Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

4454 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
 
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.
 
2012-08-01 07:48:16 AM  
Of course no one accepts that justice is blind. They always have to make a big farking deal if a federal judge appointed by a Republican does whats right.
 
2012-08-01 07:50:49 AM  

ontariolightning: this would be bad for canada though
no more americans marrying here
no more american gay wedding $


Hey, yer right. That *would* suck.

Still gay Americans getting their full civil rights recognized legally would kinda make up for the loss in revenue.

Also, Vancouver is like Niagra Falls for gay married couples for some reason so I'm sure we'd make out okay.

*smug*

/Love a good gay marriage, me.
//Better music, moar dancing. no chicken dance.
 
2012-08-01 08:01:05 AM  

cman: They always have to make a big farking deal if a federal judge appointed by a Republican does whats right.


Well, to be fair... Any Republican doing something right is a rarity these days.
 
2012-08-01 08:01:16 AM  
Judas!
 
2012-08-01 08:10:26 AM  

xanadian: 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.


Pretty much. Equality under the law as well. The First Amendment should be primary to striking down these laws, but equality under the law has a piece of it as well.

I have no problem with denominations that forbid such unions in their own churches. That is the free exercise of their faith, but demanding that other faiths follow their beliefs does violate other folks free practice.
 
2012-08-01 08:13:08 AM  
narwhaler.com

Maybe all the one man/one woman stuff is designed to soften the poor little GOP voters to accept Romney's Mormonism.
 
2012-08-01 08:17:28 AM  
Gay marriage is Murder!

/Wait, what rally is this?
 
2012-08-01 08:18:07 AM  
"like"
 
2012-08-01 08:27:00 AM  
Good. Now let's get moving and fix this sh*t.
 
2012-08-01 08:29:41 AM  

cman: Of course no one accepts that justice is blind. They always have to make a big farking deal if a federal judge appointed by a Republican does whats right.


Have you read Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas? It was basically a giant screed decrying the "homosexual agenda" as destroying the nation and making a mockery of real freedom. If justice is really blind, he won't write a similar opinion upholding DOMA. I'm not holding my breath.
 
2012-08-01 08:39:14 AM  

Lost Thought 00: Gay marriage is Murder!

/Wait, what rally is this?



I've also been told that meat is murder. I guess I support at least two forms of murder.
 
2012-08-01 08:40:18 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.


Considering, to me, that the only marriage law that would pass JR would be one that allows any person to marry any other person they want, I'm OK with this.
 
2012-08-01 08:42:34 AM  

fracto: Lost Thought 00: Gay marriage is Murder!

/Wait, what rally is this?


I've also been told that meat is murder. I guess I support at least two forms of murder.


Gay marriage = Murder... Meat = Murder...

Gay marriage = Murder = Meat

Gay Marriage = Meat
 
2012-08-01 08:43:51 AM  
Somewhere in Europe, Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia chuckles, and mutters under his breath, "...for now."
 
2012-08-01 08:45:48 AM  

LasersHurt: fracto: Lost Thought 00: Gay marriage is Murder!

/Wait, what rally is this?


I've also been told that meat is murder. I guess I support at least two forms of murder.

Gay marriage = Murder... Meat = Murder...

Gay marriage = Murder = Meat

Gay Marriage = Meat


Meh. Once you get married, you can forget about the meat.
 
2012-08-01 08:49:09 AM  
This is nice but for those of you thinking this is some major step forward you're mistaken.

The only real progress will come when you can get gay marriage legalized in a state by popular vote. That's when things will start happening.
 
2012-08-01 08:49:58 AM  

Terrified Asexual Forcemeat: Maybe all the one man/one woman stuff is designed to soften the poor little GOP voters to accept Romney's Mormonism.


Adam and Eve were the first Jews, if there weren't other folks, Cain wouldn't have found a wife later.
Mormonism, I won't attempt to explain that, I don't know what Joseph Smith was up to there.
 
2012-08-01 08:52:32 AM  

randomjsa: This is nice but for those of you thinking this is some major step forward you're mistaken.

The only real progress will come when you can get gay marriage legalized in a state by popular vote. That's when things will start happening.


Rights should not be put up to a popular vote.
 
2012-08-01 08:52:51 AM  
Eliminate the Federal tax benefits of being a married couple and voila, no need to federally define marriage.

The State only started caring about marriage in the first place when Racist southern Democrats, wanting to keep the races from mixing, required people to get a marriage license from the courthouse. There's no reason why the state should have any business knowing whom anyone decides to take up as a spouse.
 
2012-08-01 08:53:52 AM  

LasersHurt: fracto: Lost Thought 00: Gay marriage is Murder!

/Wait, what rally is this?


I've also been told that meat is murder. I guess I support at least two forms of murder.

Gay marriage = Murder... Meat = Murder...

Gay marriage = Murder = Meat

Gay Marriage = Meat



It is interesting to replace the word murder with one of these synonyms.

I looked out my window and saw a gay marriage of crows fly overhead.
 
2012-08-01 08:54:33 AM  

slayer199: 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.


My mom is still a bit uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage (she's 67; old dogs and all that), but she supports it since she feels that is isn't fair otherwise.
 
2012-08-01 08:56:03 AM  

o5iiawah: Eliminate the Federal tax benefits of being a married couple and voila, no need to federally define marriage.

The State only started caring about marriage in the first place when Racist southern Democrats, wanting to keep the races from mixing, required people to get a marriage license from the courthouse. There's no reason why the state should have any business knowing whom anyone decides to take up as a spouse.



Would you eliminate spousal privilege from the courts? Deny spouses next of kin rights in a probate court?
 
2012-08-01 08:56:22 AM  
i'm under the impression this is really about sex
if conservatives don't want the gays to have sex...
...let 'em get married
 
2012-08-01 08:57:10 AM  

o5iiawah: Eliminate the Federal tax benefits of being a married couple and voila, no need to federally define marriage.


But bible beating freaks want the government to encourage marriage. What to do, what to do?
 
2012-08-01 09:02:48 AM  

fracto: LasersHurt: fracto: Lost Thought 00: Gay marriage is Murder!

/Wait, what rally is this?


I've also been told that meat is murder. I guess I support at least two forms of murder.

Gay marriage = Murder... Meat = Murder...

Gay marriage = Murder = Meat

Gay Marriage = Meat


It is interesting to replace the word murder with one of these synonyms.

I looked out my window and saw a gay marriage of crows fly overhead.


Man, the Brazilian Women's team got gay marriaged by the American team...

Actually, i'mOKwiththis.png
 
2012-08-01 09:08:06 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: o5iiawah: Eliminate the Federal tax benefits of being a married couple and voila, no need to federally define marriage.

But bible beating freaks want the government to encourage marriage. What to do, what to do?


Not to mention the other 1,137 federal laws providing benefits for marriage. Should we get rid of all of those as well?
 
2012-08-01 09:10:39 AM  
The GOP is on suicide watch today.

First this ruling, and today medical benefits for the women at the company I work for include birth control with NO COPAY.

It feels good living in a society that is starting to progress.
 
2012-08-01 09:21:47 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: 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.


DADT was a bad law, no denying that. But what people usually forget was that it was a step forward. DADT was written as a compromise between Clinton, who wanted gays to be able to serve openly, and Congress, which wanted to write the existing regulatory ban into federal law. Yes, DADT was shiatty, but at least Clinton got some of the corn and peanuts of out the previous laws.
 
2012-08-01 09:22:19 AM  

randomjsa: This is nice but for those of you thinking this is some major step forward you're mistaken.

The only real progress will come when you can get gay marriage legalized in a state by popular vote. That's when things will start happening.


You're going to see that happen in at least one state this November...more than likely all three that can do that this year (Washington, Maryland, and Maine). And you'll probably see another state finally win a vote to prevent a constitutional amendment banning the freedom to marry as well (Minnesota).
 
2012-08-01 09:23:34 AM  
 
2012-08-01 09:23:46 AM  

PanicMan: Not to mention the other 1,137 federal laws providing benefits for marriage. Should we get rid of all of those as well?


Again, why should the government play favors with a particular individual who belongs to a group?

Equal protection under the law shouldn't mean "Free shiat if you're married"

fracto: Would you eliminate spousal privilege from the courts? Deny spouses next of kin rights in a probate court?


No, I but I would have spousal privilege extended to homosexual couples who demonstrate the criteria for a common law marriage. After all, we are supposed to be a society which offers equal protection under the law. Any two people in the US can find a lawyer to merge property or assets regardless of kin relation so it should be on them to set the terms of the estate.

This Gay marriage question is a problem associated with those who wish to seek their rights from government. Two people can walk into a church and get married if the church allows it and nobody is forced to go to any particular church. The problem is when the state has set up thousands of laws, benefits and policies favorable or unfavorable to a particular group via the tax or benefit code.
 
2012-08-01 09:25:04 AM  

DeltaPunch: You know the HouBenevolent 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...


A gay marriage ban wouldn't be able to rustle up the 60 votes needed in the Senate right now, and as time goes on, that number will dwindle. Barring a seismic shift going against current trends, there's no way another federal gay marriage ban would pass Congress.
 
2012-08-01 09:26:39 AM  

o5iiawah: The problem is when the state has set up thousands of laws, benefits and policies favorable or unfavorable to a particular group via the tax or benefit code.


Till that is changed if ever, same sex marriage should be totally legal with all the benefits right?
 
2012-08-01 09:26:42 AM  

o5iiawah: The problem is when the state has set up thousands of laws, benefits and policies favorable or unfavorable to a particular group via the tax or benefit code.


Nobody had much of an issue with any of it until gay people started demanding access.
 
2012-08-01 09:34:30 AM  
Scalia's ruling: homosex isn't in the Constitution. Your "right to privacy" is a fiction, so the States absolutely can intrude on your sex life and issue marriage licenses as they see fit.

Logic: heterosex and all kinds of marriage are also not in the Constitution. Also, States are empowered to grant licenses as they see fit, and enjoined (except for DOMA) from capriciously disregarding the licenses and privileges granted under another state's law. It's why my Maryland driver's license is good in DC and VA (which is good, because I commute through there).

// also, if the 4th Amendment does not generally describe a "right to privacy", what the hell good is it?
 
2012-08-01 09:35:52 AM  

slayer199: 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.


Hardly. Pretty much everyone still wants the .gov all up in there.
 
2012-08-01 09:36:31 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


Roberts is worried about his legacy. He might just be rational enough to strike down DOMA, and this particular court won't see a Roe v Wade challenge.

It's one of the reasons I am voting for Obama, to balance what is supposed to be an impartial court when (in all likelihood) we have another justice retire in the next 4 years.
 
2012-08-01 09:38:13 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Rights should not be put up to a popular vote.


Of course they shouldn't but right or wrong the best step forward will come after, and only after, a popular vote. Whether that's right or fair is beside the point.

Serious Black: You're going to see that happen in at least one state this November...more than likely all three that can do that this year (Washington, Maryland, and Maine). And you'll probably see another state finally win a vote to prevent a constitutional amendment banning the freedom to marry as well (Minnesota).


Maryland or Maine would be best, but Washington should work too. As long as it is not California or Vermont.
 
2012-08-01 09:39:24 AM  
Bush-appointed judge rules federal ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional

Ah, those Bushies really excel when you happen to lob a slow ball of obvious at them.
 
2012-08-01 09:42:10 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.


Like Obama would sign it?
 
2012-08-01 09:42:52 AM  

o5iiawah: fracto: Would you eliminate spousal privilege from the courts? Deny spouses next of kin rights in a probate court?

No, I but I would have spousal privilege extended to homosexual couples who demonstrate the criteria for a common law marriage.



Once again the government is defining marriage and the same people will oppose you.
 
2012-08-01 09:45:53 AM  

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


Don't be so sure of that. As conservative as the current Court is, they're very pro-individual liberties, and Roberts has voted with the majority on a couple of important cases.

The thing about DOMA is that there's no legal grounds for even the most conservative justice to support it on. It's unconstitutional through and though, and the only justification anyone could give for upholding it is "I don't think same-sex couples should be allowed to marry."
 
2012-08-01 09:50:53 AM  

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

Don't be so sure of that. As conservative as the current Court is, they're very pro-individual liberties, and Roberts has voted with the majority on a couple of important cases.

The thing about DOMA is that there's no legal grounds for even the most conservative justice to support it on. It's unconstitutional through and though, and the only justification anyone could give for upholding it is "I don't think same-sex couples should be allowed to marry."


And that's why it's almost certain that Scalia and Thomas (maybe Alito as well) will issue an opinion that homosexual behavior is disgusting so DOMA is constitutional. I hope I'm wrong and that it's a unanimous takedown, but I think my time would be better spent waiting for Godot.
 
2012-08-01 09:51:23 AM  

trivial use of my dark powers: slayer199: 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.

My mom is still a bit uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage (she's 67; old dogs and all that), but she supports it since she feels that is isn't fair otherwise.


You have a nice Mom.
 
2012-08-01 09:51:50 AM  
Who cares who appointed him? The Constitution is quite clear that what is allowed for one citizen is allowed for all citizens.
 
2012-08-01 09:52:18 AM  

way south: 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.


RINO like typing skills detected.
 
2012-08-01 09:57:33 AM  
Welcome aboard, Connecticut (and soon, the 2nd Circuit)!
 
2012-08-01 09:58:44 AM  

SpaceyCat: This is a wonderful step forward. I'm hoping that it continues forward. I know the Religious Right is having a fit of apoplexy.



They've been having a fit since the 60s.
 
2012-08-01 10:00:16 AM  
Incidentally, if anyone is keeping score on DoMA, we've got the 1st Circuit and 9th Circuit, plus New York and Connecticut districts. On the other side is the 8th Circuit, but only by implication, and it's decision could be read as irrelevant as it applied to a state constitutional amendment, not a federal law.
 
2012-08-01 10:03:36 AM  
Let's all go get a fried chicken sandwich to celebrate!

/And some of those 9/11 fries, too!
 
2012-08-01 10:05:34 AM  

KWess: 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.




There's some evidence that legalising gay marriage actually lowers non-gay marriage divorce rates.

I'm not sure anyone has explained why yet (possibly to do with people fighting for marriage influencing a few potentially divorcing couples as to the "value" of marriage")
 
2012-08-01 10:06:42 AM  

Lord_Baull: Who cares who appointed him? The Constitution is quite clear that what is allowed for one citizen is allowed for all citizens.


It's mentioned because the religious right loves to scream "liberal activist judge" anytime they're unable to impose theocracy on the rest of us. Since Bush was one of their own (or at least pretended to be), it helps nullify their argument. Not that it will convince them but for the casual onlooker, it helps.
 
2012-08-01 10:07:41 AM  

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

Don't be so sure of that. As conservative as the current Court is, they're very pro-individual liberties, and Roberts has voted with the majority on a couple of important cases.

The thing about DOMA is that there's no legal grounds for even the most conservative justice to support it on. It's unconstitutional through and though, and the only justification anyone could give for upholding it is "I don't think same-sex couples should be allowed to marry."



My prediction is Scalia and Thomas and maybe Alito will say something along the lines of how it is important for the government to protect traditions that maintain the stability of the country or some nonsense. The others will strike it down.
 
2012-08-01 10:10:32 AM  
The religious right never cared that the ban was unconscionable I don't see why it being unconstitutional would change their opinion.
 
2012-08-01 10:22:08 AM  

EngineerAU: Lord_Baull: Who cares who appointed him? The Constitution is quite clear that what is allowed for one citizen is allowed for all citizens.

It's mentioned because the religious right loves to scream "liberal activist judge" anytime they're unable to impose theocracy on the rest of us. Since Bush was one of their own (or at least pretended to be), it helps nullify their argument. Not that it will convince them but for the casual onlooker, it helps.



Do you not recall 2008-2009, when Bush was considered the most liberal President evar?
 
2012-08-01 10:22:52 AM  
I believe the rational thing to do is to abolish ALL marriages, but since this isn't possible in today's world, equalizing the opportunity to get married for everyone is the next best thing.
 
2012-08-01 10:23:51 AM  

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

Don't be so sure of that. As conservative as the current Court is, they're very pro-individual liberties, and Roberts has voted with the majority on a couple of important cases.

The thing about DOMA is that there's no legal grounds for even the most conservative justice to support it on. It's unconstitutional through and though, and the only justification anyone could give for upholding it is "I don't think same-sex couples should be allowed to marry."


My prediction is Scalia and Thomas and maybe Alito will say something along the lines of how it is important for the government to protect traditions that maintain the stability of the country or some nonsense. The others will strike it down.


And yet they won't be able to point to a single enumerated power that gives Congress the ability to enact this law in the first place either...
 
2012-08-01 10:24:48 AM  

randomjsa: The only real progress will come when you can get gay marriage legalized in a state by popular vote. That's when things will start happening.


Incorrect.

Civil Rights are not subject to popular vote. The entire basis of all founding legal documents of our country and our system of government itself is designed to prevent against this very thing.
 
2012-08-01 10:29:01 AM  

66dude: I believe the rational thing to do is to abolish ALL marriages, but since this isn't possible in today's world, equalizing the opportunity to get married for everyone is the next best thing.


That would be a nightmare. the state has a vested interest in marriage, as it covers a lot of legal matters, Power of attorney, medical stuff, inheritance, economics, etc.

The real solution is to enforce the separation of church and state, and abolish any marriage related laws with a religious bias.
 
2012-08-01 10:30:27 AM  
Let's go see what is going on over at freerepublic..

Let me just open my browser..

Now typing the URL: http:://www.freerepublic.com -ENTER-

Okay, Loading...

i49.tinypic.com

Yep...
 
2012-08-01 10:30:59 AM  
Activist judge!

/hates that term
 
2012-08-01 10:33:16 AM  

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

Don't be so sure of that. As conservative as the current Court is, they're very pro-individual liberties, and Roberts has voted with the majority on a couple of important cases.

The thing about DOMA is that there's no legal grounds for even the most conservative justice to support it on. It's unconstitutional through and though, and the only justification anyone could give for upholding it is "I don't think same-sex couples should be allowed to marry."


My prediction is Scalia and Thomas and maybe Alito will say something along the lines of how it is important for the government to protect traditions that maintain the stability of the country or some nonsense. The others will strike it down.


Actually, due to the exceedingly clever work of Maura Healy in the Civil Rights division of the AG's office here in Massachusetts, Scalimas and Alito may actually do a concurrence. DoMA is under attack on two independent fronts - the due process and equal protection one, but also a states' rights one. They could strike it down under the 10th and Article I, saying that marriage is part of the traditional powers of the states and the Federal government has no power to define marriage. It lets them make a political screed regarding an overlarge federal government, while letting them save face and not be on the losing side of a 6-3 decision.
 
2012-08-01 10:36:19 AM  
I expect SCOTUS to uphold DOMA.

Remember, Lawrence v. Texas was only 6-3, and one of the majority votes came from O'Connor who has been replaced by Alito. At the end of the day Roberts is a social conservative, so he's going to vote to uphold it. So as almost always, it comes down to Kennedy. While he was in the majority on Lawrence, he's become increasingly cagey.
 
2012-08-01 10:37:40 AM  
5th Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Section 3. Definition of marriage
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.


While the DOMA is a stupid piece of legislation that should have never been passed in the first place, I just don't see the equal protection issue between it and the 5th so can anyone help clarify it since I seem to be blind?
 
2012-08-01 10:38:26 AM  

thornhill: At the end of the day Roberts is a social conservative, so he's going to vote to uphold it.


Why would a justice who's done pro bono work in support of gay rights vote to uphold a federal law that has absolutely no Constitutional basis for legality?
 
2012-08-01 10:40:57 AM  

roddack: 5th Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Section 3. Definition of marriage
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

While the DOMA is a stupid piece of legislation that should have never been passed in the first place, I just don't see the equal protection issue between it and the 5th so can anyone help clarify it since I seem to be blind?


You don't think DOMA, by forbidding some people the rights afforded to others, is denying equal protection to same-sex married couples?

The 5th amendment argument probably relates to the due process clause, specifically being denied liberty (the liberty to marry freely).
 
2012-08-01 10:41:50 AM  

roddack: 5th Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Section 3. Definition of marriage
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

While the DOMA is a stupid piece of legislation that should have never been passed in the first place, I just don't see the equal protection issue between it and the 5th so can anyone help clarify it since I seem to be blind?


"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

That section of the 5th Amendment is why. DOMA deprives certain people of liberty without due process of law, and since it's a federal law and not a state law, the 5th applies instead of the 14th.
 
2012-08-01 10:44:16 AM  

roddack: 5th Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Section 3. Definition of marriage
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

While the DOMA is a stupid piece of legislation that should have never been passed in the first place, I just don't see the equal protection issue between it and the 5th so can anyone help clarify it since I seem to be blind?


From the decision:
"The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment commands
that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws,' which is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated
should be treated alike." City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S.
432, 439 (1985) (quoting Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216 (1982)). Though the Fifth
Amendment makes no explicit mention of equal protection under the laws, the
Supreme Court has recognized that since 1975, "[t]his Court's approach to Fifth
Amendment equal protection claims has always been precisely the same as to
equal protection claims under the Fourteenth Amendment." Adarand
Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 217 (1995) (internal quotations omitted)
(quoting Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636, 638 n.2 (1975)); see also Buckley
v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 93 (1976) ("Equal protection analysis in the Fifth Amendment
area is the same as that under the Fourteenth Amendment.").
The guarantee of equal protection of the laws, well-established to be
incorporated into the Fifth Amendment, "is a pledge of the protection of equal
laws." See Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 633-34 (1996) (internal quotations
omitted) (quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma ex. Rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541
(1942)).


Does that help? Or were you asking specifically how equal protection applies to DoMA?
 
2012-08-01 10:44:34 AM  
This is because Conservatives believe in reasonable discourse and can be persuaded by logic and reason, unlike the derpy dogma of "progressives" where it's either "Our way or nothing"

I might think homosexuality is a sin but I can also agree that a Federal ban on same-sex marriage IS unconstitutional. It should be up to the states to decide. I'm ok with this.
 
2012-08-01 10:49:23 AM  

bulok: It should be up to the states to decide.


Unfortunately, the states don't get to deny equal protection under the law, either.
 
2012-08-01 10:50:35 AM  
Heh. Decision is funny. Spends 40 pages or so establishing that classifications based on sexual orientation are quasi-suspect and subject to heightened scrutiny, and then dismisses it in one paragraph saying, "however, we don't need to apply heightened scrutiny, because DoMA fails the rational basis test and has no justifiable reason for its existence."
 
2012-08-01 10:50:52 AM  

thornhill: I expect SCOTUS to uphold DOMA.

Remember, Lawrence v. Texas was only 6-3, and one of the majority votes came from O'Connor who has been replaced by Alito. At the end of the day Roberts is a social conservative, so he's going to vote to uphold it. So as almost always, it comes down to Kennedy. While he was in the majority on Lawrence, he's become increasingly cagey.


Perhaps. It took three attempts before laws banning interracial marriage were struck down by the Court. It would be a short-term set back, but that's it. The law will eventually be struck down, and the Roberts Court will be held up as an example of what it means to be on the wrong side of history. Just as those Courts in the past that supported discrimination.
 
2012-08-01 10:52:28 AM  

bulok: This is because Conservatives believe in reasonable discourse and can be persuaded by logic and reason, unlike the derpy dogma of "progressives" where it's either "Our way or nothing"


Funny'd.

bulok: I might think homosexuality is a sin but I can also agree that a Federal ban on same-sex marriage discrimination by race IS unconstitutional. It should be up to the states to decide. I'm ok with this.


Just wanted to highlight how idiotic this thought process is. Crap like this is why the judicial branch was created in the first place.
 
2012-08-01 10:53:11 AM  

DeltaPunch: You know the HouBenevolent 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...


Out of 435 voting members, "only" 258 did not merely ignore my rights, but actively voted to deny them. 30 of 50 states have constitutional amendments that specifically state I have no right to marry. This should be my signal that the fight is almost over?

I remember when DADT passed. We were all elated then, too - until it became clear that the law was going to be used to dismiss even more service members. It was all in the wording and in the execution. So you guys will just have to forgive me if I think we still have a long farking way to go.
 
2012-08-01 10:53:44 AM  

bulok: This is because Conservatives believe in reasonable discourse and can be persuaded by logic and reason, unlike the derpy dogma of "progressives" where it's either "Our way or nothing"

I might think homosexuality is a sin but I can also agree that a Federal ban on same-sex marriage IS unconstitutional. It should be up to the states to decide. I'm ok with this.


No.

You may think it's a sin, but the states don't get to vote on freedom of religion, or equality under the law.

I fully support a church's right to withhold marriage ceremonies for folks that they don't want to marry. THAT is freedom of religion. I don't support those same churches trying to keep EVERY church or Justice of the Peace from extending those ceremonies, and the benefits that confer with them, from folks that those churches disagree with, and who are NOT part of their ministry. Do what you like within your own church, but likewise keep the Hells out of the business of folks who aren't part of your faith.

Take out "same sex couples" and put in "mixed race" or "mixed faith" in the sentence, and see if you agree that we should ban them outright, state by state.
 
2012-08-01 10:54:14 AM  

bulok: This is because Conservatives believe in reasonable discourse and can be persuaded by logic and reason, unlike the derpy dogma of "progressives" where it's either "Our way or nothing"

I might think homosexuality is a sin but I can also agree that a Federal ban on same-sex marriage IS unconstitutional. It should be up to the states to decide. I'm ok with this.


hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah a hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Is joke right?

If not let me laugh even harder
 
2012-08-01 10:54:31 AM  

hubiestubert: bulok: This is because Conservatives believe in reasonable discourse and can be persuaded by logic and reason, unlike the derpy dogma of "progressives" where it's either "Our way or nothing"

I might think homosexuality is a sin but I can also agree that a Federal ban on same-sex marriage IS unconstitutional. It should be up to the states to decide. I'm ok with this.

No.

You may think it's a sin, but the states don't get to vote on freedom of religion, or equality under the law.

I fully support a church's right to withhold marriage ceremonies for folks that they don't want to marry. THAT is freedom of religion. I don't support those same churches trying to keep EVERY church or Justice of the Peace from extending those ceremonies, and the benefits that confer with them, from folks that those churches disagree with, and who are NOT part of their ministry. Do what you like within your own church, but likewise keep the Hells out of the business of folks who aren't part of your faith.

Take out "same sex couples" and put in "mixed race" or "mixed faith" in the sentence, and see if you agree that we should ban them outright, state by state.


THIS!
 
2012-08-01 10:56:13 AM  

roddack: While the DOMA is a stupid piece of legislation that should have never been passed in the first place, I just don't see the equal protection issue between it and the 5th so can anyone help clarify it since I seem to be blind?


Well, it's more the nature of equal protection that the 5th implies. Everything within the 5th is intended to provide equal protection to people - you must be tried through due process instead of just hung because you're black.

Basically, it's saying that because states are defining marriages in a certain way, Section 3 of DOMA is obligating the Federal government to pick and choose what marriages it wants to honor based on an arbitrary Federal law. It deprives gay couples of rights without any sort of due process, and (amusingly enough) gives gay couples protections that straight couples don't have.

From early in the ruling:
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment commands that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,' which is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike." City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). Though the Fifth Amendment makes no explicit mention of equal protection under the laws, the Supreme Court has recognized that since 1975, "[t]his Court's approach to Fifth Amendment equal protection claims has always been precisely the same as to equal protection claims under the Fourteenth Amendment." Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 217 (1995); see also Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 93 (1976) . ("Equal protection analysis in the Fifth Amendment area is the same as that under the Fourteenth Amendment.")

The guarantee of equal protection of the laws, well-established to be incorporated into the Fifth Amendment, "is a pledge of the protection of equal laws." See Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 633-34 (1996). When considering a state constitutional amendment prohibiting any administrative, legislative or judicial action designed to protect homosexuals from discrimination, the United States Supreme Court reminded us that our "Constitution 'neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.'

The need to adhere to these directives of equal protection, however, must be balanced against "the practical necessity that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, with resulting disadvantage to various groups or persons." Romer, 517 U.S. at 631 (citing Pers. Admin. of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 271-72 (1979). "A legislature must have substantial latitude to establish classifications that roughly approximate the nature of the problem perceived, that accommodate competing concerns both public and private, and that account for limitations on the practical ability of the State to remedy every ill. In applying the Equal Protection Clause to most forms of state action, we thus seek only the assurance that the classification at issue bears some fair relationship to a legitimate public purpose." Plyler, 457 U.S. at 216.
The next 80 or so pages are spent kicking the idea that there's a valid legislative intent to DOMA in the nuts.
 
2012-08-01 10:56:16 AM  
memeorama.com
 
2012-08-01 10:57:15 AM  

bulok: This is because Conservatives believe in reasonable discourse and can be persuaded by logic and reason, unlike the derpy dogma of "progressives" where it's either "Our way or nothing"


Oh please. I'm no progressive, but I'm not blind to reality either. Let's look at the past 20 years around the health care debate:

Dems: We'd like to move to single payer
Republicans: No wai guys! We want an individual mandate
dems: No, that's stupid
republicans: Uh, how about an individual mandate?
dems: No, that's stupid
republicans: Uh, how about an individual mandate?
dems: No, that's stupid
republicans: Uh, how about an individual mandate?
dems: Alright, we're serious this time, we want to move to single payer
republicans: Ok, how about we meet in the middle, individual mandate?
dems: Ok, we're not happy about it, but it's better than what we've got now.
republicans: SOCIALISTS!

/who's way or the highway?
 
2012-08-01 10:59:20 AM  
I'm just in a happy mood today :)
 
2012-08-01 10:59:52 AM  

Theaetetus: From the decision:
"The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment commands
that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws,' which is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated
should be treated alike." City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S.
432, 439 (1985) (quoting Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216 (1982)). Though the Fifth
Amendment makes no explicit mention of equal protection under the laws, the
Supreme Court has recognized that since 1975, "[t]his Court's approach to Fifth
Amendment equal protection claims has always been precisely the same as to
equal protection claims under the Fourteenth Amendment." Adarand
Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 217 (1995) (internal quotations omitted)
(quoting Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636, 638 n.2 (1975)); see also Buckley
v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 93 (1976) ("Equal protection analysis in the Fifth Amendment
area is the same as that under the Fourteenth Amendment.").
The guarantee of equal protection of the laws, well-established to be
incorporated into the Fifth Amendment, "is a pledge of the protection of equal
laws." See Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 633-34 (1996) (internal quotations
omitted) (quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma ex. Rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541
(1942)).

Does that help? Or were you asking specifically how equal protection applies to DoMA?
Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 217 ...


Very much thanks!
 
2012-08-01 11:00:15 AM  
bulok: This is because Conservatives believe in reasonable discourse and can be persuaded by logic and reason, unlike the derpy dogma of "progressives" where it's either "Our way or nothing"

[projector.jpg]
 
2012-08-01 11:00:27 AM  
Hey, are any restaurant chains doing something today in response to Huckabee's Chik-Fil-A thing? I'd like a business that supports equality to get my money today while I increase my chances for heart attack.
 
2012-08-01 11:00:32 AM  

qorkfiend: thornhill: At the end of the day Roberts is a social conservative, so he's going to vote to uphold it.

Why would a justice who's done pro bono work in support of gay rights vote to uphold a federal law that has absolutely no Constitutional basis for legality?


Saying that he provided pro bono work is a huge stretch.

His law firm was doing the work and in one case he was asked for legal advice. People from his firm say that he never refused to help with any of the firm's pro bono work and they have no clue how he feels about these issues.
 
2012-08-01 11:00:37 AM  

Bungles: There's some evidence that legalising gay marriage actually lowers non-gay marriage divorce rates.

I'm not sure anyone has explained why yet (possibly to do with people fighting for marriage influencing a few potentially divorcing couples as to the "value" of marriage")


My guess, the increasing social acceptance of homosexuals that goes along with gay marriage rights decreases the number of closeted gays marrying heterosexual partners.
 
2012-08-01 11:01:02 AM  

roddack: 5th Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Section 3. Definition of marriage
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

While the DOMA is a stupid piece of legislation that should have never been passed in the first place, I just don't see the equal protection issue between it and the 5th so can anyone help clarify it since I seem to be blind?


In addition to not having to testify against yourself you can't be made to testify against a spouse. Dunno if that rule arose from an expansive reading of the fith but if so then details glaring people who are married not married for federal purposes could be a violation
 
2012-08-01 11:02:23 AM  

bulok: This is because Conservatives believe in reasonable discourse and can be persuaded by logic and reason, unlike the derpy dogma of "progressives" where it's either "Our way or nothing"


www.frontroomcinema.com

Remind me again which side was it that said in no uncertain terms that their primary goal was to make sure Barack Obama is a one-term President, nerfed the 2009 stimulus, watered down the health care bill and hamstrung our ability to borrow from other countries? Not to mention cheering so jovially when Chicago was knocked out of the running for the 2016 Olympics that the USOC isn't even gonna try to put in a bid for 2020.

I might think homosexuality is a sin but I can also agree that a Federal ban on same-sex marriage IS unconstitutional. It should be up to the states to decide. I'm ok with this.

If SCOTUS strikes down DOMA, same-sex marriage will be legal nationwide. No state will be able to pass a new law or state constitution amendment outlawing same-sex marriage, nor would any existing law be enforceable -- much the same way that the Court's ruling on Loving v Virginia prevents states from outlawing interracial marriage.

The only way to overrule the Supreme Court would be to pass an Amendment to the US Constitution. There is precedent for this happening -- namely, the 16th Amendment.
 
2012-08-01 11:02:52 AM  

bulok: This is because Conservatives believe in reasonable discourse and can be persuaded by logic and reason, unlike the derpy dogma of "progressives" where it's either "Our way or nothing"

I might think homosexuality is a sin but I can also agree that a Federal ban on same-sex marriage IS unconstitutional. It should be up to the states to decide. I'm ok with this.


weknowmemes.com

Man, I am getting tons of mileage off of this image lately.

/hot as a dolomite-covered robot in lava
 
2012-08-01 11:05:37 AM  

thornhill: qorkfiend: thornhill: At the end of the day Roberts is a social conservative, so he's going to vote to uphold it.

Why would a justice who's done pro bono work in support of gay rights vote to uphold a federal law that has absolutely no Constitutional basis for legality?

Saying that he provided pro bono work is a huge stretch.

His law firm was doing the work and in one case he was asked for legal advice. People from his firm say that he never refused to help with any of the firm's pro bono work and they have no clue how he feels about these issues.


Very well. Address the other half of the statement: why would the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court vote to uphold a federal law that has no Constitutional basis for legality, especially in light of his decision in the ACA ruling?
 
2012-08-01 11:05:43 AM  

Antimatter: 66dude: I believe the rational thing to do is to abolish ALL marriages, but since this isn't possible in today's world, equalizing the opportunity to get married for everyone is the next best thing.

That would be a nightmare. the state has a vested interest in marriage, as it covers a lot of legal matters, Power of attorney, medical stuff, inheritance, economics, etc.

The real solution is to enforce the separation of church and state, and abolish any marriage related laws with a religious bias.


That's already the case. The only intersection between church and state in marriage laws is that agents of officially recognized religions can sign on the government license as a witness. Religions holds no authority whatsoever over who can get married.
 
2012-08-01 11:06:55 AM  
I wish the author of the article could have repeated the same shiat for a third time instead of only twice in the article.
 
2012-08-01 11:08:45 AM  

qorkfiend: thornhill: qorkfiend: thornhill: At the end of the day Roberts is a social conservative, so he's going to vote to uphold it.

Why would a justice who's done pro bono work in support of gay rights vote to uphold a federal law that has absolutely no Constitutional basis for legality?

Saying that he provided pro bono work is a huge stretch.

His law firm was doing the work and in one case he was asked for legal advice. People from his firm say that he never refused to help with any of the firm's pro bono work and they have no clue how he feels about these issues.

Very well. Address the other half of the statement: why would the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court vote to uphold a federal law that has no Constitutional basis for legality, especially in light of his decision in the ACA ruling?


Because gays are disgusting?
 
2012-08-01 11:09:03 AM  

roddack: While the DOMA is a stupid piece of legislation that should have never been passed in the first place, I just don't see the equal protection issue between it and the 5th so can anyone help clarify it since I seem to be blind?


You've gotten a bunch of responses to your question, but I'm not sure any of them really answer your question - or at least answer it the way I like to, so here's my .02.

In terms of legislation, we sometimes refer to a legal "scheme." That's a group of laws that work together to regulate a certain kind of thing. There is a scheme of laws that cover driving, a scheme of laws that cover food processing, a scheme of laws that cover healthcare. Each of the laws is different (don't drive too close to the car in front of you; use your turn signal), but they all work together to establish some kind of common goal (drive safely and don't kill people). Some people think of this as a government program (welfare/foodstamps/headstart, for instance, or gov't sponsored healthcare are both schemes of laws).

There's also a scheme of laws that regulates marriage. This is the 1000+ rights and responsibilities that we give a married couple. It's everything from spousal privilege in court, tax benefits and liabilities, inheritance, child care/custody, education, housing, farm loans, immigration, and a ton of other things that wouldn't necessarily spring to mind.

This marriage scheme is then essentially a government program, and there is no meaningful access to this government program for gay people. I say meaningful, because there's always the option of a sham marriage, though that (1) is fraud, and (2) defeats the entire purpose of having a scheme of marriage laws in the first place.

To prevent a group of people (one that qualifies as a "suspect class" under equal protection doctrines) from this government program or scheme of laws is a violation of equal protection.

Keep in mind that "equal protection" doesn't mean "well you can get the same benefits elsewhere." It means having equal access to government regulations. It's true that a gay couple can hire a lawyer and get many (though certainly not most) of the same benefits of marriage. But lawyers are damn expensive.

And equal access to government regulations is an important right in this country.
 
2012-08-01 11:11:46 AM  

SpaceyCat: This is a wonderful step forward. I'm hoping that it continues forward. I know the Religious Right is having a fit of apoplexy.


I think because they know, deep down, they are losing the war.

The younger generation growing up, 21 and under, are growing up with a completely different value set.

They are more secular, more tolerant, and more open minded. They don't see a problem with gay people, they aren't going to Church every Sunday, they are coming from a completely different culture.

As they grow up, and as their kids grow up, society is shifting left. The middle-aged and elderly are scared shiatless that the world is changing around them, so they are doubling down on the Derp before it's too late. They want to get their beliefs enshrined in law, be it by SCOTUS precedent or Constitutional Amendment, before that demographic grows up enough to truly outvote them.

Of course, they don't talk about it like that. They'll talk about loss of morality, rampant sin, decaying society, about how the world is going to Hell in a Handbasket.

50+ years ago, they told the same marriage-derp about interracial marriage.

In previous centuries, you couldn't get married to someone if they were not of the same race as you or not of the same religion as you. We redefined it a couple of millennia ago to get rid of polygamy as a social norm (like it was in the Old Testament).

We've redefined it in the last century or two to be a romantic union, instead of a political one (i.e. you actually pick your spouse, the union isn't arranged by parents).

Let's stop acting like marriage of one man and one woman, marrying for love, is the One True Sacred definition for All Time. It's changed as society has changed.
 
2012-08-01 11:12:07 AM  
Funny thing is 8/10 friends my age AND aligning themselves as Republican, support gay marriage. Granted I'm in the northeast, but the tides are a changing and the GOP is shooting itself in the head by banging on these social issues in the age of social media. I have a friend from ME that works in politics, interned for Snowe, works in the MA state house, and is actively campaigning and supporting, as a Republican, marriage equality in ME.

The next generation of voters is very socially liberal, and somewhat (true) economically conservative. The GOP is economically radical (spend, spend, spend on our things, screw the poor, no new taxes!) and socially conservative.

Bad news for the GOP unless it can get it's act together. Regional party status is not fun.
 
2012-08-01 11:15:23 AM  

66dude: I believe the rational thing to do is to abolish ALL marriages, but since this isn't possible in today's world, equalizing the opportunity to get married for everyone is the next best thing.


The core function, that is the sharing of property by a small family unit, would probably need to be retained or replaced in a manner tantamount to retaining it, though. It's just too good a tool for easily disposing of property in a standard, popular fashion. So honestly I don't really think your idea would happen even if it did happen, at least in real terms, if you see what I'm saying here. Modifying the institution to keep up with social norms seems much more practical.

//Honestly it seems like gay marriage is, on basically those grounds, a practical move, it's just tweaking the standard contract to make life less of a hassle for what is now a fairly popular arrangement. I mean, people are going to live together and work out a way to share their resources anyhow, might as well let them use the template.
 
2012-08-01 11:16:21 AM  

TyrantII: Funny thing is 8/10 friends my age AND aligning themselves as Republican, support gay marriage. Granted I'm in the northeast, but the tides are a changing and the GOP is shooting itself in the head by banging on these social issues in the age of social media. I have a friend from ME that works in politics, interned for Snowe, works in the MA state house, and is actively campaigning and supporting, as a Republican, marriage equality in ME.

The next generation of voters is very socially liberal, and somewhat (true) economically conservative. The GOP is economically radical (spend, spend, spend on our things, screw the poor, no new taxes!) and socially conservative.

Bad news for the GOP unless it can get it's act together. Regional party status is not fun.


Oddly enough, until recently I was a member of the Republican Party, I also worked on Snowe's campaign to get her into the Senate in the first place, and I don't give a rat's butt what people do in the privacy of their own damn homes. None of my damn business. It's not a Progressive issue. It's a very old fashioned sort of thing.

It's a matter of not being nosey.

It harkens back to my Grandmother's teaching: don't like? Don't eat it. But never mind what other people have on their plates...
 
2012-08-01 11:16:28 AM  
Fan, shiat. Shiat, fan.

Now play nice.
 
2012-08-01 11:16:47 AM  
Why is it so hard for Americans to NOT hate?

I mean institutional discrimination and hate are rampant in this country, it is sad that you have to pass laws to stop people from being huge dicks.
 
2012-08-01 11:19:01 AM  

Electriclectic: Hey, are any restaurant chains doing something today in response to Huckabee's Chik-Fil-A thing? I'd like a business that supports equality to get my money today while I increase my chances for heart attack.


If you live in or near NYC, Schnipper's Quality Kitchen is donating $1 of the proceeds from every sale of their chicken filet sandwiches purchased in August to Marriage Equality USA.
 
2012-08-01 11:20:05 AM  

Inquisitive Inquisitor: thornhill: I expect SCOTUS to uphold DOMA.

Remember, Lawrence v. Texas was only 6-3, and one of the majority votes came from O'Connor who has been replaced by Alito. At the end of the day Roberts is a social conservative, so he's going to vote to uphold it. So as almost always, it comes down to Kennedy. While he was in the majority on Lawrence, he's become increasingly cagey.

Perhaps. It took three attempts before laws banning interracial marriage were struck down by the Court. It would be a short-term set back, but that's it. The law will eventually be struck down, and the Roberts Court will be held up as an example of what it means to be on the wrong side of history. Just as those Courts in the past that supported discrimination.


Except that Roberts is probably the only member of the conservative bloc that cares about his legacy.
 
2012-08-01 11:20:19 AM  

bulok: This is because Conservatives believe in reasonable discourse and can be persuaded by logic and reason, unlike the derpy dogma of "progressives" where it's either "Our way or nothing"


i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-08-01 11:23:11 AM  

pippi longstocking: Why is it so hard for Americans to NOT hate?


I dunno, why do Europeans riot over football matches and Africans genocide each other because a genetically indistinguishable group was once polite to a white man? Why do Asians have trouble not pointing nuclear weapons at each other over religious differences?

Cultures have problems that look stupid from the perspective of other cultures. Please remove the stick from your ass regarding this, your culture does stupid shiat you find to be just a bit out of hand that everyone else thinks entirely unreasonable too.
 
2012-08-01 11:23:24 AM  

Jim_Callahan: 66dude: I believe the rational thing to do is to abolish ALL marriages, but since this isn't possible in today's world, equalizing the opportunity to get married for everyone is the next best thing.

The core function, that is the sharing of property by a small family unit, would probably need to be retained or replaced in a manner tantamount to retaining it, though. It's just too good a tool for easily disposing of property in a standard, popular fashion. So honestly I don't really think your idea would happen even if it did happen, at least in real terms, if you see what I'm saying here. Modifying the institution to keep up with social norms seems much more practical.

//Honestly it seems like gay marriage is, on basically those grounds, a practical move, it's just tweaking the standard contract to make life less of a hassle for what is now a fairly popular arrangement. I mean, people are going to live together and work out a way to share their resources anyhow, might as well let them use the template.


Not only that, but completely abolishing the state's role in marriage as a simple way to condense tons of contracts into one contract is inherently not conservative. It's a ridiculously radical move compared to modifying a currently existing structure by striking the words "husband" and "wife" and replacing them with "partner 1" and "partner 2".
 
2012-08-01 11:24:39 AM  

Serious Black: Not only that, but completely abolishing the state's role in marriage as a simple way to condense tons of contracts into one contract is inherently not conservative. It's a ridiculously radical move compared to modifying a currently existing structure by striking the words "husband" and "wife" and replacing them with "partner 1" and "partner 2".


The latter wouldn't allow polygamy.
 
2012-08-01 11:25:30 AM  

qorkfiend: thornhill: qorkfiend: thornhill: At the end of the day Roberts is a social conservative, so he's going to vote to uphold it.

Why would a justice who's done pro bono work in support of gay rights vote to uphold a federal law that has absolutely no Constitutional basis for legality?

Saying that he provided pro bono work is a huge stretch.

His law firm was doing the work and in one case he was asked for legal advice. People from his firm say that he never refused to help with any of the firm's pro bono work and they have no clue how he feels about these issues.

Very well. Address the other half of the statement: why would the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court vote to uphold a federal law that has no Constitutional basis for legality, especially in light of his decision in the ACA ruling?


All the justices rule based on their ideology. The amount it influences their ruling varies.

The growing consensus on the ACA ruling is that 1) Roberts did it to help combat the growing flack the Court has been getting over its rulings -- e.g. Citizen's United -- and to make him look less like an ideologist when the Court deals with Affirmative Action and DOMA next term; and 2) In upholding ACA he was still able to narrow the scope of the Commerce Clause, which is a win for conservatives.
 
2012-08-01 11:25:52 AM  

Ned Stark: In addition to not having to testify against yourself you can't be made to testify against a spouse. Dunno if that rule arose from an expansive reading of the fith but if so then details glaring people who are married not married for federal purposes could be a violation


I'm pretty sure that's a carry-over from English Common Law.
 
2012-08-01 11:28:12 AM  

thornhill: 1) Roberts did it to help combat the growing flack the Court has been getting over its rulings


And you think revisiting and upholding "Separate But Equal" will help him in this regard?
 
2012-08-01 11:29:15 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.

Jean Dubofsky, lead lawyer for the gay rights activists and a former Colorado Supreme Court justice, said that when she came to Washington to prepare for the U.S. Supreme Court presentation, she immediately was referred to Roberts.

"Everybody said Roberts was one of the people I should talk to," Dubofsky said. "He has a better idea on how to make an effective argument to a court that is pretty conservative and hasn't been very receptive to gay rights."


from my link way way upthread.

It seems to suggest that Roberts has at least considered arguments supporting gay rights that would be in alignment with conservative thinking.

It's not much but it's something.
 
2012-08-01 11:29:24 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: 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.


I don't know... Roberts was one of the attorneys that helped get sodomy laws overturned in Lawrence v. Texas. His opinions on this might not be as socially conservative as one might think. At least, that's what I'm hoping.
 
2012-08-01 11:31:06 AM  

Mrtraveler01: bulok: This is because Conservatives believe in reasonable discourse and can be persuaded by logic and reason, unlike the derpy dogma of "progressives" where it's either "Our way or nothing"

Funny'd.

bulok: I might think homosexuality is a sin but I can also agree that a Federal ban on same-sex marriage discrimination by race IS unconstitutional. It should be up to the states to decide. I'm ok with this.

Just wanted to highlight how idiotic this thought process is. Crap like this is why the judicial branch was created in the first place.


Oh hey you weren't lying! I never get to see mine on those list, thanks!
 
2012-08-01 11:31:11 AM  

sprawl15: Serious Black: Not only that, but completely abolishing the state's role in marriage as a simple way to condense tons of contracts into one contract is inherently not conservative. It's a ridiculously radical move compared to modifying a currently existing structure by striking the words "husband" and "wife" and replacing them with "partner 1" and "partner 2".

The latter wouldn't allow polygamy.


Disclaimer: I'm okay with non-monogamous relationships and was in one for the last three years.

Plural marriage is a whole 'nother ball of worms. Apart from people being incredibly squirmy over breaking the two-person marriage norm, the logistics of what to do with property rights, survivorship benefits, health care proxy decisions, how to handle splitting of assets with a divorce, how to agree that other people can join the marriage...it's a lot of stuff that needs to be worked out before that can be legalized.
 
2012-08-01 11:32:32 AM  

Ambivalence: 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.


I don't see any compelling state interest in denying homosexuals to the right to marry. I also don't see any compelling state interest in denying brothers to marry brothers or sisters to marry sisters or friends of any sex to marry friends of any sex. I don't see any compelling state interest in denying multiple wives and husbands either. I say let marriages begin.
 
2012-08-01 11:34:57 AM  

Jim_Callahan: 66dude: I believe the rational thing to do is to abolish ALL marriages, but since this isn't possible in today's world, equalizing the opportunity to get married for everyone is the next best thing.

The core function, that is the sharing of property by a small family unit, would probably need to be retained or replaced in a manner tantamount to retaining it, though. It's just too good a tool for easily disposing of property in a standard, popular fashion. So honestly I don't really think your idea would happen even if it did happen, at least in real terms, if you see what I'm saying here. Modifying the institution to keep up with social norms seems much more practical.

//Honestly it seems like gay marriage is, on basically those grounds, a practical move, it's just tweaking the standard contract to make life less of a hassle for what is now a fairly popular arrangement. I mean, people are going to live together and work out a way to share their resources anyhow, might as well let them use the template.


Yoive got the telescope backwards.

Why should a "small family unit" get help from the state in pooling property when extended families or clans or communes of whatever other manner of social organizations don't?

/chop a 40 person extended family into 10 4 person nuclear families and you can sell 10 washing machines not one.
 
2012-08-01 11:35:51 AM  

Irregardless: I don't see any compelling state interest in denying homosexuals to the right to marry. I also don't see any compelling state interest in denying brothers to marry brothers or sisters to marry sisters or friends of any sex to marry friends of any sex. I don't see any compelling state interest in denying multiple wives and husbands either. I say let marriages begin.


Would you say the state has a compelling interest in not having laws that are contradictory? Like a law that says "person A exclusively owns 100% of [x]" and another law that says "person B exclusively owns 100% of [x]"? Wouldn't it be in the state's interest to avoid that?
Also, isn't it in the state's interest to collect taxes from property transfers?
 
2012-08-01 11:36:05 AM  

Serious Black: sprawl15: Serious Black: Not only that, but completely abolishing the state's role in marriage as a simple way to condense tons of contracts into one contract is inherently not conservative. It's a ridiculously radical move compared to modifying a currently existing structure by striking the words "husband" and "wife" and replacing them with "partner 1" and "partner 2".

The latter wouldn't allow polygamy.

Disclaimer: I'm okay with non-monogamous relationships and was in one for the last three years.

Plural marriage is a whole 'nother ball of worms. Apart from people being incredibly squirmy over breaking the two-person marriage norm, the logistics of what to do with property rights, survivorship benefits, health care proxy decisions, how to handle splitting of assets with a divorce, how to agree that other people can join the marriage...it's a lot of stuff that needs to be worked out before that can be legalized.


Or simply allow for plural marriages and let the parties determine that shiat. The same way we let a couple do it now with pre-nups, only we'd force the poly marriage to address these issues first - "no poly marriages without a prenup that addresses these scenarios" doesn't seem like a bridge too far to make law.

It's a bit of a headache, but it is my understanding that contract law still exists.
 
2012-08-01 11:36:08 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Scalia's ruling: homosex isn't in the Constitution. Your "right to privacy" is a fiction, so the States absolutely can intrude on your sex life and issue marriage licenses as they see fit.

Logic: heterosex and all kinds of marriage are also not in the Constitution. Also, States are empowered to grant licenses as they see fit, and enjoined (except for DOMA) from capriciously disregarding the licenses and privileges granted under another state's law. It's why my Maryland driver's license is good in DC and VA (which is good, because I commute through there).

// also, if the 4th Amendment does not generally describe a "right to privacy", what the hell good is it?


Now now, that's not a Scalia ruling.

What he would rule is that as the fourteenth amendment only covers abridging life, liberty, and property, it does not in any way guarantee equal rights. Therefore, as long as the rights to life, liberty, and property are not abridged by the state itself, the government cannot interfere in the due process of business. Therefore, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and all hate crime laws are unconstitutional.
 
2012-08-01 11:36:38 AM  

Serious Black: sprawl15: Serious Black: Not only that, but completely abolishing the state's role in marriage as a simple way to condense tons of contracts into one contract is inherently not conservative. It's a ridiculously radical move compared to modifying a currently existing structure by striking the words "husband" and "wife" and replacing them with "partner 1" and "partner 2".

The latter wouldn't allow polygamy.

Disclaimer: I'm okay with non-monogamous relationships and was in one for the last three years.

Plural marriage is a whole 'nother ball of worms. Apart from people being incredibly squirmy over breaking the two-person marriage norm, the logistics of what to do with property rights, survivorship benefits, health care proxy decisions, how to handle splitting of assets with a divorce, how to agree that other people can join the marriage...it's a lot of stuff that needs to be worked out before that can be legalized.


Why can't that all be addressed on a case-by-case basis, in the marriage contract?
 
2012-08-01 11:38:19 AM  
The gay marriage issue also exposes the so-called civil rights leaders as nothing but race baiters who only care about the advantages they get with their skin color, they don't really care about civil rights of all.
 
2012-08-01 11:41:15 AM  

TyrantII: Funny thing is 8/10 friends my age AND aligning themselves as Republican, support gay marriage. Granted I'm in the northeast, but the tides are a changing and the GOP is shooting itself in the head by banging on these social issues in the age of social media. I have a friend from ME that works in politics, interned for Snowe, works in the MA state house, and is actively campaigning and supporting, as a Republican, marriage equality in ME.

The next generation of voters is very socially liberal, and somewhat (true) economically conservative. The GOP is economically radical (spend, spend, spend on our things, screw the poor, no new taxes!) and socially conservative.

Bad news for the GOP unless it can get it's act together. Regional party status is not fun.


Let's just hope that this new generation actually starts voting. It's one thing to say you disagree with the current GOP, it's another to not get off the couch and do something about it.
 
2012-08-01 11:41:26 AM  

mauricecano: The gay marriage issue also exposes the so-called civil rights leaders as nothing but race baiters who only care about the advantages they get with their skin color, they don't really care about civil rights of all.


We're all hypocrites.
 
2012-08-01 11:44:01 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.


Not the ones in New Hampshire
 
2012-08-01 11:53:47 AM  

FishStampede: Dr Dreidel: Scalia's ruling: homosex isn't in the Constitution. Your "right to privacy" is a fiction, so the States absolutely can intrude on your sex life and issue marriage licenses as they see fit.

Logic: heterosex and all kinds of marriage are also not in the Constitution. Also, States are empowered to grant licenses as they see fit, and enjoined (except for DOMA) from capriciously disregarding the licenses and privileges granted under another state's law. It's why my Maryland driver's license is good in DC and VA (which is good, because I commute through there).

// also, if the 4th Amendment does not generally describe a "right to privacy", what the hell good is it?

Now now, that's not a Scalia ruling.

What he would rule is that as the fourteenth amendment only covers abridging life, liberty, and property, it does not in any way guarantee equal rights. Therefore, as long as the rights to life, liberty, and property are not abridged by the state itself, the government cannot interfere in the due process of business. Therefore, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and all hate crime laws are unconstitutional.


And David Souter has to go on PBS for 24 hours to sing "I wish I were an Oscar Meyer Weiner".
 
2012-08-01 12:01:44 PM  

dywed88: My guess, the increasing social acceptance of homosexuals that goes along with gay marriage rights decreases the number of closeted gays marrying heterosexual partners.


How will some of them ever get laid?
media.tumblr.com
/sorry, low hangin fruit
//damn, did it again.
 
2012-08-01 12:03:57 PM  

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.



this is how someone talks who really doesn't want DOMA stuck down because he likes the political opportunities that are created for his democratic party when gays are discriminated against federally.
he is terrified that gays will be treated equally because of a quick judicial decision just a few months after the democrats finally support the proper position.
 
2012-08-01 12:11:01 PM  

qorkfiend: thornhill: 1) Roberts did it to help combat the growing flack the Court has been getting over its rulings

And you think revisiting and upholding "Separate But Equal" will help him in this regard?


You approach this as if he and the other conservatives are rational about the law. All they care about is protecting their outdated ideology for as long as possible, and given how many more years they'll all be on the court, it will be for quite a while.
 
2012-08-01 12:15:15 PM  

relcec: this is how someone talks who really doesn't want DOMA stuck down because he likes the political opportunities that are created for his democratic party when gays are discriminated against federally.
he is terrified that gays will be treated equally because of a quick judicial decision just a few months after the democrats finally support the proper position.


this is how someone talks who really doesn't have any argument against the person they're responding to, but feels the need to disagree just because that person holds different political views than himself. he is terrified that the party to which he's pledged his undying allegiance will go the way of the dodo.
 
2012-08-01 12:16:32 PM  

relcec: this is how someone talks who really doesn't want DOMA stuck down because he likes the political opportunities that are created for his democratic party when gays are discriminated against federally.
he is terrified that gays will be treated equally because of a quick judicial decision just a few months after the democrats finally support the proper position.


Just like how Roe v. Wade ended all debate on abortion.
 
2012-08-01 12:16:50 PM  

Kurmudgeon: /sorry, low hangin fruit


Only in the summer. He's from Minnesota. shiat gets cold in the winter.

/Captain Fudgepacker? I'd like to introduce you to Major Shrinkage.
 
2012-08-01 12:17:55 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Serious Black: sprawl15: Serious Black: Not only that, but completely abolishing the state's role in marriage as a simple way to condense tons of contracts into one contract is inherently not conservative. It's a ridiculously radical move compared to modifying a currently existing structure by striking the words "husband" and "wife" and replacing them with "partner 1" and "partner 2".

The latter wouldn't allow polygamy.

Disclaimer: I'm okay with non-monogamous relationships and was in one for the last three years.

Plural marriage is a whole 'nother ball of worms. Apart from people being incredibly squirmy over breaking the two-person marriage norm, the logistics of what to do with property rights, survivorship benefits, health care proxy decisions, how to handle splitting of assets with a divorce, how to agree that other people can join the marriage...it's a lot of stuff that needs to be worked out before that can be legalized.

Or simply allow for plural marriages and let the parties determine that shiat. The same way we let a couple do it now with pre-nups, only we'd force the poly marriage to address these issues first - "no poly marriages without a prenup that addresses these scenarios" doesn't seem like a bridge too far to make law.

It's a bit of a headache, but it is my understanding that contract law still exists.


qorkfiend: Why can't that all be addressed on a case-by-case basis, in the marriage contract?


I think a lot can be handled on a case-by-case basis, but I still think there are certain aspects of marriage law that would inherently have to be reworked to handle more than two people in the marriage. The government would have to set up that framework whereby people agreeing to join a plural marriage must have a contract that touches point A, point B, etc., and there are some benefits that would have to be rewritten just to handle three or more people in general with no need for being touched upon in the contract.
 
2012-08-01 12:18:20 PM  

relcec: 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.


this is how someone talks who really doesn't want DOMA stuck down because he likes the political opportunities that are created for his democratic party when gays are discriminated against federally.
he is terrified that gays will be treated equally because of a quick judicial decision just a few months after the democrats finally support the proper position.


What? Sounds more like a guy whose seen the same trajectory in the area of abortion. Roe v. Wade was 40 years ago, and for the past 40 years, the GOP has made any and every effort to curb those rights. If NARAL was the NRA, there'd be an abortion provider in every city larger than 5,000. There's no reason not to think that the GOP will try all manner of shenaniganry to make gay folks jump through ever-more hoops to get a marriage license (I'm fairly certain the Congressional GOP is prepared to fight to keep DOMA) if the court strikes DOMA.

If there are political gains to be had by supporting gay marriage, Republicans are idiots to not avail themselves. That Democrats are now on board doesn't change that - it's not like only one party can hold such a position at any time. The GOP is free to get on board with marriage equality.

If the GOP wishes to continue pushing inequality, they must live with those consequences. That has nothing to do with Democrats.
 
2012-08-01 12:27:37 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Or simply allow for plural marriages and let the parties determine that shiat. The same way we let a couple do it now with pre-nups, only we'd force the poly marriage to address these issues first - "no poly marriages without a prenup that addresses these scenarios" doesn't seem like a bridge too far to make law.


Sort of like having a public mandate, wherein every party to a marriage has to pay money to a law firm? You know, the conservative small-government solution?
 
2012-08-01 12:44:15 PM  

Dr Dreidel: this is how someone talks who really doesn't want DOMA stuck down because he likes the political opportunities that are created for his democratic party when gays are discriminated against federally.
he is terrified that gays will be treated equally because of a quick judicial decision just a few months after the democrats finally support the proper position.

What? Sounds more like a guy whose seen the same trajectory in the area of abortion. Roe v. Wade was 40 years ago, and for the past 40 years, the GOP has made any and every effort to curb those rights. If NARAL was the NRA, there'd be an abortion provider in every city larger than 5,000. There's no reason not to think that the GOP will try all manner of shenaniganry to make gay folks jump through ever-more hoops to get a marriage license (I'm fairly certain the Congressional GOP is prepared to fight to keep DOMA) if the court strikes DOMA.

If there are political gains to be had by supporting gay marriage, Republicans are idiots to not avail themselves. That Democrats are now on board doesn't change that - it's not like only one party can hold such a position at any time. The GOP is free to get on board with marriage equality.

If the GOP wishes to continue pushing inequality, they must live with those consequences. That has nothing to do with Democrats.


what is this rambling mess? what does roe v wade have to do with DOMA? you people don't see any possibility of the Roberts court striking down DOMA because that is the last thing you actually want to happen. lest you forget, the democrats have been on the wrong side of this policy as well since time immemorial up until a few moments ago. the democrats didn't bother changing their mind on this issue UNTIL the polling flipped.
Legally it is correct to strike it down, and politically it would kick the chair out from under the democrats before they got to even strut about how progressive they are in joining the rest of the country that has been right on this issue and opposed to the democrats for 20 years. the only reason you don't see it as a real possibility the roberts court will strike down DOMA is because that is the last thing on earth you want.
 
2012-08-01 12:49:36 PM  

qorkfiend: Serious Black: sprawl15: Serious Black: Not only that, but completely abolishing the state's role in marriage as a simple way to condense tons of contracts into one contract is inherently not conservative. It's a ridiculously radical move compared to modifying a currently existing structure by striking the words "husband" and "wife" and replacing them with "partner 1" and "partner 2".

The latter wouldn't allow polygamy.

Disclaimer: I'm okay with non-monogamous relationships and was in one for the last three years.

Plural marriage is a whole 'nother ball of worms. Apart from people being incredibly squirmy over breaking the two-person marriage norm, the logistics of what to do with property rights, survivorship benefits, health care proxy decisions, how to handle splitting of assets with a divorce, how to agree that other people can join the marriage...it's a lot of stuff that needs to be worked out before that can be legalized.

Why can't that all be addressed on a case-by-case basis, in the marriage contract?


count me among those who don't see property and asset issues getting any trickier by adding another person to the mix. the pain in the ass is going form one person to two people, not from two people to four people.
 
2012-08-01 01:04:16 PM  

relcec: qorkfiend: Serious Black: sprawl15: Serious Black: Not only that, but completely abolishing the state's role in marriage as a simple way to condense tons of contracts into one contract is inherently not conservative. It's a ridiculously radical move compared to modifying a currently existing structure by striking the words "husband" and "wife" and replacing them with "partner 1" and "partner 2".

The latter wouldn't allow polygamy.

Disclaimer: I'm okay with non-monogamous relationships and was in one for the last three years.

Plural marriage is a whole 'nother ball of worms. Apart from people being incredibly squirmy over breaking the two-person marriage norm, the logistics of what to do with property rights, survivorship benefits, health care proxy decisions, how to handle splitting of assets with a divorce, how to agree that other people can join the marriage...it's a lot of stuff that needs to be worked out before that can be legalized.

Why can't that all be addressed on a case-by-case basis, in the marriage contract?

count me among those who don't see property and asset issues getting any trickier by adding another person to the mix. the pain in the ass is going form one person to two people, not from two people to four people.



Deciding who gets to speak for you in medical issues is rough with 3 people. So long as there is one marriage between three people and not multiple separate marriages the issue of property is a little cleaner. Allowing same sex marriage would be a necessary part of that equation though.
 
2012-08-01 01:04:59 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Serious Black: sprawl15: Serious Black: Not only that, but completely abolishing the state's role in marriage as a simple way to condense tons of contracts into one contract is inherently not conservative. It's a ridiculously radical move compared to modifying a currently existing structure by striking the words "husband" and "wife" and replacing them with "partner 1" and "partner 2".

The latter wouldn't allow polygamy.

Disclaimer: I'm okay with non-monogamous relationships and was in one for the last three years.

Plural marriage is a whole 'nother ball of worms. Apart from people being incredibly squirmy over breaking the two-person marriage norm, the logistics of what to do with property rights, survivorship benefits, health care proxy decisions, how to handle splitting of assets with a divorce, how to agree that other people can join the marriage...it's a lot of stuff that needs to be worked out before that can be legalized.

Or simply allow for plural marriages and let the parties determine that shiat. The same way we let a couple do it now with pre-nups, only we'd force the poly marriage to address these issues first - "no poly marriages without a prenup that addresses these scenarios" doesn't seem like a bridge too far to make law.

It's a bit of a headache, but it is my understanding that contract law still exists.


There's nothing really stopping you from doing that now, is my understanding. If you want to execute a three party contract divvying up all of your property and providing what happens to it when different people die off, you can do that. You wanna shack up with everybody, knock yourself out. You can execute various legal documents like powers of attorney for healthcare, beneficiaries on life insurance, etc as well. Hell, some states even let you get away with adult adoption, if you're worried about insurance benefits or the like.

The problem is with regulation - the whole idea of the legal framework around marriage is that it provides defaults for when the parties don't specifically spell out the terms of the contract, and looks out for state interests and the interests of people who aren't parties to the contract. The state has an interest in only letting an employee sign up one other person on their health insurance, as opposed to the whole damn commune. Lenders have an interest in knowing how the rules work with spouses, debts, and inheritance. Hospitals have an interest in knowing that only a wife gets to consent for her husband, or whatever that rule is.

Until we as a society work out a framework for how these relationships would be changed by the addition of spouses, and how those spouses would interact amongst each other, there's no way to really incorporate polygamy into the current framework.
 
2012-08-01 01:05:34 PM  

o5iiawah: Eliminate the Federal tax benefits of being a married couple and voila, no need to federally define marriage.

The State only started caring about marriage in the first place when Racist southern Democrats, wanting to keep the races from mixing, required people to get a marriage license from the courthouse. There's no reason why the state should have any business knowing whom anyone decides to take up as a spouse.


so your solution is eliminate federal tax so gay people won't get benefits like straight people have been getting.. that's discrimination
 
2012-08-01 01:10:14 PM  

ontariolightning: o5iiawah: Eliminate the Federal tax benefits of being a married couple and voila, no need to federally define marriage.

The State only started caring about marriage in the first place when Racist southern Democrats, wanting to keep the races from mixing, required people to get a marriage license from the courthouse. There's no reason why the state should have any business knowing whom anyone decides to take up as a spouse.

so your solution is eliminate federal tax so gay people won't get benefits like straight people have been getting.. that's discrimination



It's also factually incorrect. There are more than just tax benefits hinging upon the definition of marriage. The federal government would have to have a definition of marriage no matter how you changed tax law.
 
2012-08-01 01:13:42 PM  
Conservatives in other civilized countries support gay marriage or put up with it because the electorate likes it

The U.S conservatives are in between those countries and the countries that are against gay people even existing. Its time for the US to pick a side
 
2012-08-01 01:14:45 PM  

qorkfiend: A gay marriage ban wouldn't be able to rustle up the 60 votes needed in the Senate right now, and as time goes on, that number will dwindle


Absolutely NONE of the bat-shiat legislation coming out of the House on a weekly basis would get passed by the Senate. See: 34 attempts at repealing the Health Care Act.
 
2012-08-01 01:28:53 PM  

bulok: This is because Conservatives believe in reasonable discourse and can be persuaded by logic and reason, unlike the derpy dogma of "progressives" where it's either "Our way or nothing"


This is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen written on this site. Congratulations.
 
2012-08-01 01:47:59 PM  
soporific: TyrantII: Funny thing is 8/10 friends my age AND aligning themselves as Republican, support gay marriage. Granted I'm in the northeast, but the tides are a changing and the GOP is shooting itself in the head by banging on these social issues in the age of social media. I have a friend from ME that works in politics, interned for Snowe, works in the MA state house, and is actively campaigning and supporting, as a Republican, marriage equality in ME.

The next generation of voters is very socially liberal, and somewhat (true) economically conservative. The GOP is economically radical (spend, spend, spend on our things, screw the poor, no new taxes!) and socially conservative.

Bad news for the GOP unless it can get it's act together. Regional party status is not fun.

Let's just hope that this new generation actually starts voting. It's one thing to say you disagree with the current GOP, it's another to not get off the couch and do something about it.


They are trying. Right now they're kicking just to keep their head above water. Still more are voting then used to be.

Obama gave them a reason to vote, but dialed it back when he wanted to be the "great mediator". That left a bad taste after watching Bush run roughshod through anything he wanted. People don;t want to hear about the filibuster, or Lieberman, or congressional procedure. They want results and they want a winner.

Obama's been very meek on both his promoting his successes and telling his constituents exactly what they need to do to get the results they want. He was silent in 2010, and look what happened.
 
2012-08-01 01:55:53 PM  

YoungSwedishBlonde: bulok: This is because Conservatives believe in reasonable discourse and can be persuaded by logic and reason, unlike the derpy dogma of "progressives" where it's either "Our way or nothing"

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen written on this site. Congratulations.


You must use ignore a lot...
 
2012-08-01 01:59:56 PM  

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


Passed where? Saudi Arabia?
 
2012-08-01 02:04:19 PM  

fracto: Deciding who gets to speak for you in medical issues is rough with 3 people. So long as there is one marriage between three people and not multiple separate marriages the issue of property is a little cleaner. Allowing same sex marriage would be a necessary part of that equation though.


Just require the husband to rate his wives. Highest ranking has seniority.
 
2012-08-01 02:17:19 PM  

Ned Stark: YoungSwedishBlonde: bulok: This is because Conservatives believe in reasonable discourse and can be persuaded by logic and reason, unlike the derpy dogma of "progressives" where it's either "Our way or nothing"

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen written on this site. Congratulations.

You must use ignore a lot...


Extreme projection is a pretty common Republican trait these days.
 
2012-08-01 02:19:13 PM  

relcec: what is this rambling mess? what does roe v wade have to do with DOMA? you people don't see any possibility of the Roberts court striking down DOMA because that is the last thing you actually want to happen. lest you forget, the democrats have been on the wrong side of this policy as well since time immemorial up until a few moments ago. the democrats didn't bother changing their mind on this issue UNTIL the polling flipped.
Legally it is correct to strike it down, and politically it would kick the chair out from under the democrats before they got to even strut about how progressive they are in joining the rest of the country that has been right on this issue and opposed to the democrats for 20 years. the only reason you don't see it as a real possibility the roberts court will strike down DOMA is because that is the last thing on earth you want.


[the_fark_am_i_reading.jpg]
 
2012-08-01 02:25:40 PM  

relcec: qorkfiend: Serious Black: sprawl15: Serious Black: Not only that, but completely abolishing the state's role in marriage as a simple way to condense tons of contracts into one contract is inherently not conservative. It's a ridiculously radical move compared to modifying a currently existing structure by striking the words "husband" and "wife" and replacing them with "partner 1" and "partner 2".

The latter wouldn't allow polygamy.

Disclaimer: I'm okay with non-monogamous relationships and was in one for the last three years.

Plural marriage is a whole 'nother ball of worms. Apart from people being incredibly squirmy over breaking the two-person marriage norm, the logistics of what to do with property rights, survivorship benefits, health care proxy decisions, how to handle splitting of assets with a divorce, how to agree that other people can join the marriage...it's a lot of stuff that needs to be worked out before that can be legalized.

Why can't that all be addressed on a case-by-case basis, in the marriage contract?

count me among those who don't see property and asset issues getting any trickier by adding another person to the mix. the pain in the ass is going form one person to two people, not from two people to four people.


When it comes to taxes, there's already a framework set up for two people to be treated legally as one entity and for treating their income as a group. There isn't one for three or more people though.
 
2012-08-01 02:26:21 PM  

sprawl15: fracto: Deciding who gets to speak for you in medical issues is rough with 3 people. So long as there is one marriage between three people and not multiple separate marriages the issue of property is a little cleaner. Allowing same sex marriage would be a necessary part of that equation though.

Just require the husband to rate his wives. Highest ranking has seniority.


Yeah, that'll work well. And you also didn't account for the situation where a wife has multiple husbands either.
 
2012-08-01 02:40:48 PM  

Serious Black: sprawl15: fracto: Deciding who gets to speak for you in medical issues is rough with 3 people. So long as there is one marriage between three people and not multiple separate marriages the issue of property is a little cleaner. Allowing same sex marriage would be a necessary part of that equation though.

Just require the husband to rate his wives. Highest ranking has seniority.

Yeah, that'll work well. And you also didn't account for the situation where a wife has multiple husbands either.


I think (hope) you need your sarcasm detector rechecked.
 
2012-08-01 02:54:48 PM  

Theaetetus: Serious Black: sprawl15: fracto: Deciding who gets to speak for you in medical issues is rough with 3 people. So long as there is one marriage between three people and not multiple separate marriages the issue of property is a little cleaner. Allowing same sex marriage would be a necessary part of that equation though.

Just require the husband to rate his wives. Highest ranking has seniority.

Yeah, that'll work well. And you also didn't account for the situation where a wife has multiple husbands either.

I think (hope) you need your sarcasm detector rechecked.


Maybe a bit. The first thing that popped into my head reading that was the second-rated wife sneaking up on the first-rated wife in the middle of the night and lynching her like Dexter though, so I got that going for me.
 
2012-08-01 03:00:21 PM  

Serious Black: Theaetetus: Serious Black: sprawl15: fracto: Deciding who gets to speak for you in medical issues is rough with 3 people. So long as there is one marriage between three people and not multiple separate marriages the issue of property is a little cleaner. Allowing same sex marriage would be a necessary part of that equation though.

Just require the husband to rate his wives. Highest ranking has seniority.

Yeah, that'll work well. And you also didn't account for the situation where a wife has multiple husbands either.

I think (hope) you need your sarcasm detector rechecked.

Maybe a bit. The first thing that popped into my head reading that was the second-rated wife sneaking up on the first-rated wife in the middle of the night and lynching her like Dexter though, so I got that going for me.


But if they work together, they can take out the husband and split the assets.
 
2012-08-01 06:23:25 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: 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.


How much has the court changed since Lawrence vs. Texas?
 
2012-08-01 06:31:12 PM  

Serious Black: how to agree that other people can join the marriage...it's a lot of stuff that needs to be worked out before that can be legalized.


If a unanimous agreement is required to bring anyone new into the marriage, that might work in practice to limit the size of group marriages. Except in the case of cults, where the charismatic leader wants to be married to all of the women and everyone in the cult does whatever the charismatic leader says.
 
2012-08-01 06:52:53 PM  

relcec: the only reason you don't see it as a real possibility the roberts court will strike down DOMA is because that is the last thing on earth you want.


I'm a Liberal and I want it to be struck down. Why is that so hard to comprehend. Liberals actually believe gay people should be allowed to get married. How we get there and the political usefulness of the topic is secondary.
 
2012-08-01 07:09:28 PM  

mrshowrules: relcec: the only reason you don't see it as a real possibility the roberts court will strike down DOMA is because that is the last thing on earth you want.

I'm a Liberal and I want it to be struck down. Why is that so hard to comprehend. Liberals actually believe gay people should be allowed to get married. How we get there and the political usefulness of the topic is secondary.


I'm not a liberal (or a conservative) and I want it struck down. To be clear, social conservatives are the only ones in favor of DOMA and the GOP has been kissing fundie ass for 15+ years. That is why a majority of he population supports gay marriage.
 
2012-08-01 07:58:32 PM  

relcec: lest you forget, the democrats have been on the wrong side of this policy as well since time immemorial up until a few moments ago.


While the majority of neither Democrats nor Republicans have been on the "right" (support of legalizing gay marriage) side of this policy until quite recently, Democrats have been closer to it than Republicans consistently since at least 1988. This is even more the case for Liberals versus Conservatives.
 
2012-08-01 10:55:24 PM  
WTF? I don't even!!!1!

You mean ANOTHER Republican appointed judge was appointed without a litmus strip swabbed across his forehead?

Stupid libtard liars.
 
Displayed 209 of 209 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report