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 48
    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  
•       •       •

4450 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Aug 2012 at 5:16 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-08-01 05:31:33 AM
12 votes:
You swore on the Bible to defend and uphold the Constitution, not the other way around.
2012-08-01 07:34:32 AM
5 votes:
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 12:16:28 AM
5 votes:
The reaction of the religious right when DOMA gets struck down my the SCOTUS is going to be schadenfreuderiffic.
2012-08-01 08:10:26 AM
3 votes:

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 03:50:41 AM
3 votes:

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 12:53:53 AM
3 votes:

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 10:53:44 AM
2 votes:

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 09:23:34 AM
2 votes:
2012-08-01 08:56:03 AM
2 votes:

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 07:16:47 AM
2 votes:

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 03:57:01 AM
2 votes:

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 03:53:59 AM
2 votes:
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 02:46:33 AM
2 votes:

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 01:04:13 AM
2 votes:

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 12:56:56 AM
2 votes:

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 12:43:12 AM
2 votes:

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 02:19:13 PM
1 votes:

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 01:47:59 PM
1 votes:
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 11:09:03 AM
1 votes:

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 10:57:15 AM
1 votes:

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 10:54:14 AM
1 votes:

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 10:41:50 AM
1 votes:

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 10:24:48 AM
1 votes:

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 09:45:53 AM
1 votes:

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 09:21:47 AM
1 votes:

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 09:08:06 AM
1 votes:

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 08:52:32 AM
1 votes:

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 08:29:41 AM
1 votes:

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 08:13:08 AM
1 votes:
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 08:01:05 AM
1 votes:

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 07:45:16 AM
1 votes:

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 07:31:17 AM
1 votes:

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 07:29:07 AM
1 votes:

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 07:06:57 AM
1 votes:

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 06:51:44 AM
1 votes:
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 06:38:29 AM
1 votes:

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 05:22:45 AM
1 votes:

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 03:58:21 AM
1 votes:

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 02:58:05 AM
1 votes:
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 02:49:59 AM
1 votes:

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 01:50:50 AM
1 votes:

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 01:40:49 AM
1 votes:

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 01:20:47 AM
1 votes:

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 01:11:27 AM
1 votes:
3.bp.blogspot.com
2012-08-01 01:08:26 AM
1 votes:

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 01:07:57 AM
1 votes:

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 01:04:11 AM
1 votes:
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 12:19:07 AM
1 votes:

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.
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report