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.

(Politico)   John Robert's gay cousin to sit in on the Prop 8 hearings. There's a joke about Scalia in here somewhere, but I'll be damned if I know what it is   (politico.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Scalia, hearings, Chief Justice John Roberts, Defense of Marriage Act, cousins, good directions  
•       •       •

1306 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Mar 2013 at 8:15 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-03-25 03:17:09 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: soupafi: Or the GOP finally realizes that maybe all the anti gay sentiment is kinda pissing people off and they are losing elections because of it

No, that's the funny thing: this isn't coming from the party leadership or the major religious PACs; it's coming from individual Congressman who have gay kids/relatives, and (surprisingly) from the Mormon leadership, who apparently realized how much damage to their image supporting Prop 8 did, and the fact that they're constantly losing young (generally hot, generally male) members, who leave the church because of its position on homosexuality.

Apparently, they recently set up a website which says being gay isn't a choice.  That's the first step on the road to acceptance, and the Mormons are one faith where the leaders can completely rewrite the whole religion whenever they feel like it.



[inigomontoya.jpg]
 
2013-03-25 03:21:19 PM  

Grungehamster: peasandcarrots: Grungehamster:
A) Churches will be forced to perform weddings for gay couples or face government retribution.
B) Children will be confused how two members of the same sex can be married and teachers and parents will have to explain how gay people have sex with each other to elementary school students.

I've occasionally pointed out that the reason the anti-gay forces seem so powerful, even in tiny little states like mine, is because they associate themselves with huge national groups wallowing in money and power. For instance, when there was an attempt at a gay rights repeal in 2009, the television airwaves in Maine were suddenly inundated with high-quality ads showing "concerned people" of all races worried about what would happen to the children, the children, and the children if this law were to go through. It occurred to me, watching those ads, that they could have run in any state - all they had to do was erase "Utah Commission for Family and Freedom" from the bottom and type in "Maine Traditional Family Association" under "paid for by." Mostly, it was awfully suspect how the referendum they were fighting directly addressed some of the concerns of the advertisers - there were exemptions all over the place for religious organizations, which you'd never know if you listened only to the ads.

Meanwhile, their opposition didn't seem to have access to similar tactics. They certainly didn't have a steady flow of money from midwestern megachurches. The punchline was that when gay marriage was finally approved in 2011, there were loud and aggressive accusations from the opposition that out-of-state money had tipped the scales.

It makes me wonder if there's even such a thing as a grassroots organization anymore, or just co-opts by larger and more powerful interests.

It just depends on how you define "grassroots" the money for those campaigns are definitely coming from a large number of small donations rather than a handful of influential donors which is how most people would define grassroots, but the people involved are not citizens of the area in question and thus have no personal stake in the law in question.

Speaking of those commercials: what percent of kids when finding out gay marriage has been legalized will want their parents to explain to them how how gay people have sex? What percent of kids when seeing an ad that gay marriage being legalized will lead to you having to explain to kids how gay people have sex will want you to explain to them how gay people have sex? Total Catch-22: by broadcasting "small children will want to know about the gay version of something they likely have no clue about if you tell them about the gay version of something they are familiar with" you're making small children aware that there is something they have no clue about that adults are actively trying to keep them ignorant of.


If a child knows about sex, then why would you have to worry about that question? If they don't know about sex, then they won't be asking that question. What was the point you were trying to make?
 
2013-03-25 03:31:44 PM  

carpbrain: Californians are more than prepared to rip up Prop 8 and burn the pieces, through the legislative/proposition process, if SCOTUS manages to drop the ball on this one.


You probably shouldn't be waiting on that. Even if the SCOTUS doesn't fumble, a Prop 8 repeal by the electorate would help send a message on the larger national stage that the times have changed.

Teiritzamna: Thus if it gets kicked on standing (and it will - its the only interesting thing about Perry)


I'm not convinced on that. Saying the Prop 8 intervenors did not have standing to represent the State of California requires overruling the California Supreme Court on who according to California's laws (which the California Supreme Court is supposed to be the last word on) can represent the state in Court. Deciding that the State's interest in the case can be represented by the intervenors -- or by a homeless person randomly picked from Fremont Park -- is a question of state sovereignty and right to choice of legal counsel.

I suppose the SCOTUS could find that such weird standing isn't completely impermissible, but must require an explicit act of the legislature or something, which might also help them punt the DOMA case back into limbo for a few months.
 
2013-03-25 03:32:53 PM  
So after reading free Republic I think I finally have it figured out.

The Mormon church pushed for prop eight knowing that it was unconstitutional. Once it gets overturned then they will push for polygamy using the same logic.

After that Furries will push for the right to make love to monkeys since they are only a few strands of DNA apart from us.

After that Planet of the Apes
 
2013-03-25 03:36:45 PM  

Lord_Baull: Apparently, they recently set up a website which says being gay isn't a choice. That's the first step on the road to acceptance, and the Mormons are one faith where the leaders can completely rewrite the whole religion whenever they feel like it.


[inigomontoya.jpg]


You really don't understand how the Mormon Church works do you?  Or is it that you don't understand most Judeo-Christian sects?

I'll try to make it simple:

1) For Jews, the Torah hasn't changed for 5000 years.  Their interpretation of it has, but the book remains the same.  The difference in interpretation is why there are different Jewish sects.

2) For Christians, most use the Bible codified by the Catholic Church in the 1500s.  Others accept or reject various books.  None agree on whether the text should be taken literally or figuratively and to what extent.  Even a church as large and well-organized as the Church of Rome can't make sweeping changes to doctrine whenever they want; they must introduce change gradually.

3) The Mormon leaders, on the other hand, can rewrite the Book of Mormon whenever they want, and have done so.  Pick up a modern copy of the book and it's quite different from what was originally published in 1857.

I'll put it another way: most religions can change their operator's manual (doctrine) but they can't change the OS.  The LDS can change the OS as frequently as they want.
 
2013-03-25 03:38:54 PM  

Homegrown: After that Furries will push for the right to make love to monkeys since they are only a few strands of DNA apart from us.


Well, at least we'll finally be able to answer the chimp/human hybrid question.

/yes, that's a real thing.
 
2013-03-25 04:01:45 PM  

abb3w: I'm not convinced on that. Saying the Prop 8 intervenors did not have standing to represent the State of California requires overruling the California Supreme Court on who according to California's laws (which the California Supreme Court is supposed to be the last word on) can represent the state in Court. Deciding that the State's interest in the case can be represented by the intervenors -- or by a homeless person randomly picked from Fremont Park -- is a question of state sovereignty and right to choice of legal counsel.


Well not really as regardless of the certification of the Cali Supreme Court, standing is a jurisdictional federal requirement.  Thus the Supreme court could say that when a party lacks constitutional standing, it is beyond the power of a state to declare otherwise.  Given the fact that it is pretty easy to view the the whole certification question to be a matter of clear federal law, many thought it was pretty hinky to begin with and is one of the major reasons Perry was picked up by the Court.

I could not see the Supremes letting slide the 9th Cir. allow a state court to determine federal standing, and figured thios would be yet another in a long line of 9th cir biatchslaps from Washington.
 
2013-03-25 04:52:57 PM  
Mark Warner just switched sides and announced his support for marriage equality. It's pretty funny watching politicians scramble to get on the right side of history now that they've realized equality is inevitable but before the SCOTUS rules.
 
2013-03-25 05:06:27 PM  

NeverDrunk23: They probably think gay marriage will invalidate their own marriage.

In other news, they are idiots.


when gay marriage became legal in Iowa, I remember reading the comment sections of the Sioux City Journal from people claiming they were going to get remarried in another state "where their marriage would still mean something"

seriously, as derpy as free republic.

(speaking of which, its been a while since ive visited that filth... time to put on some rubber gloves and pay a visit to freeperville)
 
2013-03-25 05:09:45 PM  

Teiritzamna: Well not really as regardless of the certification of the Cali Supreme Court, standing is a jurisdictional federal requirement. Thus the Supreme court could say that when a party lacks constitutional standing, it is beyond the power of a state to declare otherwise.


Except, the state didn't declare that the intervenors had standing. Rather, the California Supreme Court seems to have said that in the absence of anyone else more traditional (AG, governor, etc) willing to represent the state's interest in the referendum, the intervenors had "authority to assert the State's interest". That is, it's the state of California which has standing, and the intervenors are the ones the state has sent to complain on its behalf.

And whether they send the California Attorney General, the Governor, or Bozo the Clown would appear to be a question of how the sovereign state of California chooses to govern itself. (The question of whether such bomolocharchy violates the federal constitutional requirement of a republican government might be raised, but the SCOTUS has historically held the question of what is and isn't a republican government non-justiciable.)
 
2013-03-25 05:50:58 PM  

abb3w: Teiritzamna: Well not really as regardless of the certification of the Cali Supreme Court, standing is a jurisdictional federal requirement. Thus the Supreme court could say that when a party lacks constitutional standing, it is beyond the power of a state to declare otherwise.

Except, the state didn't declare that the intervenors had standing. Rather, the California Supreme Court seems to have said that in the absence of anyone else more traditional (AG, governor, etc) willing to represent the state's interest in the referendum, the intervenors had "authority to assert the State's interest". That is, it's the state of California which has standing, and the intervenors are the ones the state has sent to complain on its behalf.

And whether they send the California Attorney General, the Governor, or Bozo the Clown would appear to be a question of how the sovereign state of California chooses to govern itself. (The question of whether such bomolocharchy violates the federal constitutional requirement of a republican government might be raised, but the SCOTUS has historically held the question of what is and isn't a republican government non-justiciable.)


That's certainly true, but I think the court still is considering the standing issue because they want to be able to punt if they can't come to an agreement.
 
2013-03-25 06:58:28 PM  

rynthetyn: That's certainly true, but I think the court still is considering the standing issue because they want to be able to punt if they can't come to an agreement.


Disagree - i think the standing issues underlying both Perry and Windsor are the reason they picked these cases up, not the gay marriage bits.  The standing concerns are really rather thorny and they mirror each other rather well (i.e. both really ask the question of who gets to appeal when the original plaintiff decides they concede).  Partially this explains to me why Windsor was picked up and the older, yet almost identical Massachusetts cases were not, as the only major difference between the 1st Cir. and 2d Cir. opinions is that the 1st Cir. holding is not based on a standing snafu (well and the 1st Cir. didn't make up a new intermediate scrutiny the way the 2d Cir. did).
 
2013-03-25 07:07:05 PM  

abb3w: Except, the state didn't declare that the intervenors had standing. Rather, the California Supreme Court seems to have said that in the absence of anyone else more traditional (AG, governor, etc) willing to represent the state's interest in the referendum, the intervenors had "authority to assert the State's interest". That is, it's the state of California which has standing, and the intervenors are the ones the state has sent to complain on its behalf.

And whether they send the California Attorney General, the Governor, or Bozo the Clown would appear to be a question of how the sovereign state of California chooses to govern itself. (The question of whether such bomolocharchy violates the federal constitutional requirement of a republican government might be raised, but the SCOTUS has historically held the question of what is and isn't a republican government non-justiciable.)


Yes, but the standing question remains.Regardless of what California says, have the intervenors (1) suffered or imminently will suffer injury (2) caused by the complained of incident that (3) is capable of legal redress.

Here the real issue is whether the intervenors suffered an injury in fact.  There is solid case law that the executive branch of a state has standing to appeal on its own behalf.  However there is no precedent at all that a state can designate a somewhat involved party to step in, as in subrogation, and claim the same injury.  This is not an instance where the executive is stricken with some disaster and thus we need a stand in - the executive waived the appeal.  The one party that under federal law had standing said no, and the Ninth Circuit, because they really wanted to have a juicy appeal, for some crazy ass reason allowed the state supreme court to name a party with dubious injury in fact to stand in for the state.
 
2013-03-25 08:25:39 PM  
I don't care if it was my closest family member ... if she tried to make herself the center of attention like this and embarrass me at work (by openly suggesting she's trying to influence my ruling through social pressure) in front of the public?  I'd cut her out of my life permanently.

/Go attention whore somewhere else.
 
2013-03-25 09:11:01 PM  

carpbrain: As a Californian, I remain embarrassed by Prop 8, and more than a little sad that it's taken the courts, and not the will of the people, to fix the law that was voted in (by a quite slim margin).  But . . . if SCOTUS acts on Prop 8 in a way that effects the same-sex marriage bans in 30 states . . . well, then something would have come from the whole debacle, albeit in a ass-backward (so to speak) way.


As a Californian, I place the blame for the passage of Prop 8 on Gavin Newsom and his condescending, overly cocky, "It's going to happen, whether you like it or not" speech in 2004. The footage from that speech was turned into an advertisement (run ad nauseum on TV) in favor of Prop 8, and that ad almost single-handedly turned the tide on that issue because his manner in that speech read like a big "fark you" to anyone who was even a little wishy-washy about gay marriage.

But as you say, in the long run, it may turn out to be the key to a fell-swoop ruling rather than the otherwise-inevitable, but very slow trickle, of state-by-state rulings and votes over decades.
 
2013-03-25 09:53:35 PM  

SunsetLament: I don't care if it was my closest family member ... if she tried to make herself the center of attention like this and embarrass me at work (by openly suggesting she's trying to influence my ruling through social pressure) in front of the public?  I'd cut her out of my life permanently.

/Go attention whore somewhere else.


Seriously? What the hell did you read?

She requested tickets to the family and friends section as she is in fact a family member. She was granted them. A reporter asked her if she was attending and she said she was, but also said she had no insight into how he rules or what the ruling would be because she considers it rude to ask him about his cases and she also made it clear that she only sees him at family reunions.
 
2013-03-25 10:21:40 PM  

100 Watt Walrus: As a Californian, I place the blame for the passage of Prop 8 on Gavin Newsom and his condescending, overly cocky, "It's going to happen, whether you like it or not" speech in 2004. The footage from that speech was turned into an advertisement (run ad nauseum on TV) in favor of Prop 8, and that ad almost single-handedly turned the tide on that issue because his manner in that speech read like a big "fark you" to anyone who was even a little wishy-washy about gay marriage.


There's a few problems with that conclusion. Public support for gay marriage in California (as well as the rest of the US) has risen at a fairly steady steady rate since 2004, so it's not clear that the "tide" turned at all, much less that it turned because of one specific thing. More likely, the "tide" in question simply hadn't gotten high enough at that point.
 
2013-03-25 11:27:33 PM  

Biological Ali: 100 Watt Walrus: As a Californian, I place the blame for the passage of Prop 8 on Gavin Newsom and his condescending, overly cocky, "It's going to happen, whether you like it or not" speech in 2004. The footage from that speech was turned into an advertisement (run ad nauseum on TV) in favor of Prop 8, and that ad almost single-handedly turned the tide on that issue because his manner in that speech read like a big "fark you" to anyone who was even a little wishy-washy about gay marriage.

There's a few problems with that conclusion. Public support for gay marriage in California (as well as the rest of the US) has risen at a fairly steady steady rate since 2004, so it's not clear that the "tide" turned at all, much less that it turned because of one specific thing. More likely, the "tide" in question simply hadn't gotten high enough at that point.


The polls were about 55% against Prop 8 (i.e., in favor of marriage equality) before that ad started running.

After a month of that ad in heavy rotation, support was down to 42%, and the measure passed 52.3% (against marriage equality) to 47.7% (for marriage equality).

There was another ad that sometimes gets some credit - one about a little girl supposedly being told in school that she could "marry a princess" - but that one felt like propaganda. The Newsom ad was in his own arrogant words, and nothing but those words. The first time I saw that ad, I had two concurrent thoughts: 1) "It's over, the good guys lost," and 2) "Newsom, you farking loudmouthed, arrogant farkwit pandering to the crowd in front of you with no bigger picture in mind."
 
2013-03-26 07:52:15 AM  

rynthetyn: abb3w: Teiritzamna: Well not really as regardless of the certification of the Cali Supreme Court, standing is a jurisdictional federal requirement. Thus the Supreme court could say that when a party lacks constitutional standing, it is beyond the power of a state to declare otherwise.

Except, the state didn't declare that the intervenors had standing. Rather, the California Supreme Court seems to have said that in the absence of anyone else more traditional (AG, governor, etc) willing to represent the state's interest in the referendum, the intervenors had "authority to assert the State's interest". That is, it's the state of California which has standing, and the intervenors are the ones the state has sent to complain on its behalf.

And whether they send the California Attorney General, the Governor, or Bozo the Clown would appear to be a question of how the sovereign state of California chooses to govern itself. (The question of whether such bomolocharchy violates the federal constitutional requirement of a republican government might be raised, but the SCOTUS has historically held the question of what is and isn't a republican government non-justiciable.)

That's certainly true, but I think the court still is considering the standing issue because they want to be able to punt if they can't come to an agreement.


The plaintiffs clearly have standing. The defendants don't need to for SCOTUS to make a ruling. Or rather, "the government" is good enough when you are challenging a law, You only need standing to bring suit. The other side not being able to have standing is irrelevant.
 
2013-03-26 09:31:55 AM  

100 Watt Walrus: The polls were about 55% against Prop 8 (i.e., in favor of marriage equality) before that ad started running.


First of all, you're comparing polling results from different pollsters, which is a very basic mistake. If you compare only the same pollsters (the polls only by Field, for instance), you'll notice that things don't change very much at all and that, if anything, opposition to Prop 8 probably rose in that time period.

The result on this referendum most likely had to do with basic demographic differences between the the population at large, and those who actually show up to vote. For instance, Proposition 22 (which was the precursor to Proposition 8) passed with 61% of the vote, at a time when only 50% of the California population was opposed to gay marriage (and this happened in 2000, in case you were going to suggest that the speech from 2004 had an impact there too).

If you personally didn't like that speech, that's fine - but to single it out as the one reason that Prop 8 passed is a real stretch (and that's putting it generously).
 
2013-03-26 09:57:24 AM  

Biological Ali: if anything, opposition to Prop 8 probably rose in that time period


Looking back at the numbers, I'm not so sure about this anymore (I was comparing the "CBS/Survey USA" numbers to the later "Survey USA" numbers, but they might not necessarily be comparable), but the broader point still stands - polling overall showed greater opposition than support, which roughly matches up with support for gay marriage in general in California at the time (51% for gay marriage and 42% against).
 
2013-03-26 10:05:23 AM  

Neeek: The plaintiffs clearly have standing. The defendants don't need to for SCOTUS to make a ruling. Or rather, "the government" is good enough when you are challenging a law, You only need standing to bring suit. The other side not being able to have standing is irrelevant.


Fun fact - you also need standing to appeal.

Jurisdictional limits of federal authority and all that.
 
2013-03-26 04:42:53 PM  

Biological Ali: 100 Watt Walrus: The polls were about 55% against Prop 8 (i.e., in favor of marriage equality) before that ad started running.

First of all, you're comparing polling results from different pollsters, which is a very basic mistake. If you compare only the same pollsters (the polls only by Field, for instance), you'll notice that things don't change very much at all and that, if anything, opposition to Prop 8 probably rose in that time period.

The result on this referendum most likely had to do with basic demographic differences between the the population at large, and those who actually show up to vote. For instance, Proposition 22 (which was the precursor to Proposition 8) passed with 61% of the vote, at a time when only 50% of the California population was opposed to gay marriage (and this happened in 2000, in case you were going to suggest that the speech from 2004 had an impact there too).

If you personally didn't like that speech, that's fine - but to single it out as the one reason that Prop 8 passed is a real stretch (and that's putting it generously).


1) I didn't single it out as the one reason. I said it turned the tide. And it was a defining moment in the campaign.

2) I linked to the chart on the Wiki page as a general guideline to what happened in the course of the campaign. I didn't mean to imply it represented the absolute truth of the trend.

I may have over-stated my point somewhat because it was so wildly irresponsible of Newsom to be such a loud and public dick about opening up marriage to all in his city.

But, anecdotally I admit, before that ad ran, there was a strong sense in much of CA that Prop 8 was going to be defeated. Once that ad aired, it seemed fence-sitters fell off on the side of "I'm not going to be steamrolled."

Maybe I'm looking at this the way the Republicans looked at the 2012 election, thinking they had a chance when really they didn't. But in my view, based on what I saw happen at the time, before the Newsom ad there was hope and many undecided voters. Afterwards, there was scrambling and desperation and many minds made up in a knee-jerked manner.

Ultimately, the people swayed by that ad are to blame. But that doesn't change the fact that Newsom's speech was politically irresponsible, and a great example of someone failing to use their what-happens-next machine.
 
2013-03-26 05:07:47 PM  

100 Watt Walrus: 1) I didn't single it out as the one reason. I said it turned the tide. And it was a defining moment in the campaign.

...

Ultimately, the people swayed by that ad are to blame. But that doesn't change the fact that Newsom's speech was politically irresponsible, and a great example of someone failing to use their what-happens-next machine.


My point is that it's unlikely that the ad had any impact at all, given that the result of the referendum isn't really a surprise but is more or less in line with what one would expect given the actual level of support for same-sex marriage in California at the time, along with the tendency (as seen with Prop. 22) of anti-gay marriage voters turning out at rates far higher than those who support it.

In other words, there was never any moment where Prop. 8 was particularly likely to fail (and thus no "tide" to begin with), outside of overly optimistic predictions which looked only at polls of registered voters and failed to consider the possibility that one side would turn out at much higher rates than the other. Some of the early polls also seemed to overstate Californian opposition to Prop. 8 (at least if taken as a proxy for support for gay marriage in general) - which probably further fueled said optimism, or at the very least contributed to the "turning tide" notions when subsequent polls were closer to the more accurate ~50% mark.
 
2013-03-27 12:31:04 AM  

Biological Ali: My point is that it's unlikely that the ad had any impact at all, given that the result of the referendum isn't really a surprise but is more or less in line with what one would expect given the actual level of support for same-sex marriage in California at the time, along with the tendency (as seen with Prop. 22) of anti-gay marriage voters turning out at rates far higher than those who support it.

In other words, there was never any moment where Prop. 8 was particularly likely to fail (and thus no "tide" to begin with), outside of overly optimistic predictions which looked only at polls of registered voters and failed to consider the possibility that one side would turn out at much higher rates than the other. Some of the early polls also seemed to overstate Californian opposition to Prop. 8 (at least if taken as a proxy for support for gay marriage in general) - which probably further fueled said optimism, or at the very least contributed to the "turning tide" notions when subsequent polls were closer to the more accurate ~50% mark.


You may be right. The effect/effectiveness of that ad may have been smaller than it seemed to me.

But I maintain that Newsom's speech was politically irresponsible. It was arrogant and condescending to bellow bellicosely that "it's going to happen, whether you like it or not."

Granted, that speech was a year before YouTube was launched. He might have been a little smarter about it a few years later. But I still say he was being a dick and pandering to the audience in front of him. (Shocking, I know.)
 
Displayed 25 of 175 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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