-
SCOTUS to hear gay marriage cases
-
Quote from fw
Sounded like they are going to strike down DOMA but dont see a reason to interfere with individual states definition of marriage.
Question is if legal in 1 State & married there but later live in another where is is not offered, will you be recognized as married. IMO the answer should be a definitely yes. Even if I live in a state where not offered & I go to other state to get married, should be recognized in my home state. Just like now for heteros. In other words, not a matter of legal vs not legal.
-
Quote from Frumious
Quote from fw
Sounded like they are going to strike down DOMA but dont see a reason to interfere with individual states definition of marriage.
Question is if legal in 1 State & married there but later live in another where is is not offered, will you be recognized as married.
The ‘full faith and credit’ concept was settled with article IV of the US constitution. Back when south dakota was one of the first states that allowed no-fault divorce, the NY courts had to accept those divorce decrees even though they wouldn’t have allowed women to ge rid of their husbands themselves.-
Not so clear since most states have active ban that does not recognize marriage today. Supremes would have to strike down Cali law & make strike down effective for all states.
-
Quote from Frumious
Not so clear since most states have active ban that does not recognize marriage today. Supremes would have to strike down Cali law & make strike down effective for all states.
Under article IV, one state has to recognize the court decisions and administrative actions of another state. This is a common scenario when it comes to custody decisions. Once jurisdiction is settled (typically where the kid resided at the moment the war broke out), the decision by the competent court is binding, even if one parent moves out of state and tries to re-litigate in a friendlier jurisdiction. This also was an issue when some states allowed inter-racial marriage and the southern racist states didn’t. Eventually it got settled with Loving vs. Virginia before challenges under article IV ever made it up the courts. This time around, it may work itself out differently. I remember years back there was an issue with CT courts refusing to dissolve a civil union formed in VT, but their argument was simply[i] ‘we dont know what a civil union is, so we can’t ‘divorce’ you'[/i]. With a more clearly defined concept such as ‘marriage’, they won’t have that easy way out. I imagine if the homophobic states keep giving same-sex couples moving there from out of state a hard time, eventually a case will find its way up to USSC and the homophobes will get slapped down with a lesson on basic constitutional law.-
[link=http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/47049]http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/47049[/link]
Two more senators change to pro gay marriage positions. (One repub, one dem)-
Quote from dergon
[link=http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/47049]http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/47049[/link]
Two more senators change to pro gay marriage positions. (One repub, one dem)
[i]”all Americans ultimately should be free to marry the people they love and intend to share their lives with, regardless of their sexual orientation.”[/i]
– Republican Mark Kirk
-
This is fantastic.
[link=https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-data-science/showing-support-for-marriage-equality-on-facebook/10151430548593859]https://www.facebook.com/…book/10151430548593859[/link]
A message of optimism instead of the deadening dreariness of the message of the fearful angry right.
[:D]
-
-
Quote from dergon
[link=http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/47049]http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/47049[/link]
Two more senators change to pro gay marriage positions. (One repub, one dem)
Stuck their finger up, noticed that the wind had changed, aligned their little flag with the wind.
After DOMA gets struck down, the issue will be pretty much settled. I dont think we’ll hear much of it in the next campaign. There may still be some minor convulsions with homophobe states trying to punish people who marry out of state with penalties on their income tax and the like, but all this will do is to keep lawyers busy for a couple of years until this will be dark past and not even republicans will be willing to acknowledge that they were consistently on the wrong side of the issue.-
Quote from fw
After DOMA gets struck down, the issue will be pretty much settled. I dont think we’ll hear much of it in the next campaign. There may still be some minor convulsions with homophobe states trying to punish people who marry out of state with penalties on their income tax and the like, but all this will do is to keep lawyers busy for a couple of years until this will be dark past and not even republicans will be willing to acknowledge that they were consistently on the wrong side of the issue.
Ted Cruz calls for a Constitutional amendment to put marriage entirely under the authority of the States, calls same sex marriage “a real danger to our liberty”.
Court rulings upholding marriage equality are “a real danger to our liberty,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said in a radio interview Monday.
In response, Cruz [link=http://www.whoradio.com/onair/mickelson-in-the-morning-7738/senator-ted-cruz-13391624/]told WHO radio host Jan Mickelson[/link], he plans to introduce a constitutional amendment to allow states to ban same-sex marriage.
“We have seen judges, and especially the Supreme Court, ignoring the law,” Cruz said. He later added, If the courts were following the Constitution, we shouldnt need a new amendment, but they are, as you put it quite rightly, ‘making it up’ right now and its a real danger to our liberty.”
As it plays for the 2016 campaign:
This from a gay activist site:
[link=http://www.towleroad.com/2015/03/ted-cruz-im-the-biggest-anti-gay-bigot-in-the-gop-presidential-field.html]http://www.towleroad.com/…residential-field.html[/link]Facing intense competition for the anti-gay vote, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, is aiming to set himself apart from the rest of the 2016 GOP presidential field.
The Republican Primary promises to feature a healthy crop of truly formidable homophobes, from [link=http://www.towleroad.com/2013/10/rick-santorum-says-gop-approval-of-gay-marriage-will-be-the-destruction-of-our-republic-video.html]Rick Santorum[/link] to [link=http://www.towleroad.com/2015/02/huckabee-goes-godwin-with-lies-and-nazis-video.html]Mike Huckabee[/link] to [link=http://www.towleroad.com/2015/01/bobby-jindal-kicks-off-potential-2016-presidential-run-with-anti-gay-hate-group-prayer-rally-video.html]Bobby Jindal[/link] to [link=http://www.towleroad.com/2015/03/carsonapology.html]Ben Carson[/link].
But in a speech on Monday in Iowa, Cruz laid claim to the notion that he may be the No. 1 opponent of same-sex marriage. From [i][link=http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/03/09/ted-cruz-david-lane-pastors-pews-event/24679903/]The Des Moines Register[/link][/i]:
[blockquote] Cruz, R-Texas, described the ongoing shift toward legal recognition for gay couples as an “unrelenting assault on traditional marriage,” and castigated judges who have struck down prohibitions for “ignoring their oaths, ignoring the Constitution and legislating from the bench.”
The issue is one that Cruz said distinguishes him from other potential candidates in what looks to be a crowded 2016 presidential field. While others have de-emphasized or dropped altogether their opposition to same-sex marriage, he said, he would continue to make it a priority.
Cruz delivered his speech to a crowd of about 200 Iowa religious leaders and their spouses behind closed doors in a hotel ballroom in Des Moines. Although the American Renewal Project’s “Pastors and Pews” event was closed to the press, reporters were able to hear and record Cruz’s remarks from the corridor outside.
[/blockquote]
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from Frumious
Quote from fw
Sounded like they are going to strike down DOMA but dont see a reason to interfere with individual states definition of marriage.
Question is if legal in 1 State & married there but later live in another where is is not offered, will you be recognized as married. IMO the answer should be a definitely yes. Even if I live in a state where not offered & I go to other state to get married, should be recognized in my home state. Just like now for heteros. In other words, not a matter of legal vs not legal.
Here’s a piece today looking at just that:
[link=http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-gay-marriage-chaos-20130331,0,7749021.column]http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-gay-marriage-chaos-20130331,0,7749021.column[/link]
The court seems ready to strike down the federal [link=http://www.auntminnie.com/topic/social-issues/family/same-sex-marriage/defense-of-marriage-act-EVGAP00069.topic]Defense of Marriage Act[/link], while ruling quite narrowly on California’s [link=http://www.auntminnie.com/topic/social-issues/family/same-sex-marriage/proposition-8-%28california-2010%29-EVHST0000250.topic]Proposition 8[/link], allowing a lower-court decision to stand. Such an outcome would make gay marriage legal in California without deciding whether state bans on same-sex marriage are constitutional.
And that would allow more of what we’ve seen up to now: a growing number of liberal blue states moving to legalize gay marriage, and a growing number of conservative red states enacting bans.But there will be one big difference: Gays who live in states that allow gay marriage may have an array of federal privileges unavailable to those living in states that ban such marriages. And that raises complex questions.
What happens to two gay men who marry in New York and then move to Salt Lake City? Will they still be married? If they have children, will the kids have two parents under Utah law? And will their federal benefits, such as survivors’ Social Security benefits, travel with them, even though they’ve moved to a state where their marriage isn’t valid? Will they file their federal tax returns jointly but state returns separately? And don’t even think about the issue of divorce.
This kind of legal patchwork virtually guarantees that politicians in states that don’t recognize gay marriage will be debating and legislating the issue for years, making for an even more confusing situation. The ensuing chaos could harm more than just gay couples; the Republican Party stands to lose too.
Gay marriage has been embraced by a substantial majority of Democrats and Democratic politicians. In blue states, the trend lines suggest that opinion among Democrats will soon be so one-sided that it will cease to be an issue.
It’s different in the GOP. Most Republicans still oppose same-sex marriage by a wide margin, with only about a quarter in favor in a recent Pew Research Center poll. But the survey also suggests that the issue will grow as a wedge that divides the party, in part because of a big generational divergence: 76% of Republicans over 65 oppose gay marriage, while only 54% of those under 30 do.
And when the question is changed from marriage to equal rights, the wedge potential is even clearer: Republicans divide right down the middle as to whether homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples, 49% to 48%, with young people again more permissive than older voters.
One leading GOP fundraiser described the conflict to me as “between the Christians and the donors” Christian social conservatives who want the party to stand forthrightly against gay marriage, and donors who want the GOP to broaden its appeal to young people and moderates as a path toward winning the next election.
Speaking on condition he not be identified, this veteran of conservative campaigns noted that the GOP needs to keep all those groups inside its tent, which will make gay marriage a problem for any would-be presidential candidate in 2016.
All the current prospective candidates have stuck with GOP orthodoxy, making it clear that they oppose gay marriage with the intriguing exception of Sen. [link=http://www.auntminnie.com/topic/politics/government/rand-paul-PEPLT007915.topic]Rand Paul[/link] (R-Ky.), who said last week that he thinks the states should have the right to decide.
The best course for a presidential candidate, the fundraiser said, is to try to duck the issue. Paradoxically, this means a bold Supreme Court ruling recognizing a constitutional right to gay marriage might be best for the GOP in practical terms because it would put the issue beyond the reach of legislation. If the court leaves the issue up to the states, that would give presidential candidates a states’ rights place to hide but they would still be pressed to take a clear position in caucus and primary states such as Iowa and South Carolina.
And that brings me to the third category of opinion in the Republican Party: A growing group of conservatives, including young evangelicals, who oppose gay marriage as a matter of principle, but who are willing to accept it as a civil institution for people who don’t share their religious beliefs.
“You can believe that homosexuality is a sin and still believe that same-sex marriage can be legal,” Timothy Keller, pastor of the conservative Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, told me at a conference sponsored by the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
That segment of the population culturally conservative but increasingly libertarian on matters of law may be the one to watch as the debate over gay marriage rolls on unabated even after the court makes up its mind.
Another case, perhaps, of the public moving faster than the politicians.
(( lots of words there — but I found it a cool read 🙂 ))-
Yeah, adultery and divorce are sins too, but you can bet your ass they still want those sins to be “legal”!!!
-
-
-
Boy I don’t know. I think it could be an issue for GOP primaries in 2016. While mainstream/party repubs might want to give social issues a pass, the primary GOP voters won’t sit quietly on it. (Mostly older republicans voting here — only polling in the 20% as % in favor of marriage equality)
Marco Rubio: Against Gay Marriage
Jeb Bush: Should be “State’s Rights”
Bobby Jindal: Against Gay Marriage
Rand Paul: Dodging the question with “We’re going to lose that issue”
Chris Christie: Against Gay Marriage
Rick Santorum: Thinks gay people should be flayed alive (for the good of their soul).
Even the moderates of the the republican field haven’t moved quickly. With DOMA defeated but maybe Prop 8 ignored that could leave very public, nasty, fights on the ballot state-by-state in important primary locations.
-
Quote from dergon
Marco Rubio: Against Gay Marriage
Jeb Bush: Should be “State’s Rights”
Bobby Jindal: Against Gay Marriage
Rand Paul: Dodging the question with “We’re going to lose that issue”
Chris Christie: Against Gay Marriage
Rick Santorum: Thinks gay people should be flayed alive (for the good of their soul).
Neither of these people will be anything but an ‘also ran’ in the next campaign.-
Quote from fw
Quote from dergon
Boy I don’t know. I think it could be an issue for GOP primaries in 2016. While mainstream/party repubs might want to give social issues a pass, the primary GOP voters won’t sit quietly on it. (Mostly older republicans voting here — only polling in the 20% as % in favor of marriage equality)Marco Rubio: Against Gay Marriage
Jeb Bush: Should be “State’s Rights”
Bobby Jindal: Against Gay Marriage
Rand Paul: Dodging the question with “We’re going to lose that issue”
Chris Christie: Against Gay Marriage
Rick Santorum: Thinks gay people should be flayed alive (for the good of their soul).Neither of these people will be anything but an ‘also ran’ in the next campaign.
Well… they’re running. And they’re arse-deep in Same Sex marriage/ LGBT politics on the heels of Pence in Indiana.
[link=http://www.politicususa.com/2015/03/31/gop-presidential-contenders-kowtow-religious-right-support-discriminatory-indiana-law.html]http://www.politicususa.c…atory-indiana-law.html[/link]
Amid the political firestorm created by Indianas passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), [link=http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gop-presidential-hopefuls-back-indiana-religious-freedom-law/story?id=30020917]Republican presidential contenders are lining up to defend the law,[/link]and Indianas embattled Governor Mike Pence, who signed it.
On Monday, presumed Republican front-runner Jeb Bush [link=http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/03/30/jeb-bush-defends-indianas-religious-beliefs-law/]told conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt:[/link]
[blockquote] “I think Governor Pence has done the right thing.”
[/blockquote] Dismissing criticisms of the law as unfounded he continued, [link=http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/03/30/jeb-bush-defends-indianas-religious-beliefs-law/]by saying:[/link]
[blockquote] “I think once the facts are established, people arent going to see this as discriminatory at all.”
[/blockquote] A spokesperson for Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker didnt comment directly on the Indiana law, [link=http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/03/31/religious-freedom-pence-gop-candidates/]but she pointed out[/link] that Walker supports religious freedom as a matter of principle.
In addition to Bush and Walker, a number of other Republican presidential competitors weighed in, all expressing support for allowing discrimination if it is based on deeply held religious beliefs. Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz [link=http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/03/31/religious-freedom-pence-gop-candidates/]all spoke out in favor of the Indiana law.[/link]
Same-sex marriage / LGBT rights shaping up to be a leading social issue in the 2016 campaign. Certainly no where close to “settled” in the GOP.
The political fundamentals on this are big losers for the GOP. You have a US population now 65% supportive of gay marriage but a core Republican base still with strong opposition to the notion.-
The ED show is rocking; he called Pence the H word and pulled the mike on another guest
this is a loser issue for the GOP because bizness won’t allow dollars to walk
luv when a GOPer doubles down on stupidty-
What we really need is a bill like the Freedom from Religion bill where we get back to founding principals like separation of church and state.
I also think that in 2015 as soon as someone decides to not provide a good or service based on this type of descrimination they’ll go out of business. Word spreads as fast as pushing a post button in an app.
-
well Dan Malloy on Hardball called Pence a bigot so Bibi has company
-
Walmart gives Arkansas a tap on the shoulder
-
it bodes well for businesses to not be discriminatory. Walmart is taking the right position and it will make them look good. I’d be surprised if other large entities don’t also follow suit. The big store saying don’t do it governor.
-
Where you can legally be fired for just being gay, much less getting served.
The religious freedom to discriminate. How far can it go? No Jews need apply? Non-Christians need not apply? Only the “correct” kind of Christian can apply? Single parents, specifically women for being of loose moral character?
[link=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/30/fired-for-being-gay_n_6076492.html]http://www.huffingtonpost…ing-gay_n_6076492.html[/link]
[link=http://www.wcnc.com/story/life/2015/01/13/charlotte-catholic-teacher-said-he-was-fired-for-being-gay/21734205/]http://www.wcnc.com/story…or-being-gay/21734205/[/link]
[link=http://lubbockonline.com/filed-online/2014-07-25/lubbock-man-says-he-was-fired-being-gay-law-says-its-ok#.VRv1oeG-szo]http://lubbockonline.com/…ys-its-ok#.VRv1oeG-szo[/link]Only 18 states and the District of Columbia have rules barring workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation Texas isnt one of them.
-
Oh, oh, cold feet of reality making Asa call for amending or recalling the bill.
When Walmart opposes the bill you know it’s so bad.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from dergon
Boy I don’t know. I think it could be an issue for GOP primaries in 2016. While mainstream/party repubs might want to give social issues a pass, the primary GOP voters won’t sit quietly on it. (Mostly older republicans voting here — only polling in the 20% as % in favor of marriage equality)
Marco Rubio: Against Gay Marriage
Jeb Bush: Should be “State’s Rights”
Bobby Jindal: Against Gay Marriage
Rand Paul: Dodging the question with “We’re going to lose that issue”
Chris Christie: Against Gay Marriage
Rick Santorum: Thinks gay people should be flayed alive (for the good of their soul).Even the moderates of the the republican field haven’t moved quickly. With DOMA defeated but maybe Prop 8 ignored that could leave very public, nasty, fights on the ballot state-by-state in important primary locations.
Other than Jeb, who I think still has respectable horsepower under the hood, it’s depressing to think that’s the GOP’s short list. Might as well put Cantor, Graham, and Bachmann on there.
Don’t be surprised if Hagel or Christie — or any other moderate the GOP has come to vilify for not being extreme enough — turn out to be their favored child in ’16.
-
Quote from Lux
Don’t be surprised if Hagel or Christie — or any other moderate the GOP has come to vilify for not being extreme enough — turn out to be their favored child in ’16.
Well, they tried that with McCain and Romney and managed to damage both of them beyond repair in their own primaries.-
The republican primary in 2016 will be as competitive, if not more so. So it will be a fight like 2012.
However, the 2011-2012 primaries for the republicans was brutal because of the candidates. It seemed at time sketch comedy writers selected the republican candidates and started a reality series with the players on an off the stage. From Bachmann’s husband, Herman Cain’s chubby middle age blond bimbo eruption, Huntsman’s daughters, Perry’s problem either downtiming at night or saucing it up before hitting the stage, Santorum’s Westboro church-lite act, Newt’s BFF casino mogul and his ‘Moonraker” plans designed for a central Florida debate, there wasnt quality control expected from your dad’s (or rich uncle’s) GOP.
Hopefully, the republican primaries wont be shouting numbers out to any and all questions, or playing one-upsmanship with a conservative Texas governor to get to right of him about any issue and picking the wrong issue. With Govs. Christie, Jindal, Sen. Rubio It should be a more pointed debate, rebuttal and improved discussion of issues. It will also be more challenging for the dems to crank up the hate machine on these candidates.-
Quote from MRImadman
With Govs. Christie, Jindal, Sen. Rubio It should be a more pointed debate, rebuttal and improved discussion of issues. It will also be more challenging for the dems to crank up the hate machine on these candidates.
No need for a ‘hate machine’, the republican party inflicted both of the recent election losses upon itself.-
While the GOP establishment would love to see a primary/debate process that didn’t force candidates to get to the right of one another, the fact that the voting party base is [b]hard[/b] right will make that difficult if not impossible.
A crafty politician (craftier than Mitt) might be able to thread the needle and get out of the primaries with enough leeway to tack back to the middle, but it will be a challenge.-
Back on the topic at hand — An interesting read on the “inside baseball” of oral arguments and Roberts’ grand plan to pull in Kennedy on DOMA.
[link=http://www.businessinsider.com/justice-roberts-has-a-plan-to-keep-doma-2013-4]http://www.businessinsider.com/justice-roberts-has-a-plan-to-keep-doma-2013-4[/link]
To recap, some conservative DOMA opponents still unprepared to embrace the liberal view that the Constitution requires the federal government to treat gay and straight married couples equally have suggested the law infringes on states rights. At times during the oral arguments, Kennedy appeared to join their ranks. Thus, though the liberal justices articulated a more straightforward argument, rooted in the 14th Amendment, that DOMA denies gay couples equal [link=http://www.auntminnie.com/Forum/]protection[image]http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png[/image][/link] under the law, the federalist argument presented them a clearer path to a 5-4 majority to strike down the law.
Enter Chief Justice Roberts, who repeatedly sought to knock down the more circuitous 10th Amendment argument, and present Kennedy a choice: Youre either with us, or with the liberals.
Although [link=http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/12/anthony-kennedy-gay-marriage.php]Kennedy has written[/link] the Supreme Courts two key majority decisions in favor of gay rights, he made clear last week that hes uncomfortable with overturning gay marriage bans in all states and more specifically that hes uncomfortable with deciding either DOMA or the [link=http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/03/supreme-court-sharply-divided-on-merits-of-prop-8-case.php]California gay marriage case[/link] before the court on equal protection grounds. Youre really asking for us to go into uncharted waters, he told the lawyer advocating a constitutional right for gays and lesbians to marry. But Kennedy also wasnt sympathetic to treating married gay couples differently under federal law, [link=http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/03/anthony-kennedy-gay-marriage-middle-path.php]charting out a compromise[/link] that lets states define marriage and requires the federal government to accept their definition.
Perhaps conscious of Kennedys predicament, Roberts tried to build consensus [i]against[/i] striking down DOMA on federalism grounds, knowing that neither side arguing the case was seeking that middle path. He repeatedly and successfully asked the governments anti-DOMA lawyer to affirm that it does not believe the 1996 law violates states rights.
So just to be clear, you dont think there is a federalism problem with what Congress has done in DOMA? Roberts asked U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli on Wednesday.
We no, we dont, Mr. Chief Justice, Verrilli responded.
Lyle Denniston, a veteran Supreme Court [link=http://www.auntminnie.com/Forum/]analyst[image]http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png[/image][/link] with the award-winning SCOTUSblog, described Roberts move as a strategic effort to put Kennedy in a box.
I think the chief justice probably wants to sustain DOMA and he wants to force Kennedy into the posture of having to vote on the equal protection issue, knowing that Kennedy is not ready to strike down DOMA on equal protection, Denniston told TPM. So I think the conservatives and the chief in particular are trying force his hand because they think he is reachable on the merits.
The Roberts-Verrilli exchange didnt sit well with Kennedy, who jumped in and argued that DOMA supersedes the authority of states to regulate marriage. There is a federalism interest at stake here, and I thought you told the Chief Justice there was not, Kennedy said. Verrilli responded that when it comes to DOMA, the problem is an equal protection problem.
It puts Kennedy in an uncomfortable predicament between the four liberal justices who appeared inclined toward a more sweeping marriage equality ruling, and the conservative justices who appeared to support upholding Prop 8 and DOMA.
-
-
-
-
Quote from fw
Quote from Lux
Don’t be surprised if Hagel or Christie — or any other moderate the GOP has come to vilify for not being extreme enough — turn out to be their favored child in ’16.
Well, they tried that with McCain and Romney and managed to damage both of them beyond repair in their own primaries.
Well I didn’t mean to imply that i thought such an approach was a WINNING strategy. If the Tea Party has done anything for/to the GOP, it served to DEFOCUS the intense conviction and resolve that they had honed to a fine art in the decades before.
It’s like the entire party has become victim of the Peter Principle.
-
-
If anyone has read What It Takes by Cramer, then you know the only big national guy on that list Is Jeb. Christie does not follow the order that the GOP follows for their candidates and any voters for him would vote for Jeb which is probably why IMHO he was not included because his voter base includes Jeb and Jeb is an astute politician to know other elected officials names and would not refer to one as simply by race. Obama and Romney raised a billion bucks and Jeb IMHO is the only one on that list that can do that..just saying..the obvious.
Quote from Lux
Quote from dergon
Boy I don’t know. I think it could be an issue for GOP primaries in 2016. While mainstream/party repubs might want to give social issues a pass, the primary GOP voters won’t sit quietly on it. (Mostly older republicans voting here — only polling in the 20% as % in favor of marriage equality)
Marco Rubio: Against Gay Marriage
Jeb Bush: Should be “State’s Rights”
Bobby Jindal: Against Gay Marriage
Rand Paul: Dodging the question with “We’re going to lose that issue”
Chris Christie: Against Gay Marriage
Rick Santorum: Thinks gay people should be flayed alive (for the good of their soul).Even the moderates of the the republican field haven’t moved quickly. With DOMA defeated but maybe Prop 8 ignored that could leave very public, nasty, fights on the ballot state-by-state in important primary locations.
Other than Jeb, who I think still has respectable horsepower under the hood, it’s depressing to think that’s the GOP’s short list. Might as well put Cantor, Graham, and Bachmann on there.
Don’t be surprised if Hagel or Christie — or any other moderate the GOP has come to vilify for not being extreme enough — turn out to be their favored child in ’16.
-
-
-
[b]RNC Doubles Down On Gay Marriage Stance Amid Conservative Pressure[/b]
With support for gay marriage at a record high among Americans, Republican party leaders from around the country doubled down to oppose it at the Republican National Committee’s spring meeting in Los Angeles Friday.
Members of the committee voted unanimously to reaffirm the language in the GOP platform defining marriage “as the union of one man and one woman.” The resolution went further, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to “uphold the sanctity of marriage in its rulings on Proposition 8 and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.”
This stands in interesting contrast to the moderate wing of the party who filed amicus briefs in opposition to Prop 8 and DOMA
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/us/politics/gay-marriage-brief-gets-more-republican-support.html?_r=0]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/us/politics/gay-marriage-brief-gets-more-republican-support.html?_r=0[/link]
[b]Republicans Sign Brief in Support of Gay Marriage[/b]WASHINGTON Dozens of prominent Republicans including top advisers to former President George W. Bush, four former governors and two members of Congress have signed a legal brief arguing that gay people have a constitutional right to marry, a position that amounts to a direct challenge to Speaker [link=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/john_a_boehner/index.html?inline=nyt-per]John A. Boehner[/link] and reflects the civil war in the party since the November election.
-
well, let’s wait for 2014 results
Quote from dergon
[b]RNC Doubles Down On Gay Marriage Stance Amid Conservative Pressure[/b]
With support for gay marriage at a record high among Americans, Republican party leaders from around the country doubled down to oppose it at the Republican National Committee’s spring meeting in Los Angeles Friday.
Members of the committee voted unanimously to reaffirm the language in the GOP platform defining marriage “as the union of one man and one woman.” The resolution went further, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to “uphold the sanctity of marriage in its rulings on Proposition 8 and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.”This stands in interesting contrast to the moderate wing of the party who filed amicus briefs in opposition to Prop 8 and DOMA
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/us/politics/gay-marriage-brief-gets-more-republican-support.html?_r=0]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/us/politics/gay-marriage-brief-gets-more-republican-support.html?_r=0[/link]
[b]Republicans Sign Brief in Support of Gay Marriage[/b]
WASHINGTON Dozens of prominent Republicans including top advisers to former President George W. Bush, four former governors and two members of Congress have signed a legal brief arguing that gay people have a constitutional right to marry, a position that amounts to a direct challenge to Speaker [link=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/john_a_boehner/index.html?inline=nyt-per]John A. Boehner[/link] and reflects the civil war in the party since the November election.
-
Quote from dergon
[b]RNC Doubles Down On Gay Marriage Stance Amid Conservative Pressure[/b]
With support for gay marriage at a record high among Americans, Republican party leaders from around the country doubled down to oppose it at the Republican National Committee’s spring meeting in Los Angeles Friday.
Members of the committee voted unanimously to reaffirm the language in the GOP platform defining marriage “as the union of one man and one woman.” The resolution went further, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to “uphold the sanctity of marriage in its rulings on Proposition 8 and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.”This stands in interesting contrast to the moderate wing of the party who filed amicus briefs in opposition to Prop 8 and DOMA
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/us/politics/gay-marriage-brief-gets-more-republican-support.html?_r=0]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/us/politics/gay-marriage-brief-gets-more-republican-support.html?_r=0[/link]
[b]Republicans Sign Brief in Support of Gay Marriage[/b]
WASHINGTON Dozens of prominent Republicans including top advisers to former President George W. Bush, four former governors and two members of Congress have signed a legal brief arguing that gay people have a constitutional right to marry, a position that amounts to a direct challenge to Speaker [link=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/john_a_boehner/index.html?inline=nyt-per]John A. Boehner[/link] and reflects the civil war in the party since the November election.
[link=http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx]http://www.gallup.com/pol…important-problem.aspx[/link]
Man, there are a lot of posts on this thread for this issue of near-complete unimportance to the electorate. Take a look at this polling data and in particular where gay civil rights ranks on it. Dead last, behind homelessness, and the finished war in Iraq. It’s a non-issue to democrat, independent, republican alike.
So before or after the SCOTUS ruling, the issue is not active politically.Where are the 10s of 1000s marching? Where is the gay Rosa Parks, school bombing or Pettis bridge event? It exists perhaps in certain individual’s over-sensitive egos or feigned, politically correct over-reactions to rhetoric, or more accurately, these seminal events never happened. There isnt the steam anywhere to promulgate wholesale change in establishing a new minority carve-out. The American public at large is decidedly lukewarm that is, meh towards the idea of gay marriage. There is a Grand Canyon-sized chasm, between the flat public feeling on gay marriage and politicians’ (and a relatively small number of true and fervent believers) frenzied debates about it is very revealing–that it is a non-issue.
President Obama made in support of same sex marriage an issue in an election year to get more backers with money and their vote. Hilary Clinton will likely never be seen as an ardent supporter of gays. Is she really going to strongly support making marriage a Federal Act, and take away 44 states sovereignty? Is this elder middle aged woman going to get that close to David Geffen and vise versa after their very public split in 2008?
By your unending republishing of little opinion snippets from gay-friendly or out-right gay editorial journalists, it just shows that there is an anxiety on your part that the centrist Supreme Court is not going to make a unique carve-out for added protections on same-sex attractions/relationships. Instead, the SCOTUS will likely keep it fairly status-quo, with the possible exception of knocking off a few provisions in DOMA. Therefore, its going to be up to you to drum up support first in California then the rest of the 44 states expressly banning gay marriage. And, with this being a non-issue in the poll, there wont be retribution for candidates of any party who say something to the effect: “I believe in traditional marriage and the rights of any individuals including gay people to live the way they chose. You know there is enough love in God’s heart for gay people.” You can holler back at this simple statement, but America doesnt care. Republicans arent being demonized by it. Rick Santorum is seen as the male version of the Florida Orange Juice lady, who just faded away.-
Well, you’re certainly correct that I have some anxiety that a narrow ruling supreme ruling will come out and cause actualy harm to thousands of people who simply want equal rights. It wouldn’t be the travesty of Plessy v. Ferguson, but it would be a travesty.
As for the politics of it I just can’t believe that if you have a patchwork of laws and prohibitions state by state that it won’t be a big deal that candidates have to address….repeatedly. THat’s the thing about social issues in campaigns, even though they are nowhere near high national priorities they have the nasty habit of popping up, derailing messages, and serving to define the image of candidates in the eyes of the electorate.-
Keep fighting, but in the way to change more minds. It’s not the full course press or battling Catholics/Southern Baptists that’s going to win this for you. Although you’ll disagree with me-It’s seriously not “How Soon Is Now.”
Look at how much recognition of the gays in everyday life has exponentially increased in such a short period of time (last 20 years) in the US. People notice the little things. Like how Iowa, the heartland, didnt become something other than Iowa with gay marriage. Local preachers couldnt fire up anybody, because the people getting married in Iowa werent the x-ed out youth straight from a Pat Buchanan campaign commercial. They were middle aged folks who everybody in the community knew were gay and had finally come to reconcile it to live a life with another individual. -
[size=”2″]Plessy v. Ferguson[/size]
[size=”2″]Sarah didn’t evn know of that ruling.[/size]
[size=”2″]The 50’s are over [/size]
Quote from dergon
Well, you’re certainly correct that I have some anxiety that a narrow ruling supreme ruling will come out and cause actualy harm to thousands of people who simply want equal rights. It wouldn’t be the travesty of Plessy v. Ferguson, but it would be a travesty.
As for the politics of it I just can’t believe that if you have a patchwork of laws and prohibitions state by state that it won’t be a big deal that candidates have to address….repeatedly. THat’s the thing about social issues in campaigns, even though they are nowhere near high national priorities they have the nasty habit of popping up, derailing messages, and serving to define the image of candidates in the eyes of the electorate.
-
-
Quote from RVU
Man, there are a lot of posts on this thread for this issue of near-complete unimportance to the electorate.
Considering there are somewhere between 12 and 30 million gays in this country, I respectfully disagree with you. Many national elections have been lost by far fewer votes than that.
Besides, when it comes to human rights issues, it’s not about what the electorate thinks is important, it’s about what a first-world superpower holds to be the right thing to do for its populous regardless of the size of that segment.
Let me remind you that “ALL are created equal” including the meekest individuals, not just large posse groups that carry big sticks and scream real loud.
-
For a “near complete unimportance” issue, many on the right are still making a big thing about it & it is a primary reason, grouped along with other GOP intolerance issues that many young people reject the GOP. Guns, God & Gays are not their issues.
-
Quote from Frumious
For a “near complete unimportance” issue, many on the right are still making a big thing about it & it is a primary reason, grouped along with other GOP intolerance issues that many young people reject the GOP. Guns, God & Gays are not their issues.
One big problem is that Republicans are stuck with the moniker “Grand [u]OLD[/u] Party” and many of them insist on taking that literally. They want to stick with their ancient “traditions” that no longer apply to modern times and they’re losing credibility more and more as each day rolls by. They are losing credibility with the younger generation as well as with immigrants. And instead of recognizing that fact and adapting accordingly, they manage to push themselves farther into an obscure corner by actually VILIFYING those who disagree with their obsolete view of the world.
As a result, the population is losing its affinity for “Old” stuff and would rather keep up with the times as they are rapidly a’changin’. These days, “Old” in politics has become a stigma that implies immutable old-fashion viewpoints that need to be stifled and modernized. To more and more people, the image of “Grand Old Party” conjures up racism, redneck ignorance, dog-eat-dog fatcat rich cigar smokers on the cover of a Monopoly game, and Bible literalists, all of which have little relevance in modern, enlightened times.
-
-
Quote from Lux
Quote from RVU
Man, there are a lot of posts on this thread for this issue of near-complete unimportance to the electorate.
Considering there are somewhere between 12 and 30 million gays in this country, I respectfully disagree with you. Many national elections have been lost by far fewer votes than that.
That’s a strange and intentional troll-like lie overestimation by approximately 10 to 30 times of individuals who consider or identify themselves gay by professionally performed surveys.[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation.]http://en.wikipedia.org/w…of_sexual_orientation.[/link] Of the largest modern surveys, 1 to 1.5 % identify themselves as gay and that translates to 3.3 to 5 million Americans. Perhaps you think it is higher because of your own cohort or behaviors, but that’s not what the surveys inform us. Gays make a tiny slice of the electorate anyway you look at it.
And, gay marriage isnt an issue at all for any party or political beliefs, even the most conservative ideologues. [link=http://www.nationalreview.com/the-feed/139/cpac-straw-poll-abortion-gay-marriage-not-important]http://www.nationalreview…marriage-not-important[/link]
Quote from
They are losing credibility with the younger generation..
And nothing says youth and vitality more than Hillary Clinton, an elderly middle aged woman with a penchant for shrillness, whose path to power was through the institution of marriage.
-
[b]”And nothing says youth and vitality more than Hillary Clinton, an elderly middle aged woman with a penchant for shrillness, whose path to power was through the institution of marriage.” [/b]
[b] [/b]
Let’s discuss that “institution of marriage”, may we? Hasn’t been much, Monica won the cigar and Hillary got the shaft from ol’ slick willie. She is really pitiful – sold her soul to the obummer to get his support in 2016, lied like a dog to Senate committee investigating the Libyan debacle. Don’t even get me started on whitewater. She really needs one of those gay, loved by the libs hairdressers to do something with her hair. That polyester leisure suit (loaned to her by botox pelosi) really doesn’t do much for her image. I need to turn some of those FOX News beauties on her and let them really sweeten up her image. Maybe Shannon Breen might have a week to spend with her. It will take that long.
-
Quote from RVU
[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation.]http://en.wikipedia.org/w…of_sexual_orientation.[/link] Of the largest modern surveys, 1 to 1.5 % identify themselves as gay and that translates to 3.3 to 5 million Americans. Perhaps you think it is higher because of your own cohort or behaviors, but that’s not what the surveys inform us. Gays make a tiny slice of the electorate anyway you look at it.
Clearly, you are as ignorant about population behavior as are billainsworth and Point Man.
You are both gullible and foolish to believe that any public survey can plausibly get a morally controversial population segment to fully admit its inclination. You talk as though all gays have come completely out of the closet and will answer “Yes” to any open question about whether they follow a gay life style.
As a clear example, let’s suppose that you are a married man in a professional career, but you haven’t been getting any from your wife lately, and so you’ve set up your computer to view pornography so you can DIY at night after she has gone to sleep. Now, even though there really is nothing wrong with that at all, nevertheless, considering the social controversy of such a thing, are we to believe that everyone in your situation would answer “Yes” to the survey question: “Do you masturbate to pornography?”? I am guessing the number who SHOULD answer yes is many times higher than the number that DO answer yes.
-
Quote from Lux
Quote from RVU
[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation.]http://en.wikipedia.org/w…of_sexual_orientation.[/link] Of the largest modern surveys, 1 to 1.5 % identify themselves as gay and that translates to 3.3 to 5 million Americans. Perhaps you think it is higher because of your own cohort or behaviors, but that’s not what the surveys inform us. Gays make a tiny slice of the electorate anyway you look at it.
Clearly, you are as ignorant about population behavior as are billainsworth and Point Man.
You are both gullible and foolish to believe that any public survey can plausibly get a morally controversial population segment to fully admit its inclination. You talk as though all gays have come completely out of the closet and will answer “Yes” to any open question about whether they follow a gay life style.
As a clear example, let’s suppose that you are a married man in a professional career, but you haven’t been getting any from your wife lately, and so you’ve set up your computer to view pornography so you can DIY at night after she has gone to sleep. Now, even though there really is nothing wrong with that at all, nevertheless, considering the social controversy of such a thing, are we to believe that everyone in your situation would answer “Yes” to the survey question: “Do you masturbate to pornography?”? I am guessing the number who SHOULD answer yes is many times higher than the number that DO answer yes.
Soapy you are one sad rad!! You seem to be so well versed in the subject of self stimulation.
-
Quote from Point Man
You seem to be so well versed in the subject of self stimulation.
Well thank you, Point Man. And you seem so well versed in changing the subject when you’re caught trolling.
I guess we both have our special talents.
-
-
Quote from Lux
Quote from RVU
[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation.]http://en.wikipedia.org/w…of_sexual_orientation.[/link] Of the largest modern surveys, 1 to 1.5 % identify themselves as gay and that translates to 3.3 to 5 million Americans. Perhaps you think it is higher because of your own cohort or behaviors, but that’s not what the surveys inform us. Gays make a tiny slice of the electorate anyway you look at it.
As a clear example, let’s suppose that you are a married man in a professional career, but you haven’t been getting any from your wife lately, and so you’ve set up your computer to view pornography so you can DIY at night after she has gone to sleep. Now, even though there really is nothing wrong with that at all, nevertheless, considering the social controversy of such a thing, are we to believe that everyone in your situation would answer “Yes” to the survey question: “Do you masturbate to pornography?”? I am guessing the number who SHOULD answer yes is many times higher than the number that DO answer yes.
Very very strange response to me pointing out your inexplicably shoddy research of reporting that up to 10% of the population considers themselves ‘gay’. I’ve already cited most of the largest social science studies that have been published about this issues, and the results routinely cite a range of 0.8 to possible 1.5% of gay individuals in different Western countries.
In my years on Aunt Minnie, I dont think I have ever come across a post like this one you’ve made, not even close. It is if it was written by someone thoroughly enraptured by the detailed description of masturbation fantasies. My presumption would have to be that there is a lot of written projection in regards to being denied by a partner and likely uber-stimulation by the same sex.-
Quote from RVU
Very very strange response to me pointing out your inexplicably shoddy research of reporting that up to 10% of the population considers themselves ‘gay’. I’ve already cited most of the largest social science studies that have been published about this issues, and the results routinely cite a range of 0.8 to possible 1.5% of gay individuals in different Western countries.
In my years on Aunt Minnie, I dont think I have ever come across a post like this one you’ve made, not even close. It is if it was written by someone thoroughly enraptured by the detailed description of masturbation fantasies. My presumption would have to be that there is a lot of written projection in regards to being denied by a partner and likely uber-stimulation by the same sex.
Wow, I see you’re getting a bit overly sensitive about this. Perhaps this topic hits a little too close to home, huh?
The entire point of my previous post, which you obviously did not comprehend, was to point out the simple and universal fact that when surveys inquire about people’s private lives, people are not always open to disclosing their inclinations, and so all those surveys can accomplish is to identify the percent of people who ADMIT those inclinations.
There are plenty of psych organizations that realize that and so they craft their surveys to better conceal their main objective. The surveys you quoted are worthless because they come flat out and inquire whether the interviewee lives a gay lifestyle. For example, go here: [link=http://www.auntminnie.com/forum/tm.aspx?&m=377947&mpage=4]http://www.auntminnie.com…aspx?&m=377947&mpage=4[/link] and view post #128 about UCLA’s Williams Institute. Also, since you obviously put so much faith in Wikipedia, you might want to start here: [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States]http://en.wikipedia.org/w…s_of_the_United_States[/link] .
The fact that you would consider your own lame Wikipedia citation to be the end-all of the issue simply demonstrates your extreme dysfunctional concept of human nature. (the Wiki editors, themselves, have included comments to express their doubt about the veracity of what’s included in that citation, by the way).
I would ask the reader the following question: If you engage in an activity that you do not view as being “deviant behavoir” but which is still stigmatized by a large segment of society, how likely are you to acknowledge your controversial inclination in response to a survey from Pew, Gallup, etc.? Especially if you are in a professional or public position, and/or have any concern about your reputation?
It simply does not matter whether the survey claims that it will keep its results “confidential”, the fact is that most people simply have a predisposition to tell surveyers of their private lives to F’OFF because it’s none of their damn business.
Don’t pull that same crap as the other extremists here and try to change the subject. This is about whether people are willing to openly acknowledging to complete strangers the details about their most private, personal inclinations, regardless of how socially controversial those inclinations may be. You may think most people are willing to be totally open about that and so you trust those surveys as accurately representing the entire population, but I simply contend you are wrong based on the facts and many decades of human psychology. You, on the other hand, seem to be basing your own opinion on your personal phobias and prejudices. So be it.
-
The problem with any research on population of gays is heavily dependent on definition. All believe sexuality is a continuim from 100% hetero to 100%homosexual. Is someone who experimented with homosexual behaviour as teen but not since gay or straight? How about someone completely bisexual? Also nearly all data is based off self reporting which is problematic at best. What can be said with some reasonable certainty is that as the stigma has deceased and more have come out, the general public has become much more tolerant as more and more know somebody that is openly gay.
-
Quote from Raddocmed
The problem with any research on population of gays is heavily dependent on definition. All believe sexuality is a continuim from 100% hetero to 100%homosexual. Is someone who experimented with homosexual behaviour as teen but not since gay or straight? How about someone completely bisexual? Also nearly all data is based off self reporting which is problematic at best. What can be said with some reasonable certainty is that as the stigma has deceased and more have come out, the general public has become much more tolerant as more and more know somebody that is openly gay.
And if there were only two gay people in the country and they wanted to get married, it wouldn’t make a lick of difference in the legal argument.
-
-
-
I also thought Lux post was ODD…I felt like Andrea Mitchell did when Foster brought up the aspirin between the knees on tv.. I blushed just like her because that is way toooo much for a professional website
Quote from RVU
Quote from Lux
Quote from RVU
[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation.]http://en.wikipedia.org/w…of_sexual_orientation.[/link] Of the largest modern surveys, 1 to 1.5 % identify themselves as gay and that translates to 3.3 to 5 million Americans. Perhaps you think it is higher because of your own cohort or behaviors, but that’s not what the surveys inform us. Gays make a tiny slice of the electorate anyway you look at it.
As a clear example, let’s suppose that you are a married man in a professional career, but you haven’t been getting any from your wife lately, and so you’ve set up your computer to view pornography so you can DIY at night after she has gone to sleep. Now, even though there really is nothing wrong with that at all, nevertheless, considering the social controversy of such a thing, are we to believe that everyone in your situation would answer “Yes” to the survey question: “Do you masturbate to pornography?”? I am guessing the number who SHOULD answer yes is many times higher than the number that DO answer yes.
Very very strange response to me pointing out your inexplicably shoddy research of reporting that up to 10% of the population considers themselves ‘gay’. I’ve already cited most of the largest social science studies that have been published about this issues, and the results routinely cite a range of 0.8 to possible 1.5% of gay individuals in different Western countries.
In my years on Aunt Minnie, I dont think I have ever come across a post like this one you’ve made, not even close. It is if it was written by someone thoroughly enraptured by the detailed description of masturbation fantasies. My presumption would have to be that there is a lot of written projection in regards to being denied by a partner and likely uber-stimulation by the same sex.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Of any 100 people I know, there are more than 1.5 out of those who are gay. Either your numbers greatly underestimate the numbers or you are so phobic you don’t see it or gays rightly fear & shun you or gays & I are attracted like opposite poles & I naturally overestimate their numbers as a consequence.
Perplexing conundrum. I think there might be more that 1.5 gay people per 100, even more that 3 per 100. Yeah, I think that’s a safe bet.
-
Quote from Frumious
Of any 100 people I know, there are more than 1.5 out of those who are gay. Either your numbers greatly underestimate the numbers or you are so phobic you don’t see it or gays rightly fear & shun you or gays & I are attracted like opposite poles & I naturally overestimate their numbers as a consequence.
Perplexing conundrum. I think there might be more that 1.5 gay people per 100, even more that 3 per 100. Yeah, I think that’s a safe bet.
What a shame!! We need a National un-gayness intervention group to stop this crazy liberal plan to confuse genders and destroy the traditional family unit. Give me a man and a woman any day. Not a man and stan.
-
You’re confused about the genders, PointMan?
I’m not.
All you phobes are always worried about man to man marriage but somehow Mary & Jane get a silent pass. Some sort of Howard Stern fantasy?
-
-
-
Quote from Cigar
The state has a vested interest in heterosexual coupling for manifold reasons – genetic diversity, stable family structure and identity, children who know who their biological parents are (a universally sought aspect of life) and finally to lessen confusion or problems with gene pools.
If reproduction and the gene pool was of any interest to the state, we would disallow women over 50 to get married. I mean there is no point to it from any of those purported reasons, right ?
The goverments current definition of marriage is simply a continuation of the religious definition. As we now have this newfangled thing called the constitution, the requirements therein supercede any religious definitions. And if that constitutions says ‘equal protection under the law’, there is absolutely no justification to deny such protection to a group based on religious considerations.
The other solution of course would be to eliminate all references to marriage from federal law. Everyone file their own taxes, beneficiary designation under entitlement programs to be made case by case etc.
-
Quote from Noah’sArk
I also thought Lux post was ODD…I felt like Andrea Mitchell did when Foster brought up the aspirin between the knees on tv.. I blushed just like her because that is way toooo much for a professional website
That was my sarcastic (and obviously poor) attempt at relating to the dysfunctional personality to whom my comment was directed. So I do indeed agree with you! However, I know for a fact that if any professionals who are closet gays read that comment, they are all too familiar with the psychological phenomena I’m referring to.
Some things are simply too personal to acknowledge to anyone, let alone a stranger, and so any poll that purports to present sound population stats about such inclinations is, by its very nature, off by a wide margin. This is the basic phenomena that the Williams Institute addressed when it assessed the actual percent of the gay population segment to be much closer to 10% than 1%.
-
good post But I still blushed
Quote from Lux
Quote from Noah’sArk
I also thought Lux post was ODD…I felt like Andrea Mitchell did when Foster brought up the aspirin between the knees on tv.. I blushed just like her because that is way toooo much for a professional website
That was my sarcastic (and obviously poor) attempt at relating to the dysfunctional personality to whom my comment was directed. So I do indeed agree with you! However, I know for a fact that if any professionals who are closet gays read that comment, they are all too familiar with the psychological phenomena I’m referring to.
Some things are simply too personal to acknowledge to anyone, let alone a stranger, and so any poll that purports to present sound population stats about such inclinations is, by its very nature, off by a wide margin. This is the basic phenomena that the Williams Institute addressed when it assessed the actual percent of the gay population segment to be much closer to 10% than 1%.
-
OK, so in the interest of protecting the sanctity of marriage, we need to make some additional changes:
First we should outlaw divorce. Can’t have 50% of marriages ending in divorce if its so important to protect it now can we?
And since procreation seems to be one of the major arguments against same-sex marriage, then we need to make sure that anyone applying for a marriage license is genetically and socially acceptable to produce children. And furthermore, we need to outlaw out-of-wedlock childbearing (maybe we can stone women that get pregnant who aren’t married?). Maybe we even need to require a “baby making license”, you know you have to apply and be approved before you can produce a child. Of course since sex is for procreation, then it would have to be regulated as well, wouldn’t want any “accidents” now would we?
OK, now what’s the next homophobic argument against gay marriage?-
Quote from Icthruu74
OK, so in the interest of protecting the sanctity of marriage, we need to make some additional changes:
First we should outlaw divorce. Can’t have 50% of marriages ending in divorce if its so important to protect it now can we?
And since procreation seems to be one of the major arguments against same-sex marriage, then we need to make sure that anyone applying for a marriage license is genetically and socially acceptable to produce children. And furthermore, we need to outlaw out-of-wedlock childbearing (maybe we can stone women that get pregnant who aren’t married?). Maybe we even need to require a “baby making license”, you know you have to apply and be approved before you can produce a child. Of course since sex is for procreation, then it would have to be regulated as well, wouldn’t want any “accidents” now would we?
OK, now what’s the next homophobic argument against gay marriage?
And if you don’t produce at least one kid within the first 5 years of marriage, then unless it was a previously undetected natural physiological malfunction (e.g., not drug induced) you are fined $100,000 per the Marriage Non-Compliance Act of 2017, and the marriage is annulled.
I supposed we should assume the anti-gay extremists agree with that?
As for the religious extremists, we would also need to lock people up for committing adultery or even engaging in sexual activity out of wedlock. Not to mention that the Church would OF COURSE agree to a full excommunication (since a divorce is a violation of a sacred sacrament).
Those extremists really are a bunch of hypocrites, hands down.
-
Quote from Lux
And if you don’t produce at least one kid within the first 5 years of marriage, then unless it was a previously undetected natural physiological malfunction (e.g., not drug induced) you are fined $100,000 per the Marriage Non-Compliance Act of 2017, and the marriage is annulled.
I like it. May I use this as the “Lux Amendment to the Hypocritical Sanctity of Marriage Bill of 2013”?
-
You guys create hypotheticals irrelevant to the discussion, as well as straw men. My main premises are these:
1. So-called gays are equal under the law.
2. Marriage isn’t a right [and/or a right under the constitution].
It’s really as easy and simple as that. If you want contract extensions and transfer of property or lower taxes, those are different arguments and I’m not necessarily against them. But it would be nice if you stay on topic and not relate real drivel, which are arguments based on current divorces. That has as much to do with a crooked society obsessed with law and selfishness than it does the actual argument.
-
The fact that there is hypocrisy, while unfortunate, does not make any sin no longer a sin (adultery, fornication, fill in the blank). So stop trying to change the subject with specious arguments. They may work on the emotionally fragile, but not to any sound thinker.
And by the way, I’m not telling you to believe in anything or am trying to force you, in any way, to do so. -
Quote from Cigar
You guys create hypotheticals irrelevant to the discussion, as well as straw men. My main premises are these:
1. So-called gays are equal under the law.
2. Marriage isn’t a right [and/or a right under the constitution].It’s really as easy and simple as that. If you want contract extensions and transfer of property or lower taxes, those are different arguments and I’m not necessarily against them. But it would be nice if you stay on topic and not relate real drivel, which are arguments based on current divorces. That has as much to do with a crooked society obsessed with law and selfishness than it does the actual argument.
What I strive to create is satire and/or smart-ass comments.
Its nice to see that we agree on those 2 points, with the exception of wording of the first statement. I would use “PEOPLE are equal under the law”, but I can be silly and idealistic like that and I don’t feel the need to try to marginalize a group of people by using so-called wording. I would also take point #2 further to state that marriage is a religious rite, and thus cannot be regulated and should not be the basis for any special treatment by government. -
Quote from Cigar
You guys create hypotheticals irrelevant to the discussion, as well as straw men. My main premises are these:
Those hypotheticals are the crap that your side brings up as arguments. And yes, those arguments are irrelevant.
2. Marriage isn’t a right [and/or a right under the constitution].
It is a state/local goverment service no different from issuing a building permit. Building a home is not a ‘right’ in the constitution, yet if a local goverment refused to issue building permits to catholics, it wouldn’t stand up in court either. -
I don’t understand your postion at all. If gays are equal under the law then there should be no barrier to marriage as a legal act. If you want to rename all the legal issues concerning “marriage” as civil unions and make it available to all, I have no problem. Marriage would then be a strictly religious event with absolutely no legal ramifications such as spousal rights, taxes, inheritance etc. You could have a religious marriage without civil union and vice versa. As long as laws use the word marriage to include all the leagal rights that it includes then gays should have equal access to it. The entire argument about marriage being for procreation was nonsensical as pointed out in oral arguments at SCOTUS. Under that standard no post menopausal or otherwise infertile males or females would be allowed to marry. That is not the case and nobody is arguing it should be. The bottom line is that the ban on gay marriage is first and foremost a religious issue which has led to homophobia in many. It is not a societal and should not be a legal issue.
-
If it isn’t explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, it is NOT a right???
-
Quote from Frumious
If it isn’t explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, it is NOT a right???
Sure, and if it IS in the constitution it is an absolute right that can’t be infringed upon by government ever 🙂 .
-
-
Quote from Raddocmed
I don’t understand your postion at all. If gays are equal under the law then there should be no barrier to marriage as a legal act. If you want to rename all the legal issues concerning “marriage” as civil unions and make it available to all, I have no problem. Marriage would then be a strictly religious event with absolutely no legal ramifications such as spousal rights, taxes, inheritance etc. You could have a religious marriage without civil union and vice versa. As long as laws use the word marriage to include all the leagal rights that it includes then gays should have equal access to it. The entire argument about marriage being for procreation was nonsensical as pointed out in oral arguments at SCOTUS. Under that standard no post menopausal or otherwise infertile males or females would be allowed to marry. That is not the case and nobody is arguing it should be. The bottom line is that the ban on gay marriage is first and foremost a religious issue which has led to homophobia in many. It is not a societal and should not be a legal issue.
Absolutely. The conservatives are simply trying to impose religion on our laws.
And such thinking is clearly traitorous according to the First Amendment. Period.
-
Funny that Republicans are always looking to limit individual rights to what is explicitly stated in the Constitution. One would think the anti-government & Libertarian types would be trying to do the opposite.
-
You are wrong about that. They only want to limit your rights, not their rights. It is OK to make a corporation a person for campaign spending which is a definite stretching of the Constitution, but wrong to allow gays to have the same rights as straights. Somehow the idea that most of the founding fathers were agnostic and specifically didn’t want religion involved with governement is lost on all those crying about our loss of JudeoChristain ethics.
-
-
-
-
Quote from Cigar
You guys create hypotheticals irrelevant to the discussion, as well as straw men. My main premises are these:
1. So-called gays are equal under the law.
2. Marriage isn’t a right [and/or a right under the constitution].It’s really as easy and simple as that. If you want contract extensions and transfer of property or lower taxes, those are different arguments and I’m not necessarily against them. But it would be nice if you stay on topic and not relate real drivel, which are arguments based on current divorces. That has as much to do with a crooked society obsessed with law and selfishness than it does the actual argument.
But point #2 is dead wrong. It is wrong in your mind and, more importantly, has been ruled as being wrong by SCOTUS.
Loving v. Virginia is the precedent (interracial marriage). It was a unanimous decision might I add
Quote from SCOTUS
[i][b][b]Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” [/b] [/b]fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. [b]Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.[/i] [/b]
[i] [/i]
[i][/i]
[i] [/i]
[i] [/i]
-
-
-
-
Quote from Icthruu74
First we should outlaw divorce. Can’t have 50% of marriages ending in divorce if its so important to protect it now can we?
We also have to require the posting of ‘divorce free zone’ signs at every married couples home for the first 7 years of their marriage. Compliance will be monitored by OSHA.
And since procreation seems to be one of the major arguments against same-sex marriage, then we need to make sure that anyone applying for a marriage license is genetically and socially acceptable to produce children.
Nothing new. Many states used to require a medical exam prior to issuing a marriage license to keep unfit people from getting married (yeah, officially this was to restrain the spread of STDs…..).
-
-
-
-
Quote from Cigar
You guys create hypotheticals irrelevant to the discussion, as well as straw men. My main premises are these:
1. So-called gays are equal under the law.
2. Marriage isn’t a right [and/or a right under the constitution].It’s really as easy and simple as that. If you want contract extensions and transfer of property or lower taxes, those are different arguments and I’m not necessarily against them. But it would be nice if you stay on topic and not relate real drivel, which are arguments based on current divorces. That has as much to do with a crooked society obsessed with law and selfishness than it does the actual argument.
I can’t tell if you are doing this deliberately or naively, but you are blurring two entirely different concepts: the [u]sacrament[/u] of marriage, and the [u]legal instrument[/u] of marriage. The sacrament of marriage is not a right. The legal instrument of marriage is indeed a right under Equal Protection, and I dare you to argue otherwise. (and be careful what you say because SCOTUS will come back shortly with the final answer).
If religions don’t want to include gays in their sacrament, then they would be wise to call it something else, but you simply cannot pass a federal law that prevents gays from enjoying the exact same legal benefits heterosexuals enjoy, such as inheritance, visitation rights, surname adaption, etc.
-
[b] [/b]
thanks D for citing actual cases to support your arguement.
Palin did not know that case nor Doe per late term abortionQuote from dergon
Quote from Cigar
You guys create hypotheticals irrelevant to the discussion, as well as straw men. My main premises are these:
1. So-called gays are equal under the law.
2. Marriage isn’t a right [and/or a right under the constitution].It’s really as easy and simple as that. If you want contract extensions and transfer of property or lower taxes, those are different arguments and I’m not necessarily against them. But it would be nice if you stay on topic and not relate real drivel, which are arguments based on current divorces. That has as much to do with a crooked society obsessed with law and selfishness than it does the actual argument.
But point #2 is dead wrong. It is wrong in your mind and, more importantly, has been ruled as being wrong by SCOTUS.
Loving v. Virginia is the precedent (interracial marriage). It was a unanimous decision might I add
Quote from SCOTUS
[i][b][b]Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” [/b][/b]fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. [b]Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.[/b]
[i] [/i]
[i][/i]
[i] [/i]
[i] [/i][/i]
-
Deleware allowing same sex marriage.
Now Minnesota set to overturn their ban within the week.
A rapidly changing landscape. 2 States in the interval perior between the Supreme Court hearing the case and the expected ruling.
-
it would IMHO help the GOP to let the SCOTUS settle this issue prior to 2016
Quote from dergon
Deleware allowing same sex marriage.
Now Minnesota set to overturn their ban within the week.
A rapidly changing landscape. 2 States in the interval perior between the Supreme Court hearing the case and the expected ruling.
-
Here’s where you guy are incorrect, and might I say, entirely incorrect in both your premises and your supposed supports.
[i]Loving v. Virginia[/i] dealt with the specific issue of [b]interracial marriage[/b]. As such, the arguments are on the basis of said query / treated issue.
Then you try the trick of marriage as a general right? Yes, it is based on the premise of marriage meaning heterosexuals (proving that they were in fact talking about marriage and a particular definition).
Your arguments are further exposed in their faulty extrapolations by pointing out that while some consider polygamy to be lawful marriage, its context indeed has been made illegal and thus it is “NOT A BASIC CIVIL RIGHT OF MAN” even if we use that case as a “precedent” which again, it is not since it deals with the particular issue of races and heterosexual marriage (since homosexual unions are not marriage based on any historical, biological or legal construct).-
Furthermore, finalizing and proving the point that all people are equal under the law:
“Gays” are allowed to marry. Period. Yes, right now. Everyone has always been equal.
Changing marriage to mean homosexuals is a social hobby and better efforts should be put in making legal affiliations of a different sort, which already exist in many states.-
Cigar. You’re doing the dance, but your steps are a bit clunky.
The Loving case has been explicitly cited in precedent in rulings on same-sex marriage cases.
Perry v Schwarzenegger, the judicial ruling in overturning Prop 8, specifically cited Loving as grounds. The appeals court affirmed.
ALthough not having legal bearing the case, Mildred Loving has looked to link the two:[i] [i]I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry… I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richards and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. Thats what Loving, and loving, are all about.[/i]
[/i]
[i] [/i]
[i] [/i]
[i]You write that ” ‘gays’ are allowed to marry”. I presume you mean that they are currently free to enter into heterosexual unions. That specific legal argument was brought forth in the Prop 8 case and [b]rejected[/b] . JUdge Walker issued a finding of fact specifically stating that this is not a viable or fair option, and this was again upheld on appeal.[/i]
[i] [/i]
[i] [/i]
[i] [/i]
[i] [/i]
[i] [/i]-
Distinguishing human beings of different physical characteristics as a basis of discrimination and distinguishing them of different activities or behaviors are entirely different things. Realizing this makes me a sound thinker, and not a political activist, as is readily seen in Walker’s judgments and Loving’s quotes.
-
Much ado about nothing. Consenting adults should be allowed to marry, period!
The fact that this issue MUST be decided by the Supremes instead of common sense is the crime.-
Ahead of the rulings, something for Roberts to consider while being on the “right side of history” and for the politcs, mostly for the GOP
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/06/07/the-political-fight-over-gay-marriage-is-over-but-the-cultural-fight-isnt/]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/06/07/the-political-fight-over-gay-marriage-is-over-but-the-cultural-fight-isnt/[/link]
[b]The political fight over gay marriage is over. But the cultural fight isnt.[/b]
Two things are clear in [link=http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/06-06-13%20LGBT%20General%20Public%20FINAL%20Release.pdf]a new Pew Research Center poll on gay marriage[/link]:
The poll makes clear that no matter what the Supreme Court decides in early July regarding gay marriage and the Defense of Marriage Act, gay marriage is well on its way to legalization nationally.
Almost three in four respondents said that legal recognition of same-sex marriage is inevitable thats up from 59 percent who said the same thing in 2004. While 85 percent of those who support gay marriage say legality is inevitable, its even more eye-opening that 59 percent of those who oppose same sex marriage also believe its legal recognition is inevitable.
The gap between those who favor gay marriage (51 percent) in the Pew poll and those who think it is inevitable (72 percent) is absolutely remarkable. And its[link=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/republicans-gay-marriage-supreme-court_n_2764743.html] why so many GOP strategists have publicly urged their party to stop fighting on an issue where the politics are headed so clearly in the other direction[/link].
The second point how gay marriage and homosexuality fit into the broader cultural fabric is a fascinating window into how the debate over legal/illegal differs from the conversation about right/wrong.
Forty-five percent of those tested said it was a sin to engage in homosexual behavior, the same numbers that said it was not a sin. A majority (56 percent) said that same-sex marriage would go against my religious beliefs while 41 percent said it would not.
Social conservatives, of course, make up a considerable percentage of the Republican base particularly in early-voting presidential primary swing states like Iowa and South Carolina. That reality makes it more difficult for the party to walk away from the issue politically speaking since such a large chunk of their most reliable voters view it in moral rather than political terms.
As the race for the Republican presidential nomination begins in earnest after the 2014 midterms, it will be interesting to watch how the top tier contenders balance that political vs. moral calculation and how the path they choose affects their ability to appeal to the ideological middle for whom the debate on gay marriage is already over.-
[image]http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/2013_05_GayMarriage_1.png[/image]
-
-
-
Quote from Cigar
Distinguishing human beings of different physical characteristics as a basis of discrimination and distinguishing them of different activities or behaviors are entirely different things.
That’s a very curious statement. What are the categorical differences between physical and behavioral characteristics that make you view them as “entirely different things”?
-
Even more important is the overwhelming evidense that homosexuality isn’t a behaviour if you consider behaviour a voluntary activity. It is hardwired in. If that is the case then they have no more choice than somebody of any particular ethnic or racial group. The problem is that most of the antigay community see homosexuality as a lifestyle choice that they view as a wrong choice. The science though says otherwise. As frequently the case people refuse to accept data that doesn’t conform to their preconcieved views. (Climate change, evolution, etc.)
-
Quote from Raddocmed
… they have no more choice than somebody of any particular ethnic or racial group. The problem is that most of the antigay community see homosexuality as a lifestyle choice that they view as a wrong choice. The science though says otherwise. As frequently the case people refuse to accept data that doesn’t conform to their preconcieved views. (Climate change, evolution, etc.)
And that, of course, is the elephant in the room; always has been, the facts be damned..
Uh-oh. Did I say “facts”? Shoot, I’ve revealed myself as a fact-lover, and therefore will now be labeled as a certifiable “liberal”. Shame on me. Now I must seek rehab at the local chapter of Liberals Anonymous…
-
Quote from Lux
Quote from Raddocmed
… they have no more choice than somebody of any particular ethnic or racial group. The problem is that most of the antigay community see homosexuality as a lifestyle choice that they view as a wrong choice. The science though says otherwise. As frequently the case people refuse to accept data that doesn’t conform to their preconcieved views. (Climate change, evolution, etc.)
And that, of course, is the elephant in the room; always has been, the facts be damned..
Uh-oh. Did I say “facts”? Shoot, I’ve revealed myself as a fact-lover, and therefore will now be labeled as a certifiable “liberal”. Shame on me. Now I must seek rehab at the local chapter of Liberals Anonymous…
“Fact lover”? You kiddin’ me? Not only do you quote baseless “facts”, but you are clueless. So yes, you [b][style=”color: #993300;”]ARE[/style][/b] a certified liberal. Sound as if (LA) is the wrong rehabilitative intervention for you.
-
Quote from Point Man
Quote from Lux
Quote from Raddocmed
… they have no more choice than somebody of any particular ethnic or racial group. The problem is that most of the antigay community see homosexuality as a lifestyle choice that they view as a wrong choice. The science though says otherwise. As frequently the case people refuse to accept data that doesn’t conform to their preconcieved views. (Climate change, evolution, etc.)
And that, of course, is the elephant in the room; always has been, the facts be damned..
Uh-oh. Did I say “facts”? Shoot, I’ve revealed myself as a fact-lover, and therefore will now be labeled as a certifiable “liberal”. Shame on me. Now I must seek rehab at the local chapter of Liberals Anonymous…
“Fact lover”? You kiddin’ me? Not only do you quote baseless “facts”, but you are clueless. So yes, you [b][style=”color: #993300;”]ARE[/style][/b] a certified liberal. Sound as if (LA) is the wrong rehabilitative intervention for you.
Once again, coming from you that’s a compliment.
Thanks.
-
I have been on the boat so I’ve been unable to post in this thread.
I am very pleased that the Supreme Court reached the ruling it did. Has anyone had the chance to read Scalia’s dissent? It is so snarky and petty that it almost makes me sick. I am on my iPhone and using Siri to type. So I won’t go back to find all the quotes in this thread that make people think I was off base for my legal assessment. However, I think I was pretty much dead on. 😉
-
-
-
-
U.S. Approval of Interracial Marriage at New High[/h1]
A new [link=https://news.gallup.com/poll/354638/approval-interracial-marriage-new-high.aspx]Gallup poll[/link] finds 94% of U.S. adults now approve of marriages between Black people and White people, up from 87% in the prior reading from 2013.-
Quote from dergon
U.S. Approval of Interracial Marriage at New High[/h1]
A new [link=https://news.gallup.com/poll/354638/approval-interracial-marriage-new-high.aspx]Gallup poll[/link] finds 94% of U.S. adults now approve of marriages between Black people and White people, up from 87% in the prior reading from 2013.Frightening that there are still 6% overt racists left who have a problem with that. You can make a religious argument against same sex marriage, there is no such argument against people of different skin pigmentation getting married.
-
[b]Republican Sen. Mike Braun says Supreme Court should leave decisions on interracial marriage to the states[/b][/h1]
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/22/braun-supreme-court-interracial-marriage/]https://www.washingtonpos…-interracial-marriage/[/link]
Critical of activism from the bench, Braun cited a series of landmark decisions made by the court, including [i]Roe v. Wade,[/i] which legalized abortion, and [i]Loving v. Virginia, [/i]which legalized interracial marriage.
When asked by a reporter whether he would consider the Supreme Court potentially striking down [i]Roe[/i] this year to be judicial activism, Braun said he thought what justices did in 1973 to pass [i]Roe [/i]was judicial activism.
That issue should have never been federalized, [it was] way out of sync I think with the contour of America then, he said. One side of the aisle wants to homogenize [issues] federally, [and that] is not the right way to do it.
Individual states, he said, should be able to weigh in on these issues through their own legislation, through their own court systems.
The same reporter asked Braun whether he would apply the same judgment to [i]Loving, and [/i]Braun said yes.
I think that thats something that if youre not wanting the Supreme Court to weigh in on issues like that, youre not going to be able to have your cake and eat it too, he said. I think thats hypocritical.
_________
The Indiana senator later said he misunderstood a reporters question on the 1967 Supreme Court decision and condemned racism.
But he didn’t misunderstand at all. That’s exactly what you get when you take the “leave it to the states” argument to its logical conclusion and think SCOTUS should stay out of it.-
The American Taliban. Let’s move the clock backwards and impose fundamentalist religious and racist views on everyone.
Miscegenation? Not in MY state!
Oh, but I’m not racist. Please don’t insult me. -
In the recent SCOTUS arguments, Brett Kavanaugh made it clear that he believes that the “middle ground” on abortion is to return the decisions to the states…. which is a repeal of Roe v Wade.
That same judicial philosophy could easily be applied to Obergefell and even Loving. -
Abortion is one thing, recognizing marriages or not across states based on race and sexual orientation (religion) is a whole ‘nother thing.
What is very interesting is Republican comparisons of Obergefell and Loving to Dred Scott & Plessy missing the irony completely!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
thanks D,
did you note New Zealand which from being in that country, I pretty much expected that( most of the people I met were very open)Quote from dergon
[image]http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/2013_05_GayMarriage_1.png[/image]
-
New Zealand was first to give women the right to vote
-
-
[link=http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/06/13/a-survey-of-lgbt-americans/]http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/06/13/a-survey-of-lgbt-americans/[/link]
An overwhelming share of Americas lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender adults (92%) say society has become more accepting of them in the past decade and an equal number expect it to grow even more accepting in the decade ahead. They attribute the changes to a variety of factors, from people knowing and interacting with someone who is LGBT, to advocacy on their behalf by high-profile public figures, to LGBT adults raising families.[sup]
[/sup]
New Pew survey finds the LGBT community with a positive view about the future.-
Hopey changey is working.
-
Quote from dergon
[link=http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/06/13/a-survey-of-lgbt-americans/]http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/06/13/a-survey-of-lgbt-americans/[/link]
An overwhelming share of Americas lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender adults (92%) say society has become more accepting of them in the past decade and an equal number expect it to grow even more accepting in the decade ahead. They attribute the changes to a variety of factors, from people knowing and interacting with someone who is LGBT, to advocacy on their behalf by high-profile public figures, to LGBT adults raising families.[sup]
[/sup]
New Pew survey finds the LGBT community with a positive view about the future.
What % of NORMAL people support the abnormal ones? 1% at best.
-
Quote from Point Man
What % of NORMAL people support the abnormal ones? 1% at best.
You, sir, are damaged goods.
-
I don’t even know what you mean, Point Man.
By “normal” do you mean “heterosexual” and by “abnormal” you mean “LGBT.
If that is what you mean then the answer depends on what you mean by “support”.
If you take support for gay marriage as a proxy for support for the LGBT community as a whole and the rights and liberties of its members, then the answer is around 53%.
The number of people who hold your belief that they are “abonormal” is lower. 45% of americans consider homosexuality sinful….. but even among that 45%, 60% don’t really mind it.
[link=http://www.mediaite.com/online/poll-45-of-americans-think-homosexuality-a-sin-but-60-are-okay-with-it-anyway/]http://www.mediaite.com/online/poll-45-of-americans-think-homosexuality-a-sin-but-60-are-okay-with-it-anyway/[/link]
-
3rd GOP senator goes pro- Gay Marriage
Lisa Murkowski joins the club-
DOMA struck down.
-
It was 5-4. I’m wondering what the differing opinion is.
-
Like I said in another thread, the only “activists” are the left. You only get swing votes from so-called conservatives. The only argument is that the left is inflexible since they have no examples of swinging over. Fact.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from Cigar
Like I said in another thread, the only “activists” are the left. You only get swing votes from so-called conservatives. The only argument is that the left is inflexible since they have no examples of swinging over. Fact.
Now we can safely say [i]”ha ha”[/i] to your sour grapes.
Whine on, Cigar et al., whine on.-
Delicious to see the right wingers suddenly against state’s rights…ah the irony
-
Cigar,
We will “swing over” when the Right offers some positions that give us reason. Right now your side is alienating most everyone including any of your own who suddenly find themselves defined as RINOs due to lack of purity of blind belief.
-
Heard some interesting Barry O comments on the radio this morning. Something to the tune of if gay people get married in a state that allows gay marriage, and they move to a state that doesn’t yet allow it, what’s their legal status. If anyone else gets married and moved they are still married. How will that be addressed?
-
That is the question. How about if a couple gets married in NY then moves to NJ or Penn and 1 partner is military or Federal government, will the partner receive benefits in the event of? Meaning what’s their Federal status? Does it depend on the State they married in or they State they reside in?
-
That is the question. How about if a couple gets married in NY then moves to NJ or Penn and 1 partner is military or Federal government, will the partner receive benefits in the event of? Meaning what’s their Federal status? Does it depend on the State they married in or they State they reside in?
That is the next suit…look for a couple to move to a “non-marriage” state be denied benefits and achieve legal standing to challenge
-
-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Heard some interesting Barry O comments on the radio this morning. Something to the tune of if gay people get married in a state that allows gay marriage, and they move to a state that doesn’t yet allow it, what’s their legal status. If anyone else gets married and moved they are still married. How will that be addressed?
It will be decided in court, based on article IV section 1 of the US constitution. They can kick and scream, but eventually, the homophobic states will have to give ‘full faith and credit’ to the marriages performed in other states.-
Quote from fw
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Heard some interesting Barry O comments on the radio this morning. Something to the tune of if gay people get married in a state that allows gay marriage, and they move to a state that doesn’t yet allow it, what’s their legal status. If anyone else gets married and moved they are still married. How will that be addressed?
It will be decided in court, based on article IV section 1 of the US constitution. They can kick and scream, but eventually, the homophobic states will have to give ‘full faith and credit’ to the marriages performed in other states.
In the very least we need to reconcile the contradiction that a couple that was married at the age of 17 in a state that allowed it is currently recognized as being married in any other state regardless of those other states’ minimum age of content laws. Those states will be sued with solid legal standing if they do not also recognize the legal marriage of same sex couples.
Basically, the collapse of DOMA is the fall of a huge domino that will force other states to at least recognize marriages from other states.
-
Mr Sulu posts an editorial:
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-takei-a-defeat-for-doma–and-the-end-of-ick/2013/06/27/d3c986dc-dd10-11e2-9218-bc2ac7cd44e2_story.html]http://www.washingtonpost…c2ac7cd44e2_story.html[/link]-
[blockquote] [i]”As author Ken ONeill reminds us, the fact that you cant sell your daughter for three goats and a cow means weve already redefined marriage.”[/i]
[i]”Future generations will shake their heads at how narrow, fearful and ignorant we sounded today debating DOMA.”[/i]
[/blockquote] Takei’s objective insight is brilliant and refreshing.
-
-
-
Quote from fw
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Heard some interesting Barry O comments on the radio this morning. Something to the tune of if gay people get married in a state that allows gay marriage, and they move to a state that doesn’t yet allow it, what’s their legal status. If anyone else gets married and moved they are still married. How will that be addressed?
It will be decided in court, based on article IV section 1 of the US constitution. They can kick and scream, but eventually, the homophobic states will have to give ‘full faith and credit’ to the marriages performed in other states.
My home State of Ohio now seeing exactly this challenge.
[link=http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/federal-judge-hear-ohio-gay-marriage-fight-21256773]http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/federal-judge-hear-ohio-gay-marriage-fight-21256773[/link]
A federal judge on Wednesday questioned the constitutionality of Ohio’s ban on gay marriage and whether state officials have the authority to refuse to recognize the marriages of gay couples who wed in other states.
Judge Timothy Black’s comments came as he heard arguments in federal court in Cincinnati over whether gay marriage should be recognized on Ohio death certificates despite a statewide constitutional ban.
Although Black’s decision, expected within two weeks, only will pertain to the recognition of gay marriage on Ohio death certificates, he noted that “in the real world out there, the stakes are larger,” and that his upcoming ruling could serve as starting point for further litigation seeking gay marriage to be recognized in Ohio.
Black cited a prediction by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote in a strong dissenting opinion in June that “no one should be fooled” by the court majority’s decision to strike down part of an anti-gay marriage law.
“It is just a matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe (to drop),” Scalia wrote. “The majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition.”
Said Black on Wednesday, “The shoe dropped and now it’s here, and I’m required to follow the law of the United States Supreme Court.”
“Politicians say, ‘I’ll leave this to the states,'” but if the United States Supreme Court said the federal government cannot fail to recognize valid same-sex marriages, why can the states?” Black asked Bridget Coontz, the state’s attorney arguing against allowing gay couples’ marriages to be recognized on Ohio death certificates.
Coontz pointed out that in the same Supreme Court decision, the justices found that states have the right to decide for themselves whether to recognize gay marriage and Ohio voters overwhelmingly decided in 2004 to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage.
“Ohio doesn’t want Delaware or Maryland to define who is married under Ohio law,” she said. “To allow that to happen would allow one state to set the marriage policy for all others.”
Civil rights attorney Al Gerhardstein argued to Black that the case “is about love surviving death” and that his clients, two recently widowed gay men, deserve to have their out-of-state marriages recognized on their deceased spouses’ Ohio death certificates, and so does every other gay married couple in the state.
Black has previously sided with Gerhardstein in rulings limited solely to the two men, who both live in Cincinnati.
[b]Black wrote that the surviving spouses deserved to be treated with respect and that Ohio law historically has recognized out-of-state marriages as valid as long as they were legal where they took place, citing marriages between cousins and involving minors.
“How then can Ohio, especially given the historical status of Ohio law, single out same-sex marriages as ones it will not recognize?” Black wrote in August. “The short answer is that Ohio cannot.” [/b]
The case has drawn attention in other states, including helping spark a similar but much broader lawsuit in Pennsylvania, which also does not permit gay marriage. Black’s decision also has irritated some conservative groups and lawmakers in Ohio, with one Republican state legislator calling for Congress to impeach him.-
Quote from dergon
My home State of Ohio now seeing exactly this challenge.
One can accuse justice Scalia of many things, being stupid is not one of them.
We’ll see how much traction this gets. I remember back from the early days of civil unions in VT that a couple in CT was seeking a ‘divorce’ of a VT civil union leaving the CT courts at a loss as to what to do with them. It was not so much that CT had a problem with them being civil unionized, just that there was no law to address the issue in CT.-
A few States will fight to the bitter end, probably into the 2020s and beyond. But the bulk of the US will have this as settled law by the end of the next President’s term.
__
Oh yeah …… add New Mexico as another state with same sex marriage equality.
[link=http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/new-mexico-gay-marriage-101337.html]http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/new-mexico-gay-marriage-101337.html[/link]
“Accordingly, New Mexico may neither constitutionally deny same-gender couples the right to marry nor deprive them of the rights, protections and responsibilities of marriage laws, unless the proponents of the legislation the opponents of same-gender marriage prove that the discrimination caused by the legislation is ‘substantially related to an important government interest,'” Chavez wrote.
New Mexico joins 16 other states and the District of Columbia in allowing gay marriage either through legislation, court rulings or voter referendums.
Eight of the state’s 33 counties started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in August when a county clerk in southern New Mexico independently decided to allow the unions.
County officials had asked the high court to clarify the law and establish a uniform state policy on gay marriage.
State statutes don’t explicitly prohibit or authorize gay marriage. However, county clerks historically have denied marriage licenses to same-sex couples because the law includes a marriage license application with sections for male and female applicants.
The ruling was a victory for gay rights activists who had been unable to win a legislative resolution of the issue.-
Quote from dergon
A few States will fight to the bitter end, probably into the 2020s and beyond. But the bulk of the US will have this as settled law by the end of the next President’s term.
Yeah, I dont see a Christie administration fighting this, even with a draw in the senate.
-
Utah ….
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/us/utahs-gay-marriage-ban-is-ruled-unconstitutional.html?_r=0]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/us/utahs-gay-marriage-ban-is-ruled-unconstitutional.html?_r=0[/link]
A federal judge on Friday struck down Utahs same-sex marriage ban, saying it was unconstitutional.
The judge, Robert J. Shelby of Federal District Court for the District of Utah, issued a 53-page ruling that said Utahs law, which was passed by voters in 2004, violated the rights of gay and lesbian couples to due process and equal protection under the 14th Amendment.
Judge Shelby said the state had failed to show that allowing same-sex marriages would affect opposite-sex marriages in any way, and that the states unsupported fears and speculations were not sufficient to justify barring same-sex marriages.
Lawyers for the state had argued that Utahs law promoted the states interest in responsible procreation and the optimal mode of child-rearing. The lawsuit was brought by three gay and lesbian couples in Utah.
Many similar court challenges are pending in other states, but Utahs has been closely watched because of the states history of staunch opposition to same-sex marriage as the home of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
-
Two rulings in one day:
[link=http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/23/22021385-federal-judge-allows-same-sex-marriage-in-utah-to-continue]http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/23/22021385-federal-judge-allows-same-sex-marriage-in-utah-to-continue[/link]
Utah:
[b]Federal judge allows same-sex marriage in Utah to continue[/b][/h1]Same-sex marriages in Utah can continue after a federal judge denied the states request Monday to put a temporary hold on the unions.
__
[link=http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ap-narrow-ruling-rejects-ohio-gay-marriage-ban-21311365]http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ap-narrow-ruling-rejects-ohio-gay-marriage-ban-21311365[/link]
And my own Ohio:
[b]Ohio Gay Marriage Ban Is Rejected in Narrow Ruling[/b][/h1]A federal judge Monday ordered Ohio authorities to recognize gay marriages on death certificates, saying the state’s ban on such unions is unconstitutional and that states cannot discriminate against same-sex couples simply because some voters don’t like homosexuality.
Although Judge Timothy Black’s ruling applies only to death certificates, his statements about Ohio’s gay-marriage ban are sweeping, unequivocal, and are expected to incite further litigation challenging the law. Ohio’s attorney general said the state will appeal.
Black cited the Supreme Court’s June decision striking down part of a federal anti-gay marriage law, saying that the lower courts are now tasked with applying that ruling.
“And the question presented is whether a state can do what the federal government cannot i.e., discriminate against same-sex couples … simply because the majority of the voters don’t like homosexuality (or at least didn’t in 2004),” Black said in reference to the year Ohio’s gay marriage ban passed. “Under the Constitution of the United States, the answer is no.” -
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/27/us/utah-ruling-means-no-respite-for-the-supreme-court-on-same-sex-marriage.html?hpw&rref=us&_r=0]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/27/us/utah-ruling-means-no-respite-for-the-supreme-court-on-same-sex-marriage.html?hpw&rref=us&_r=0[/link]
Utah ruling means no respite for SCOTUS:
The Utah decision is unique, he added, because its in a state with so much opposition to same-sex marriage. In Utah, youre going to have a real experiment in backlash.
Many hundreds of couples have been married there in the last week. [link=http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=3444&cid=999&ctype=na&instate=na]Judge Robert J. Shelby[/link] of Federal District Court in Salt Lake City turned back a request to stay his decision, and a two-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, in Denver, [link=http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/10th-CA-stay-denial-12-24-13.pdf]agreed[/link], though it called for expedited consideration of the appeal.
The question for the Supreme Court in the short term will be whether to block Judge Shelbys ruling while appeals proceed. The states request will initially be directed to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the member of the court responsible for overseeing the Tenth Circuit, but she will almost certainly refer the matter to the full court. It is likely to act within several days.
The Supreme Court will face difficult calculations, ones it did not have to confront in reviewing decisions from federal courts in California striking down Proposition 8, the states ban on same-sex marriage. In that case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, stayed both the trial judges ruling and its own as appeals went ahead.
Professor Dorf said there are probably not five votes on the Supreme Court to block Judge Shelbys ruling. On the strictly legal argument, he said, its hard to justify granting a stay.
Its pretty clear that even the five justices who are sympathetic to same-sex marriage would rather take a few years before getting there, Professor Dorf wrote in [link=http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2013/12/was-10th-circuit-correct-not-to-stay.html]a blog post[/link] on Tuesday. If their hand is forced, as it now will be, its impossible to say with certainty what theyll do.
Whatever the Supreme Court does regarding a stay, it is hard to see how it could hear the larger issue in the case in the current term. But a decision in the courts next term, culminating in a decision in June 2015, is entirely possible.
In the meantime, Judge Shelbys decision will certainly get the justices attention. He acknowledged, for starters, that the Supreme Courts 5-to-4 decision striking down part of the Defense of Marriage Act, [link=http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2013/12/was-10th-circuit-correct-not-to-stay.html]United States v. Windsor[/link], could be read to support either side in his case.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority in Windsor, said the definition and regulation of marriage is generally within the authority and realm of the separate states. That would seem to suggest that voters in Utah were entitled to amend their states Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
But Justice Kennedy also stressed the harm to individual liberty in denying equal marriage rights. That counts in the plaintiffs favor in the Utah case.
In Windsor, the two interests states rights and gay rights pointed in the same direction. They were, Judge Shelby wrote, allied against the ability of the federal government to disregard a state law that protected individual rights.
Here, he continued, these interests directly oppose each other.
To resolve the tension, Judge Shelby looked to Justice Antonin Scalias dissenting opinion in Windsor.
The view that this court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by todays opinion, Justice Scalia wrote.
Judge Shelby wrote, referring to himself, that the court agrees with Justice Scalias interpretation of Windsor.
-
Quote from dergon
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/27/us/utah-ruling-means-no-respite-for-the-supreme-court-on-same-sex-marriage.html?hpw&rref=us&_r=0]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/27/us/utah-ruling-means-no-respite-for-the-supreme-court-on-same-sex-marriage.html?hpw&rref=us&_r=0[/link]
Utah ruling means no respite for SCOTUS:
The rush to ram it through the courts, even in the states where the majority of the population has repeatedly rejected the idea, may backfire.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from Frumious
Cigar,
We will “swing over” when the Right offers some positions that give us reason. Right now your side is alienating most everyone including any of your own who suddenly find themselves defined as RINOs due to lack of purity of blind belief.
If you don’t realize how thoughtless this post is, I’m not sure why you even waste your time on boards “discussing”. You just come here to complain, not me.
I don’t have a side. If you don’t understand that you and yours complain of activism when Kennedy or Roberts agrees with their “colleagues” but don’t consider it activism when goes against them, you really are less mindful and thoughtful than I had hoped.
Do you really not understand this?-
Quote from Frumious
If you don’t realize how thoughtless this post is, I’m not sure why you even waste your time on boards “discussing”. You just come here to complain, not me.
I don’t have a side. If you don’t understand that you and yours complain of activism when Kennedy or Roberts agrees with their “colleagues” but don’t consider it activism when goes against them, you really are less mindful and thoughtful than I had hoped.
Do you really not understand this?
You don’t understand a lot.
You have a side & all the denials won’t change that. As for activism, you’ve already been given an example by Thor. What’s yours other than empty complaints with no examples or discussion. You make no arguments you only throw rocks.
So, what’s your point? -
Here Cigar, read this.
[link=http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/06/what-john-roberts-can-teach-conservatives.html]http://www.newyorker.com/…ach-conservatives.html[/link]
-
-
-
-
-
My understanding is that as long as mariage was in a state where it is legal, as far as Feds are concerned it will be a legal marriage. That only applies to Federal issues such as taxes etc. The issue of whether a state will have to recognize a legal marriage from another state will have to be resolved by courts. Ultimately I think that they will because otherwise every time you move to a different state you would have to get remarried to maintain rights. I doubt that court will allow that. As more states allow same sex marriage it will have to become recogized everywhere. States may be allowed to not have them legal in that state but would have to accept them from elsewhere. Eventually I think the court will be forced to rule on whether a ban violates rights of gays.
-
Snarky & petty also was Alito’s facial grimaces.
-
[link=http://news.yahoo.com/gay-marriage-in-rhode-island–minnesota-is-personal–political-201952894.html]http://news.yahoo.com/gay-marriage-in-rhode-island–minnesota-is-personal–political-201952894.html[/link]
Two more states allow gay marriage beginning today. Well done, Minnesota and Rhode Island.
((The RI case had one slightly interesting legal ruling. ….. The court held in a state suit by the “Faith Alliance to Preserve the Sanctity of Marriage as Defined by God” claiming that same-sex marriage would somehow affect their ability to practice their faith and thus violated the religious freedom provisions of the Rhode Island Constitution that gay marriage did not constitute a restriction of the free practice of religion. ))
-
[link=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-01/virginia-gay-couples-ask-u-s-court-to-end-marriage-ban.html]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-01/virginia-gay-couples-ask-u-s-court-to-end-marriage-ban.html[/link]
And today a suit filed in Virginia to overturn that state’s gay marriage ban.
[link=http://topics.bloomberg.com/virginia/]Virginia[/link] same-sex couples sued state officials seeking to overturn a ban on gay marriage, claiming the restriction is discriminatory and tramples on their constitutional rights.
Two lesbian couples, in a lawsuit filed today in federal court in Harrisonburg, Virginia, argue the states refusal to allow them to marry or to recognize same-sex marriages from other states violates the due process and equal protection guarantees of the 14th Amendment.
Same-sex marriage bans under Virginias Constitution and laws send a purposeful message that they view lesbians, gay men and their children as second-class citizens who are undeserving of the legal sanction, respect, protections, and support that heterosexuals and their families are able to enjoy through marriage, according to the complaint, which seeks to represent all same-sex couples in the state.
Since the U.S. [link=http://topics.bloomberg.com/supreme-court/]Supreme Court[/link] in June struck down the portion of the Defense of Marriage Act that limited federal recognition of marriage to relationships involving one man and one woman, state laws banning same-sex marriage rights have been challenged in [link=http://topics.bloomberg.com/pennsylvania/]Pennsylvania[/link] and [link=http://topics.bloomberg.com/new-mexico/]New Mexico[/link].-
Who will be the [b]last[/b] state to ratify gay marriage.
[link=http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2013/10/nate-silver-sends-daily-show-find-last-gay-marriage-holdout-state/71081/]http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2013/10/nate-silver-sends-daily-show-find-last-gay-marriage-holdout-state/71081/[/link]
Alabama v. Mississippi!
As far as plain stats go, the states are matched. Alabama still has segregated sororities and the Alabama lawyer Madrigal spoke to still uses the word “colored.” Meanwhile, the Mississippi reporter representing that state pointed out that the state still has a confederate flag in its flag. Mississippi was also the last state to ratify the 13th amendment and the last state to abolish slavery. “That’s impressive,” Madrigal said.
Funny Daily Show clip in link.
-
Don’t look now but there is competition brewing…don’t count out South Carolina, Texas or Louisiana..
[link=http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-hagel-national-guard-same-sex-20131101,0,6612136.story#axzz2jRqoNkh8]http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-hagel-national-guard-same-sex-20131101,0,6612136.story#axzz2jRqoNkh8[/link]
-
-
