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.

(Yahoo)   Kagan: So if this law were based on Congress' "moral disapproval" of gays it should be struck down right? DOMA Lawyer: of course, Kagan: Well Congress said on the record here that the bill is based on a "moral disapproval of homosexualty"   (news.yahoo.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, DOMA, congresses, supreme courts, civil laws, Paul Clement, moral disapproval, specific intent, gays  
•       •       •

7649 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Mar 2013 at 1:34 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-03-28 01:04:17 PM  
Awesome.

Government has no place in morality, and morality has no place in government.
 
2013-03-28 01:07:52 PM  
And the government of the Pharisees, by the Pharisees, and for the Pharisees shall not perish from this earth.
 
2013-03-28 01:07:56 PM  
"...yeah, but...they didn't mean it."
 
2013-03-28 01:14:00 PM  
This is just great. It really seems like the Justices are having fun with this more than anything. It's like you know exactly how they're going to rule, they're just playing with the prey a little before going in for the kill.
 
2013-03-28 01:16:14 PM  
To be fair, that's not really how the exchange happened. Rather, the lawyer agreed that was in the Congressional record, but pointed out that the court doesn't usually use those records as the basis for determining whether there were any other basis for upholding a law.
 
2013-03-28 01:19:53 PM  

scottydoesntknow: This is just great. It really seems like the Justices are having fun with this more than anything. It's like you know exactly how they're going to rule, they're just playing with the prey a little before going in for the kill.


Well let's not go sucking each other's dicks in the holy bonds of matrimony yet. A lot of this seems to be coming specifically from Kagan and Sotomayor. We still got those old dudes to worry about. From this same article:

Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to doubt that gay people are a disadvantaged minority under that definition, however. "As far as I can tell, political figures are falling over themselves to endorse your side of the case," he told attorney Roberta Kaplan, who argued to strike down DOMA on Wednesday. Roberts said those supporting gay marriage are "politically powerful."

I'm just saying, let's not plan the victory party yet. There's a lot left to be seen, and I don't exactly trust a few of the Justices to rule in favor of equality.
 
2013-03-28 01:22:28 PM  
Very confusing stuff.  Thinking homosexuality as immoral in 1996 will force people to treat them as equals today but if everyone agreed that treating them as unequal for no real reason, we would have a stronger case to do so.

Also, that political leadership today supports same-sex marriage, means the court can't hold the law up to the full scrutiny of a of a law which is probably discriminatory.

farking confusing but as near as I can tell, if politicians said they loved gays in 1996 but hate them today, the people for same sex marriage would have much firmer legal footing.
 
2013-03-28 01:32:46 PM  
DOMA is so fkn dead.

But I can't wait to see how Scalia justifies his opposition.
 
2013-03-28 01:33:48 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: DOMA is so fkn dead.

But I can't wait to see how Scalia justifies his opposition.


I assume he'll stick to his dissent in Lawrence and claim that moral prejudice is, in and of itself, a rational basis for a law.
 
2013-03-28 01:38:40 PM  
Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to doubt that gay people are a disadvantaged minority under that definition, however. "As far as I can tell, political figures are falling over themselves to endorse your side of the case," he told attorney Roberta Kaplan, who argued to strike down DOMA on Wednesday. Roberts said those supporting gay marriage are "politically powerful."

They are so politically powerful that they can't legally get married.

What a stupid goddamn statement.
 
2013-03-28 01:39:56 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: morality has no place in government


Well we have achieved that part at least.
 
2013-03-28 01:40:03 PM  
Uh, unless I'm missing something, that's not how I would have summarized the back and forth there at all.

Lionel Mandrake: DOMA is so fkn dead.


But not from this court case.  Kagan has the logic and argument on her side dead to rights, not from this quote though but from other better examples.  So my money is the SCOTUS finds a way to weasel out of ruling and sends it back to a lower court.  I mean think about it, what the hell else would someone like Scalia do?  He either votes against state rights, or he votes for gay marriage.
 
2013-03-28 01:40:21 PM  

lennavan: Uh, unless I'm missing something, that's not how I would have summarized the back and forth there at all.


Agreed.
 
2013-03-28 01:40:47 PM  
Where was this moral disapproval when Strom Thurmond's wrinkled posterior made an appearance?
 
2013-03-28 01:40:59 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: Government has no place in morality, and morality has no place in government.


Couldn't agree with you less, by the way. Government is all about morality.
 
2013-03-28 01:41:21 PM  
DOMA is going down faster than a republican in an airport men's room stall.
 
2013-03-28 01:41:58 PM  

lennavan: Uh, unless I'm missing something, that's not how I would have summarized the back and forth there at all.

Lionel Mandrake: DOMA is so fkn dead.

But not from this court case.  Kagan has the logic and argument on her side dead to rights, not from this quote though but from other better examples.  So my money is the SCOTUS finds a way to weasel out of ruling and sends it back to a lower court.  I mean think about it, what the hell else would someone like Scalia do?  He either votes against state rights, or he votes for gay marriage.


I'm not sure that there are enough other Justices who are interested in wiggling out with Scalia on this one.
 
2013-03-28 01:44:08 PM  

DamnYankees: I assume he'll stick to his dissent in Lawrence and claim that moral prejudice is, in and of itself, a rational basis for a law.


That'll be my guess as well

Car_Ramrod: Well let's not go sucking each other's dicks in the holy bonds of matrimony yet. A lot of this seems to be coming specifically from Kagan and Sotomayor. We still got those old dudes to worry about. From this same article:


Kennedy is the one to watch here. Scalia and Thomas during arguments were looking for a way out even to the point where they questioned the standing that there were no damages here but Kennedy quipped in with "It seems to me there's injury here"

Kennedy was also the one who kept circling the wagons around the states rights, while Kagan and Soto were the ones hovering over the equal protection. The winds are pretty strong here that this laws is going down while prop 8 is going to be kicked back to the states.
 
2013-03-28 01:44:55 PM  
Knowing the Supreme Court, they will probably just wuss out.  SSDD.
 
2013-03-28 01:45:20 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Kennedy is the one to watch here. Scalia and Thomas during arguments were looking for a way out even to the point where they questioned the standing that there were no damages here but Kennedy quipped in with "It seems to me there's injury here"


I seriously don't understand the idea for questioning standing to sue under DOMA. I mean, that's insane.

For what its worth, I think the standing argument under prop 8 is bad as well.
 
2013-03-28 01:45:41 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: lennavan: Uh, unless I'm missing something, that's not how I would have summarized the back and forth there at all.

Lionel Mandrake: DOMA is so fkn dead.

But not from this court case.  Kagan has the logic and argument on her side dead to rights, not from this quote though but from other better examples.  So my money is the SCOTUS finds a way to weasel out of ruling and sends it back to a lower court.  I mean think about it, what the hell else would someone like Scalia do?  He either votes against state rights, or he votes for gay marriage.

I'm not sure that there are enough other Justices who are interested in wiggling out with Scalia on this one.


That was my thought.  I'm guessing his puppets (Alito, Thomas) will parrot him, but I don't see two others hopping on board.

But I'm neither a law-talking guy nor a court watcher, so WTF do I know?

About "states rights," how would that work if DOMA's a federal thing?
 
2013-03-28 01:45:53 PM  

DamnYankees: hillbillypharmacist: Government has no place in morality, and morality has no place in government.

Couldn't agree with you less, by the way. Government is all about morality.


Government is about social order, not morality. Well ... our government seems to be all into morality, but the purpose is to preserve social order.
 
2013-03-28 01:46:51 PM  

GameSprocket: Government is about social order, not morality. Well ... our government seems to be all into morality, but the purpose is to preserve social order.


Social order and morality are, basically, the exact same thing in my opinion.
 
2013-03-28 01:46:53 PM  

scottydoesntknow: This is just great. It really seems like the Justices are having fun with this more than anything. It's like you know exactly how they're going to rule, they're just playing with the prey a little before going in for the kill.


Completely. It's like a cat toying with a cornered mouse. In some of the questionings of the lawyers I honestly feel awful for them. They seem to hope to direct the case in a direction completely away from the many legal points against their argument--but they are very, very outmatched by the sheer size, power, and amounts of those legal points.
 
2013-03-28 01:47:19 PM  

DamnYankees: I seriously don't understand the idea for questioning standing to sue under DOMA. I mean, that's insane.

For what its worth, I think the standing argument under prop 8 is bad as well.


Its the corporatist Roberts, he's been leading the charge to limit standing since he's been on the bench
 
2013-03-28 01:48:16 PM  

DamnYankees: GameSprocket: Government is about social order, not morality. Well ... our government seems to be all into morality, but the purpose is to preserve social order.

Social order and morality are, basically, the exact same thing in my opinion.


Morality is subjective
 
2013-03-28 01:48:20 PM  
Nobody can argue a logical and legally valid reason that gay folks shouldn't be able to get married.  It's simply not possible.  However, I don't think our supreme court as it is composed today has the balls or integrity to stand up and say so.
 
2013-03-28 01:48:36 PM  

CPennypacker: Morality is subjective


So is social order.
 
2013-03-28 01:48:58 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: DOMA is so fkn dead.

But I can't wait to see how Scalia justifies his opposition.


I wouldn't be surprised to see DOMA go down 9-0, because it boils down to federal over-reaching.  Prop 8, on the other hand...

/actually, it could split like the decision on Obamacare did, but that's only because the national mandate was justified as a "tax".
 
2013-03-28 01:48:59 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Philip Francis Queeg: lennavan: Uh, unless I'm missing something, that's not how I would have summarized the back and forth there at all.

Lionel Mandrake: DOMA is so fkn dead.

But not from this court case.  Kagan has the logic and argument on her side dead to rights, not from this quote though but from other better examples.  So my money is the SCOTUS finds a way to weasel out of ruling and sends it back to a lower court.  I mean think about it, what the hell else would someone like Scalia do?  He either votes against state rights, or he votes for gay marriage.

I'm not sure that there are enough other Justices who are interested in wiggling out with Scalia on this one.

That was my thought.  I'm guessing his puppets (Alito, Thomas) will parrot him, but I don't see two others hopping on board.

But I'm neither a law-talking guy nor a court watcher, so WTF do I know?

About "states rights," how would that work if DOMA's a federal thing?


Its a federal overreach into powers and rights explicitly and traditionally enjoyed by the states.

Among other things.
 
2013-03-28 01:50:11 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: About "states rights," how would that work if DOMA's a federal thing?


The court would hold that marriage is a state institution defined by them and would recognize those definitions. This would include benefits however as a matter of federal law the feds cannot define marriage and ergo would recognize legally married people in states that recognize that legal union.

Its idiotic I know, as a equal protection ruling would just strike the whole thing including marriage bans across the nation but the court doesn't want to take a Roe v Wade leap.

So we'll all be back here in about 4 or 5 years.
 
2013-03-28 01:51:05 PM  
Nearly everyone regardless of political affiliation agrees to some extent that Washington is corrupt and filled with morally bankrupt politicians.  Why then would we want to allow them to dictate morals to the rest of us?
 
2013-03-28 01:51:23 PM  

DamnYankees: CPennypacker: Morality is subjective

So is social order.


No its not. How we achieve it is.

For example, with morality.
 
2013-03-28 01:51:56 PM  

DamnYankees: Lionel Mandrake: DOMA is so fkn dead.

But I can't wait to see how Scalia justifies his opposition.

I assume he'll stick to his dissent in Lawrence and claim that moral prejudice is, in and of itself, a rational basis for a law.


I'm more interested in Clarence Thomas' opinion.

brainsyndicate.files.wordpress.com
 
Ehh
2013-03-28 01:52:16 PM  
Has anybody tried pouring a bucket of water on Scalia?


/off to see the wizard
 
2013-03-28 01:52:17 PM  

Ned Stark: Lionel Mandrake: Philip Francis Queeg: lennavan: Uh, unless I'm missing something, that's not how I would have summarized the back and forth there at all.

Lionel Mandrake: DOMA is so fkn dead.

But not from this court case.  Kagan has the logic and argument on her side dead to rights, not from this quote though but from other better examples.  So my money is the SCOTUS finds a way to weasel out of ruling and sends it back to a lower court.  I mean think about it, what the hell else would someone like Scalia do?  He either votes against state rights, or he votes for gay marriage.

I'm not sure that there are enough other Justices who are interested in wiggling out with Scalia on this one.

That was my thought.  I'm guessing his puppets (Alito, Thomas) will parrot him, but I don't see two others hopping on board.

But I'm neither a law-talking guy nor a court watcher, so WTF do I know?

About "states rights," how would that work if DOMA's a federal thing?

Its a federal overreach into powers and rights explicitly and traditionally enjoyed by the states.

Among other things.


Right...upon closer inspection, I appear to have misinterpreted what lennavan was saying
 
2013-03-28 01:52:30 PM  

CPennypacker: DamnYankees: GameSprocket: Government is about social order, not morality. Well ... our government seems to be all into morality, but the purpose is to preserve social order.

Social order and morality are, basically, the exact same thing in my opinion.

Morality is subjective


Subjectivity is objective.
 
2013-03-28 01:52:43 PM  

Explodo: Nobody can argue a logical and legally valid reason that gay folks shouldn't be able to get married.  It's simply not possible.  However, I don't think our supreme court as it is composed today has the balls or integrity to stand up and say so.


Because.  icky.  Nailed it.
 
2013-03-28 01:52:54 PM  

DamnYankees: hillbillypharmacist: Government has no place in morality, and morality has no place in government.

Couldn't agree with you less, by the way. Government is all about morality.


No, it's really not.  Government is about protecting four things:  lives, property, prosperity, and freedom.  A purely moral law really doesn't fall into any of those categories.
 
2013-03-28 01:53:04 PM  
If it's about morality, members of the Houses and Supremes should recuse themselves if they are on their second, third, or more marriages.  Unless they remarried because of the death of a spouse.  Adultery is a big moral no-no.  It's right there in the top 10!
 
2013-03-28 01:53:11 PM  

mrshowrules: DamnYankees: Lionel Mandrake: DOMA is so fkn dead.

But I can't wait to see how Scalia justifies his opposition.

I assume he'll stick to his dissent in Lawrence and claim that moral prejudice is, in and of itself, a rational basis for a law.

I'm more interested in Clarence Thomas' opinion.

[brainsyndicate.files.wordpress.com image 800x746]


I have an advance copy right here:

"What Scalia said".
 
2013-03-28 01:53:36 PM  

gunga galunga: CPennypacker: DamnYankees: GameSprocket: Government is about social order, not morality. Well ... our government seems to be all into morality, but the purpose is to preserve social order.

Social order and morality are, basically, the exact same thing in my opinion.

Morality is subjective

Subjectivity is objective.


Moderation is a form of excess
 
2013-03-28 01:53:57 PM  

Antimatter: DamnYankees: hillbillypharmacist: Government has no place in morality, and morality has no place in government.

Couldn't agree with you less, by the way. Government is all about morality.

No, it's really not.  Government is about protecting four things:  lives, property, prosperity, and freedom.  A purely moral law really doesn't fall into any of those categories.


Choosing to protect those things is a moral choice. The reason we protect lives and property and freedom is that murder, theft and suffering are morally repugnant.
 
2013-03-28 01:54:05 PM  
that kagan is one sassy broad
 
2013-03-28 01:54:46 PM  

mrshowrules: I'm more interested in Clarence Thomas' opinion.


He'll tow whatever line Alito decides to throw his anchor
 
2013-03-28 01:55:10 PM  

bulldg4life: Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to doubt that gay people are a disadvantaged minority under that definition, however. "As far as I can tell, political figures are falling over themselves to endorse your side of the case," he told attorney Roberta Kaplan, who argued to strike down DOMA on Wednesday. Roberts said those supporting gay marriage are "politically powerful."

They are so politically powerful that they can't legally get married.

What a stupid goddamn statement.


Well, you see, there's a donut hole.  They're too political powerful to be an oppressed minority, but not so politcally power as to be granted civil rights.
OK, OK.  They're not so much in a donut hole as they are in an unwiped anus.
 
2013-03-28 01:55:20 PM  

DamnYankees: Antimatter: DamnYankees: hillbillypharmacist: Government has no place in morality, and morality has no place in government.

Couldn't agree with you less, by the way. Government is all about morality.

No, it's really not.  Government is about protecting four things:  lives, property, prosperity, and freedom.  A purely moral law really doesn't fall into any of those categories.

Choosing to protect those things is a moral choice. The reason we protect lives and property and freedom is that murder, theft and suffering are morally repugnant.


So you think Roe V. Wade was wrongly decided?
 
2013-03-28 01:55:32 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: DOMA is so fkn dead.

But I can't wait to see how Scalia justifies his opposition.


I'll tell you exactly how he will and you can put money on it.

He will talk about how the Founding Fathers created this country to make a land free of the evils of marriage equality, and it is by the nation's faith and rejection of marriage equality that we have won wars, grown from the original colonies to continent-spanning greatness, and we risk throwing away all of this greatness by allowing this scourge to compromise our morality.

This tirade of broad claims will go on for about ten paragraphs.

He will not reference the actual wording of the U.S. Constitution or any standing ruling of any federal court.

Winners in the Supreme Court explain U.S. law and why it applies or does not apply.
Losers use broad statements, every time.
 
2013-03-28 01:55:37 PM  

DamnYankees: The reason we protect lives and property and freedom is that murder, theft and suffering are morally repugnant.


Although one could make the argument that morals aside they are economically detrimental
 
2013-03-28 01:55:49 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: So you think Roe V. Wade was wrongly decided?


Not sure where that question came from.
 
Displayed 50 of 472 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | 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