|
computer parts posted:There was in Arkansas. and Texas
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 22:03 |
|
|
Wasn't there also one in Kentucky that said out-of-state marriages had to be recognized?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
katium posted:Wasn't there also one in Kentucky that said out-of-state marriages had to be recognized? IIRC Indiana ruled that this one, particular marriage between the plaintiffs had to be recognized.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Has any anti-SSM lawyer had the balls to quote Warren's majority opinion from Loving v. Virginia that "(m)arriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival", and then pirouette to show a history of state interest in creating family units that produce or enshrine a further generation?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:
Yeah, but "cert denied" is the most common outcome. IIRC one of my books mentioned that something like only 1% of the cases applying for certiorari are actually heard. With the majority coming from some federal department.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
Congrats to the people of Pennsylvania, although I'd imagine that many of the cases now are symbolic more than anything, since they'll get stayed and it'll be one of the first cases (hopefully Utah or Texas just because it'd be funny) that will legalise it US wide. Not saying that its a bad thing or anything, just that its really only significant if the state fucks up the whole stay thing, like what happened in Utah or Arkansas. One of my more nerdy things that I sometimes do is look at random bits of the cspan video library, since they have random things from lots of countries that they have shown over the years. One of those things was the start of the Second Reading debate on Canada's federal marriage equality legislation. It was passed at around a similar time to now in the US; when provincial courts had overturned allowed marriage equality due to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (its different because marriage is a federal issue in Canada). It has the speech by then-Prime Minister Paul Martin introducing the bill, which is pretty good and interesting because it shows that the basic arguments for marriage equality (equality, liberty) and the thing about protecting religious liberty hasn't changed in the nine years since the Canadian bill was passed. Martin's speech could easily have been made in the UK debates for passing marriage equality last year and definitely was a lot less popular then amongst the general population. Its here if you are interested; there is only two speeches and Harper's is a load of poo poo and you shouldn't listen to it. They didn't seem to show Jack Layton's speech, which would have been fantastic since he literally supported marriage equality since at least 1988 so it would have been pretty drat amazing, I'm sure.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
Gerund posted:Has any anti-SSM lawyer had the balls to quote Warren's majority opinion from Loving v. Virginia that "(m)arriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival", and then pirouette to show a history of state interest in creating family units that produce or enshrine a further generation? Yes, in Bishop v. Smith http://www.scribd.com/doc/215836851/14-5003-2589-Smith-3rd-Brief (Three times)
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
UrielX posted:Yeah, but "cert denied" is the most common outcome. IIRC one of my books mentioned that something like only 1% of the cases applying for certiorari are actually heard. With the majority coming from some federal department. That's true, but I think there's a good chance that they'll take the case if it reaches them, simply because it gives them either an opportunity to clarify Windsor or an opportunity to settle the question. Windsor and Perry seemed like incrementalist decisions, waiting to see how lower courts interpreted their step; with such a tidal wave in less than a year, it's pretty clear that they need to either say "yep, nationwide" or clarify Windsor.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:That's true, but I think there's a good chance that they'll take the case if it reaches them, simply because it gives them either an opportunity to clarify Windsor or an opportunity to settle the question. Windsor and Perry seemed like incrementalist decisions, waiting to see how lower courts interpreted their step; with such a tidal wave in less than a year, it's pretty clear that they need to either say "yep, nationwide" or clarify Windsor. I disagree, I think they'll be tempted to wait a year or two unless one of the circuits rules against marriage equality. This groundswell of decisions striking down bans has tremendous political value that lays the groundwork for a real capstone decision that doesn't need to pull any punches.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
Current timeline for future events: June 26, oral arguments will be heard in Louisiana's case. August 25, Wisconsin's trial begins. The Attorney General conceded that he doesn't foresee the ban being upheld. Idaho's overturned ban goes to appeals court Sept. 8. Sept. 24 is the hearing in Alabama's case. SCOTUSblog's Lyle Denniston said today: "At the pace we have seen in recent weeks, I believe there will be more than one of these cases reaching the Supreme Court by this fall." And with all of that said, Virginia's case was heard by an appeals court last week, with a ruling expected in under a month. Both sides believe the SCOTUS will end up taking that case.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
I live in Pennsylvania, watch the news occasionally, read the newspaper pretty much every day, and follow a boatload of lefty/progressive news media outlets on twitter. I had no loving idea that the gay marriage thing was up for decision today, at all, until people started posting to Facebook about it. I'm honestly kinda shocked I could be so out of touch, but also there was hardly any press about it at all or I would have at least caught a headline about it in the Local section. I wonder what that was about
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
Anyone know the status of De Leon v. Perry (or I suppose Perry v. De Leon now)?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
indigi posted:I live in Pennsylvania, watch the news occasionally, read the newspaper pretty much every day, and follow a boatload of lefty/progressive news media outlets on twitter. I had no loving idea that the gay marriage thing was up for decision today, at all, until people started posting to Facebook about it. I'm honestly kinda shocked I could be so out of touch, but also there was hardly any press about it at all or I would have at least caught a headline about it in the Local section. I wonder what that was about Basically you'd have to either follow the thread or be a real marriage equality wonk to know when the PA decision was coming down; it was only semi-leaked because the couples involved were told to come to the courthouse today. Otherwise, the judge's ruling comes out whenever the judge decides it comes out.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
We'll have gay marriage before Hillary Clinton is elected. Anyone agree?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
KIM JONG TRILL posted:Anyone know the status of De Leon v. Perry (or I suppose Perry v. De Leon now)? Ban overturned, overturn appealed, the 5th Circuit will take it sometime later this year but no date given for when. AYC posted:We'll have gay marriage before Hillary Clinton is elected. It'd take a lot for it not to happen at this pace.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
Sweeney Tom posted:Ban overturned, overturn appealed, the 5th Circuit will take it sometime later this year but no date given for when. I think a better question is how long will the Republicans cling onto it as an issue? It already seems like a lot of state-level GOP members are seeing the writing on the wall.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
Blarghalt posted:I think a better question is how long will the Republicans cling onto it as an issue? It already seems like a lot of state-level GOP members are seeing the writing on the wall. If Harper & the Tories are any precedent, they'll drop it quickly once they realize it's not going away.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
AYC posted:If Harper & the Tories are any precedent, they'll drop it quickly once they realize it's not going away. If Roe v. Wade is a precedent, they will cling to it until the end of time.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
So far the only person who's vowed to not give up on fighting gay marriage is Rick Santorum, while every week another GOP person or group stops fighting. Hell, even Chris Christie gave up.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
Sweeney Tom posted:So far the only person who's vowed to not give up on fighting gay marriage is Rick Santorum Agghhhh. Why. Why does he care? I get people who used to oppose it out of apathy or ignorance, but neither of those explain today's crusade. How can someone care so much about something that affects him less than anything possibly could?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Agghhhh. Why. Why does he care? I get people who used to oppose it out of apathy or ignorance, but neither of those explain today's crusade. How can someone care so much about something that affects him less than anything possibly could? Not only did he say he would never stop fighting but IIRC during the 2012 campaign he said he would "die on the hill" to stop gay marriage. EDIT: Some sources said "die on the hill" but it seems that he really just said "die on that hill" which is a lot less exciting. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 06:34 on May 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Agghhhh. Why. Why does he care? I get people who used to oppose it out of apathy or ignorance, but neither of those explain today's crusade. How can someone care so much about something that affects him less than anything possibly could? It's because he is a very, very, VERY self-hating closeted gay man. Also because his wife is apparently the template for Stannis Baratheon's wife Selyse.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
lolWhitewood Opinion posted:In essence, Defendants argue within the framework of deferential review and go no further. Indeed, it is unsurprising that Defendants muster no arguments engaging the strictures of heightened scrutiny, as we, too, are unable to fathom an ingenuous defense saving the Marriage Laws from being invalidated under this more-searching standard. 
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 13:16
|
|
|
Ballz posted:It's the same judge who struck down Intelligent Design a few years ago in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. The dude's pretty amazing, probably the best thing to come out of George W. Bush's presidency was appointing him as a federal judge. Appointed by Bush and personally religious, but able to separate his personal views from logical legal analysis.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 14:00
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:lol  . Federal courts have been bringing the lumber recently.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's because he is a very, very, VERY self-hating closeted gay man. Nah, most bigots are straight because most people are straight. This meme doesn't explain it. The cliché kind of annoys me in general because it seems to absolve straight people of any responsibility for homophobia, as if the bigotry is self-inflicted by the homosexual community. Homosexuals didn't approve gay marriage bans in huge referendum majorities. Scalia is not a closeted gay man either, he's just a loving bigot. Edit: forbidden lesbian put a fake spelling error in when quoting me to make me look bad 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:42 on May 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
Rick Santorum is out of office and probably never going to win office again unless he takes a demotion (from senator) or goes carpetbagging, so he doesn't really need to worry about the adverse consequences of letting his freak flag fly.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Nah, most bigots are straight because most people are straight. This meme doesn't explain it. It's funny to me to call the straight man gay as I am still a child.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
New Gallup poll says gay marriage has 55% support nationwide, a new high.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
Can anyone briefly explain what the "heightened scrutiny" principle means? also Sweeney Tom posted:New Gallup poll says gay marriage has 55% support nationwide, a new high. That's encouraging, though I honestly thought it was higher at this point. Maybe I'm thinking of state polls. Related, from the polititoons thread,  Though Kelley sneaks in a smug and lovely punchline in panel 4, I think the first 3 panels here capture the state of a lot of the undecided/barely decided people on SSM. There's a lot less of "loving fags, marriage is between a man and a woman  " and a lot more of "well I guess I'm just an old dog and can't understand this new trick  ," at least from what I've seen. I feel like some of these old dogs might be part of that 45%, but they might not really care anymore to actively oppose SSM, even if they'd answer "no" to it in a poll.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
I love that cartoon because despite his sick burn, the bigot is still ostracized by the larger society that refuses to take any of his poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:So what's going to happen in Southern states? All this momentum, but not in the South. Hey, we're trying: http://www.ajc.com/news/news/gwinnett-couple-to-challenge-gay-marriage-ban/nffXJ/
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
alnilam posted:Can anyone briefly explain what the "heightened scrutiny" principle means? When deciding on the constitutionality of a statute, there are a number of different standards of review. The most difficult to overturn, rational basis, allows the court to uphold a statute that may discriminate somewhat on it's face if the legislature/people had a rational basis regardless of how reasonable to pass the law. Then you have intermediate and strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny typically applies to laws that relate to a fundamental right expressly listed in the constitution or it's amendments. The heightened scrutiny just means that the judge is not looking at the law from a rational basis review, which means it's much easier to overturn. Higher levels of scrutiny means that sexual preference is treated similar to race.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
Sweeney Tom posted:New Gallup poll says gay marriage has 55% support nationwide, a new high. It's interesting how overall support shifted only one point in the past year but among 18-29s there was a whopping 8 point shift from 70% to 78%. It's also interesting how 30-49s have views closer to people 65+ than they do people 18-29 on the issue, I guess our nefarious plans to infiltrate the schools and indoctrinate the youth were successful .
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Nah, most bigots are straight because most people are straight. This meme doesn't explain it. I don't think Santorum is gay. I think he wants to do everything. His body is crying out to commit every kind of sin. Murder, cannibalism, you name it. His sweater vest is the only thing sealing it all in, that and his colossal repression complex.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
Now I need to add the Sweater Vestment of Demon Binding to the backstory of one of the villains in my D&D campaign.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:So what's going to happen in Southern states? All this momentum, but not in the South. The case currently before the 4th circuit (Bostic) might result in bans overturned in VA/WV/NC/SC. And as someone else mentioned it's likely the case that'll wind up before the supreme court that leads to everyone getting gay married nationwide. Here's a pretty good summary of the panel's stances and questioning: http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...c527_story.html
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:It's interesting how overall support shifted only one point in the past year but among 18-29s there was a whopping 8 point shift from 70% to 78%. It's also interesting how 30-49s have views closer to people 65+ than they do people 18-29 on the issue, I guess our nefarious plans to infiltrate the schools and indoctrinate the youth were successful It's the Gen-X/Millenial divide. I'm the youngest of three kids, born in 1980 and right on the generational line. I used to consider myself the tail end of Gen X but my views and political outlook are complete polar opposites when compared to my older brother and sister, so I might as well embrace being one of the first Millenials.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
Rick certainly gives me the vibe that only the fear of god is currently inhibiting a raging need to rape and dismember.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 22:03 |
|
|
Rick Santorum is actually a counter-reformation era minor church administrator who one day while perambulating the grounds of his abbey contemplating Eusebius' writings on Origen, stumbled upon a time machine which transported him to the late 20th century. His perpetual scowl of bewilderment is from the permanent state of shock in which he lives.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 17:57
|
|