Duck Dynasty

[maconmagnolia]

I also have a question for his supporters - What if Phil had made derogatory statements against Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Jews, Catholics, or Muslims? Would they still be so quick to defend him? How is this so different? I mean, after all, nobody chooses their sexual orientation anymore than they choose their race..

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I've been saying this for years

If nothing else, gay couples splitting maybe have an arguable argument that their partnership is a legal partnership and they are due the protection of the courts, but I haven't had the opportunity to try that yet. I'm sure our civil judges would love me bringing essentially a divorce case to them though. Hope I get that opportunity before we just get 'em divorced like everyone else.

FWIW, one of our gay friends recently divorced. He said that he obtained it legally, but I have no details to the legal aspect. Since he and his partner were married for 14 years, I would assume it was more of a partnership and the dissolving of the same. Was same sex marriage legal anywhere in the US 14 years ago?

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by maconmagnolia

I also have a question for his supporters - What if Phil had made derogatory statements against Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Jews, Catholics, or Muslims? Would they still be so quick to defend him? How is this so different? I mean, after all, nobody chooses their sexual orientation anymore than they choose their race..

I don't think so because of three big reasons.
- a lot of people still think that homosexuality is a choice.
- People can and still excuse their homophobia as "religious beliefs".
- We have LAWS in place that actively discriminate against gays.

Unfortunately the LGBT community is one of the few remaining minority groups that its culturally acceptable to discriminate against.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by honeychile

FWIW, one of our gay friends recently divorced. He said that he obtained it legally, but I have no details to the legal aspect. Since he and his partner were married for 14 years, I would assume it was more of a partnership and the dissolving of the same. Was same sex marriage legal anywhere in the US 14 years ago?

Hawaii? I think the HI Supreme Court ruled to allow same sex marriage in the early 90's causing DOMA to get passed in the mid 90's.

[candygirl200413]

Originally Posted by maconmagnolia

I also have a question for his supporters - What if Phil had made derogatory statements against Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Jews, Catholics, or Muslims? Would they still be so quick to defend him? How is this so different? I mean, after all, nobody chooses their sexual orientation anymore than they choose their race..

well he did mention blacks in that statement along with gays, but majority of people just haven't really focused on that

[DrPhil]

Sidebar: It takes more than "celebrity" to warrant your stupidity and firing being announced to the public.

http://news.msn.com/world/pr-exec-lo...ost-about-aids

And the world hasn't paused for any of these incidents. Other important topics and social issues have not been lost. Just like social issues didn't cease in existence or importance just because time was taken to laugh at Miley Cyrus' lack of rhythm.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Hawaii? I think the HI Supreme Court ruled to allow same sex marriage in the early 90's causing DOMA to get passed in the mid 90's.

Actually IIRC correctly, DOMA was passed because the federal government was afraid that the Hawaiian legistalture was going to approve marriage equality which ended up happening only recently.

[KDCat]

Originally Posted by honeychile

FWIW, one of our gay friends recently divorced. He said that he obtained it legally, but I have no details to the legal aspect. Since he and his partner were married for 14 years, I would assume it was more of a partnership and the dissolving of the same. Was same sex marriage legal anywhere in the US 14 years ago?

No, but people could cobble together agreements and trusts and living wills to create some of the rights of marriage, and they could own property together, and they could have ceremonies. They just couldn't get a license and get the benefit of family law and family law courts, or have their marriages recognized by entities outside of their families.

MA was first in 2004.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Actually IIRC correctly, DOMA was passed because the federal government was afraid that the Hawaiian legistalture was going to approve marriage equality which ended up happening only recently.

I think it was more fear that the Hawaii Supreme Court would do so. The state Supreme Court had held that prohibition of same-sex marriage violated the equal protection clause of the state constitution and therefore could only survive if the state could pass the "strict scrutiny" standard by showing that the prohibition was narrowly tailored to further a compelling state interest. The court sent it back to the trial court for further proceedings as to that standard. That (1) fueled the DOMA engine, and (2) led to a state constitutional amendment in Hawaii that explicitly gave the legislature the authority to ban same-sex marriage, which mooted the lawsuit.

[DrPhil]

1. Phil responds: http://t.entertainment.msn.com/duck-...ersial-remarks

This isn't Sensitivity Training and most people aren't trying to change his mind about homosexuality. I would like for him to learn about the history of Black labor to make his Louisiana Tech degree proud. That aside, his viewpoints are his viewpoints. He isn't being discriminated or oppressed based on his viewpoints. He is in the power majority. He isn't a member of an oppressed, marginalized, and discriminated against group.

Here is his checklist:

a. Christian CHECK
b. White CHECK
c. Man CHECK
d. Heterosexual and heteromasculinity CHECK
e. Working poor/class CHECK FOR WHITES
f. American Dream of success through hard work CHECK
g. "Protestant Ethic" and ability to compare success to
Jesus turning water into wine CHECK
h. Ability to grow long beards and dress and speak a certain way because your white privilege is recognizable and rewarded regardless CHECK

2. Cracker Barrel took Duck Dynasty stuff off the shelf and that upset customers. They put the stuff back on the shelf. I respect CB attempting to respond to this but they learned what they probably already knew. The CB customers (in general) fit a particular demographic that is more similar to that of Duck Dynasty and that includes cultural identifiers like socioeconomic status (both before and after the DD family became rich) and conservative religious viewpoints.

As an aside, I hate CB food and cringe when people want me to eat there. The food has always tasted nasty to me. I avoid CB like the plague.

[DrPhil]

Overall lackluster but he's back on the show:

http://t.entertainment.msn.com/duck-...phil-robertson

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Overall lackluster but he's back on the show:

http://t.entertainment.msn.com/duck-...phil-robertson

It amazes me how people are already cheering about his return. Imagine what would happen if people cheered about things that actually matter...

[AOIILisa]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

That aside, his viewpoints are his viewpoints. He isn't being discriminated or oppressed based on his viewpoints. He is in the power majority. He isn't a member of an oppressed, marginalized, and discriminated against group.

Here is his checklist:

a. Christian CHECK
b. White CHECK
c. Man CHECK
d. Heterosexual and heteromasculinity CHECK
e. Working poor/class CHECK FOR WHITES
f. American Dream of success through hard work CHECK
g. "Protestant Ethic" and ability to compare success to
Jesus turning water into wine CHECK
h. Ability to grow long beards and dress and speak a certain way because your white privilege is recognizable and rewarded regardless CHECK

I want to like this checklist about a million times, it really does say it all. My Facebook friends list includes a bunch of rednecks from upstate; I like them a lot, but their uneducated/ignorant/uninformed posts about this guy are getting old. Not to mention their lack of knowledge about what the First Amendment actually says.

[ThetaPrincess24]

Originally Posted by AOIILisa

I want to like this checklist about a million times, it really does say it all. My Facebook friends list includes a bunch of rednecks from upstate; I like them a lot, but their uneducated/ignorant/uninformed posts about this guy are getting old. Not to mention their lack of knowledge about what the First Amendment actually says.

DD kerfuffle aside, a lot of people need to go and re-read and study the 1st Amendment. A LOT of people...and the rest of the Bill of the Rights including lawmakers.

[DrPhil]

Phil Robertson is sexist, homophobic, and overall ignorant. I wish this was all a hoax but here is his stupidity from 2009:

http://t.entertainment.msn.com/phil-...6-1?toc=celebs