Morning Metro: Lots of CL Links, Sycamore Street, and Hunting NYC Movie Scenes
Decatur Metro | January 9, 2013
- Gay couples denied marriage licenses in Decatur [CL]
- Painting the logo at the Rec [Be Active Decatur]
- Sycamore Street: Decatur circa 1940 [Next Stop...Decatur]
- Cheap Eats: Seven Hens [CL]
- Beltline purchases key parcel to connect Eastside Trail to Old 4th Ward [CL]
- Movie scenes of the past in real life NYC [Atlantic Cities]
Photo courtesy of Be Active Decatur
Latest from Decaturish
Re: the Decatur marriage license article:
At least one CoD couple was in the group!
I know there were two Oakhurst couples. One from Virginia Highlands, one from Sandy Springs. I’m not sure where the fifth couple was from. Thanks for the support!
UH UH. No ma’am! At least add your Nelliebelle handle to the front of all that!!!
Just read through the comments on CL about the beltline purchase. Everyone is up in arms about the cost of the property. I don’t have the gumption to argue with the CL posters about this, but wouldn’t 3/4’s of an acre positioned among that park, the beltline, and the new ponce market, commercially zoned, be worth $1.35million? Am I missing something?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_capture
I checked out Seven Hens for the first time last night. Nice joint, good food. Wish they had a beer and wine license.
I thought that CL’s comment about the shopping center being “…a somewhat shabby collection of random shops and casual eateries” was a bit excessive. After all, Bicycle South, and Rainbow have been there for ages and Chocolate has had a long run. They may be random but they aren’t shabby. Cut Zoo, which has been there for at least 10 years, and the camera shop, which has been there forever, may appear shabby but are actually high quality. Haven’t noticed if the pawn shop is still there. That business may increase the shabbiness perception but I have to say it’s been there forever so it’s stable and I never hear of crime associated with it.
Ignore such characterizations. Several long-established businesses offering products & services valuable to locals and attracting people from beyond the immediate vicinity; relatively little turnover in the center as a whole; safe… Embrace the shabby.
Heh. The shabbiest place in that strip was the one Seven Hens replaced!
But you do have to admit that Mediterranean Grill is an unappetizing dump, whose shabby appearance is surpassed only by the awfulness of its food. And if I say that enough, maybe people will stop packing the place at noon and I can get my Business Lunch Combo in less than 30 minutes!
Aha! So it was you who took my parking space!
The camera shop hasn’t been there forever. It was a toy store decades ago-a wonderful magical place. The strip also had a five and dime and a grocery store. Suno was an ice cream shop.
I was surprised at the shabby description, especially from CL. I thought they, of all publications, would appreciate history and a little funk.
What wouldn’t I give for another toy shop in Decatur or Decatur fringe!
It would need to be organic only toys in order to cover the overhead costs.
The camera shop is most certainly still there.http://thecameradoctor.com/ It’s lovely.
That intersection may well be the hummus capital of DeKalb County.
Speaking of which, there’s a sign next to Revolution Doughnuts on College that Lawrence Cafe is taking the old Isabella’s spot.
Yay Lebanese food!
I didn’t mean to imply the camera store had closed. Just that that space was a toy store when I was a child. We rode our dinosaurs there.
When I was a child it was a dress store that my sister used to buy her Villager clothes from. Who else remembers Villager clothes?
I also remember that toy shop–I got Matchbox cars in little cardboard boxes. Ah memories…
I hate that pawn shop, but not because it negatively affects some aesthetic or anything like that. It’s because they always have a whole bunch of awesome music gear that I can’t afford. The prices are high for a pawn shop, too.
It’s an organic pawn shop.
I got my hair cut at Cut Zoo when I was in college so it’s been there at least 20 years!
That CL article about the gay couples being denied marriage licenses…even though I know Georgia doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages, it was still almost like a physical blow to see these people denied a basic civil liberty that the rest of us take for granted. This has to change!
Yup, my kids have been shocked when they find out that same sex marriage isn’t legal in Georgia. Tons of their friends and classmates have two Moms or two Dads. Maybe changing the terminology would help. Americans are prudish despite all our porn and sex trade–terms with the word “sex” in them frighten us. I find that even aged conservative relatives do ok with the idea of ‘two-Mom family” or “two-Dad family”. If heterosexual marriage is termed “traditional marriage” than perhaps same sex marriage should be called “cutting edge marriage”?
Nope. Marriage is marriage. Folks who feel the need to further define it can do so within their own circles, but the rest of us don’t need to join them in doing it.
What Deanne said.
The thing is, most gay couples I know have relationships that are very traditional. Each of my kids have friends with two moms, and, absent the gender roles, they are models of the stable nuclear family. Can’t say the same for all the hetero parents.
I have to admit it is kinda cool to see your friends make a stand like this, though! I would rather they didn’t have to, but still!
Not offended in the least by CL’s description of North Decatur Plaza as “shabby” (wish Decatur had done more to embrace the shabby–many of our worst probs represent ways in which we’re victims of our own success). But the other article (about denial of marriage licenses) tickled one of my pet peeves with its mention of the “inner faith prayer circle.” Is there any copy editing going on any more, anywhere, ever?
Edited or not, I don’t understand the term “inner faith prayer circle”. Too many adjectives, two of which are also nouns. I get the sense that there may be a group of people holding hands in a circle and praying. But I’m not sure if it’s their faith, the prayer, or the circle that’s “inner”.
If it read, “inter-faith prayer circle” would it make more sense to you? It would to me.
Or possibly “interfaith prayer circle.” I don’t know, I’m not a copy editor.
Oh, duh. Interfaith, not inner faith. Yup, copy editors needed. Now I have a clear picture of people from different faiths standing in a circle, praying. Not people circling around looking down at their bellybuttons so they can pray to their inner faith.
Maybe the writers at CL lost their editing app just like we did on DM. My posts have been littered with errors since the app disappeared. For some reason, my presbyopia does not allow me to see errors until they have been permanently affixed to the universe for all to see.
You know when the site went down for six hours on Friday? That was when I tried to revive the editing app. So don’t think I’ll be using that specific software again!
Big darn.
Here’s what has happened to the copy editors
http://www.theonion.com/articles/4-copy-editors-killed-in-ongoing-ap-style-chicago,30806/
+1
Great political theater at the DeKalb county clerks office. I have a feeling that this clip and others from around the state will go somewhat viral within the virtual world and became part of the “evolving definition” of marriage in Georgia that some judges rely on when changing a law that a huge majority of voters approved less than ten years ago. Maybe President Obama will plug “Cutting Edge Marriage” in his State of the Union message by saying, “Even in Georgia, there is a growing tsunami of support for marriage change, as shown in this video clip I would like to show you. Mr. Speaker, can you dim the lights and lower the screen so I can show my PowerPoint presentation?”
I would however like to nominate the clerk in the video for the “Most Professional Response To A Question 99.9% Of Georgians Already Know” Award. What a classy response!
So is it your opinion that the couples in this video–and the thousands of people they represent across our state–should continue to be denied certain rights and privileges on the basis of who they are?
Yes, Chris, the clerk was professional and gave the only response she legally could in a very respectful manner. So let’s get that out of the way because we can agree on that. As to the rest of your lamentation about “evolving definitions” and “a law that a huge majority of voters approved”, all I can say is that before June 12, 1967, that same clerk would have had to give those same answers to a black man and a white woman seeking that same marriage certificate. Some of us are thankful for evolving mores and the overturning of laws previously supported by a huge majority of the populace. I’m sorry that you would choose to deny basic civil rights to people simply because they were born differently than you and offend your traditional values and/or ideas of how “family” should be defined.
[Meh, go ahead and moderate me if needed DM. It's been a long day and it made me feel better to write that...]
It made me feel better to read it.
Me too!
Chris, I gotta tell ya, I truly admire the you I’ve met in real life, but this trollish stirring the pot habit you’ve fallen into is not only obnoxious, but it derails more discussions than it stimulates. Since that’s probably not your intent, please reconsider doing it. You could add a whole lot by just being yourself and sticking around for the exchanges.
My question for you: What would you suggest as an effective strategy for folks seeking to change the marriage law?
Thanks Deanne, especially the trool and obnoxious reference. Next time, I’ll do better.
Those who are interested in changing the definition of marriage, including Creative Loafing, the AJC and other media outlets, have done a pretty good job over the past eight years. They do not need my help.
Speaking of effective strategy, especially using the media, I need to start plugging my personal interests. It’s that time of the year to promote the Right to Life march in downtown Atlanta later this month. Hmmmmm, how can I manipulate Mr. DM Guy to feature an event that encourages the use of MARTA, walking, and the ultimate natural and civil right, which is life? Maybe impossible but thank God for FFAF!
One more thing Deanne. I started writing this response at 6:15. It’s now 7:35. I usually spend quite a lot of time editing my comments, and in the future, will be even more careful not to be troolish and obnoxious. Love, Your Friend, Chris.
I am glad we get to hear “the other side” to some of these issues. DM can devolve into an echo chamber sometimes, so it’s always good to hear another view point.
So, please keep posting Mr. Billingsley. It’s very enlightening, and not at all troolish (did you laugh to yourself when when you did that twice in one post?)
I value hearing contrasting perspectives. But I don’t find it particularly enlightening when someone simply indicates their position about something and then refuses to engage in any conversation about it.
Chris, I was too frank in saying it’s an obnoxious habit. I should’ve just said that it’s beneath you because it is. Real life Chris brings a needed inquiring voice to the goings on in Decatur, and on here you have the potential to hold your own while offering your views on tricky social topics. Done the right way, you’d be making a valuable contribution. Your referring to the AJC and CL makes me think your troolish (trollish + toolish?) commenting behavior is likely patterned after what you’ve seen on their sites. While CL, the AJC, (and right in there with them, the local Patchs) are apparently fine with the ugliness that plays out daily in their forums, it’s not what Decatur Metro is about. Your take on how to go about introducing topics isn’t cool either—in fact, when “how can I manipulate Mr. DM Guy” is even a thought in your head, well, that’s a sure sign you need to reassess things. What good do you do any beliefs or causes you hold dear if how you go about sharing about it with others makes it so that they’re not even willing to hear you out?… I often wonder how Teacher Chris would’ve handled a bright, but disruptive, student using the same antics to gain focus on his or her views. I always end up thinking you’d have managed to skillfully redirect the student into using more successful methods.
I like that the possibility for friendship exists. Here’s to hoping we can find a way to engage that suits us both.
(You’ll get a kick out of knowing I’ve told a couple of folks I think you’d make a good candidate for District 1 Commissioner– Real Life Chris, of course! :0)
This comes pretty close to the dictionary definition of “talking down to people.”
I sure didn’t intend for it to. Chris, if you took it the same way, I apologize.
Chris, I tend to disagree with almost every point you make, which is why I would be saddened if you stopped posting. The echo-chamber mentioned by Arriba doesn’t do anyone any good. We’ve all got unique perspectives, colored by our life experiences, that collectively add up to the Decatur we now know. Things should always be questioned, with the questioner recognizing that it’s the criticisms of value that ultimately get traction. Viva la difference!
My frustration with your posts historically has been that you seemed to post provocatively but then not engage with the discussion thereafter. Now that you’ve retired, it looks like you may have more time to get into it. I hope so, as I think DM will be stronger because of it.
I know Chris Billingsley in real life (and his sister), and even though I disagree with some of his views, I believe he is entitled to them. I also wish that we could discuss some of these matters with people like Mr. B. respectfully. I know very few people who are more hard working, committed, honest and principled than Mr. B.
(I find it awfully unfair that people are attacking him anonymously, but I’ve always felt that way about anonymous discussions. And the majority of folks here are against me on this one, just like the majority of folks used to be against integration. People are more respectful when they use their real names, I think.)
Nobody here has been disrespectful. Direct, yes — disrespectful, no.
I believe anyone is entitled to their views.
That doesn’t mean that we can disagree with them or call them out on their misguided views.
Obviously, 5 same-sex couples showing up and requesting a marriage license doesn’t demonstrate that a majority of Georgia voters favor allowing same-sex couple to marry. But that’s not the point. The point is to draw attention to the issue, and to *humanize* the issue by putting real-world faces to it. It’s one thing to defend “traditional marriage” and to oppose letting deviants change “the definition of marriage” in the abstract. It’s another to look at a particular couple that’s been together for 30 year and say “you two people shouldn’t be allowed to have the same inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, and everything else that goes along with marriage.” That’s one reason I think that there has been such a shift in attitudes towards same-sex marriage (and other issues regarding homosexuality) recently, as lots more people have come out of the closet. Now most of know people that we know are gay and lesbian, and this helps break down our fears and stereotypes. My kids see lots of same sex couples raising their friends at Oakhurst Elementary, and they can’t fathom why anybody would see anything wrong with that. I try to explain to them that so-and-so’s parents aren’t allowed to get married, and their reaction is “Huh? That doesn’t make any sense.”
I’ve always felt that the word “marriage” is screwing up the real issue. I tell people, “I don’t think the government should allow gay marriages. But I also don’t think they should allow straight marriages. I don’t think they should be in the marriage business at all.”
Government should be in the business of partnerships — authorizing them, certifying them, and managing them from a legal and regulatory standpoint. Any two people should be able to form a partnership — a union, if you will — and be afforded certain rights, such as the ones TOK mentions. Leave marriage — gay or straight — to religious institutions. If any of them want to sanctify your union, have at it.
I basically agree with this completely, and if I had my druthers I’d like to get the gov’t out of marriage too. But I don’t see that happening. The tack I usually take in order to get around the problems the word “marriage” raises is to distinguish firmly between “civil marriage”–a legally-recognized union that carries with it many legal responsibilities and rights in areas like inheritance, taxes, SS benefits, next-of-kin privileges like hospital visitation rights, etc.–and “religious marriage”–a union recognized and sanctified by some religious community or organization. Now if the Catholic Church wants to maintain that second marriages between people who divorced their previous spouses aren’t really marriages because of Jesus’ clear words about the matter in the Gospel (far clearer than anything about homosexuality in all of the Bible FWIW), and refuses to sanctify such unions, that’s their prerogative. Ditto for same-sex marriages and various churches that think it goes against God’s law. But the state shouldn’t base its parameters for civil marriage on these theological grounds.
Agree. There’s the legal contract of marriage with legal rights and obligations. Then there’s the religious ceremony, sacrament, convention, practice, institution of marriage that varies by religion, era, and country. But how to reduce the ambiguity? Rename the legal contract? How so? Personal partnership? Interpersonal contract? Personal union? Folks who confuse the two uses of the term “marriage” will object to a change in name but there were objections to the use of Ms., flight attendant vs. stewardess/steward, chairperson, stay at Mom vs. housewife, etc. and folks got over it.
I always thought it was funny that marriage outside of a religious setting is called a civil ceremony as though the other kind is not very civil and often accompanied by a shotgun!
Scott I tend to agree with you, but that argument does seem to play into the “gay marriage as a precursor to polygamy” counter-argument. If the law should recognize the union of any two people, why not any 3 or more? I’m not sure there is a great answer to that, if you accept the premise that unions between consenting adults should be recognized.
That said, I sometimes wonder if our homosexual friends know what they’re getting themselves into with marriage. For one thing, unmarried couples currently enjoy the benefit of not being taxed as a household. Depending on income, getting married can result in a very major tax increase.
“Depending on income, getting married can result in a very major tax increase.”
Only for the spouse who was making significantly less than the other. The IRS got rid of the “marriage penatly” a few years ago.
For one thing, unmarried couples currently enjoy the benefit of not being taxed as a household. Depending on income, getting married can result in a very major tax increase.
That might be true on a certain level for high income earning copules. However, not so true when it comes to other things. Take employer benefits for example. Unmarried partners get taxed on any benefits the get through their partners work whereas married couples do not. They don’t get Social Security benefits when a partner dies. Any inheritance, of course, is taxed as if they are strangers, when married couples inherit tax free. Not to mention the legal costs of setting any of these arrangements up, including adopting children, even if the child is one of their natural children. They have to pay lawyers to do medical powers of attorneys, give each other hospital visitation rights, wills, etc. All things that come automatically if legally married, but if not done, the law treats them as strangers.
I’m not sure I can agree. I don’t necessarily associate “marriage” with a religious meaning. I think of it more as a legal state or union as you have described. Religious ceremonies certainly can be part of the process by which some couples enter into marriage, but this need not be so. I do agree that churches should not be required to sanctify any particular unions, but that seems a separate issue from the question of legal marriage. I cannot see the value in parsing words to solve the issue. Then you just have awkward syntax: “We’re getting partnered!”
Exactly TOK, it is to “humanize” the issue.
In fact, I saw Sally at the YMCA today (this is in Buckhead.)
Once people get out of their box, and meet people who fit the description of “other” they usually are able to see through their prejudice.
Then again, I just heard that someone in my daughter’s grade is not allowed to go play over at someone else’s house because the first someone has divorced parents. WHAA? Time to clutch some pearls and keep our childrens safe from those “others” lest they think it’s OK to live your life differently from us.
So Billingsley still believes that church law should dictate civil law. I thought our Founding Fathers, weary and wary of the religious wars of their home countries, established a nice wall of separation. Perhaps he doesn’t appreciate our freedoms and Constitution as much as he believes he does.
There goes Big Government Billingsley once again. He believes in limited government only when it suits his politics. If not, then use the power and force of government to any extent necessary!
I don’t agree with Chris on this issue, but I do admire him for using his full name in his posts. That’s more than most of us can say (me included).
Uses his full name, but refuses to engage in discussion. If we all did the same, DM would quickly evaporate. (The forum, not the fellow.)
19 posts directed at Chris’s comment. He doesn’t need to engage in discussion. He lets his “students” do the talking. Not exactly what I would call evaporating but a clever teacher.
Ha ha…makes me laugh. A heterosexual (white) guy expounding on the virtues of what he considers “moral” and what the “others” in our society deserve and do not deserve. Seriously, is this a joke?. The last 3000 years could literally debunk most of that guys claims to morality. Where to start…capitalism, patriarchy, institutional hierarchy, violence & endless wars, rape, rabid environmental degradation (another form of rape), super-industrialization, etc. etc. etc.
Anyone truly interested in this (if you haven’t already) should read a little about the case headed to the Supreme Court. Just looking at a number like 600k in taxes, knowing it would be different for her, if her spouse were man just isn’t right, there’s no way to justify it. I don’t understand how anyone could look at this woman who was with her partner for 40 years, and tell her she’s unworthy of marriage in the eyes of the law.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/nyregion/edith-windsor-gay-widow-revels-in-supreme-court-fight.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
I always find it odd that heterosexuals against gay marriage care so much about it being allowed. How does it really impact them to fight so hard against it?
While the conversation is interesting, and mostly respectful, this issue is perhaps far too complex to be defended or attacked in a few words. It’s tempting to be swayed by emotion and even what seems logical. The Catholic Church has a very clear FAQ that explains its position at http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/promotion-and-defense-of-marriage/frequently-asked-questions-on-defense-of-marriage.cfm#m4.
The Baltimore Catechism has moved on since I last reviewed it in 1964.
Wow, this link made me more convinced, rather than less, that we cannot let religion decide what the legal contract of marriage should be. I found myself disagreeing with many of the assumptions and assertions in these “FAQs” even though I am a church goer. In fact the “sexual difference” argument is ironic given today’s Morning Metro article “Why we all begin our lives as females.” Using faqs/facts to argue matters of faith seems misguided. Likewise, using faith to argue legal matters is not a rational, constitutional approach.
If the Catholic Church believes that sexual activity between two people is for where it is impossible for the intimacy to produce “the gift of a child” is harmful and always wrong, then why focus just on same sex couples? Why not prohibit sex for married women who are too old to produce a child? How about prohibit sex by married men who are impotent? Why not prohibit sex for anyone who for a medical reason or age cannot produce a child? Why if they know they cant have children and still engage in sexual activity that is obviously harmful and wrong.
Why the Catholic Church makes so much sense on this issue, I think they ought to be in charge of making our laws on these issues.
The position of the Catholic Church certainly is clear, Patrick, but it also requires that you buy into its essentialist views on gender and its limited view of the purpose and meaning of human sexuality. I don’t share those views; nor do many others. The issue is complex, no doubt. However, on one hand you have individuals whose actual day-to-day lives are affected by their inability to marry their chosen spouse, and on the other you have individuals whose beliefs about marriage are offended by SSM, but whose actual lives are not impacted. I readily admit that I am a gay person who would like to marry my partner legally, so I come to this with considerable bias.