can recognize a sincere argument doesn’t mean I agree with it.

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

https://deadspin.com/minnesota-uniteds-collin-martin-comes-out-as-gay-1827243688

Minnesota United midfielder Collin Martin became the only active openly gay man in American sports on Friday, coming out publicly with a message on Twitter and a very cool photo ahead of his team’s Pride Night game.

From the note:

“I have been out as a gay man for many years to my family and friends, and this includes my teammates. I have played Major League Soccer for 6 seasons: 4 seasons with DC United and 2 seasons with Minnesota United. Today, I’m proud that my entire team and the management of Minnesota United know that I am gay. I have received only kindness and acceptance from everyone in Major League Soccer and that has made the decision to come out publicly that much easier.”

While this is a cool story, he better hurry up if he wants to get married to another man.

Minnesota allowed gay marriage starting in 2013. I don’t see what would change that.

A Supreme Court, maybe.

State’s Rights Conservatives only give a shit about state’s rights when the state agrees with their position.

Youre painting with an awfully broad brush. I don’t know who said what to make you think that.

In the case of gay marriage, he is not far from the truth. How else do you explain the defense of marriage act? Anyone who truly cared about states rights and the 10th amendment would have to oppose the act. Yet was it or was it not supported by many conservatives?

Not all conservatives are “State’s Rights Conservatives,” which was the group Frink was talking about. There are conservatives who don’t care much about states’ rights, except when it leads to a conservative end, but then I wouldn’t call them “State’s Rights Conservatives” as Frink does.

DOMA did at least concern federal benefits that states don’t naturally have the authority over, so it wasn’t clearly a 10th Amendment violation. Of course, it was voted into law by most Democrats and signed by a Democratic president, so I don’t know it’s the finest example of what members of any faction truly believe.

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

https://deadspin.com/minnesota-uniteds-collin-martin-comes-out-as-gay-1827243688

Minnesota United midfielder Collin Martin became the only active openly gay man in American sports on Friday, coming out publicly with a message on Twitter and a very cool photo ahead of his team’s Pride Night game.

From the note:

“I have been out as a gay man for many years to my family and friends, and this includes my teammates. I have played Major League Soccer for 6 seasons: 4 seasons with DC United and 2 seasons with Minnesota United. Today, I’m proud that my entire team and the management of Minnesota United know that I am gay. I have received only kindness and acceptance from everyone in Major League Soccer and that has made the decision to come out publicly that much easier.”

While this is a cool story, he better hurry up if he wants to get married to another man.

Minnesota allowed gay marriage starting in 2013. I don’t see what would change that.

A Supreme Court, maybe.

State’s Rights Conservatives only give a shit about state’s rights when the state agrees with their position.

Youre painting with an awfully broad brush. I don’t know who said what to make you think that.