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.

(CNN)   Is DOMA doomed? It's your big f'ing hubbub over something that will seem silly in 50 years thread, Day 2   (cnn.com) divider line 221
    More: Obvious, DOMA, supreme courts, same-sex marriages, Theodore B. Olson, Paul Clement, American Law, Tammy Hollingsworth, United States Code  
•       •       •

4110 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Mar 2013 at 8:27 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-27 08:02:10 AM
US Constitution 14th Amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

/discuss
 
2013-03-27 08:05:35 AM
It already seems silly.

alywa: nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


If only it were just that easy. It should be, but apparently it isn't.
 
2013-03-27 08:18:29 AM
weknowmemes.com

yup.
 
2013-03-27 08:25:13 AM
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial orientation classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial orientation discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race the same gender resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Updated that for Earl Warren
 
2013-03-27 08:26:18 AM
It is sickening that "separate but equal" is rearing its ugly head again.

/B-b-but civili unions are just as good...
 
2013-03-27 08:30:18 AM
I see nothing wrong with keeping marriage to the Biblical definition: one man and 700 wives.  Or one man and a prisoner of war.  Or one man and his rape victim.
 
2013-03-27 08:30:57 AM
How come every time someone ends their post with 'discuss', I have the tendency to shout: No!?
 
2013-03-27 08:32:09 AM
The court hates deciding the actual matter at hand.  They will probably say the death tax is unconstitutional instead.
 
2013-03-27 08:32:16 AM

alywa: /discuss


You called?
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-27 08:32:38 AM
Allow me to sum up the Right's legal argument:

"I said God said those f-ggots can't get married."
 
2013-03-27 08:32:43 AM

nekom: It already seems silly.

alywa: nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


If only it were just that easy. It should be, but apparently it isn't.


But but but but it's SO SOON! PROGRESS IS MOVING TOO FAST!

Is what Kennedy, Alito, and Roberts seriously offered as challenges to Olson.
 
2013-03-27 08:33:07 AM

Kyro: I see nothing wrong with keeping marriage to the Biblical definition: one man and 700 wives.  Or one man and a prisoner of war.  Or one man and his rape victim.


Don't forget the pillar of salt.
 
2013-03-27 08:33:38 AM
With 4 libba-libbies wanting to tear it down, and two federalists who want the feds out of state law, DOMA is, indeed, doomed.

Discuss?
 
2013-03-27 08:33:44 AM

ginandbacon: Kyro: I see nothing wrong with keeping marriage to the Biblical definition: one man and 700 wives.  Or one man and a prisoner of war.  Or one man and his rape victim.

Don't forget the pillar of salt.


The salt, the salt, the goddamned salt!
 
2013-03-27 08:33:59 AM
Obligatory: Supreme Court On Gay Marriage: 'Sure, Who Cares' - WASHINGTON-Ten minutes into oral arguments over whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry one another, a visibly confounded Supreme Court stopped legal proceedings Tuesday and ruled that gay marriage was "perfectly fine" and that the court could "care less who marries whom."

"Yeah, of course gay men and women can get married. Who gives a shiat?" said Chief Justice John Roberts, who interrupted attorney Charles Cooper's opening statement defending Proposition 8, which rescinded same-sex couples' right to marry in California. "Why are we even seriously discussing this?"
 
2013-03-27 08:34:25 AM

ginandbacon: Kyro: I see nothing wrong with keeping marriage to the Biblical definition: one man and 700 wives.  Or one man and a prisoner of war.  Or one man and his rape victim.

Don't forget the pillar of salt.


Nice Job.
 
2013-03-27 08:34:39 AM
They will punt on Prop 8 and strike down DOMA. The dude who authored the bill has changed his mind, the pres who signed it too. The executive branch wont defend it. But more importantly, arent there like 250 major corporations that have signed an amicus brief saying its bad business?

Idunno, coffee tiemz!
 
2013-03-27 08:34:42 AM
For the "party of small government" Conservatives sure like to make laws that dictate how you should live your life.
 
2013-03-27 08:34:46 AM

festoon: Obligatory: Supreme Court On Gay Marriage: 'Sure, Who Cares' - WASHINGTON-Ten minutes into oral arguments over whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry one another, a visibly confounded Supreme Court stopped legal proceedings Tuesday and ruled that gay marriage was "perfectly fine" and that the court could "care less who marries whom."

"Yeah, of course gay men and women can get married. Who gives a shiat?" said Chief Justice John Roberts, who interrupted attorney Charles Cooper's opening statement defending Proposition 8, which rescinded same-sex couples' right to marry in California. "Why are we even seriously discussing this?"


I love the Onion oh so much
 
2013-03-27 08:34:58 AM

maddogdelta: alywa: /discuss

You called?
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 720x538]


those look like my fish! hawt
 
2013-03-27 08:36:24 AM

verbaltoxin:

But but but but it's SO SOON! PROGRESS IS MOVING TOO FAST!

Is what Kennedy, Alito, and Roberts seriously offered as challenges to Olson.


To be fair, there is at least some degree of logic in that. SCOTUS with its long term up to lifetime appointments do serve as some of our slowest political ballast, and there's something to be said for that. Not on this issue, though, there's no excuse for dragging feet here. We're talking about giving fundamental civil rights to all people here. And if marriage isn't a fundamental civil right for gays, then it shouldn't be for straights either. Fair's fair.
 
2013-03-27 08:36:32 AM
As a Christian, I am in full support of marriage equality.
 
2013-03-27 08:37:54 AM
I find it equally humorous and sad when somebody wearing clothes made up of blended fibers is quoting Liviticus to put down gay marriage.
 
2013-03-27 08:37:58 AM
Meanwhile on Rev.K's agenda in Canada.

- make coffee
- feed dog
- get gay married
- get mail
 
2013-03-27 08:38:04 AM
Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
 
2013-03-27 08:39:00 AM
The problem is that what the same-sex people are asking for isn't the freedom to love who they want, it's access to the extra perks married couples get, like tax breaks, inheritance rules, etc. The more I think about this, the more it seems that what's really unfair is that hetero couples get so many special financial breaks from a government that is not supposed to be involved in that sort of thing at all.

"Marriage", as opposed to "civil union", is fundamentally a religion-based concept. Maybe what we should be rethinking is whether married people deserve all the benefits they get. Small Government types should be all over this.

I wonder if, in 50 years, what will seem silly is that marriage was ever supported by the government at all.
 
2013-03-27 08:39:26 AM
Looks pretty silly right now.

No one gets married anymore and the gays want to fight for the right?
Sure, have at it. Equality for all is a good thing. More rights is a good thing.

/It shouldn't have been a federal issue to begin with.
/The sooner we shake this Clinton era nonsense, the sooner we can move on.
 
2013-03-27 08:39:28 AM
Did everyone change their profile picture to the DOMA oral argument one? Because if you didn't the Justices won't know which way they should rule on this case.
 
2013-03-27 08:39:39 AM

verbaltoxin: ginandbacon: Kyro: I see nothing wrong with keeping marriage to the Biblical definition: one man and 700 wives.  Or one man and a prisoner of war.  Or one man and his rape victim.

Don't forget the pillar of salt.

The salt, the salt, the goddamned salt!


Or Soylent Green.
 
2013-03-27 08:40:38 AM

alizeran: They will punt on Prop 8 and strike down DOMA. The dude who authored the bill has changed his mind, the pres who signed it too. The executive branch wont defend it. But more importantly, arent there like 250 major corporations that have signed an amicus brief saying its bad business?

Idunno, coffee tiemz!


Listening to the oral arguments yesterday I agree. Sounds like most of the justices didn't really wanted to rule on the case because there wasn't a great way to contain the ruling to CA.
 
2013-03-27 08:40:39 AM

MrBallou: I wonder if, in 50 years, what will seem silly is that marriage was ever supported by the government at all.


I've been saying this for a long time.  Eliminate marriage as a legal construct.
 
2013-03-27 08:41:03 AM
img7.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-27 08:41:14 AM

sakanagai: It is sickening that "separate but equal" is rearing its ugly head again.

/B-b-but civili unions are just as good...


First, it's silly that we don't have marriage equality.  Second, I wish they'd aim for civil unions first at the federal level so everyone has equal rights for taxes, hospital visitation and so on.  Sounds like the Supreme Court is taking a "we're not deciding either way kinda stance" where they're basically going to leave it to the states.  Of course, if one were to ask the Supreme Court whether marijuana legalization should be left up to the states, I bet you'd get a different opinion.  Funny that.
 
2013-03-27 08:41:42 AM
50 years? Try right now.
 
2013-03-27 08:42:57 AM

special20: ginandbacon: Kyro: I see nothing wrong with keeping marriage to the Biblical definition: one man and 700 wives.  Or one man and a prisoner of war.  Or one man and his rape victim.

Don't forget the pillar of salt.

Nice Job.


Ahahahaaa! You win! :)
 
2013-03-27 08:43:19 AM

MrBallou: The problem is that what the same-sex people are asking for isn't the freedom to love who they want, it's access to the extra perks married couples get, like tax breaks, inheritance rules, etc.


Why is that a problem?
 
2013-03-27 08:43:58 AM

alizeran: They will punt on Prop 8 and strike down DOMA. The dude who authored the bill has changed his mind, the pres who signed it too. The executive branch wont defend it. But more importantly, arent there like 250 major corporations that have signed an amicus brief saying its bad business?

Idunno, coffee tiemz!


Right, but it's not a proper SCOTUS thread unless we mock Antonin Scalia for being the sh*t-heel troll that he is.
 
2013-03-27 08:44:19 AM
I am against same-sex marriage.  I am also against traditional marriage.  It is time to get the government out of the marriage business.  The government should only recognize civil unions.  Marriage should then be left to the people.  Let the various churches decide if they want to marry someone.  Let two people stand up in front of a shrubbery and pronounce themselves married.  But, if marriage is to remain a legal institution then the government has the duty and obligation to extend this privilege to all consenting adults, be they gay, straight, or whatever.  Heck, extend it to republicans for all I care.

And as for all those religitards screaming that it is unnatural, please kindly keep your superstition to yourself.
 
2013-03-27 08:46:07 AM

MrBallou: The problem is that what the same-sex people are asking for isn't the freedom to love who they want, it's access to the extra perks married couples get, like tax breaks, inheritance rules, etc. The more I think about this, the more it seems that what's really unfair is that hetero couples get so many special financial breaks from a government that is not supposed to be involved in that sort of thing at all.

"Marriage", as opposed to "civil union", is fundamentally a religion-based concept. Maybe what we should be rethinking is whether married people deserve all the benefits they get. Small Government types should be all over this.

I wonder if, in 50 years, what will seem silly is that marriage was ever supported by the government at all.


I'd like the state (read nation) to abandon the Marriage aspect in favor of Civil Unions in the first place.  Marriage is a religious sacrament.  It comes with state perks and a whole lot of emotional/spiritual considerations.  I think what is most fair is to offer the same state benefits to both hetero and homosexual couples via civil unions (separate from your suggestion to reduce benefits, that's a whole different discussion).  That'd give the gay marriage opponents even less ground to stand on too, and take out the God/Bible-factor all together.
 
2013-03-27 08:46:51 AM

special20: ginandbacon: Kyro: I see nothing wrong with keeping marriage to the Biblical definition: one man and 700 wives.  Or one man and a prisoner of war.  Or one man and his rape victim.

Don't forget the pillar of salt.

Nice Job.


+1 lol
 
2013-03-27 08:47:07 AM
2.bp.blogspot.com
/oblig
 
2013-03-27 08:47:26 AM

MrBallou: Marriage", as opposed to "civil union", is fundamentally a religion-based concept.


[citation needed]
 
2013-03-27 08:47:49 AM
MrBallou has it right. Instead of spreading marriage rules to gays, let's remove all marriage rules from gummint. Civil Union for everyone. Wanna be married? Go to the church of yur choice. Want a civil union? Write a contract and get it notarized. Any  two adults, for reasons iterated in the contract. (For purposes like tax treatment, inheritance, child care and custody; even duration.
 
2013-03-27 08:47:51 AM
Prediction time!

Standing - the standing issues here are quite complicated, as we have a caucus of the legislature seeking to appeal a decision conceded by the executive branch.  My guess is that the Court will use Windsor and Hollingsworth as companion cases on Standing, much like it did in Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger on the issue of affirmative action.  Here, I think there is a better argument that elected officials who drafted a law have standing to defend that law, although i still feel that the "injury in fact" requirement is . . . shall we say squishy.

Merits - Once we get to the merits, I think we are honestly looking at a likely fractured opinion to strike down sections of the law.  I think the liberal wing, in general, will support an equal protection argument to strike down the law.  Here, however,m the real fireworks will be over the Second Circuit's use of intermediate scrutiny.  In its opinion, the Second looked to the Supreme Court's prior jurisprudence in Romer and Lawrence and claimed it embraced an intermediate level of scrutiny for gay issues.  The problem is that while this may in fact be an honest assessment of what was done in those two cases, the Court expressly and emphatically claimed it was not making a new scrutiny level for homosexuals.  Other than the standing issue, i could see this issue being one of the biggest reasons for the Court granting certiorari on this issue.  Personally, i would rather they not find a special level of scrutiny, not because i beleive gay people have not suffered disparate treatment, but because Romer and Lawrence, along with Cleburn, appear to stand for the much broader principle that discriminatory laws based only on morality (or "we think they are icky") cannot pass even rational basis review.  I like this principle and would like it to remain.  However, i would not be surprised to see a split on the leftward wing of the court on this scrutiny question.

As to the righties, i could see many of them actually striking down sections of DOMA based on federalism - i.e. the argument that the federal government doesn't get to say what marriage is, as that is a power reserved to the states.  Even though it could be argued that the federal government is only determining who gets federal benefits - which surely must be within its power, i think looking to the states that have allowed gay marriage, we see the federal government's position basically means that a gay couple may be Massachusetts married, but not Federally married.  Given comments in Lawrence and Romer, i could see Scalia pulling this way (no really), as his disdain of federal power telling the states what to do is kinda his whole thing.

Thus, in the end i could see a big ol mess of a merits opinion, with 2 striking down under the EPC using intermediate scrutiny (Ginsburg and Kagen) 3 for striking down under the EPC using Rational Basis review (Kennedy, Sotomayor, Breyer), 5 for striking down under federalism (Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Kennedy, and likely someone weird, like Ginsburg or Breyer) and Thomas in the corner shouting at clouds.

Of course - I will be interested to see how i am wrong.
 
2013-03-27 08:47:59 AM

alizeran: [img7.imageshack.us image 499x288]


dl.dropbox.com
Wait, hold up a sec!
Need a few more hours in Photoshop.
 
2013-03-27 08:48:07 AM
Remember, kids: Federal Government is ALWAYS incompetent, ALWAYS malevolent, and ALWAYS YOUR MORTAL ENEMY - except when it comes to keeping the gays down.
 
2013-03-27 08:48:09 AM
Mock26:

Damn your nimble fingers....
 
2013-03-27 08:48:58 AM

VoodooTaco: MrBallou: The problem is that what the same-sex people are asking for isn't the freedom to love who they want, it's access to the extra perks married couples get, like tax breaks, inheritance rules, etc. The more I think about this, the more it seems that what's really unfair is that hetero couples get so many special financial breaks from a government that is not supposed to be involved in that sort of thing at all.

"Marriage", as opposed to "civil union", is fundamentally a religion-based concept. Maybe what we should be rethinking is whether married people deserve all the benefits they get. Small Government types should be all over this.

I wonder if, in 50 years, what will seem silly is that marriage was ever supported by the government at all.

I'd like the state (read nation) to abandon the Marriage aspect in favor of Civil Unions in the first place.  Marriage is a religious sacrament.  It comes with state perks and a whole lot of emotional/spiritual considerations.  I think what is most fair is to offer the same state benefits to both hetero and homosexual couples via civil unions (separate from your suggestion to reduce benefits, that's a whole different discussion).  That'd give the gay marriage opponents even less ground to stand on too, and take out the God/Bible-factor all together.


And the benefit there is nothing would prevent some churches from opening their doors and saying "you can get gay married here, we're cool" and leave the bigots to themselves.
 
2013-03-27 08:49:05 AM

dinch: I find it equally humorous and sad when somebody wearing clothes made up of blended fibers is quoting Liviticus to put down gay marriage.


And then goes out for shrimp!

Of course, whenever possible I ask them how many homosexuals they have stoned to death.  If they quote leviticus as the reason for why homosexuality is a sin then surely they must also mete out the punishment.  Right?  Sadly, they conveniently say that it is against the law to kill someone.  What a bunch of hypocrites.
 
2013-03-27 08:49:43 AM

alizeran: They will punt on Prop 8 and strike down DOMA.


I dont see a holding on standing to be a punt - as, frankly, I think the standing issue is the only reason they took up the case in the first place.
 
Displayed 50 of 221 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