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  
•       •       •

4111 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 09:16:38 AM

RexTalionis: ArgusRun:


www.cyclonefanatic.com
It's not a punt.
 
2013-03-27 09:17:01 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.


The words in the constitution don't mean what you think they mean. "Shall not" actually means "may." "Commerce among the several states" means that plus anything that could conceivably affect that including not participating in commerce.  And "nor deny to any person" means "nor deny to any person in the majority." It's called subtext and it's a very important concept in our completely non-retarded judicial system.
 
2013-03-27 09:18:22 AM

Teiritzamna: I find it hard to believe that the Court will support an argument that boils down to "a state court can confer Article III standing if it really wants to"


Yep. Also nothing is stopping the supreme court from declaring there is no standing to defend the law and nuking Prop 8.
 
2013-03-27 09:19:59 AM

Teiritzamna: RexTalionis: ArgusRun:

[www.cyclonefanatic.com image 266x202]
It's not a punt.


It doesn't go to the merits of the case - I consider that a punt, especially if they choose to dismiss it altogether without ruling on standing.
 
2013-03-27 09:23:48 AM
Everyone on this thread seems to be arguing over whether DOMA ought to survive or not. But the question is how the Court actually will act. I think even the activist right-wing justices (and we all know who they are) may have realized by now that simply coming down strongly against gay marriage would be a bad political move on their part, much as they would like to do it. It would make the conservatives and the fundies happy but would alienate the majority of the rest of the country, especially the younger one-third of the population, which would be very bad for the justices in the long run. They don't want to be marginalized. For that reason, I think the Court will punt. They will support the conservative, anti-gay position in both these cases -- but only to the smallest extent possible. They will come up with a "technical" decision that completely ignores the larger issue.

And when North Dakota's draconian new anti-choice law makes it to the Court (and it will, and rather quickly, which is why it was enacted), I expect the justices to follow the same "get that toxic issue away from me" strategy.
 
2013-03-27 09:24:40 AM

RexTalionis: Teiritzamna: RexTalionis: ArgusRun:

[www.cyclonefanatic.com image 266x202]
It's not a punt.

It doesn't go to the merits of the case - I consider that a punt, especially if they choose to dismiss it altogether without ruling on standing.


I guess my feelings are this - if an appellate court picks up a case because of its procedural flaws, and rules on those procedural flaws, I don't see it as a punt.  Looking at Hollingsworth, the standing issue is really the only part of it that calls out for Supreme Court review.
 
2013-03-27 09:24:57 AM

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

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


Civil unions wouldn't bother me if they were for everyone. All of the legal stuff about marriage for everyone would be a civil union, and if you want to go to a church for a marriage, fine. I have no problem separating the civil parts of marriage from the religious. I am all for more separation between church and state.

But, no, having civil unions for one group of people and marriages for another, that is segregation.
 
2013-03-27 09:25:35 AM
RexTalionis:
However, you are correct - if they dismiss without an actual ruling, then sure total puntaroonie
 
2013-03-27 09:27:08 AM

DeaH:
Civil unions wouldn't bother me if they were for everyone. All of the legal stuff about marriage for everyone would be a civil union, and if you want to go to a church for a marriage, fine. I have no problem separating the civil parts of marriage from the religious. I am all for more separation between church and state.

But, no, having civil unions for one group of people and marriages for another, that is segregation.


So much THIS. Let the church decide what "marriage" is and leave the government out of it. The government, likewise should dictate what a civil union is and leave the church out of it. An exclusive contract entered into by two natural persons. (no, you can't marry a horse any more than you can sell a car to a horse, as it is not a natural person) That's my definition of it. To allow this contract to some, but not others based on their respective genders is nothing short of discrimination.
 
2013-03-27 09:29:14 AM

DeaH: Civil unions wouldn't bother me if they were for everyone. All of the legal stuff about marriage for everyone would be a civil union, and if you want to go to a church for a marriage, fine. I have no problem separating the civil parts of marriage from the religious. I am all for more separation between church and state.

But, no, having civil unions for one group of people and marriages for another, that is segregation.


The trick is, as has been discussed ad nauseam every single time this argument comes up, marriage is a state matter.  Has been since the founding.  It is governmental.  That's why you can go to a justice of the peace and get married.  Or a ship captain.  Sure you can get married in a religions ceremony - but really that is mostly a show.  The marriage is the paperwork you do for the state.  The plan you are suggesting would cede this whole governmental matter to religions and make up a new one for government.

tl;dr - to coin a phrase from office space "why should government have to change, religion is the one who sucks"
 
2013-03-27 09:30:12 AM
MrBallou:

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

No it isn't.
Holy Matrimony is the one you're looking for.
 
2013-03-27 09:34:23 AM

RexTalionis: ArgusRun: DOMA is doomed, but they'll punt on Prop 8 .  Split the baby so to speak, but both wind up as at least partial wins for marriage equality.

Even if they punt on Proposition 8, the most likely outcome is that Proposition 8 will be dead. If they, for instance, decide that the Prop 8 proponents lack standing, then the 9th Cir. appellate decision is wiped out because the Prop 8 proponents could not have brought the case before them, which means that the District Court decision finding Prop 8 unconstitutional will stand.

If SCOTUS decides to dismiss Proposition 8, then the 9th Cir. appellate decision will stand - which means Prop 8 will still be unconstitutional.

Only if SCOTUS affirmatively rules that Proposition 8 is constitutional and allowable will Proposition 8 stay in force, and a lot of observers think that is highly unlikely.


Agreed.  That's what I meant by a  partial victory.  Prop 8 is struck down, but without a sweeping ruling that same sex marriage is constitutional.
 
2013-03-27 09:36:18 AM

ArgusRun: Prop 8 is struck down, but without a sweeping ruling that same sex marriage is constitutional.


No legal observer of Prop 8 ever expected a sweeping ruling that same sex marriage is constitutional - the arguments presented at every level were extremely California specific and narrow - i.e. that California cannot take away a right a group previously had by ballot measure.
 
2013-03-27 09:37:09 AM
Hahahahahaha ... I've got one ...

The only incest laws in Ohio deal with the parent/child relationship over the age of consent (16).

Which means, in no parsed words, that IN OHIO, you can marry your sister, your brother, or your cousin and have that marriage be recognized in ALL 50 STATES.

Take that GAY MARRIAGE!

media.tumblr.com
 
2013-03-27 09:39:02 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.


How many goats you think some of them Republicans want for one of their daughters?
 
2013-03-27 09:41:19 AM

RexTalionis: ArgusRun: Prop 8 is struck down, but without a sweeping ruling that same sex marriage is constitutional.

No legal observer of Prop 8 ever expected a sweeping ruling that same sex marriage is constitutional - the arguments presented at every level were extremely California specific and narrow - i.e. that California cannot take away a right a group previously had by ballot measure.


Which is funny though because a narrow ruling only opens up a possible future case in states where it is banned. Narrow rulings in instances like this are like puling a band-aid VERY slowly. That damn thing is going to come off anyway, the court just needs to suck it up and rip the damn thing off.

The whole thing is honestly infuriating, on its face through solid legal logic its obvious that none of these laws are legal when scrutinized under existing case law and current reading of the constitution.
 
2013-03-27 09:43:21 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.


Should murderers and rapists be treated equally?

/just typing that has made me ill
 
2013-03-27 09:44:28 AM

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

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


What was wrong with the seats at the back of the bus anyways?  Just as comfy.
 
2013-03-27 09:45:47 AM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Which is funny though because a narrow ruling only opens up a possible future case in states where it is banned. Narrow rulings in instances like this are like puling a band-aid VERY slowly. That damn thing is going to come off anyway, the court just needs to suck it up and rip the damn thing off.

The whole thing is honestly infuriating, on its face through solid legal logic its obvious that none of these laws are legal when scrutinized under existing case law and current reading of the constitution.


Two things:

1) a principle of law is that you should probably restrict yourself to the cases you have.  When you step outside of that, you get debacles like Citizens United, where the court actively shifted the scope of the dispute, and everyone loved how that turned out.

2) the merits of a case are not the only reason for supreme court review.  Procedural problems often concern the court far more than substantive ones.  Here, the reason they picked up such a narrow case likely has less to do with trepidation over moving quickly and more to do with the fact that the procedural history of the case is such a crazy clusterfark that it would have been irresponsible for the Court not to take the case and attempt to sort them out.
 
2013-03-27 09:48:21 AM
With the Prop 8 case, I don't see how the people that want to keep gay marriage have standing.  At all.  How can they show they were specifically "injured" by gay marriage in a way that other people were not injured?

Regarding the merits of either:  I think Loving v Virginia and Lawrence v Texas are instructive but for different reasons.  Loving articulated a fundamental right to marriage when mixed-race marriage wasn't allowed by statute (at the time.)  Lawrence is instructive in the sense that (among other reasons,) Scalia himself (in the dissent) basically acknowledged if we take Lawrence to it's logical conclusion, gay marriage has to be constitutional.

So if they have to follow the precedents set by their cases, acknowledging a constitutional right to gay marriage is the reasonable conclusion.

I don't really even think this survives rational basis scrutiny.
 
2013-03-27 09:48:29 AM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: RexTalionis: ArgusRun: Prop 8 is struck down, but without a sweeping ruling that same sex marriage is constitutional.

No legal observer of Prop 8 ever expected a sweeping ruling that same sex marriage is constitutional - the arguments presented at every level were extremely California specific and narrow - i.e. that California cannot take away a right a group previously had by ballot measure.

Which is funny though because a narrow ruling only opens up a possible future case in states where it is banned. Narrow rulings in instances like this are like puling a band-aid VERY slowly. That damn thing is going to come off anyway, the court just needs to suck it up and rip the damn thing off.

The whole thing is honestly infuriating, on its face through solid legal logic its obvious that none of these laws are legal when scrutinized under existing case law and current reading of the constitution.


You want to keep it narrow regardless. The easiest way to stall the same sex marriage movement? Broaden the issues and have the Supreme Court render a bad precedent that will stick around for years or decades. Better to make it as narrow as possible.
 
2013-03-27 09:48:59 AM

mrshowrules:
Should murderers and rapists be treated equally?

/just typing that has made me ill


Actually, I say yes. Do you care if a murderer or a rapist is white, black, gay, straight, hindu, muslim, etc? If say Jerry Sandusky had been black, I'd say he deserves the same effective life sentence.
 
2013-03-27 09:50:21 AM
 
2013-03-27 09:51:15 AM

Rev.K: Meanwhile on Rev.K's agenda in Canada.

- make coffee
- feed dog
- get gay married
- get mail


Really?
 
2013-03-27 09:53:23 AM
static.ddmcdn.com
 
2013-03-27 09:54:17 AM

UNC_Samurai: propasaurus: 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.

Or someone with a tattoo:
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 700x446]

I wonder if anyone has ever gotten a tattoo of Ezekiel 23:20...


Looked up 20:23 by mistake. Next time I go to a football game I'm making a sign saying Ezekial 20:23, cause that made me laugh my ass off!
 
2013-03-27 09:55:43 AM
i2.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-27 09:57:05 AM
The comments section on there is a trainwreck.
 
2013-03-27 09:58:49 AM

FirstNationalBastard: If gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage, why is divorce still legal?

/so, if DOMA is struck down, can I marry my turtle?


Is your turtle a legally-consenting adult? No?  Then shut up.

/so freaking sick of hearing this argument.
 
2013-03-27 09:59:00 AM
Yes, DOMA is indeed doomed.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-27 09:59:21 AM
FTA: "Forty-one states now forbid same-sex marriage, although nine of them allow civil partnerships. Nine other states allow same-sex marriage, and about 120,000 same-sex couples have gotten married, according to estimates."

41 + 9 + 9 = 59.  When did we get nine more states?
 
2013-03-27 09:59:23 AM
Ah yes, gay marriage, so important it could be said to be the most important topic Jesus ever spoke about, 2nd only to abortion.
 
2013-03-27 10:00:37 AM

FirstNationalBastard: gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage, why is divorce still legal?


Sorry - just re-read that. I think I'm still wound up from reading the comments on that article.
 
2013-03-27 10:00:39 AM

FlashHarry: [weknowmemes.com image 374x731]

yup.


Judging by the ages of the people in both pictures, it's entirely possible they are all the same people.
 
2013-03-27 10:01:44 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.


As long as she's not a LEGITIMATE RAPE victim, 'cause that would shut the whole thing down.
 
2013-03-27 10:03:26 AM
In 50 years heterosexuality will be banned.

And everyone will be fabulous !!!
 
2013-03-27 10:03:46 AM
Yesterday on Facebook, I saw a lot of red equal signs. Even many people who kept their thumbnail the same posted pictures in support of gay marriage. Some of my older relatives (I am 50) surprised me in their support of equality. Today, I am starting to see some defensive posts from the anti-equality folks. I particular enjoyed this gem of defensiveness:

"Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate."

Setting aside the fact that the quote comes from Rick Warren, how does one maintain one's compassion while tearing a family apart or forcing others into a loveless, lonely life because you think gay is icky?
 
2013-03-27 10:03:56 AM

cfreak: FTA: "Forty-one states now forbid same-sex marriage, although nine of them allow civil partnerships. Nine other states allow same-sex marriage, and about 120,000 same-sex couples have gotten married, according to estimates."

41 + 9 + 9 = 59.  When did we get nine more states?


The first 9 is a subset of the 41.
 
2013-03-27 10:05:38 AM
Prediction.  Regardless of what SCOTUS decides - hopefully it will be in favor of same sex marriage - the GLBT community will be spend a lot of time and energy complaining how they were slighted or wronged by the decision.  For some reason there is no satisfying that group.  Their constant whining causes some votes to be cast against them just for spite.  At some point they need to learn to just shut up and say thank you but that's probably asking too much.  Being the perpetual martyr does get old after a while.
 
2013-03-27 10:07:00 AM

farm machine: Prediction.  Regardless of what SCOTUS decides - hopefully it will be in favor of same sex marriage - the GLBT community will be spend a lot of time and energy complaining how they were slighted or wronged by the decision.  For some reason there is no satisfying that group.  Their constant whining causes some votes to be cast against them just for spite.  At some point they need to learn to just shut up and say thank you but that's probably asking too much.  Being the perpetual martyr does get old after a while.


6
 
2013-03-27 10:07:01 AM

cfreak: FTA: "Forty-one states now forbid same-sex marriage, although nine of them allow civil partnerships. Nine other states allow same-sex marriage, and about 120,000 same-sex couples have gotten married, according to estimates."

41 + 9 + 9 = 59.  When did we get nine more states?


The 9 with civil unions are a subset of the 41.
 
2013-03-27 10:09:25 AM

way south: 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.


A Republican blaming Clinton for this "nonsense". Priceless.
 
2013-03-27 10:11:21 AM

farm machine: Prediction.  Regardless of what SCOTUS decides - hopefully it will be in favor of same sex marriage - the GLBT community will be spend a lot of time and energy complaining how they were slighted or wronged by the decision.  For some reason there is no satisfying that group.  Their constant whining causes some votes to be cast against them just for spite.  At some point they need to learn to just shut up and say thank you but that's probably asking too much.  Being the perpetual martyr does get old after a while.


Uppity Gays how dare they demand equal rights to your stupid redneck ass.
 
2013-03-27 10:12:47 AM
DeaH:
"Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate."

Setting aside the fact that the quote comes from Rick Warren, how does one maintain one's compassion while tearing a family apart or forcing others into a loveless, lonely life because you think gay is icky?

Funny, I read that quote as being pro same sex marriage.
 
2013-03-27 10:14:31 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-27 10:20:02 AM

Teiritzamna: 2) the merits of a case are not the only reason for supreme court review. Procedural problems often concern the court far more than substantive ones. Here, the reason they picked up such a narrow case likely has less to do with trepidation over moving quickly and more to do with the fact that the procedural history of the case is such a crazy clusterfark that it would have been irresponsible for the Court not to take the case and attempt to sort them out.


I'll buy that for a dollar.

I guess its just frustrating because we all know where this pony is going to end up in this horse race, but instead of taking the bet we're instead playing it safe and hedging our bets on the show for now.
 
2013-03-27 10:20:32 AM

Muta: DeaH:
"Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate."

Setting aside the fact that the quote comes from Rick Warren, how does one maintain one's compassion while tearing a family apart or forcing others into a loveless, lonely life because you think gay is icky?

Funny, I read that quote as being pro same sex marriage.


Sure, if your "deeply held conviction" is not that gay is unnatural and sinful and that allowing anything other than one man and one woman (please note the woman never comes first) is destructive to society and the "right kind" of families. If it is, then you want people to know that you are repressing them, but out of love and compassion.
 
2013-03-27 10:20:45 AM

huntercr: I don't know if it makes me too much of a hipster or not enough, but I sisn't know what DOMA even ment until this morning.


Well, ask your history teacher when you get to school this morning.  I'm sure he or she will be able to tell you a lot about the magical time we call the nineties.
 
2013-03-27 10:22:00 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.


I think you have mistaken a Lot.
 
2013-03-27 10:22:45 AM

a_room_with_a_moose: 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.

I think you have mistaken a Lot.


Forget it. He's rolling.
 
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