I used to disdain the whole marriage push. I felt that it was needless emulation of Straight Practices, and I had no use for the Religious aspect.

Then I became more aware of the Power of Attorney, Survivor, and Tax Advantages of the Institution of Marriage.

I still feel strongly that bonding either is, or it isn't. Or, as I like to put it, "Either you're going to be together, or you're not." The other stuff should be a matter of choice. However, when Official Recognitions of Pre-Existing a Condition (like a bonded, committed relationship) are written into the Federal Tax Code, I want my piece of the .gov largess.

It seems there are still some serious legal arguments to be put before the judges. Here's the Idaho governor's appeal, three months after the same sex marriage ban was struck down in his state and hundreds of same sex couples have already married there:
[URL]http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/01/03/us-idaho-governor-appeals-for-new-ban-to-stop-same-sex-weddings/[/URL]
[QUOTE]His attorney wrote in a court petition that same-sex marriage harms children, leading to an “increased risk of crime, emotional and psychological difficulties, poor performance in school and other ills”.[/QUOTE]

In other words, he said that same-sex marriage is the root of all evil.

Since this prejudice is invariably religion-based, this proves what I
think - the root of all evil is irrational religion.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;391545]It seems there are still some serious legal arguments to be put before the judges. Here's the Idaho governor's appeal, three months after the same sex marriage ban was struck down in his state and hundreds of same sex couples have already married there:
[URL]http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/01/03/us-idaho-governor-appeals-for-new-ban-to-stop-same-sex-weddings/[/URL][/QUOTE]

So they are still trotting out the same tired, bogus threats, while "fiscally conservatively" spending big bucks to express futile bigotry.

[QUOTE=kladner;391556]So they are still trotting out the same tired, bogus threats, while "fiscally conservatively" spending big bucks to express futile bigotry.[/QUOTE]
Yes, "futile bigotry" seems a pretty accurate description as far as I can see. The arguments being put forward are not rational. I defy anyone to come up with evidence that same sex marriage "increases crime", or even to suggest any hypothetical mechanism whereby it possibly could (but hey, someone please show me what I'm missing, I'm fascinated to know).

Perhaps the governor of Idaho is suffering from the [URL="http://skepdic.com/sunkcost.html"]Concorde fallacy[/URL]. He's already invested half a million dollars in legal fees to fight his hopeless cause, and he just can't accept that this was money thrown down the drain.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;391591]Yes, "futile bigotry" seems a pretty accurate description as far as I can see. The arguments being put forward are not rational. I defy anyone to come up with evidence that same sex marriage "increases crime", or even to suggest any hypothetical mechanism whereby it possibly could (but hey, someone please show me what I'm missing, I'm fascinated to know).

Perhaps the governor of Idaho is suffering from the [URL="http://skepdic.com/sunkcost.html"]Concorde fallacy[/URL]. He's already invested half a million dollars in legal fees to fight his hopeless cause, and he just can't accept that this was money thrown down the drain.[/QUOTE]

They grow a lot of potatoes in Idaho.

[QUOTE=davar55;391608]They grow a lot of potatoes in Idaho.[/QUOTE]

As in, "Potato Heads?" :devil:

[QUOTE=Brian-E;391591]I defy anyone to come up with evidence that same sex marriage "increases crime", or even to suggest any hypothetical mechanism whereby it possibly could (but hey, someone please show me what I'm missing, I'm fascinated to know).[/QUOTE]We are playing as a devil's advocate here.

Perhaps there could be an increase in hate crime? Without legal protections that crime wouldn't exist? (Or it would be classified differently?)

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;391636]We are playing as a devil's advocate here.

Perhaps there could be an increase in hate crime? Without legal protections that crime wouldn't exist? (Or it would be classified differently?)[/QUOTE]

Well, hate crimes might increase at first. But after all those haters are jailed, it should diminish.

Gay banner removed from Pride DVD cover in US
 

[QUOTE]
CBS Films has said it will look into why references to homosexuality were removed from the DVD cover of the US release of British film Pride. The film, about a group of gay and lesbian activists who supported striking miners in the 1980s, was released in the UK last year.
[/QUOTE]Press article: [URL]http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-30679455[/URL]

This is not the first time - consider, for example, the following poster for the movie based on Christopher Isherwood's novel "A Single Man":
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Single_Man#mediaviewer/File:A_Single_Man.jpg[/URL]

[QUOTE=Nick;391727]Press article: [URL]http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-30679455[/URL]

This is not the first time - consider, for example, the following poster for the movie based on Christopher Isherwood's novel "A Single Man":
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Single_Man#mediaviewer/File:A_Single_Man.jpg[/URL][/QUOTE]
Yes, both these examples show references to gay people and LGBT issues erased from promotions when these issues played the central role and were in fact the "whole point" of the films. I suppose I can see one positive aspect of this blatant sidelining: people who would have been immediately "turned off" by references to same gender love and would not have seen the films in question if it had been made clear to them beforehand that this was what they were about, would now be conned into seeing the films after all and possibly be made to think about issues which they have blocked out of their consciousness (if they did't walk out of the film showing in disgust, that is). While I don't for one moment suspect that this was the motivation behind the censorship in the promotion, it could be an unintended positive side effect.

Homosexuality is not, of course, the only issue to be sidelined by the likes of Hollywood and other big film producers. An example I remember is the film [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mask_%28film%29"]Mask[/URL] from 1985. It's a moving story about a boy who suffers from a disorder which deforms his skull, and how his appearance detrimentally affects the way other people treat him despite the fact that he is a warm, intelligent human being. The actor who plays the boy stars in this film, and Cher, who plays his mother, co-stars. However, the boy's image did not appear on the promotional material. The Wikipedia link shows a release poster whose image is unclear but which I think depicts only Cher, and another one which I saw when I watched the film depicts Cher with another very minor actor in the film who plays her love interest but is otherwise totally inconsequential. Obviously the film's promoter felt that the starring character's image, a boy with the face-deforming "lionitis" condition, would put people off going to see the film.