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.

(Tumblr)   TL;DR version of Hollingsworth v. Perry oral arguments. "Are you harshing on my nostalgia?" "I was alive back then, and trust me, I am not feeling particularly nostalgic for the time"   (courtneymilan.tumblr.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Hollingsworth, same-sex marriage in California, oral arguments, blood libel, Ginsberg, Mr. Chief Justice, Sonia Sotomayor  
•       •       •

2273 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Mar 2013 at 8:21 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



20 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-03-29 08:32:56 AM  
Colbert's Supreme Court expert was pretty dead-on last night - there's almost no way DOMA will stand, and even if they punt on Prop 8 the beachhead will be secure if we have states whose gay marriage licenses are federally recognized.  That means we'll just have to wait a couple of years for someone to move from California to North Carolina, file their taxes, and sue because they made income in California that was taxed as a married couple, but suddenly they can't file that way anymore.  Even Scalia's faction would be hard-pressed to Dred Scott that case.
 
2013-03-29 08:41:46 AM  

UNC_Samurai: Even Scalia's faction would be hard-pressed to Dred Scott that case.


You underestimate the hatred and irrationality that religious belief can inspire.
 
2013-03-29 08:44:36 AM  

UNC_Samurai: That means we'll just have to wait a couple of years for someone to move from California to North Carolina, file their taxes, and sue because they made income in California that was taxed as a married couple, but suddenly they can't file that way anymore. Even Scalia's faction would be hard-pressed to Dred Scott that case.


Given the time it takes for a case to work through federal courts to get the SCOTUS to rule, it may be faster and cleaner for the federal legislature to reverse DOMA section 2, and require all states give Full Faith and Credit to marriages from other states, getting rid of the "public policy exception" business. Which would at least create a controversy between the States and the US, which would allow jumping directly to the SCOTUS via original jurisdiction.
 
2013-03-29 08:50:27 AM  

Dimensio: UNC_Samurai: Even Scalia's faction would be hard-pressed to Dred Scott that case.

You underestimate the hatred and irrationality that religious belief can inspire.


AND "sticking it to the libs!"
 
2013-03-29 09:06:47 AM  

UNC_Samurai: Colbert's Supreme Court expert was pretty dead-on last night - there's almost no way DOMA will stand, and even if they punt on Prop 8 the beachhead will be secure if we have states whose gay marriage licenses are federally recognized.  That means we'll just have to wait a couple of years for someone to move from California to North Carolina, file their taxes, and sue because they made income in California that was taxed as a married couple, but suddenly they can't file that way anymore.  Even Scalia's faction would be hard-pressed to Dred Scott that case.


What actually caught me off-guard was the suggestion that if DOMA is overturned and a gay couple moves to another state without gay marriage, the federal government will stop viewing their marriage as legal. I assumed that if you can show the contract as meeting the federal requirements it would be recognized on the federal level as valid until it was legally severed. Sure, you might still get denied state benefits per section 2 (which will be next on the chopping block), but having a valid contract becoming "inert" based on where the people involved live seems like a set up for all sorts of headaches.

Then again has this sort of scenario happened yet?

1) Two men get married in Massachusetts.
2) One of them moves to Virginia, meets residency requirements, and marries a woman.
3) The man moves back to Massachusetts.

Is that bigamy? Did moving to a state that outlawed gay marriage permenantly sever his previous marriage by the law? Note this isn't a polygamy legalization argument: people from time to time get caught hiding their marital status to someone else, so the man's husband and wife in this case could have no idea about one another.
 
2013-03-29 09:20:34 AM  
I found this to be the best summary of the arguments I've seen.
 
2013-03-29 09:25:27 AM  

Grungehamster: UNC_Samurai: Colbert's Supreme Court expert was pretty dead-on last night - there's almost no way DOMA will stand, and even if they punt on Prop 8 the beachhead will be secure if we have states whose gay marriage licenses are federally recognized.  That means we'll just have to wait a couple of years for someone to move from California to North Carolina, file their taxes, and sue because they made income in California that was taxed as a married couple, but suddenly they can't file that way anymore.  Even Scalia's faction would be hard-pressed to Dred Scott that case.

What actually caught me off-guard was the suggestion that if DOMA is overturned and a gay couple moves to another state without gay marriage, the federal government will stop viewing their marriage as legal. I assumed that if you can show the contract as meeting the federal requirements it would be recognized on the federal level as valid until it was legally severed. Sure, you might still get denied state benefits per section 2 (which will be next on the chopping block), but having a valid contract becoming "inert" based on where the people involved live seems like a set up for all sorts of headaches.

Then again has this sort of scenario happened yet?

1) Two men get married in Massachusetts.
2) One of them moves to Virginia, meets residency requirements, and marries a woman.
3) The man moves back to Massachusetts.

Is that bigamy? Did moving to a state that outlawed gay marriage permenantly sever his previous marriage by the law? Note this isn't a polygamy legalization argument: people from time to time get caught hiding their marital status to someone else, so the man's husband and wife in this case could have no idea about one another.


As far as I can tell, under that theory, you wouldn't even have to live in another state for your marriage to become invalid there - it would ALWAYS be invalid in that state.  Which would set up a situation where ... say a Walmart manager get gay married in Massachusetts, but is unable to get his spouse covered under the company health plan because the business is incorporated under Arkansas law.

Or even better: say a gay married couple is travelling on vacation through some red state and gets pulled over.  One of them is arrested for some reason, and at trial the spouse can be required to testify against them in a state court, but can't be required to do so in a federal court located in the same state.

TL:DR: DOMA is a piece of shiat that needs to be given a shallow grave, followed by a generous pissing on thereof.
 
2013-03-29 09:38:03 AM  

abb3w: UNC_Samurai: That means we'll just have to wait a couple of years for someone to move from California to North Carolina, file their taxes, and sue because they made income in California that was taxed as a married couple, but suddenly they can't file that way anymore. Even Scalia's faction would be hard-pressed to Dred Scott that case.

Given the time it takes for a case to work through federal courts to get the SCOTUS to rule, it may be faster and cleaner for the federal legislature to reverse DOMA section 2, and require all states give Full Faith and Credit to marriages from other states, getting rid of the "public policy exception" business. Which would at least create a controversy between the States and the US, which would allow jumping directly to the SCOTUS via original jurisdiction.


I am certain that the Republicans in the House of Representatives are eager to move forward, and that Senate Republicans will in no way attempt to obstruct such an effort.
 
2013-03-29 09:53:59 AM  

Karac: TL:DR: DOMA is a piece of shiat that needs to be given a shallow grave, followed by a generous pissing on thereof.


I'm not sure how you abbreviate "Antonin Scalia" to get "DOMA", but I agree.
 
2013-03-29 10:12:33 AM  

Karac: As far as I can tell, under that theory, you wouldn't even have to live in another state for your marriage to become invalid there - it would ALWAYS be invalid in that state.  Which would set up a situation where ... say a Walmart manager get gay married in Massachusetts, but is unable to get his spouse covered under the company health plan because the business is incorporated under Arkansas law.


Walmart is required to follow the employment laws of the state where they have employees, not where they are incorporated.  Yes, you get all kinds of variations on things like health care across the company, but we already deal with that now.
 
2013-03-29 10:52:23 AM  

born_yesterday: Karac: TL:DR: DOMA is a piece of shiat that needs to be given a shallow grave, followed by a generous pissing on thereof.

I'm not sure how you abbreviate "Antonin Scalia" to get "DOMA", but I agree.


Hey, he learned how to make Clarance Thomas talk while he drinks a glass of water, anything is possible.
 
2013-03-29 11:03:48 AM  

Grungehamster: 1) Two men get married in Massachusetts.
2) One of them moves to Virginia, meets residency requirements, and marries a woman.
3) The man moves back to Massachusetts.

Is that bigamy?


It would be still be bigamy in Massachusetts, IMO.
 
2013-03-29 01:49:25 PM  

Karac: Grungehamster: UNC_Samurai: Colbert's Supreme Court expert was pretty dead-on last night - there's almost no way DOMA will stand, and even if they punt on Prop 8 the beachhead will be secure if we have states whose gay marriage licenses are federally recognized.  That means we'll just have to wait a couple of years for someone to move from California to North Carolina, file their taxes, and sue because they made income in California that was taxed as a married couple, but suddenly they can't file that way anymore.  Even Scalia's faction would be hard-pressed to Dred Scott that case.

What actually caught me off-guard was the suggestion that if DOMA is overturned and a gay couple moves to another state without gay marriage, the federal government will stop viewing their marriage as legal. I assumed that if you can show the contract as meeting the federal requirements it would be recognized on the federal level as valid until it was legally severed. Sure, you might still get denied state benefits per section 2 (which will be next on the chopping block), but having a valid contract becoming "inert" based on where the people involved live seems like a set up for all sorts of headaches.

Then again has this sort of scenario happened yet?

1) Two men get married in Massachusetts.
2) One of them moves to Virginia, meets residency requirements, and marries a woman.
3) The man moves back to Massachusetts.

Is that bigamy? Did moving to a state that outlawed gay marriage permenantly sever his previous marriage by the law? Note this isn't a polygamy legalization argument: people from time to time get caught hiding their marital status to someone else, so the man's husband and wife in this case could have no idea about one another.

As far as I can tell, under that theory, you wouldn't even have to live in another state for your marriage to become invalid there - it would ALWAYS be invalid in that state.  Which would set up a situation where ... say a Walmart manager get gay married in Massachusetts, but is unable to get his spouse covered under the company health plan because the business is incorporated under Arkansas law.

Or even better: say a gay married couple is travelling on vacation through some red state and gets pulled over.  One of them is arrested for some reason, and at trial the spouse can be required to testify against them in a state court, but can't be required to do so in a federal court located in the same state.

TL:DR: DOMA is a piece of shiat that needs to be given a shallow grave, followed by a generous pissing on thereof.


And given all this WHY hasn't DOMA been challenged as violating the Full Faith and Credit clause?
 
2013-03-29 03:52:44 PM  

Dimensio: I am certain that the Republicans in the House of Representatives are eager to move forward, and that Senate Republicans will in no way attempt to obstruct such an effort.


I'd agree, it's not going to happen without the House flipping control, which means at least after the 2014 elections. I still think turnaround there is likely to be slightly faster than at the SCOTUS, factoring in the time for a case to work its way up the federal appeals system.

Granted, Scalia or Thomas dropping dead before 2016 (and being replaced by a liberal Obama appointment) might speed things up on that side; the odds on that are around 1 in 4 or so.
 
2013-03-29 03:54:12 PM  

Gyrfalcon: And given all this WHY hasn't DOMA been challenged as violating the Full Faith and Credit clause?


Because of the "Effect Thereof" part.
 
2013-03-29 05:20:49 PM  
That's hilarious.
 
2013-03-29 10:00:42 PM  

ghare: Dimensio: UNC_Samurai: Even Scalia's faction would be hard-pressed to Dred Scott that case.

You underestimate the hatred and irrationality that religious belief can inspire.

AND "sticking it to the libs!"


Republicanism is a religion.

There is no distinction any longer.  All those who do not follow in blind faith have already left.
 
2013-03-30 12:52:57 AM  

Grungehamster: UNC_Samurai: Colbert's Supreme Court expert was pretty dead-on last night - there's almost no way DOMA will stand, and even if they punt on Prop 8 the beachhead will be secure if we have states whose gay marriage licenses are federally recognized.  That means we'll just have to wait a couple of years for someone to move from California to North Carolina, file their taxes, and sue because they made income in California that was taxed as a married couple, but suddenly they can't file that way anymore.  Even Scalia's faction would be hard-pressed to Dred Scott that case.

What actually caught me off-guard was the suggestion that if DOMA is overturned and a gay couple moves to another state without gay marriage, the federal government will stop viewing their marriage as legal. I assumed that if you can show the contract as meeting the federal requirements it would be recognized on the federal level as valid until it was legally severed. Sure, you might still get denied state benefits per section 2 (which will be next on the chopping block), but having a valid contract becoming "inert" based on where the people involved live seems like a set up for all sorts of headaches.

Then again has this sort of scenario happened yet?

1) Two men get married in Massachusetts.
2) One of them moves to Virginia, meets residency requirements, and marries a woman.
3) The man moves back to Massachusetts.

Is that bigamy? Did moving to a state that outlawed gay marriage permenantly sever his previous marriage by the law? Note this isn't a polygamy legalization argument: people from time to time get caught hiding their marital status to someone else, so the man's husband and wife in this case could have no idea about one another.


IDK about that scenario.  In the real world, a female-to-male transexual who married a woman in California was just denied a divorce in Arizona.  He gave birth to three kids while married.  The judge said he could not prove he was a man at the time of marriage and Arizona doesn't recognize same-sex marriages, so there was no marriage to dissolve.
 
2013-03-30 08:49:00 AM  
ROBERTS: In keeping with the practices of this Court, we don't allow anyone to complete a full sentence before interrupting them.

LOL.


BREYER: I'm going to ask you an extremely long question riddled with nonspecific nouns, and you're going to have to guess what I mean by it.

COOPER: I'm pretty sure the answer is no? But let's stop talking about whether I should be allowed to talk, and get on to what I'm going to be talking about. Which is: nostalgia. Nostalgia for the good old days of traditional, bedrock values. Man, back in 1971, this Court said there was no federal question as to same-sex marriage. Those were the farking  days.


Double LOL.


SOTOMAYOR: Aside from marriage, do you think the government can discriminate against gays and lesbians?

COOPER: No, that would be wrong.

SOTOMAYOR: Then what the actual fark are you doing standing up here?


ROFL.

Seriously, the Supreme Court should talk like this.  SNL should take this skit and turn it into something.
 
2013-03-31 12:55:08 AM  
SCALIA: I'm going to ask you a ridiculous question: When did it become unconstitutional to discriminate against gays and lesbians?

OLSON: It would be bad form at this juncture to say, "fark you, Scalia, you just want to grandstand," so I'm just going to say it's a nonsensical question.

SCALIA: I'm a nonsensical person. Answer the question.


Very well written!
 
Displayed 20 of 20 comments

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