|
Argue posted:I'm debating an idiot about gay marriage, and he asked me a question which, embarrassingly, I don't have a good answer to. Among the usual talking points, he went down the traditional slippery slope of "if we allow gays to marry, we should just allow polygamy and incest!" We do allow incest. When I filed for my marriage license, there's a space where you can provide space to demonstrate infertility. If you fill in that space, you can get a marriage license to wed your 1st cousin.
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 18:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 14:23 |
|
|
Argue posted:I'm debating an idiot about gay marriage, and he asked me a question which, embarrassingly, I don't have a good answer to. Among the usual talking points, he went down the traditional slippery slope of "if we allow gays to marry, we should just allow polygamy and incest!" But, this is totally an argument where you can win some easy points. Just ask your friend why he thinks incest is morally wrong (in addition to being gross). If he can't answer, then he's the one in the wrong. If he does answer, then that solves the problem. All of these slippery slopes come down to either "If we allow gay marriage, we'll have to stop spitefully banning other non-harmful things" or "If we allow consenting adults to marry, somehow we'll have to allow all kinds of harmful stuff." Both of those positions are stupid. When you see them, they'll make for some great rhetoric. In both cases opponent is basically admitting that they lack any concept of morality beyond 'it is icky'.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 18:38
|
|
|
Lambda and ACLU filed in Illinois today. Seems like a solid case because the Illinois Constitution includes specific bans against discrimination based on sex and special laws when general laws can be made applicable. But courts can do whatever they want. V  Vquote:"We have the kids, it's important for them to see that the relationship we're in is validated by the state"
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 22:38
|
|
|
Federal appeals court in Boston rules that DOMA is unconstitutional, to really not much surprise. Next step is the Supreme Court, pretty sure. http://www.latimes.com/news/la-naw-doma-053112,0,7656927.story
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 16:34
|
|
|
That decision was 3-0, and two of the three were appointed by Republicans. That's very, very good.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 16:58
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:Federal appeals court in Boston rules that DOMA is unconstitutional, to really not much surprise. Next step is the Supreme Court, pretty sure. The court only ruled on Section 3 of DOMA, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and providing benefits. Section 2, which allows states to deny recognition, is not effected.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 17:22
|
|
|
It was struck down for interfering with the ability of states to define marriage. That won't be useful in overturning state bans, but it's a nice win, plus it's something that seems really likely to survive SCOTUS scrutiny.
OneEightHundred fucked around with this message at 17:52 on May 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 17:46
|
|
|
So, could that mean the end of DOMA if the Supreme Court upholds the ruling?
|
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 18:39
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:So, could that mean the end of DOMA if the Supreme Court upholds the ruling? Sounds like likely it would mean that federal law (i.e. taxes and other rights guaranteed in federal statutes) would apply to any legal marriages in any state, but it would not immediately require that all states recognize all marriages. Still, a good step if it's upheld.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 18:41
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:So, could that mean the end of DOMA if the Supreme Court upholds the ruling? Only one half (the part where the Federal Government doesn't recognize same-sex marriages recognized by the state). The other half (one state needs not recognize the same-sex marriages of another) is unaffected.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 18:41
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Only one half (the part where the Federal Government doesn't recognize same-sex marriages recognized by the state). The other half (one state needs not recognize the same-sex marriages of another) is unaffected. That second half has always seemed like easy prey for the "full faith and credit" clause. Is a challenge on those grounds also making its way through the courts?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 18:43
|
|
|
AhhYes posted:That second half has always seemed like easy prey for the "full faith and credit" clause. Is a challenge on those grounds also making its way through the courts? A FF&C challenge to section 2 of DOMA is not as simple as it first sounds, read this article for a very thorough explanation. I'm not aware of any cases currently filed against section 2, I think people are waiting to see how the Supreme Court will rule on this case or the Prop 8 decision.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 19:10
|
|
|
What happens when part 3 of DOMA is struck down? If I get my gay marriage on in a nice state, is my federal recognition only applicable while I am in the select few states that have enacted marriage equality? As soon as I move or even take a road trip from MA to say FL, the federal gov't no longer considers me married?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 19:29
|
|
|
Cocks Cable posted:What happens when part 3 of DOMA is struck down? If I get my gay marriage on in a nice state, is my federal recognition only applicable while I am in the select few states that have enacted marriage equality? As soon as I move or even take a road trip from MA to say FL, the federal gov't no longer considers me married? I assume it means that any federal benefits stay with you but any state benefits would vary based on the local laws.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 19:41
|
|
|
What a clusterfuck that'll be Can't wait til a guy marries his foreign boyfriend in Massachusetts, foreign guy is issued a green card by the federal government, they take a vacation to the Grand Canyon and an Arizona state trooper stops them and refuses to accept the green card as proof of citizenship
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 19:52
|
|
|
Riptor posted:What a clusterfuck that'll be I don't think it's under Arizona's power to refuse to recognize U.S. citizenship/residency.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 20:00
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:I don't think it's under Arizona's power to refuse to recognize U.S. citizenship/residency. But if that citizenship/residency is only allowed by the federal government recognizing a marriage that Arizona doesn't recognize it could be problematic no? I'm not saying it would ever hold up in court but I could still see someone getting arrested and the paperwork being a mess
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 20:05
|
|
|
Riptor posted:But if that citizenship/residency is only allowed by the federal government recognizing a marriage that Arizona doesn't recognize it could be problematic no? No, the federal government has exclusive power over issuing green cards. A state cannot interfere, and can't refuse to recognize a validly issued one. The state can't inquire into why it was issued and refuse to recognize it based on that.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 20:17
|
|
|
Riptor posted:But if that citizenship/residency is only allowed by the federal government recognizing a marriage that Arizona doesn't recognize it could be problematic no? No. US Residency is the sole domain of the federal government. Arizona doesn't have to recognize the marriage as valid for the green card to be legit and can't question the legitimacy of an actual green card validly issued by the government. If you're positing that power-tripping cops who ignore the law exist, then, sure, yes, that could happen. The entire thing would fold the minute anyone with any bit of sense got a whiff of it, but, sure, technically it's possible. But a power-tripping cop in that vein rarely needs any actual reason to harass people.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 20:39
|
|
|
thefncrow posted:Arizona doesn't have to recognize the marriage as valid for the green card to be legit This part I was unaware of thefncrow posted:If you're positing that power-tripping cops who ignore the law exist, then, sure, yes, that could happen. yeah that is how I was envisioning it, and it was purely hypothetical but you guys cleared it up. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 20:41
|
|
|
thefncrow posted:No. US Residency is the sole domain of the federal government. Arizona doesn't have to recognize the marriage as valid for the green card to be legit and can't question the legitimacy of an actual green card validly issued by the government. Well considering Arizona has been attempting/have passed specific laws that would allow police officers to pull someone over based on ethnicity (looking out for 'illegal' Hispanics) for some time now, it wouldn't surprise me if they start asking about the legality of green cards. Arizona's Sec. of State didn't really believe the President was born in this country because he didn't view his Hawaiian-certified birth certificate as legit.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 20:50
|
|
|
There was a lawsuit over Section 3 filed by citizens with immigrant spouses filed from New York. I would imagine once Section 3 is gone in 2013/14 this is a non-issue. Seems like the feds would give you a green card even if your current state doesn't recognize your marriage. e: quote:the judge cited the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision striking down a Texas sodomy law. “Moral disapproval alone cannot justify legislation discriminating on this basis," Scalia, June 2003 posted:If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct...what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution" 
UltimoDragonQuest fucked around with this message at 21:13 on May 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 21:03
|
|
|
Tomorrow the 9th Circuit will rule on taking the Prop 8 case to a 11 judge panel or not. The plaintiffs released a fancy split timeline of how things can go.  Hopefully they refuse another hearing or once again rule in a way that only applies to California. Anything broad will require SCOTUS to act and they are much more likely to rule like Bowers than Lawrence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/06/ninth-circuit-passes-on-further-review-of-prop-8-c.htmlquote:The federal appeals court hearing the challenge to Proposition 8 passed on taking another look at the ruling, sending the case to an 11-judge panel and delaying a final ruling on the case for upwards of a year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 18:11
|
|
|
And unsurprisingly, they said they will petition the Supreme Court. Glad the en banc hearing is being skipped, I feel like this has gone on long enough as it is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 18:47
|
|
|
Ballz posted:And unsurprisingly, they said they will petition the Supreme Court. Glad the en banc hearing is being skipped, I feel like this has gone on long enough as it is. If these knuckleheads want to keep gay marriage from spreading, isn't going to the supreme court the stupidest thing they can do? If SCOTUS rules in favor of gay marriage, it's game over for them and laws/amendments against gay marriage in all states would be rendered unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 19:11
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:If these knuckleheads want to keep gay marriage from spreading, isn't going to the supreme court the stupidest thing they can do? If SCOTUS rules in favor of gay marriage, it's game over for them and laws/amendments against gay marriage in all states would be rendered unconstitutional. Given the narrowness of the CA ruling there's basically no downside, it doesn't really apply anywhere else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 19:17
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Given the narrowness of the CA ruling there's basically no downside, it doesn't really apply anywhere else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 20:00
|
|
|
e: ^^^ Distinguishing between repealing and declining to extend rights was more of a way to show animus and use Romer precedent. They should be distinguished. Appealing to the Supreme Court is the right choice for the defendants. It's another 6-12 month delay and SCOTUS affirming a right to same sex marriage is probably the least likely outcome. This is a pretty safe bet. UltimoDragonQuest fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Jun 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 20:00
|
|
|
Okay, so since the 9th en-banc decision narrowed Walker's original ruling, could the SCOTUS theoretically re-expand it? Or are they bound to only consider the 9th's final decision as written? (I know this would never happen, just curious.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Okay, so since the 9th en-banc decision narrowed Walker's original ruling, could the SCOTUS theoretically re-expand it? Or are they bound to only consider the 9th's final decision as written? (I know this would never happen, just curious.) They are pretty much free to rule however they want. If they accept the case, the questions in the Writ of Certiorari will be a big hint as to how broadly they are willing to go in making a decision. Also, because this year's SCOTUS term is almost over, this case won't get touched until at least September, with probable argument dates early next year. It is possible that the 1st Circuit's DOMA case could be joined to this one, which would increase the likelihood of a comprehensive ruling on same-sex marriage (one way or the other).
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 20:55
|
|
|
What's the likelihood on getting a non-lovely ruling from the Supreme Court? Like, I know Scalia is a shitheel who can't play nice for anything, but what about the others? (By non-lovely, I just mean how likely is it that the defendants will lose?)
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 21:01
|
|
|
CuwiKhons posted:What's the likelihood on getting a non-lovely ruling from the Supreme Court? Like, I know Scalia is a shitheel who can't play nice for anything, but what about the others? (By non-lovely, I just mean how likely is it that the defendants will lose?) It all depends on what Kennedy wants to do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 21:05
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It all depends on what Kennedy wants to do. I suppose Roberts could be shrewd enough, if he sees which way the wind is blowing, to join the majority so that he can influence the opinion. But you're right, the decision itself rests with Kennedy, in more ways than one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 21:25
|
|
|
Good polling news from Minnesota came out today.PPP posted:Minnesota's constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage now appears to be in serious danger of failing, a reversal from a PPP poll four months ago when it led for passage by a 48/44 margin.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 22:14
|
|
|
seal it with a kiss posted:Good polling news from Minnesota came out today. The amendment only passes if it gets a majority of all votes, not just a plurality, so people just voting for candidates and skipping all of the the amendment questions will help too. Edit: My bad, quote is not edit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 22:23
|
|
|
That's a great poll in Minnesota. They are well short of the 52% needed to guarantee a majority of ballots. If CNN's 2008 exit polls (left) are accurate, this poll oversampled the oldest voters and undersampled the youngest. Averaging the samples gives 51% opposition. New Prop 8 timeline. This should be over in 6 or 12 months.  I updated the OP. Nothing that hasn't been posted before, but it's sorted by state and not spread out over pages.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 02:56
|
|
|
CuwiKhons posted:What's the likelihood on getting a non-lovely ruling from the Supreme Court? Like, I know Scalia is a shitheel who can't play nice for anything, but what about the others? (By non-lovely, I just mean how likely is it that the defendants will lose?) It'll be a 5-4 decision. I don't see a way that SCOTUS doesn't rule in our favor but then again I can't believe Republicans are paying out of pocket to defend DOMA.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 13:38
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:Well, the CA ruling is kind of weird, the whole idea of "it's okay to not grant privileges as long as those privileges weren't granted at some point" is kind of hosed up and it's possible that the SCOTUS won't bite. I see this as the most likely non-lovely ruling by SCOTUS, that they'll just decide that the ruling is far too narrow to be ruled upon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 14:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 14:23 |
|
|
DOMA just got ruled unconstitutional in an NYCLU/ACLU case in Windsor! Trying to find a source, but for now, here's the NYCLU twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/nyclu Tweet: https://twitter.com/nyclu/status/210483678634184704
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 22:36
|
|
