Lucky

From the New Republic, Yes We Can!: A Gay Supreme Court Justice? Politico notes that two of the people whose names are being tossed around as Supreme Court possibilities are lesbians: Kathleen Sullivan and Pam Karlan, both of Stanford Law School. (For more about Karlan, see this impassioned endorsement from Bill Stuntz, who has written some terrific pieces for TNR over the years.) Obviously, putting a lesbian on the court (or a gay man, for that matter, although none appear to be under consideration) would mark a wonderful step forward for the country. But is it politically possible? The obvious, first-glance answer is that it would be a political minefield. But the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that it would be eminently doable. And not only doable: It's even plausible to envision a scenario where it ends up helping Democrats by damaging conservatives. First, history suggests that the country is willing to accept Supreme Court nominees from minority groups even at a relatively early stage in their integration into American political life. When Louis Brandeis was nominated to the court in 1916, anti-semitism was still pervasive. When Thurgood Marshall was nominated in 1967, the country was still in the throes of the civil rights struggle. Yet both men were confirmed. More significantly, though, nominating a lesbian to the court would put conservatives in a politically awkward position. As the gay rights battle has come to center more and more on the specific question of marriage, conservatives have frequently insisted that they are not anti-gay, just opposed to gays getting married. Conservatives are attached to this distinction because they know that, without it, they end up looking like bigots. But if they decide to make an issue of a Supreme Court nominee's sexual orientation, they would effectively be conceding that this distinction was a lie. (After all, could there be any more baldly anti-gay political maneuver than bashing a Supreme Court nominee because of her sexual orientation?) Given that most Americans are no longer comfortable with transparent homophobia (while conservatives still have the majority on same-sex marriage, liberals enjoy majorities on various other gay-rights questions, such as workplace discrimination), it would be a risky move for conservatives to toss aside their cherished distinction between anti-gay sentiment and anti-gay-marriage sentiment. So maybe they would think twice about raising sexual orientation during a confirmation battle. And if they decided to do it anyway, it could become one of those defining moments where the American political center gets a glimpse at the fundamental ugliness undergirding a particular crusade--and turns decisively in the other direction. Of course, conservatives could try to have it both ways, and argue that they oppose a gay nominee because of gay marriage--that is, because it would bias the justice's vote should gay marriage ever come before the court. But this is a patently absurd argument--equivalent to maintaining that no women should serve on the court because it might bias their votes on abortion, or that no blacks should serve on the court because it might bias their votes on civil rights--and I think voters would be quick to dismiss it as thinly veiled bigotry. Wishful thinking? Maybe, maybe not. Of one thing I am confident: If it doesn't happen this time, it will happen soon enough. --Richard Just

More on Obama and gay rights- we got to go to the White House Easter Egg Hunt!!: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/us/polit...07obama.html?hp

Knowing that I am not as articulate as Adam Smith, I hope at least one of the kids is alright, as I have tickets to see Chris Pine live next month in the Geffen Playhouse production of Farragut North, also starring the old guy Chris Noth. I'll be in row 3, so I hope that the young actor is in fine shape up close and personal. Then I can say God intercourse! Jesus farting Christ! Top of penis still erupting!

[ I sure know you have posted much about other issues that have hurt other peoples feelings including mine. Yet its not as if I or others went on a rant about it. No, you just used a whole website to rant, oops, "speak" about it!

"Bodily decrepitude is wisdom; young We loved each other and were ignorant."

It's a place for the carefree lifestyle! www.medvillagewh.com

Change can happen fast! White House reiterates its commitment to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell by John Aravosis (DC) on 5/01/2009 06:12:00 PM It's been a disturbing 24 hours. But the White House has just updated its Web site to indicate that it continues to support the repeal of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. There was some concern that the Obama administration was backing off the President's repeated promise to lift the ban after the White House Web site yesterday changed its commitment to "repeal" DADT to a promise to only "change" the policy in a "sensible way." This led many observers, including the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, to worry whether the White House was backing off of its repeated commitment to, as President Obama himself promised, "fully repeal" the DADT policy. The White House Web site has now been updated, again, and the "repeal" language is back. And while it's couched in the same terms about being done in a "sensible way," I would assume that all administration policy is implemented in a "sensible way," so this should have no bearing on whether President Obama will keep his promise to fully repeal the ban.

Oz, this just isn't our night to agree. How about Adam Smith? He already won one contest this week...

"...the libido isn't always subject to the rational mind." That's exactly right. That's why we try to educate and sometimes the libido changes too. For example, if you said that you avoided anal sex with POZ guys, that would be one thing. It wouldn't be the same as saying that you avoided any sex with POZ guys. It's a given that anal sex is the primary means of transmitting the virus, so you'd be be thinking rationally. Some would take the risk of using condoms, and still having anal sex, others wouldn't.

Is Obama pulling a Bill Clinton and backing off on his promise to repeal the gays in the military policy? Ben Smith at Politico has caught a subtle shift in the language that they are using: Backing off 'Don't Ask' Aravosis has an interesting catch: The White House has subtly shifted from supporting repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' to backing "changing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security."

Well, I am glad that we could have a discussion on it. I'll take what I can get, but Oz's change doesn't help me much. The fact that someone is in the advances stages of AIDS doesn't make them any riskier as long as you play safe. A nice jack off could be fun for both. We do get to the point where someone's bad health makes them look unattractive. I can't say what you should do then, because attraction is an individual thing and completely different from the subject at hand.

MsGuy, the nice thing here is that we don't have to rewrite Oz's words. This is what he said: If, for any reason, you get a vibe that the dude “looks poz†it's a good idea to cancel the date as politely as possible." I hope he has a nice time at the AIDS Ride and makes many new friends.

Our fearless leader, Totally Oz, makes what I think to be one of the stupidest comments ever made on a message board. Here it is: "We've all had friends with HIV and, in general, we know what they've looked like at different stages in their medication. If, for any reason, you get a vibe that the dude “looks poz†it's a good idea to cancel the date as politely as possible." Oz speaks of having friends with HIV in the past tense and it's easy to see why. He wants you to avoid them- and not just that, people who "look" POZ too! With an attitude like that, his HIV friends have surely dropped him from their Rolodex. The simple fact is that you can't assume someone's status by looking at them, and, even if you think someone is POZ, that's no reason to run away, however politely Oz has you do it. You can safely have sex with someone who is POZ and live to tell about it. It's just a matter of using that AIDS education you have been receiving for the last 20 years. The virus is hard to transmit, and we know how to avoid it. A little common sense, that same sense you should be using with ALL of your tricks, will keep you healthy and happy for years to come. The only people you have to politely run away from are people giving you ignorant advice. Oz can do all of the AIDS bike rides in the world, but they won't do nearly as good as he could have done by providing accurate information. I sure hope he doesn't come into contact with someone with AIDS at the bike ride- they'll have no idea what he is telling his friends about them!

How about a separate room for threads that do nothing but promote a night club or a Brandon Baker event? I mean, really, if our political discussions belong in the "crapper"...why should I have to wade through threads that are advertisements for events I won't be (hint) attending?

I agree.

Townsend has it right. thanks, lurkerspeaks, for organizing the nice weekend.

Here's hoping for a great weekend, and thanks to LurkerSpeaks for his effort in putting it together.

Thaksin sure looks like a traitor to me: Thaksin urges for more protesters By: BangkokPost.com Published: 12/04/2009 at 09:18 PM Former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra made a phone-in speech to the red-shirt United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) protesters outside Government House on Sunday night, calling on his supporters to gather and fight against the government. The deposed prime minister said he will return to lead his supporters, if a coup takes place. This would be the time for people to come out and revolt after the army brought tanks into the city, he said. Thaksin said that should he come back, the Democrat party will join forces with a 'dictatorship' and hurt people. He asked people to stay strong and fight for democracy for their children. "I will monitor the situation closely. Anytime the army uses force, I will return if necessary and I will not let influential figures pressure the people," said Thaksin. The self-exiled premier said he planned to make phone-ins throughout the night.

Beg to differ there, Oz. The Nation is much more intelligently done than the Post, which caters to a broader market. Nonetheless, there is no harm in checking out both when looking for the news.

I am having a very hard time understanding the "no political discussions" rule. Isn't this entire thread a political discussion? BTW, Conway, the D.L. Hughley show has been canceled on CNN.

For more info on his schedule, and a cute pic, check here: http://gawker.com/5194272/james-francos-war-on-sleep

I got fucked by a soldier once, so I should think that imbued me with some knowledge on the subject. Talk about standing at attention! Did I mention that he was a drill sergeant?

You can watch Ashton squirm here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/27/a...c_n_180074.html

So I am not logged in, yet the counter says that Lucky is online, and I can post. But, if I go to the home page to look at pics, I can't enlarge them since I am not logged on. Is this some Catch-22 I am unaware of?

With Oz in LA for a month, I keep waiting to get invited to the MERville Lunch or something, but so far, I haven't been invited. Has anyone else met the great one as he resides in tinseltown?