If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wisconsin Gazette)   Bush-appointed judge rules federal ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional   (wisconsingazette.com) divider line 209
    More: Cool, U.S. District, Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, DOMA, United States federal judge, same-sex marriages, U.S. Supreme Court, same-sex couples  
•       •       •

4453 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Aug 2012 at 5:16 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



209 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-01 12:16:28 AM  
The reaction of the religious right when DOMA gets struck down my the SCOTUS is going to be schadenfreuderiffic.
 
2012-08-01 12:19:07 AM  

MacEnvy: The reaction of the religious right when DOMA gets struck down my the SCOTUS is going to be schadenfreuderiffic.


They will all be crying into their Chick-fil-A, as that is going to be the only restaurant where they would be welcome at that point in time.
 
2012-08-01 12:43:12 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: MacEnvy: The reaction of the religious right when DOMA gets struck down my the SCOTUS is going to be schadenfreuderiffic.

They will all be crying into their Chick-fil-A, as that is going to be the only restaurant where they would be welcome at that point in time.


I'll believe it when I see it. This is the same Court that has been looking and begging for a challenge to Roe v. Wade, after all. And striking down DOMA will only result in another, more carefully worded, law to be passed that will pass judicial review.
 
2012-08-01 12:53:53 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: cameroncrazy1984: MacEnvy: The reaction of the religious right when DOMA gets struck down my the SCOTUS is going to be schadenfreuderiffic.

They will all be crying into their Chick-fil-A, as that is going to be the only restaurant where they would be welcome at that point in time.

I'll believe it when I see it. This is the same Court that has been looking and begging for a challenge to Roe v. Wade, after all. And striking down DOMA will only result in another, more carefully worded, law to be passed that will pass judicial review.


Fair point, but I don't see how any subsequent law could be worded to pass muster. Separate but Not Equal was already tried once, and Brown v. Board buried that 20 feet deep. No matter how one tries to slice it legislatively, any DOMA like law is (imo) trying to do the same thing as Plessy, and that cannot withstand any judicial scrutiny.
 
2012-08-01 12:56:56 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Benevolent Misanthrope: cameroncrazy1984: MacEnvy: The reaction of the religious right when DOMA gets struck down my the SCOTUS is going to be schadenfreuderiffic.

They will all be crying into their Chick-fil-A, as that is going to be the only restaurant where they would be welcome at that point in time.

I'll believe it when I see it. This is the same Court that has been looking and begging for a challenge to Roe v. Wade, after all. And striking down DOMA will only result in another, more carefully worded, law to be passed that will pass judicial review.

Fair point, but I don't see how any subsequent law could be worded to pass muster. Separate but Not Equal was already tried once, and Brown v. Board buried that 20 feet deep. No matter how one tries to slice it legislatively, any DOMA like law is (imo) trying to do the same thing as Plessy, and that cannot withstand any judicial scrutiny.


You're implying that there is a rational SCOTUS that won't craft case law to their arguments or just make shiat up. Sadly, the SCOTUS we have isn't like that
 
2012-08-01 01:04:11 AM  
Woooooot. Considering how we're not going to get any federal legislation on gay marriage -- which is the correct thing to do considering state's rights yada yada -- I'll take this as a small victory.
 
2012-08-01 01:04:13 AM  

Aar1012: You're implying that there is a rational SCOTUS that won't craft case law to their arguments or just make shiat up. Sadly, the SCOTUS we have isn't like that


A couple bad jurists on the SCOTUS doesn't make them all political flunkies.
 
2012-08-01 01:05:11 AM  
i.imgur.com

They look like a nice couple. Good on 'em. DOMA was always headed up to the SCOTUS. Interesting that the court found an issue with the 5th Amendment Due Process.
 
2012-08-01 01:07:48 AM  
b-b-b-b-but...bible...
 
2012-08-01 01:07:57 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: No matter how one tries to slice it legislatively, any DOMA like law is (imo) trying to do the same thing as Plessy, and that cannot withstand any judicial scrutiny.


Depends on whether the Court sees a fundamental right at stake, whether the strict scrutiny/compelling state interest comes into play, I think.
 
2012-08-01 01:08:26 AM  

Aar1012: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Benevolent Misanthrope: cameroncrazy1984: MacEnvy: The reaction of the religious right when DOMA gets struck down my the SCOTUS is going to be schadenfreuderiffic.

They will all be crying into their Chick-fil-A, as that is going to be the only restaurant where they would be welcome at that point in time.

I'll believe it when I see it. This is the same Court that has been looking and begging for a challenge to Roe v. Wade, after all. And striking down DOMA will only result in another, more carefully worded, law to be passed that will pass judicial review.

Fair point, but I don't see how any subsequent law could be worded to pass muster. Separate but Not Equal was already tried once, and Brown v. Board buried that 20 feet deep. No matter how one tries to slice it legislatively, any DOMA like law is (imo) trying to do the same thing as Plessy, and that cannot withstand any judicial scrutiny.

You're implying that there is a rational SCOTUS that won't craft case law to their arguments or just make shiat up. Sadly, the SCOTUS we have isn't like that


They have 4 votes before the case gets there. Roberts ain't gonna be on the right side of this one. And Kennedy seems to be trending the wrong way these days.
 
2012-08-01 01:11:27 AM  
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-08-01 01:18:42 AM  

Aar1012: You're implying that there is a rational SCOTUS that won't craft case law to their arguments or just make shiat up. Sadly, the SCOTUS we have isn't like that


I can totally imagine Scalia's dissenting opinion coming down to "because it's gross".
 
2012-08-01 01:20:47 AM  

Somacandra: Grand_Moff_Joseph: No matter how one tries to slice it legislatively, any DOMA like law is (imo) trying to do the same thing as Plessy, and that cannot withstand any judicial scrutiny.

Depends on whether the Court sees a fundamental right at stake, whether the strict scrutiny/compelling state interest comes into play, I think.


No one has yet defined an even slightly compelling state interest in denying homosexuals the right to marry.
 
2012-08-01 01:40:49 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: And striking down DOMA will only result in another, more carefully worded, law to be passed that will pass judicial review.


you assume such a thing could ever get out of Congress and even if it did, that the President would sign it. If the president is the same as the current one, that would never happen.

Three Crooked Squirrels: Roberts ain't gonna be on the right side of this one.


Roberts did pro bono work for gay rights cases in the past. On the side of gay rights. Yes, yes there's his comment about how a lawyer doesn't necessarily agree with a case he takes, but if you believe that for federal appellate cases, I've got a nice bridge you might be interested in.
 
2012-08-01 01:40:58 AM  

themindiswatching: Aar1012: You're implying that there is a rational SCOTUS that won't craft case law to their arguments or just make shiat up. Sadly, the SCOTUS we have isn't like that

I can totally imagine Scalia's dissenting opinion coming down to "because it's gross".


Except in certain cases (Ex Parte Hot Lesbians)
 
2012-08-01 01:47:21 AM  

Somacandra: Grand_Moff_Joseph: No matter how one tries to slice it legislatively, any DOMA like law is (imo) trying to do the same thing as Plessy, and that cannot withstand any judicial scrutiny.

Depends on whether the Court sees a fundamental right at stake, whether the strict scrutiny/compelling state interest comes into play, I think.


In that scenario, denying gays access to a public service (state marriage) is a denial of a fundamental right that is afforded to all others...much the same way that Plessy denied public services of equal value to blacks.

Just my .02...I'm no lawyer. :)
 
2012-08-01 01:50:50 AM  

WhyteRaven74: Benevolent Misanthrope: And striking down DOMA will only result in another, more carefully worded, law to be passed that will pass judicial review.

you assume such a thing could ever get out of Congress and even if it did, that the President would sign it. If the president is the same as the current one, that would never happen.


It can get out of Congress, and Obama will not be president forever. I hope against hope, but I've seen too much hate and too much lip service (DADT, anyone?) and too much betrayal of the gay rights cause by supposed allies to get too excited about it.
 
2012-08-01 02:46:33 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: too much betrayal of the gay rights cause by supposed allies to get too excited about it.


Considering gay marriage is now a part of the Democratic platform, those days are on their way out.
 
2012-08-01 02:49:59 AM  

WhyteRaven74: Benevolent Misanthrope: too much betrayal of the gay rights cause by supposed allies to get too excited about it.

Considering gay marriage is now a part of the Democratic platform, those days are on their way out.


I hope so. Truly. But I've seen too much to get elated just yet.
 
2012-08-01 02:58:05 AM  
This is a wonderful step forward. I'm hoping that it continues forward. I know the Religious Right is having a fit of apoplexy.
 
2012-08-01 03:50:41 AM  

WhyteRaven74:
Roberts did pro bono work for gay rights cases in the past. On the side of gay rights. Yes, yes there's his comment about how a lawyer doesn't necessarily agree with a case he takes, but if you believe that for federal appellate cases, I've got a nice bridge you might be interested in.


Not to mention the fact that Roberts is clearly concerned with his place in history and he knows just as well as anybody that one way or another America is going to have marriage equality sooner rather than later. There's no way that somebody who is concerned with his legacy is going to put himself in the history books as the chief justice who took the wrong side on the great civil rights issue of his era.
 
2012-08-01 03:53:59 AM  
You know the Hou

Benevolent Misanthrope: WhyteRaven74: Benevolent Misanthrope: too much betrayal of the gay rights cause by supposed allies to get too excited about it.

Considering gay marriage is now a part of the Democratic platform, those days are on their way out.

I hope so. Truly. But I've seen too much to get elated just yet.


You know the House just passed a bill to ban same-sex marriages on military bases (because jobs!), and only 17 Democrats voted in favor, right?

The Vice-President has come out in favor of gay marriage, the President has come out in favor of it, and it's now formally a part of the Democratic party platform. Sure, I'm a little skeptical too, but there's certainly enough momentum to start feeling a little elated...
 
2012-08-01 03:57:01 AM  

MacEnvy: The reaction of the religious right when DOMA gets struck down my the SCOTUS is going to be schadenfreuderiffic.


Yes it will be. The problem is that the social conservatives think it's only liberals when in reality it's people that think it's none of the government's damn business if 2 consenting adults choose to marry.
 
2012-08-01 03:58:21 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels:
They have 4 votes before the case gets there. Roberts ain't gonna be on the right side of this one. And Kennedy seems to be trending the wrong way these days.


Kennedy voting with the conservatives on healthcare isn't going to erase the fact that he's ruled the right way on every major gay rights case--even to the point of stretching rational basis scrutiny to the limit in Romer in order to come up with the right decision. He's not going to suddenly go against precedent when all of the precedent that he himself wrote all points to finding in favor of marriage equality.
 
2012-08-01 05:22:29 AM  
Unconstitutional due to the 5th amendment.. well, Duh! That's always been true.
 
2012-08-01 05:22:45 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: Roberts ain't gonna be on the right side of this one


Don't be so sure about that.

If his vote ends up overturning DOMA, I want to see the freeper shiatstorm that ensues.
 
2012-08-01 05:24:33 AM  
The Federal ban on marriage for gay Americans *is* unconstitutional.

Still it's nice to see a Bush appointed Judge to come to that determination

/More perfect union is more perfect.
 
2012-08-01 05:31:33 AM  
You swore on the Bible to defend and uphold the Constitution, not the other way around.
 
2012-08-01 05:53:44 AM  

Hideously Gigantic Smurf: You swore on the Bible to defend and uphold the Constitution, not the other way around.


Now THAT'LL make those tea-party type heads asplode.

If they're capable of that level of logical thinking.
 
2012-08-01 05:54:09 AM  

Somacandra: They look like a
nice couple.


Too bad the one on the left was rousted out of bed only minutes before the picture and didn't have time to fix her bedhead.
 
2012-08-01 05:55:00 AM  
So next, the SCOTUS will rule along party lines that not letting teh gheys marry is constitutional, and it will be common law for generations?
 
2012-08-01 06:38:29 AM  

LiberalWeenie: So next, the SCOTUS will rule along party lines that not letting teh gheys marry is constitutional, and it will be common law for generations?


Yep... Just like the SC ruled along party lines that the ACA was unconstitutional. Oh, wait...
 
2012-08-01 06:51:21 AM  

keylock71: LiberalWeenie: So next, the SCOTUS will rule along party lines that not letting teh gheys marry is constitutional, and it will be common law for generations?

Yep... Just like the SC ruled along party lines that the ACA was unconstitutional. Oh, wait...


images2.dailykos.com

The insurance companies would have been furious if the mandate had been overturned. What corporation wouldn't want their product to be subsidized by the government and legally required?

It props up their unsustainable system indefinitely. Without it, we'd be forced into single payer or a public option much, much sooner.

Republicans effectively wrote the bill by A) adding hundreds of amendments (then complaining about its length), and B) Filibustering anything that wasn't exactly what they wanted.
 
2012-08-01 06:51:44 AM  
The constitution is a document that lays out how government functions, not how marriages work.
In the bill of rights it says we have the freedom to associate. Lets assume that if I can pick my crowd, I can pick my lover.

If the fed cant control it and the state can't ban it, its probably legal.

This is the kind of mess that happens when you mix up your church and state. Now that we're in the business of handing out benefits to married people, it seems unfair to try and break up relationships or claim that not all marriages are created equal.
 
2012-08-01 06:58:27 AM  

LiberalWeenie: keylock71: LiberalWeenie: So next, the SCOTUS will rule along party lines that not letting teh gheys marry is constitutional, and it will be common law for generations?

Yep... Just like the SC ruled along party lines that the ACA was unconstitutional. Oh, wait...



The insurance companies would have been furious if the mandate had been overturned. What corporation wouldn't want their product to be subsidized by the government and legally required?

It props up their unsustainable system indefinitely. Without it, we'd be forced into single payer or a public option much, much sooner.

Republicans effectively wrote the bill by A) adding hundreds of amendments (then complaining about its length), and B) Filibustering anything that wasn't exactly what they wanted.


Got a citation on last paragraph?

Not for me, for a friend I been discussing gop obstructionism with.

/thnk

//would love to see the original submission
 
2012-08-01 07:06:57 AM  

LiberalWeenie: It props up their unsustainable system indefinitely. Without it, we'd be forced into single payer or a public option much, much sooner.


I agree with you for the most part, but the fact is you can't accurately predict how the SC will rule based on their real or imagined party affiliations. The ACA ruling is a prime example of that.

"Single Payer" was a non-starter on both sides of the aisle in Congress. Sure, that may change, but the ACA was probably the best option we were going to get as far as health care reform at the present time.

As a MA resident who has his family's insurance through the MA Health Connector, I'm quite happy with the system we have here in MA. Yeah, I also think "Single payer" would be a better option, but when it comes to large,diverse democratic republics, one has to be pragmatic.
 
2012-08-01 07:08:56 AM  
When gay marriage is outlawed, only outlaws will be gay.

//Wait.....
 
2012-08-01 07:10:01 AM  
5th Amendment? Sounds like it would also be unconstitutional due the the 1st Amendment as well since the only argument against same-sex marriage is a religious one.
 
2012-08-01 07:15:15 AM  
The *fifth*?

i34.photobucket.com

How does that work? I need to read up on my amendments. :-/

/would've expected the 14th
//didn't expect the 5th
///much like the spanish inquisition
 
2012-08-01 07:16:47 AM  

dennysgod: 5th Amendment? Sounds like it would also be unconstitutional due the the 1st Amendment as well since the only argument against same-sex marriage is a religious one.


Yup. Because some denominations are OK with it, and are forbidden by DOMA.
 
2012-08-01 07:19:08 AM  
just let the gays marry. they need some perks for being gay. its only fair
 
2012-08-01 07:22:28 AM  
FTFA: Section 3 of the law violates the 5th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection, ruled Bryant, in that it "obligates the federal government to single out a certain category of marriages as excluded from federal recognition, thereby resulting in an inconsistent distribution of federal marital benefits."

Uhm....that's the 14th, isn't it?

Aar1012: You're implying that there is a rational SCOTUS that won't craft case law to their arguments or just make shiat up. Sadly, the SCOTUS we have isn't like that


This is the same SCOTUS that upheld Obamacare. Thanks to Roberts, which quite surprised me, actually...

/Scalia can EABOD, though
 
2012-08-01 07:24:52 AM  
republicans believe if they get punched by a gay guy hard enough in the head
they'll turn gay.
 
2012-08-01 07:28:28 AM  
this would be bad for canada though
no more americans marrying here
no more american gay wedding $
 
2012-08-01 07:29:07 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: cameroncrazy1984: MacEnvy: The reaction of the religious right when DOMA gets struck down my the SCOTUS is going to be schadenfreuderiffic.

They will all be crying into their Chick-fil-A, as that is going to be the only restaurant where they would be welcome at that point in time.

I'll believe it when I see it. This is the same Court that has been looking and begging for a challenge to Roe v. Wade, after all. And striking down DOMA will only result in another, more carefully worded, law to be passed that will pass judicial review.


They'd affirm it but then claim that the ruling can't be referenced by any court ever for any reason.
 
2012-08-01 07:31:17 AM  

ontariolightning: republicans believe if they get punched by a gay guy hard enough in the head
they'll turn gay.


This is assuming they're not already and suppressing the hell out of themselves?
 
2012-08-01 07:34:32 AM  
It's always amusing to watch the US ferociously debate things that have been well-accepted in other places for some time, with neither 'side' making any reference to the empirical evidence only a phone call away.

Why do people still listen to that guy from the National Orgagization for Marriage (I think that's what it's called) when he says that marriage equality wlill destroy marriage in the United States, where here across the border we've had same-sex marriage nationally for over a decade, and essentially nothing has changed?

Well, nothing except that I can say that I live in a place where people can feel good about who there are, and that makes it a nicer place for me to be...but that's selfish in a way, isn't it?

So next time your parents, your dumb uncle, or your mouthy coworker starts jabbering about how gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage, or diminishes in some unknown way traditional marriage, or destroys the fabric of society, just point north. Ask them if they think my marriage is diminished or lessened in any way? Does Canada strike you as a society that's falling apart?

They're just empirically wrong, it's not a debate. What it is, however, is the ugly step-child of American exceptionalism...the inability to see others.
 
2012-08-01 07:44:51 AM  

ontariolightning: republicans believe if they get punched by a gay guy hard enough in the head
they'll turn gay.


But it's the risk many of them are willing to take to give a blowjob to a stranger in a highway rest stop.
 
2012-08-01 07:45:16 AM  

xanadian: The *fifth*?

[i34.photobucket.com image 450x338]

How does that work? I need to read up on my amendments. :-/

/would've expected the 14th
//didn't expect the 5th
///much like the spanish inquisition


The 14th amendment applies to the states. The 5th amendment applies to the federal government. Since this is an issue of the federal government recognizing some of a state's marriage licenses but not others, the 5th applies.

In an ideal world, Section 3 of DOMA would be crushed 9-0 as a complete usurpation of states rights. Unfortunately, Scalia thinks gays are gross, Alito likely will too, and Thomas has never interpreted due process as allowing gays to do stuff.
 
Displayed 50 of 209 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report