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

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

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



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-01 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.
 
Displayed 50 of 209 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report