Amazon has whacked our affiliate account. Hosting Donations/Commitments $2063 of $1920 (Sept 13/18). In Hand $1466 (Lump sum payments minus paypal graft). Paypal Donation Link Here

LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 17762
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

Post by Defiant » Tue Mar 26, 2013 9:47 am

http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2013/03 ... story.html" target="_blank

Prop 8 and DOMA cases are going to be heard today and tomorrow.

Edit: Modifying the title to reflect that the thread has become more general.
Last edited by Defiant on Sun Oct 21, 2018 2:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 17762
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Defiant » Tue Mar 26, 2013 9:59 am


User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 45814
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, where we only use the old smilies

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by LawBeefaroni » Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:34 am

Defiant wrote:Possible outcomes:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013 ... riage.html" target="_blank
Strike down Proposition 8 on the grounds that ...
... California was not free to provide same-sex couples with all the benefits and burdens of marriage through civil unions but withhold the designation “marriage.”

Under this rationale, suggested in the Obama administration’s brief, bans on same-sex marriage in the eight states with everything-but-marriage civil unions are unconstitutional.
This would be terrible IMO. You are witholding the "marriage" tag unconstitutionally but conferring all other benefits. That is wrong, so now you have to withold the "marriage" tag consitutionally by whitholding all other benefits. :doh:
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT

User avatar
Fireball
Posts: 4517
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Fireball » Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:00 am

LawBeefaroni wrote:
Defiant wrote:Possible outcomes:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013 ... riage.html" target="_blank
Strike down Proposition 8 on the grounds that ...
... California was not free to provide same-sex couples with all the benefits and burdens of marriage through civil unions but withhold the designation “marriage.”

Under this rationale, suggested in the Obama administration’s brief, bans on same-sex marriage in the eight states with everything-but-marriage civil unions are unconstitutional.
This would be terrible IMO. You are witholding the "marriage" tag unconstitutionally but conferring all other benefits. That is wrong, so now you have to withold the "marriage" tag consitutionally by whitholding all other benefits. :doh:
I disagree. This would be the best decision, short of sweeping legalization across the country. This decision would literally split the nation into a situation where about half the population lived in a marriage-equality state, and half live in a state without marriage equality. The result would be an immediate series of lawsuits against Section 2 of DOMA, and, eventually, final victory.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)

User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 45814
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, where we only use the old smilies

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by LawBeefaroni » Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:18 am

Fireball1244 wrote:
I disagree. This would be the best decision, short of sweeping legalization across the country. This decision would literally split the nation into a situation where about half the population lived in a marriage-equality state, and half live in a state without marriage equality. The result would be an immediate series of lawsuits against Section 2 of DOMA, and, eventually, final victory.
Well, in a force-the-issue non-solution kind of way sure. But lawsuits which defeat of DOMA doesn't necessarily ensure victory. States can still be states. They may have to recognize marriages in other states when Section 2 falls but they won't have to allow gay marriage themselves. That's as much a compromise as "civil unions." Moreso actually, IMO.

And you'd have 8 states with "unioned" couples losing their benefits (pending a referendum on allowing full gay "marriage" or pending a marriage vacation to another state.). You'd have the remaining states unchanged.


Hopefully sweeping legalization happens so it's all moot.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT

User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 17762
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Defiant » Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:24 am

In states where the state supreme courts ruled that the legal benefits of marriage had to be conferred, if not the name, that resulted in those civil unions, wouldn't that require those states to legalize marriage equality?

User avatar
Fireball
Posts: 4517
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Fireball » Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:26 am

Defiant wrote:In states where the state supreme courts ruled that the legal benefits of marriage had to be conferred, if not the name, that resulted in those civil unions, wouldn't that require those states to legalize marriage equality?
Yes, it would.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)

User avatar
AWS260
Posts: 10261
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:51 pm
Location: Brooklyn

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by AWS260 » Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:22 pm

SCOTUSblog's take on the Prop 8 case:
***
If those features of the oral argument hold up – and I think they will – then the Court’s ruling will take one of two forms. First, a majority (the Chief Justice plus the liberal members of the Court) could decide that the petitioners lack standing. That would vacate the Ninth Circuit’s decision but leave in place the district court decision invalidating Proposition 8. Another case with different petitioners (perhaps a government official who did not want to administer a same-sex marriage) could come to the Supreme Court within two to three years, if the Justices were willing to hear it.

Second, the Court may dismiss the case because of an inability to reach a majority. Justice Kennedy takes that view, and Justice Sotomayor indicated that she might join him. Others on the left may agree. That ruling would leave in place the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

The upshot of either scenario is a modest step forward for gay rights advocates, but not a dramatic one.

User avatar
stessier
Posts: 24182
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:30 pm
Location: SC

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by stessier » Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:37 pm

But Justice Kennedy seemed very unlikely to provide either side with the fifth vote needed to prevail. He was deeply concerned with the wisdom of acting now when in his view the social science of the effects of same-sex marriage is uncertain because it is so new. He also noted the doubts about the petitioners’ standing. So his suggestion was that the case should be dismissed.
Dismissal is an option? I have never heard of that before.
I require a reminder as to why raining arcane destruction is not an appropriate response to all of life's indignities. - Vaarsuvius
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Running____2014: 1300.55 miles____2015: 2036.13 miles____2016: 1012.75 miles____2017: 1105.82 miles____2018: 1318.91 miles

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 32253
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by El Guapo » Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:51 pm

stessier wrote:
But Justice Kennedy seemed very unlikely to provide either side with the fifth vote needed to prevail. He was deeply concerned with the wisdom of acting now when in his view the social science of the effects of same-sex marriage is uncertain because it is so new. He also noted the doubts about the petitioners’ standing. So his suggestion was that the case should be dismissed.
Dismissal is an option? I have never heard of that before.
If the plaintiffs are deemed to lack standing to make the challenge, then the result is that the case is dismissed without reaching the substantive merits.

User avatar
stessier
Posts: 24182
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:30 pm
Location: SC

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by stessier » Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:59 pm

El Guapo wrote:
stessier wrote:
But Justice Kennedy seemed very unlikely to provide either side with the fifth vote needed to prevail. He was deeply concerned with the wisdom of acting now when in his view the social science of the effects of same-sex marriage is uncertain because it is so new. He also noted the doubts about the petitioners’ standing. So his suggestion was that the case should be dismissed.
Dismissal is an option? I have never heard of that before.
If the plaintiffs are deemed to lack standing to make the challenge, then the result is that the case is dismissed without reaching the substantive merits.
Do they have to take the case to deem that the plaintiffs lack standing? I would think that was part of the whole "deciding to take the case" thing. What fun is it to get all the way through arguments only to decide "we shouldn't even be listening to you?"
I require a reminder as to why raining arcane destruction is not an appropriate response to all of life's indignities. - Vaarsuvius
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Running____2014: 1300.55 miles____2015: 2036.13 miles____2016: 1012.75 miles____2017: 1105.82 miles____2018: 1318.91 miles

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 32253
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by El Guapo » Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:06 pm

stessier wrote:
El Guapo wrote:
stessier wrote:
But Justice Kennedy seemed very unlikely to provide either side with the fifth vote needed to prevail. He was deeply concerned with the wisdom of acting now when in his view the social science of the effects of same-sex marriage is uncertain because it is so new. He also noted the doubts about the petitioners’ standing. So his suggestion was that the case should be dismissed.
Dismissal is an option? I have never heard of that before.
If the plaintiffs are deemed to lack standing to make the challenge, then the result is that the case is dismissed without reaching the substantive merits.
Do they have to take the case to deem that the plaintiffs lack standing? I would think that was part of the whole "deciding to take the case" thing. What fun is it to get all the way through arguments only to decide "we shouldn't even be listening to you?"
Yes. First of all, there's a whole jurisprudence around standing which also gets developed case-by-case. Sometimes the SCOTUS won't take a case that presents significant standing or other threshold issues when they want to get to the merits, but in this case they took it knowing about the standing issues.

Secondly, in this case a dismissal for lack of standing has a different effect than not taking the case at all. Here the issue is not standing to bring the case to begin with, but standing to appeal the decision of the district court (because the government, which clearly has standing, defended at the district court level but declined to appeal). Whereas the district court only invalidated Prop 8, the Ninth Circuit's ruling (as I understand it) is broader and would apply to some other states as well. So if the SCOTUS reverses the Ninth Circuit and dismisses for lack of standing, that would leave the narrower district court ruling in place that would invalidate only Prop 8. (Whereas not taking the case would've left the broader Ninth Circuit ruling in place).

User avatar
stessier
Posts: 24182
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:30 pm
Location: SC

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by stessier » Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:16 pm

Ah. Thanks!
I require a reminder as to why raining arcane destruction is not an appropriate response to all of life's indignities. - Vaarsuvius
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Running____2014: 1300.55 miles____2015: 2036.13 miles____2016: 1012.75 miles____2017: 1105.82 miles____2018: 1318.91 miles

User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 18793
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Pyperkub » Tue Mar 26, 2013 2:27 pm

I found this section of the SCOTUSBlogwriteup interesting:
It was quite clear that the Court’s conservatives had wanted the case to be reviewed, because of their dislike for the ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court striking down Proposition 8.
Mainly because it sounds as if they went in wanting to overturn, and have found that they can't on the grounds that they wished to, and will at best have to fall back to the standing dismissal (which strikes me as ridiculous given CA's Proposition structure).
There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

User avatar
stessier
Posts: 24182
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:30 pm
Location: SC

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by stessier » Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:37 pm

Tangentially related - from twitter:
Terry Moran ‏@TerryMoran
Five US senators have flipped on gay marriage in the last 48 hours: Rockefeller, Begich, McCaskill, Warner, Tester. Plus Portman last week.
Popehat ‏@Popehat
I can only assume the Senate has scheduled one hell of a party for later this week or something.
:lol:
I require a reminder as to why raining arcane destruction is not an appropriate response to all of life's indignities. - Vaarsuvius
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Running____2014: 1300.55 miles____2015: 2036.13 miles____2016: 1012.75 miles____2017: 1105.82 miles____2018: 1318.91 miles

User avatar
Fireball
Posts: 4517
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Fireball » Tue Mar 26, 2013 5:02 pm

The Senate count is now 46 for equality, 54 against. Democrats are 45-10, Republicans are 1-44.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)

User avatar
Daehawk
Posts: 42857
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:11 am

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Daehawk » Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:47 pm

People are people. For God's sake allow them the same rights as everyone else. As is even after 40 years together one does not have the right to be in their hospital room when sick, decide their burial arrangements...nothing. If they have no one then a State gov does that...when the loved one is right there helpless. It's a damn black mark on human rights. Give them what everyone else gets..fairness, compassion, and equal rights.
https://www.gofundme.com/please-help-di ... -wife-died ....Help for me to take care of stuff . Wife died Jan 3 2019 after 31 years. My soulmate.
---------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.
GroovAtroN, stop asking
I guess Ray Butts has ate his last pancake.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/daehawk

User avatar
YellowKing
Posts: 25283
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by YellowKing » Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:17 pm

The Senate count is now 46 for equality, 54 against. Democrats are 45-10, Republicans are 1-44.
Stuff like this is why it's increasingly harder for me to call myself a Republican. In the past I've tended to ignore the religious right social aspects of the party, but this is just common human decency.

User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 23141
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by noxiousdog » Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:44 am

YellowKing wrote:
The Senate count is now 46 for equality, 54 against. Democrats are 45-10, Republicans are 1-44.
Stuff like this is why it's increasingly harder for me to call myself a Republican. In the past I've tended to ignore the religious right social aspects of the party, but this is just common human decency.
Not only that, but it's clear they are far willing to compromise personal beliefs for party line.
My continuing adventures of learning to play piano. - Now Playing Moonlight Sonata

Amazon Kindle Book Loaning Thread

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog

User avatar
Fireball
Posts: 4517
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Fireball » Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:23 am

So Sen. Kay Hagan is now in favor, so we're at 47 for (46 D, 1 R) to 53 against (9 D, 44 R).
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)

User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 45814
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, where we only use the old smilies

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by LawBeefaroni » Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:27 am

noxiousdog wrote:
YellowKing wrote:
The Senate count is now 46 for equality, 54 against. Democrats are 45-10, Republicans are 1-44.
Stuff like this is why it's increasingly harder for me to call myself a Republican. In the past I've tended to ignore the religious right social aspects of the party, but this is just common human decency.
Not only that, but it's clear they are far willing to compromise personal beliefs for party line.
Of course. How do you think they got the job in the first place?
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT

User avatar
stessier
Posts: 24182
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:30 pm
Location: SC

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by stessier » Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:32 am

Fireball1244 wrote:So Sen. Kay Hagan is now in favor, so we're at 47 for (46 D, 1 R) to 53 against (9 D, 44 R).
So, why are all these people changing now? Is it just because the case is in front of the Supreme Court? I mean, yay and all, but the timing seems weird.
I require a reminder as to why raining arcane destruction is not an appropriate response to all of life's indignities. - Vaarsuvius
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Running____2014: 1300.55 miles____2015: 2036.13 miles____2016: 1012.75 miles____2017: 1105.82 miles____2018: 1318.91 miles

User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 45814
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, where we only use the old smilies

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by LawBeefaroni » Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:36 am

stessier wrote:
Fireball1244 wrote:So Sen. Kay Hagan is now in favor, so we're at 47 for (46 D, 1 R) to 53 against (9 D, 44 R).
So, why are all these people changing now? Is it just because the case is in front of the Supreme Court? I mean, yay and all, but the timing seems weird.
My layman's impression is that they want to be on the winning side. As the odds of change shift, the re-evaluate their position.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT

User avatar
Fireball
Posts: 4517
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Fireball » Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:43 am

stessier wrote:
Fireball1244 wrote:So Sen. Kay Hagan is now in favor, so we're at 47 for (46 D, 1 R) to 53 against (9 D, 44 R).
So, why are all these people changing now? Is it just because the case is in front of the Supreme Court? I mean, yay and all, but the timing seems weird.
A lot of it is theater, in part designed for the benefit of the Court (to show momentum). Also, as time passes, the political "courage" of coming out for equality is rapidly diminishing. The last window for anyone to "bravely" come out for marriage equality, outside of the reddest enclaves of the GOP, will close by June. TIme to move now.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)

User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 60468
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by LordMortis » Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:25 pm

From FB: "Jesus had two dads and he turned out just fine."

User avatar
Fretmute
Posts: 8437
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:05 pm
Location: On a hillside, desolate
Fretmute’s avatar
Loading…

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Fretmute » Wed Mar 27, 2013 4:30 pm

LordMortis wrote:From FB: "Jesus had two dads and he turned out just fine."
I love weeks like such as this. They make it so easy to decide whom to prune from the friends list.

User avatar
Fireball
Posts: 4517
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Fireball » Wed Mar 27, 2013 4:38 pm

Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)

User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 39231
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Smoove_B » Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:29 pm

LordMortis wrote:From FB: "Jesus had two dads and he turned out just fine."
If you haven't seen the Best 60 signs against DOMA on Buzzfeed, it's worth a view. Possibly NSFW pictures or ads on the side of the page though.

User avatar
Fretmute
Posts: 8437
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:05 pm
Location: On a hillside, desolate
Fretmute’s avatar
Loading…

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Fretmute » Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:48 pm

If I didn't know better, I'd swear I was being trolled by the guy that just used the "What comes next? Women marrying animals? Men marrying boys?" argument.

Sadly, he was 100% serious. PLONK.

User avatar
Chrisoc13
Posts: 3991
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:43 pm
Location: Maine

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Chrisoc13 » Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:30 am

Fireball1244 wrote:
stessier wrote:
Fireball1244 wrote:So Sen. Kay Hagan is now in favor, so we're at 47 for (46 D, 1 R) to 53 against (9 D, 44 R).
So, why are all these people changing now? Is it just because the case is in front of the Supreme Court? I mean, yay and all, but the timing seems weird.
A lot of it is theater, in part designed for the benefit of the Court (to show momentum). Also, as time passes, the political "courage" of coming out for equality is rapidly diminishing. The last window for anyone to "bravely" come out for marriage equality, outside of the reddest enclaves of the GOP, will close by June. TIme to move now.
Maybe I'm a skeptic but I think a lot of it is just politicians being politicians. I'm not sure most of them (the ones that are switching) really feel that strongly about the issue, they just want to be on the winning side and do whatever it takes to have the public behind them. Not that I mind, I think it is absurd that gay marriage is not legalized but it seems like politics as usual to me. "Whatever is most popular is what I believe."

I would predict that within the next 4 years most Republicans even will support gay marriage. Maybe 4 years is too soon, but certainly in 10 years we will be there, right? Maybe some of the deep south will hold out but the west has already started to swing. Just look at how much things have changed since prop 8 was passed in California.

User avatar
Chrisoc13
Posts: 3991
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:43 pm
Location: Maine

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Chrisoc13 » Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:39 am

Smoove_B wrote:
LordMortis wrote:From FB: "Jesus had two dads and he turned out just fine."
If you haven't seen the Best 60 signs against DOMA on Buzzfeed, it's worth a view. Possibly NSFW pictures or ads on the side of the page though.
Some of those sucked, but some of them were hilarious.

I particularly enjoyed the YOLO one, the aint nobody got time for that, and the all marriage is the same sex every night ones. Got a chuckle out of me.

User avatar
Fireball
Posts: 4517
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Fireball » Thu Mar 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Chrisoc13 wrote:Maybe I'm a skeptic but I think a lot of it is just politicians being politicians. I'm not sure most of them (the ones that are switching) really feel that strongly about the issue, they just want to be on the winning side and do whatever it takes to have the public behind them. Not that I mind, I think it is absurd that gay marriage is not legalized but it seems like politics as usual to me. "Whatever is most popular is what I believe."
Senator Kay Hagan, who was the most recent to announce support for equality, runs for re-election next year in a state that in early 2012 voted about 70% in favor of a gay marriage ban.
I would predict that within the next 4 years most Republicans even will support gay marriage. Maybe 4 years is too soon, but certainly in 10 years we will be there, right? Maybe some of the deep south will hold out but the west has already started to swing. Just look at how much things have changed since prop 8 was passed in California.
So long as the Republican Party is rife with Evangelical Christians in the South and Mormon church members in the West, its base will be solidly anti-gay.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)

User avatar
Daehawk
Posts: 42857
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:11 am

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Daehawk » Thu Mar 28, 2013 12:41 pm

Republicans are anti-human? Anti-equality?
https://www.gofundme.com/please-help-di ... -wife-died ....Help for me to take care of stuff . Wife died Jan 3 2019 after 31 years. My soulmate.
---------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.
GroovAtroN, stop asking
I guess Ray Butts has ate his last pancake.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/daehawk

User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 60468
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by LordMortis » Thu Mar 28, 2013 12:57 pm

Daehawk wrote:Anti-equality?
I would say the party is currently anti-egalitarian under the guise of being libertarian and that's part of a turn off that is spreading wider and wider as it should, as people break from the ranks and a generational shift is taking control of values.

The republican party view of equal treatment under the law is still the red herring that any homosexual man or woman is protected by the same laws as any heterosexual man or woman.

I won't go as far as to say its human rights issue because, again, I don't like our family laws, in general, which DOMA is just part of.

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 59781
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Isgrimnur » Thu Mar 28, 2013 1:11 pm

One of the things that I heard in the arguments yesterday is that marriage definition is more the proponent of the states, which might end up with DOMA being thrown out, federal rights being granted based on marriages that are approved by the states, and you ending up with a patchwork of marriage definitions across the country. So it would be a step forward at the federal level while not clearing anything up on the state-to-state level.

Which would, of course, likely cause some demographic shifts in mobile adults as those that want and support the rights that certain states grant move there, leaving the red states to become even redder over time.
Silver - 1k

User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 60468
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by LordMortis » Thu Mar 28, 2013 1:17 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:Which would, of course, likely cause some demographic shifts in mobile adults as those that want and support the rights that certain states grant move there, leaving the red states to become even redder over time.
I think that's already been happening. I think that's why Michigan is moving from swing to Blue. It's red demographic are moving to red states.

Of course that's just a guess. Someone had a link several years ago showing state immigration and emigration rates and who is leaving where to go where. That would be interesting to see, especially for the last 22 years or so.

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 59781
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Isgrimnur » Thu Mar 28, 2013 1:19 pm

Down here in Texas, we have the (soon not to be) minotiry populations that lean left in terms of economic policies, but most of them have highly religious backgrounds that lean red in social policies.
Silver - 1k

RLMullen
Posts: 3591
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:21 pm
Location: Somewhere between Louisburg and Raleigh NC

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by RLMullen » Thu Mar 28, 2013 1:20 pm

Fireball1244 wrote: Senator Kay Hagan, who was the most recent to announce support for equality, runs for re-election next year in a state that in early 2012 voted about 70% in favor of a gay marriage ban.
This one is going to get ugly, and I'm not looking forward to it. The republican, Renee Ellmers, who announced this week was my rep prior to the recent redistricting, and she was a tea party freshman in 2010. Unfortunately, my wife and I, both of whom fully support gay marriage will have a tough choice if Ellmers makes it to the general election. Ellmers and her staff went above and beyond in assisting us in getting VA benefits for my mother-in-law, and in getting the paper-work processed in a timely fashion.

It would come down to casting a moral vote for Hagan, on a single issue, versus voting for someone who in my mind did her job well as a representative.
Fireball1244 wrote:So long as the Republican Party is rife with Evangelical Christians in the South and Mormon church members in the West, its base will be solidly anti-gay.
Don't ignore Catholics in this equation. Catholics aren't as vocal as the other two, but many will vote in line with the church once they are behind the curtain.

User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 60468
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by LordMortis » Thu Mar 28, 2013 1:21 pm

Not what I'm looking for but the description says "frost belt to sun belt"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudre ... g-in-2013/" target="_blank

User avatar
stessier
Posts: 24182
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:30 pm
Location: SC

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by stessier » Thu Mar 28, 2013 1:44 pm

RLMullen wrote:
Fireball1244 wrote:So long as the Republican Party is rife with Evangelical Christians in the South and Mormon church members in the West, its base will be solidly anti-gay.
Don't ignore Catholics in this equation. Catholics aren't as vocal as the other two, but many will vote in line with the church once they are behind the curtain.
I'm not sure that is true. I thought i saw a poll were 60% of American Catholics were for it.
I require a reminder as to why raining arcane destruction is not an appropriate response to all of life's indignities. - Vaarsuvius
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Running____2014: 1300.55 miles____2015: 2036.13 miles____2016: 1012.75 miles____2017: 1105.82 miles____2018: 1318.91 miles

Post Reply