-
SCOTUS to hear gay marriage cases
-
Quote from Lux
Ohio makes no sense. What “rights” issue was ever determined by popular vote? If we relied on popular vote to determine rights, slavery would still be legal, interracial marriage would still be illegal, and women would not be allowed in the workplace (or on a beach in anything less than a jumpsuit), and most certainly would not be entitled to equal pay for equal work.
The Ohio legislature continues to ridicule themselves with their medieval notions.
Ohio needs to read the writings of the Supreme Court again
“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other [b]fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.[/b]”
-
Quote from Point Man
Quote from Lux
The majority of the demo-crite base is either gay/lesbian or common law
ground control to Major Pointman. You are out of this world.-
[b]”ground control to Major…..” [/b]
Dannyboy, you libs are so into this gay thing that you even quote a bi-sexual, David Bowie. Give it up!!
[b]
[/b]-
Quote from Point Man
[b]”ground control to Major…..” [/b]
Dannyboy, you libs are so into this gay thing that you even quote a bi-sexual, David Bowie. Give it up!!
I don’t think of myself as a lib. Didn’t make the connection with David Bowie. Just implying you’re comment that the majority of democrats are gay or common law married is absurd. It’s a spaced out comment not based in reality. A quick google search will actually even show you only 9 states have common law marriage at this point in time. You keep spinning and maybe one day you might just fly off the planet.-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
You keep spinning and maybe one day you might just fly off the planet.
Are you kidding? Pointless is already sitting on his tin can far above the Moon.
-
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/for-transgender-service-members-concept-of-dont-ask-dont-tell-remains-a-reality/2014/04/26/c0597936-ccb6-11e3-93eb-6c0037dde2ad_story.html]http://www.washingtonpost…c0037dde2ad_story.html[/link]-
Another demo-crite bites the dust.
-
[link=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/09/gay-marriage-arkansas-ban/8914837/]http://www.usatoday.com/s…-arkansas-ban/8914837/[/link]
[h1][b]Arkansas judge strikes down state’s ban on gay marriage[/b][/h1]
“Although marriage is not expressly identified as a fundamental right in the Constitution, the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized it as such,” Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza ruled in striking down the 2004 amendment to the state’s constitution as well as a statute passed in 1997.
“This is an unconstitutional attempt to narrow the definition of equality,” he wrote. “The exclusion of a minority for no rational reason is a dangerous precedent.”
Piazza’s ruling in [i]Wright vs. Arkansas [/i]rests heavily on the landmark 1967 case [i][link=http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/1]Loving vs. Virginia[/link][/i], in which the U.S. Supreme Court overturned that state’s ban on interracial marriage.
“It has been over forty years since Mildred Loving was given the right to marry the person of her choice. The hatred and fears have long since vanished and she and her husband lived full lives together; so it will be for the same-sex couples. It is time to let that beacon of freedom shine brighter on all our brothers and sisters,” Piazza wrote. “We will be stronger for it.”
-
-
Quote from Frumious
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/for-transgender-service-members-concept-of-dont-ask-dont-tell-remains-a-reality/2014/04/26/c0597936-ccb6-11e3-93eb-6c0037dde2ad_story.html]http://www.washingtonpost…c0037dde2ad_story.html[/link]“…the result of a decades-old policy that dates back to an era when gender nonconformity was widely seen as a mental illness.”
The same stigma was also cast on being left-handed, sighing, and talking to yourself.
-
A slight twist to the usual story.
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/29/us/churchs-lawsuit-challenges-north-carolina-ban-on-same-sex-marriage.html]http://www.nytimes.com/20…same-sex-marriage.html[/link]
A North Carolina church sues on First Amendment reilgious grounds that the State’s ban limits their religious expression.
n a novel legal attack on a states same-sex marriage ban, a liberal Protestant denomination on Monday filed a lawsuit arguing that North Carolina is unconstitutionally restricting religious freedom by barring clergy members from blessing gay and lesbian couples.
[link=http://uccfiles.com/pdf/complaint.pdf]The lawsuit[/link], filed in a Federal District Court by the [link=http://ucc.org/]United Church of Christ[/link], is the first such case brought by a national religious denomination challenging a states marriage laws. The denomination, which claims nearly one million members nationwide, has supported same-sex marriage since 2005.
We didnt bring this lawsuit to make others conform to our beliefs, but to vindicate the right of all faiths to freely exercise their religious practices, said Donald C. Clark Jr., general counsel of the United Church of Christ.
The denomination argues that a North Carolina law criminalizing the religious solemnization of weddings without a state-issued marriage license violates the First Amendment. Mr. Clark said that North Carolina allows clergy members to bless same-sex couples married in other states, but otherwise bars them from performing religious blessings and marriage rites for same-sex couples, and that if they perform a religious blessing ceremony of a same-sex couple in their church, they are subject to prosecution and civil judgments.
The United Church of Christ is joined in the case by a Lutheran priest, a rabbi, two Unitarian Universalist ministers, a Baptist pastor and several same-sex couples. They said the states marriage law represents an unlawful government intervention into the internal structure and practices of plaintiffs religions.
-
-
-
Quote from Lux
Quote from DICOM_Dan
You keep spinning and maybe one day you might just fly off the planet.
Are you kidding? Pointless is already sitting on his tin can far above the Moon.
Soapy, you are from another universe, libo galaxy.
-
-
-
-
-
It’s medieval all over again.
“Bring out yer dead!”
-
[link=http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/05/13/3183291/judge-rules-idaho-gay-marriage.html?sp=/99/1687/&ihp=1]http://www.idahostatesman…sp=/99/1687/&ihp=1[/link]
[b]Federal judge rules Idaho gay marriage ban unconstitutional[/b]
U.S. Magistrate Judge Candy Dale has ruled Idaho’s ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, opening the door for gay and lesbian couples to begin marrying as soon as Friday morning.
“This case asks a basic and enduring question about the essence of American government: Whether the will of the majority, based as it often is on sincere beliefs and democratic consensus, may trump the rights of a minority,” the judge wrote in her 57-page decision.-
A fundamental mistake conservatives usually make is that they too often believe the majority should decide civil rights issues. For reasons of sheer bigotry they keep forgetting that, by definition, civil rights issues may never be decided by the majority.
-
Quote from Lux
A fundamental mistake conservatives usually make is that they too often believe the majority should decide civil rights issues. For reasons of sheer bigotry they keep forgetting that, by definition, civil rights issues may never be decided by the majority.
Soapy, with your infinite wisdom (in your own distorted mind) please explain to us people of lesser knowledge how the extreme left such as you and your bosom buddies can edict that the majority of American people can’t decide issues of morality. In my country the majority wins. That’s how you got your loser leader… too many other people with distorted views voted for him.-
Pointless, I’m sorry to say that you are not worthy of a response from me regarding morality and civil rights. Maybe someone else in this discussion will engage in such futility.
Otherwise, your position is clear and the readers can decide for themselves.
-
Quote from Lux
Pointless, I’m sorry to say that you are not worthy of a response from me regarding morality and civil rights. Maybe someone else in this discussion will engage in such futility.
Otherwise, your position is clear and the readers can decide for themselves.
;Therefore soapy, your previous quote was useless verbal garbage.-
Quote from Point Man
Quote from Lux
Pointless, I’m sorry to say that you are not worthy of a response from me regarding morality and civil rights. Maybe someone else in this discussion will engage in such futility.
Otherwise, your position is clear and the readers can decide for themselves.
;Therefore soapy, your previous quote was useless verbal garbage.
Useless to [i]YOU. [/i]
Thanks for the compliment which, for once, was not useless verbal garbage.
-
[link=http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2014/05/oregon_gay_marriage_weddings_q.html]http://www.oregonlive.com…rriage_weddings_q.html[/link]
Oregon!
-
[link=http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-strikes-down-pennsylvania-same-sex-marriage-ban-n110061]http://www.nbcnews.com/ne…x-marriage-ban-n110061[/link]
Pennsyvania!
Judge John Jones III ruled in favor of 23 Pennsylvania residents who challenged the law.
“The issue we resolve today is a divisive one. Some of our citizens are made deeply uncomfortable by the notion of same-sex marriage. However, that same-sex marriage causes discomfort in some does not make its prohibition constitutional.”
-
-
[link=http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/court-gay-marriage-cases-24180229]http://abcnews.go.com/US/…arriage-cases-24180229[/link]
And a big one –
A federal appeals court will hear arguments in gay marriage fights in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee in a single session, setting the stage for historic rulings in each state.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Cincinnati, scheduled arguments in five cases from the four states for Aug. 6. Though the cases are unique, each deals with whether statewide gay marriage bans violate the Constitution.
“I think the way the court’s approaching it is significant,” said Al Gerhardstein, a Cincinnati civil rights attorney who represents plaintiffs in two Ohio cases that will go before the appeals court. “They see the need to do some basic rulings on core principles cutting across all these state lines. It’s very exciting.”
The 6th Circuit is the third federal appeals court to weigh recent challenges to state gay marriage bans, though the first to consider cases in so many states at the same time.
The five cases being considered by the Cincinnati appeals court are:
An order for Ohio to recognize all out-of-state gay marriages, currently on hold, and a narrower case that forced Ohio to recognize same-sex marriages on death certificates.
A ruling that Kentucky recognize out-of-state gay marriages, saying a statewide ban violated the Constitution’s equal-protection clause by treating “gay and lesbian persons differently in a way that demeans them.”
An order overturning Michigan’s statewide gay marriage ban, which followed a rare trial that focused mostly on the impact of same-sex parenting on children. More than 300 couples were married on a Saturday in March before the ruling was suspended pending appeal.
An order for Tennessee to recognize three same-sex marriages while a lawsuit against the state works through the courts. Tennessee officials are appealing the preliminary injunction to the 6th Circuit.
-
Indiana! Go Hoosiers!
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/judge-strikes-down-indiana-ban-on-gay-marriage/2014/06/25/1f8f9ef4-fc81-11e3-9b05-7ec49dc09d97_story.html]http://www.washingtonpost…ec49dc09d97_story.html[/link]
-
2 in one day.
Utah!
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/us/us-appeals-court-rejects-utahs-ban-on-gay-marriage.html?_r=0]http://www.nytimes.com/20…gay-marriage.html?_r=0[/link]
A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that states cannot bar same-sex marriages, overturning Utahs voter-approved ban against them in a decision that extends a long streak of legal victories for such unions.
-
Once again, the conservatives are on the losing side.
-
I took the time to read a good bit of the Utah ruling today.
It is, btw, the first time a US Federal appeals court has ruled since DOMA.
The language very closely parallels the arguments SCOTUS put forth in the DOMA ruling and is crafted to be upheld by the same group of justices.
SCOTUS might avoid taking the case for a while, especially if [i]every single ruling[/i] continues in favor of striking gay marriage bans.
-
What amazes me is how it’s come around so quickly after so many decades of stigma.
What made it trigger to quickly when it was so demonized for so long previously?
-
[link=http://politicalwire.com/archives/2014/07/09/utah_will_appeal_gay_marriage_decision_to_supreme_court.html]http://politicalwire.com/…_to_supreme_court.html[/link]
Utah is going to skip the hearing by the full US court of appeals and go straight to the Supreme Court.
Unsure is SCOTUS will choose to hear it at this point …. some people think they will decline as long as there is no disagreement in the lower court rulings and thus far every court has ruled to strike gay marriage bans. Would need 4 justices to vote to hear it, but thse 4 would likely want to be sure they had the 5th vote too. -
Quote from dergon
[link=http://politicalwire.com/archives/2014/07/09/utah_will_appeal_gay_marriage_decision_to_supreme_court.html]http://politicalwire.com/…_to_supreme_court.html[/link]
Utah is going to skip the hearing by the full US court of appeals and go straight to the Supreme Court.
Unsure is SCOTUS will choose to hear it at this point …. some people think they will decline as long as there is no disagreement in the lower court rulings and thus far every court has ruled to strike gay marriage bans. Would need 4 justices to vote to hear it, but thse 4 would likely want to be sure they had the 5th vote too.
I don’t see why citizens tolerate this. It seems that the writings on the wall. This is nothing more than show and wastes resources.
-
This great. Now that the gay agenda has won, candidates for the republican nomination wont have to say crazy stuff about gay marriage causing them to be alienated from the part of the population that is not insane. Now, if they can figure out a way to get through the primary without saying insane stuff about women or offending minorities, there is a small chance that we end up with a viable candidate in the next presidential election.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
And the last one to be challenged …..
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/05/25/north-dakota-gay-marriage-ban-to-face-legal-challenge/]http://www.washingtonpost…-face-legal-challenge/[/link]
[b]
The nations last unchallenged state same-sex marriage ban is about to lose that status [/b][/h1]
There will be a case filed challenging North Dakotas same-sex marriage ban, says[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/05/22/meet-the-guy-who-may-take-the-last-unchallenged-gay-marriage-bans-to-court/]Joshua Newville[/link], a Minneapolis-based civil rights attorney who filed a suit Thursday against South Dakotas ban on behalf of same-sex couples there.
Newville is in talks with advocates and attorneys in North Dakota and confirmed that either he or another attorney will bring a lawsuit against that states ban within six to eight weeks.
Until Wednesday, just three of the 33 states that ban same-sex marriage had not been sued over those policies. But same-sex couples sued Montana that day and South Dakota on Thursday, leaving only North Dakotas unchallenged.
Dakota on Thursday, leaving only North Dakotas unchallenged.
The same-sex marriage movement has enjoyed a streak of more than a dozen victories in federal courts since [link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court/2013/06/26/f0039814-d9ab-11e2-a016-92547bf094cc_story.html]a pivotal Supreme Court decision last summer[/link], striking down a central part of the Defense of Marriage Act and granting federal recognition to same-sex married couples. Since then, no state ban has survived a court challenge, according to[link=http://www.hrc.org/]the Human Rights Campaign[/link], which advocates for same-sex marriage.
The latest two federal decisions, overturning bans in Oregon and Pennsylvania, were delivered last week with officials in both states saying they would not appeal those decisions. Same-sex couples are now allowed to legally marry in 19 states. More than 2 in 5 Americans live in such states, according to HRC.
-
[link=http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-strikes-wisconsin-gay-marriage-ban-24035296]http://abcnews.go.com/US/…-marriage-ban-24035296[/link]
Wiconsin!
-
Quote from fw
This great. Now that the gay agenda has won, candidates for the republican nomination wont have to say crazy stuff about gay marriage causing them to be alienated from the part of the population that is not insane.
Funny – WaPo just did a piece on the risks of the exact opposite happening.
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/07/09/the-nightmare-scenario-for-republicans-on-gay-marriage/]http://www.washingtonpost…icans-on-gay-marriage/[/link]
So [link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clevelands-winning-bid-to-host-gop-convention-highlights-portmans-influence/2014/07/08/ca89d898-06bc-11e4-8a6a-19355c7e870a_story.html]Ohio Senator Rob Portman is considering a run for president, and he claims[/link] his support for gay marriage would be a plus in a general election, allowing Republicans to make an economic case to key demographics that are culturally resistant to the GOP. You cant become a national party unless you do a better job reaching those between 18 and 30, Portman[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clevelands-winning-bid-to-host-gop-convention-highlights-portmans-influence/2014/07/08/ca89d898-06bc-11e4-8a6a-19355c7e870a_story.html]says[/link].
This raises the possibility of a scenario that Republicans who agree with Portman and believe the party must evolve on gay marriage to stay in step with the countrys cultural and demographic shifts might want to start worrying about right about now.
Its not hard to imagine that Senator Ted Cruz might make precisely the opposite case from Portman, making the case that the party must [i]reaffirm [/i]its support for [link=http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/06/30/140630fa_fact_toobin?currentPage=all]traditional marriage[/link] key to his GOP presidential primary run. This could come [i]after[/i] the Supreme Court has declared a Constitutional right to gay marriage which Cruz would then be vociferously calling on Republicans to help [i]roll back[/i].
[link=http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/02/virginia-same-sex-marriage-ban-ruled-unconstitutional.html]Gay advocates believe[/link] lower court rulings overturning state gay marriage bans on Constitutional equal protection grounds could portend an eventual SCOTUS ruling that enshrines a national right to gay marriage. That could happen in time for the 2016 primary.
That would amount to a powerful declaration that this debate is, or should be, culturally and legally settled. But at that point, unrepentant foes of gay marriage could seize on the ruling to [i]redouble[/i] their call for a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
If you dont think Cruz would love to demagogue such a SCOTUS ruling and will demagogue the issue whether or not there is any such SCOTUS ruling then you havent been paying close attention to the good Senator from Texas. In [link=http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/06/30/140630fa_fact_toobin?currentPage=all]a recent speech reported by Jeffrey Toobin[/link], he strongly suggested he would make this cause central to any presidential run, and threw in criticism of SCOTUS on it:
[blockquote] [i]Marriage is under assaultWere seeing marriage under assault in the courts, including, sadly, the Supreme Court of the United StatesIm going to encourage each and every man and woman here to pray. If ever there was an issue on which we should come to our knees to God about, it is preserving marriage of one man and one womanwe need to turn this country aroundweve got an election coming up in 2014, and, let me tell you, its going to be phenomenal. Were going to retake the U.S. Senate! And Ill tell you this: as good as 2014s going to be, 2016s going to be even better![/i]
[/blockquote]
…
Whether or not there is any SCOTUS ruling, there are already signs gay marriage could divide Republicans in 2016.
The [link=https://goproject.gop.com/RNC_Growth_Opportunity_Book_2013.pdf]RNC autopsy[/link] into what went wrong in 2012 explicitly called for evolution on the issue, in part to keep in step with the cultural sensitivities of young [i]Republicans and conservatives[/i].
Yet the party platform still opposes gay marriage. A large majority of evangelical protestants [link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/03/05/the-morning-plum-why-gop-wont-evolve-on-gay-marriage/]still oppose it[/link], and Mike Huckabee [link=http://www.christianpost.com/news/huckabee-evangelicals-will-leave-if-gop-backs-gay-marriage-92583/]has warned[/link] that GOP support for it will cause the evangelical base to take a walk. Meanwhile, Cruz [link=http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/06/30/140630fa_fact_toobin?currentPage=all]seems to be planning[/link] to make opposition to gay marriage a part of his case that the GOP can only win in 2016 by remaining faithful to pure conservatism or his version of it, anyway.
One can even imagine a viral moment {in a GOP primary} in which all the GOP candidates are asked to raise their hands if they believe marriage is only between a man and a woman. If Rob Portman doesnt run, [i]all[/i] the GOP candidates hands may promptly shoot heavenward.-
Quote from dergon
Quote from fw
This great. Now that the gay agenda has won, candidates for the republican nomination wont have to say crazy stuff about gay marriage causing them to be alienated from the part of the population that is not insane.
Funny – WaPo just did a piece on the risks of the exact opposite happening.
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/07/09/the-nightmare-scenario-for-republicans-on-gay-marriage/]http://www.washingtonpost…icans-on-gay-marriage/[/link]
I think that’s called magical thinking. Most in the GOP are breathing a sigh of relief that the supreme court has taken the issue off the political agenda. Now if we can figure out a way for candidates to just not talk about women or ‘the 51%’, there is a chance.-
Quote from fw
Quote from dergon
Quote from fw
This great. Now that the gay agenda has won, candidates for the republican nomination wont have to say crazy stuff about gay marriage causing them to be alienated from the part of the population that is not insane.
Funny – WaPo just did a piece on the risks of the exact opposite happening.
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/07/09/the-nightmare-scenario-for-republicans-on-gay-marriage/]http://www.washingtonpost…icans-on-gay-marriage/[/link]
I think that’s called magical thinking. Most in the GOP are breathing a sigh of relief that the supreme court has taken the issue off the political agenda. Now if we can figure out a way for candidates to just not talk about women or ‘the 51%’, there is a chance.
I’ll be coming back to quote you on this one. I willing to bet even money that at least a few news cycles through GOP 2016 primary season are focused on splits on gay marriage. I don’t think it’s anywhere near to settled inside the GOP.
-
Quote from dergon
I willing to bet even money that at least a few news cycles through GOP 2016 primary season are focused on splits on gay marriage. I don’t think it’s anywhere near to settled inside the GOP.
Especially if it can mine more campaign funds.
-
Quote from Lux
Quote from dergon
I willing to bet even money that at least a few news cycles through GOP 2016 primary season are focused on splits on gay marriage. I don’t think it’s anywhere near to settled inside the GOP.
Especially if it can mine more campaign funds.
Exactly – Any Republican calling himself the “true conservative” in the 2016 race will have to be opposed to gay marriage and will use it to distinguish himself from the “RINOs” .
-
Quote from dergon
Exactly – Any Republican calling himself the “true conservative” in the 2016 race will have to be opposed to gay marriage and will use it to distinguish himself from the “RINOs” .
There was a point after the 60s supreme court cases that even democrats gave up segregation as a political goal.-
Quote from fw
Quote from dergon
Exactly – Any Republican calling himself the “true conservative” in the 2016 race will have to be opposed to gay marriage and will use it to distinguish himself from the “RINOs” .
There was a point after the 60s supreme court cases that even democrats gave up segregation as a political goal.
And you seem to think that for the GOP that point will be before the 2016 presidential primary battles start.
I disagree.-
Let’s also remember what happened when the Southern Democrat segregationists “gave up” on segregation, they mostly all became Republicans. Which is still the case.
-
-
Quote from fw
Quote from dergon
Exactly – Any Republican calling himself the “true conservative” in the 2016 race will have to be opposed to gay marriage and will use it to distinguish himself from the “RINOs” .
There was a point after the 60s supreme court cases that even democrats gave up segregation as a political goal.
[link=http://www.salon.com/2014/07/14/chris_christies_gay_marriage_gambit_still_hoping_to_hustle_the_loons_in_2016/]http://www.salon.com/2014…tle_the_loons_in_2016/[/link]
[b]
[h1]Chris Christies gay marriage gambit: Still hoping to hustle the loons in 2016[/h1]
[h2]It takes real chutzpah to tell fellow governors to fight marriage equality — when you gave up in your own state [/b][/h2]
Now that Christies hopes have been seriously dimmed by ongoing investigations into New Jersey political payback scandals, hes got to worry even more about the partys far-right base if he does run. Hence his gay marriage gambit.
It takes some staggering cynicism to say, hey I didnt fight it in my state, but you guys should fight it in yours.
Christie may be counting on the fact that certain other 2016 candidates seem to have softened on the gay marriage issue, leaving him some room on the right. For now, Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, whose son is gay, is the only possible candidate whos come out in favor of marriage equality. But no less a conservative favorite than Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has indicated some ambivalence about the issue. [link=http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/walker-son-was-free-to-act-as-witness-at-gay-wedding-b99307091z1-266257721.html]His 19-year-old son recently served as a witness at a gay marriage ceremony involving a cousin[/link] Walker and his wife attended the couples reception and when Walker was asked about marriage equality at the National Governors Association conference, he insisted, I dont think the Republican Party is fighting it.
Ever since the Bridgegate scandal erupted, Christies been tacking right rhetorically, anyway appearing for the first time at a Conservative Political Action Committee conference in January, for instance. It wasnt crazy: Painting himself as a victim of the lamestream media actually garnered Christie some sympathy on the right. Frankly, the heat he is taking in the press as a result of Bridge-gate has endeared him to some conservatives, [link=http://www.salon.com/2014/02/04/christies_shameless_desperate_new_play_wooing_the_gop_base/]one conservative leader told the Christian Science Monitor about Christies CPAC appearance[/link]. Hes going to need conservatives on his side. This is about mending fences on both sides.
Personally, I dont see the religious fanatics who oppose marriage equality being satisfied with Christies I didnt fight it but you guys should answer. Sure, theyre aligned with anti-tax austerity fetishists in the GOP, but when it comes to gay marriage, theyre zealots, and conceding to the courts in the name of protecting tax dollars isnt likely to win them over. But Christies going to try anyway. He doesnt have another route to the nomination.
-
Christie’s up to his ears. Contributing the inertia to any future campaign are:
[ul][*]Bridge-gate[*]the Obama hugfest[*]the Romney snub[*]re-appropriation of Port Authority funds[*]personal ad hominems toward voters.[*]gay marriage[*][i]”a little too personal”[/i] altercations with Rand Paul [/ul] I think it would be a very tough nut for Christie.-
[link=http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-gay-marriage-ban-overturned-florida-20140717,0,5016096.story]http://www.orlandosentine…140717,0,5016096.story[/link]
The Conch Republic overturns Florida’s gay marriage ban. -
Another Federal appeals court strikes the ban.
That’s 29 rulings in a row for those of you who are counting.
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/appeals-court-upholds-decision-overturning-virginias-same-sex-marriage-ban/2014/07/28/02764842-167e-11e4-85b6-c1451e622637_story.html]http://www.washingtonpost…1451e622637_story.html[/link]
“We recognize that same-sex marriage makes some people deeply uncomfortable, however, inertia and apprehension are not legitimate bases for denying same-sex couples due process and equal protection of the laws. Civil marriage is one of the cornerstones of our way of life. -
The first ruling [i]against[/i] same-sex marriage since SCOTUS struck DOMA. Now it’s 29-1
Way to go Tennessee.
[link=http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/08/string-of-same-sex-marriage-rulings-broken/]http://www.scotusblog.com…rriage-rulings-broken/[/link]
A state judge in Tennessee ruled last week that neither the Federal Government nor another state should be allowed to dictate to Tennessee what has traditionally been a states responsibility. The decision, issued last Tuesday, has just become available in electronic format.
Roane County Circuit Judge Russell E. Simmons, Jr., of Kingston ruled in a case of two gay men who were married four years ago in Iowa and are now seeking a divorce in their home state of Tennessee. Unlike every other court ruling federal or state since the Supreme Courts decision in [link=http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/United_States_v_Windsor_133_S_Ct_2675_118_FEP_Cases_1417_2013_Cou/1][i]United States v. Windsor[/i] [/link]in June 2013, the judge rejected the idea that the[i]Windsor[/i] decision undercut state authority to ban same-sex marriages.
The decision also interpreted the Supreme Courts decision in [i]Windsor[/i] as not controlling in a case such as the one before him. The Supreme Court, he wrote, does not go the final step and find that a state that defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman is unconstitutional. Further, the Supreme Court does not find that one states refusal to accept another states valid same-sex marriage to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Besides rejecting a challenge to the Tennessee ban based on a claim of illegal discrimination, Judge Simmons turned aside an argument that the Constitutions Full Faith and Credit Clause required Tennessee to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.
While Tennessees ban applies to both same-sex marriage in the first instance and state recognition of already-existing marriages, the judges decision formally dealt only with the latter, upholding the non-recognition clause in the Tennessee constitution and in state laws.
The constitutionality of the non-recognition part of the Tennessee ban is being reviewed now by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. That was included among cases heard last week by a three-judge panel.-
Honest question: I’ve heard “marriage” referred to as a “right” delineated by the US Constitution.
How are people stating this, even as in interpretation? That is, what do they even appeal to? I don’t see it anywhere in our Constitution. -
[link=http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-judge-strikes-florida-gay-marriage-ban-25074637]http://abcnews.go.com/US/…-marriage-ban-25074637[/link]
Florida state ban ruled Unconstitutional
A federal judge on Thursday declared Florida’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, joining state judges in four counties who have sided with gay couples wishing to tie the knot.
U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle in Tallahassee ruled that the ban added to Florida’s constitution by voters in 2008 violates the 14th Amendment’s guarantees of equal protection and due process. Hinkle issued a stay delaying the effect of his order, meaning no marriage licenses will be immediately issued for gay couples.
Hinkle, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, compared bans on gay marriage to the long-abandoned prohibitions on interracial marriage and predicted both would be viewed by history the same way.
[b]”When observers look back 50 years from now, the arguments supporting Florida’s ban on same-sex marriage, though just as sincerely held, will again seem an obvious pretext for discrimination,” Hinkle wrote in a 33-page ruling. “To paraphrase a civil rights leader from the age when interracial marriage was struck down, the arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.”[/b]
-
I think I missed the reasoning on this, So why did the supreme court block the striking down in VA only?
-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
I think I missed the reasoning on this, So why did the supreme court block the striking down in VA only?
They issued a stay on appeals court ruling as they did on the Utah appeals court. SCOTUS issued only small statements on both of these stays, not clarifying [i]why[/i] they chose to do so.
Virginia officials had both asked for the ban to be lifted but to block the immediate issuing of marriage licenses, stating that failure to do so could make for “irreparable harm”. Some have speculated that “harm” would be the legal limbo of same-sex couple with marriage certificates but if SCOTUS eventually ruled against gay marriage nationally.
Many court wathers believe the justices will go ahead and take either the Utah or Virginia case early in the next term. Others think they may want to wait for a decision from the 6th Circuit, based in Cincinnati, where the judges sounded like they would uphold the ban on gay marriage. That would provide a conflict in the lower courts for the Supreme Court to resolve.
-
7th Circuit Arguments today. Richard Posner (a Reagan appointee) tears apart the State on same-sex marriage ban explanation.
[link=http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/08/27/listen_to_judge_richard_posner_destroy_arguments_against_gay_marriage.html]http://www.slate.com/blog…inst_gay_marriage.html[/link]
Samuelson attempts to argue that Wisconsins tradition of allowing only opposite-sex marriage is a rational basis for barring same-sex couples from the institution. Posner sinks in his claws, drawing painful, direct parallels between the current case and [link=http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/06/12/loving_v_virginia_compared_to_gay_marriage_arguments.html][i]Loving v. Virginia[/i][/link][i].[/i] The racists who opposed interracial marriage, Posner notes, make the same arguments you would make. Whats the difference? When Samuelson releases a bizarre string of nonsense about common law, Posner audibly mutters, Oh no.
The best is his response to the “it’s tradition” argument put forth relative to the Loving case.
__
REsponse: “It was a legislative decision.”
Posner: You mean you can’t think of [i]any[/i] reason for it?
Response: The general rule is for opposite sex couples.
Posner: Why is that?
Response: Because that’s what the legislature has said.
Posner: Why? Is there a reason? It doesn’t need a reason?
Response: I think there are several reasons. I think tradition is one of the reasons.
Posner: How can tradition be the reason for anything. That’s again the [i]Loving[/i] case, that tradition fobidding interracial marriage went to colonial times. It was 200 years old by the time [i]Loving[/i] was ruled.
Response: I think [i]Loving[/i] was a deviation from the common law, rather than codifying it.
Posner: *exasperated* The common law? Oh no.
Look. Interracial marriage was forbidden in the Colonies and in many many states for hundreds of years. Why wasn’t [i]that[/i] a tradition?
Response: It’s a [i]different[/i] tradition. It’s distinguishable.
Posner: Of course it’s a different tradition. So in other words — tradition per se is not a ground for continuing {the same sex marriage ban}? “We’ve been doing this stupid thing for hundreds, thousands of years .. we’ll just keep doing it. Because it’s tradition.” You wouldn’t make that argument no?
Response: We’re not making that argument.
Posner: Don’t you have to have some empirical or some practical or common sense basis for barring these marriages? I mean, I didn’t get anything out of your brief that sounded like a reason for doing this.
Response: Our position is that tradition is based on experience, collective experience.
Posner: Yes![i] [i] [i]Loving[/i]! Collective experience. Hundreds of years of tradition, tradition. Hundreds of years, no interracial marriage. They made the same arguments you have made. ‘It was tradition. We don’t to change because we don’t know what will happen. We can’t change tradition… terrible.” *rhetorical” What if men stopped shaking hands? It would be the end of the nation, right?
[/i]
[/i] -
I read this transcript the other day. He seems like an interesting judge. Maybe someone that has qualities that should put him in SCOTUS. Qualities like common sense and logic.
-
For the first time a federal judge has upheld a State gay marriage ban. After 19 in a row at the federal level, Louisiana’s ban is upheld on a State’s Right ruling– specifically going against other ruling holding that biological parenting and intact families are a compelling State interest and directly tying same sex marriage to incest.
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/04/us/louisiana-gay-marriage-ban-upheld-by-federal-judge.html?_r=0]http://www.nytimes.com/20…ederal-judge.html?_r=0[/link]
[b]
Federal Judge, Bucking Trend, Affirms Ban on Same-Sex Marriages in Louisiana[/b][/h1]In his ruling, Judge Martin L. C. Feldman of Federal District Court said that the regulation of marriage was left up to the states and the democratic process; that no fundamental right was being violated by the ban; and that Louisiana had a legitimate interest … whether obsolete in the opinion of some, or not, in the opinion of others … in linking children to an intact family formed by their two biological parents.
The case, Robicheaux v. Caldwell, was brought by the [link=http://forumforequality.org/wp/]Forum for Equality[/link], a Louisiana-based gay rights group, and seven same-sex couples either seeking to be married here or seeking to have valid marriages from other states legally recognized in Louisiana.
Must the states permit or recognize a marriage between an aunt and niece? he wrote. Aunt and nephew? Brother/brother? Father and child?
Judge Feldman, who was nominated to the federal bench in 1983 by President Ronald Reagan, acknowledged that he was bucking the trend of court rulings. But he said there were too many unresolved questions about such a fundamental social change for the courts to supplant the popular will.
This court is powerless to be indifferent to the unknown and possibly imprudent consequences of such a decision, Judge Feldman wrote. A decision for which there remains the arena of democratic debate.
-
I wasn’t surprised it was LA. The guy seems to be devoid of logic. Like arguing incestual marriages and doesn’t violate the equal protection. Public will doesn’t = law.
-
More on where it really counts –
Another strike on gay marriage marriage bans by Federal appeals court.
Unanimous ruling in 7th Circuit court of appeals. It came only 9 days after arguments.
With eye-popping speed that could put two new cases in the mix for eventual Supreme Court consideration, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit declared Thursday that gay marriage bans in Indiana and Wisconsin threaten “the welfare of American children.”
“The governments of Indiana and Wisconsin have given us no reason to think they have a ‘reasonable basis’ for forbidding same-sex marriage,” the court said. Later in the 40-page decision, it called the states’ asserted grounds “not only conjectural (but) totally implausible.”
Posner, who was named to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, is one of the nation’s most respected and influential judges. During oral arguments in the two cases last week, he made no secret of his disdain for the gay marriage bans, often ridiculing the reasons offered by the Indiana and Wisconsin solicitors general.
“The only rationale that the states put forth with any conviction that same-sex couples and their children don’t need marriage because same-sex couples can’t produce children, intended or unintended is so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously,” he concluded in his opinion.
[link=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/04/gay-marriage-appeals-court-indiana-wisconsin/15082499/]http://www.usatoday.com/s…na-wisconsin/15082499/[/link]
-
Supreme Court added 3 cases to be potentially considered this term. The overall legality of same sex marriage bans probably headed to SCOTUS this year.
[link=http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/09/11/the_supreme_court_will_probably_decide_gay_marriage_in_the_coming_term.html]http://www.slate.com/blog…n_the_coming_term.html[/link]
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court [link=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/10/supreme-court-gay-marriage-cases/15389615/]added several gay marriage cases[/link] for consideration at its Sept. 29 conference. The move suggests that the justices wont let[link=http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2012/2012_12_307][i]United States v. Windsor[/i][/link][i] [/i]be [link=http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/05/with_pennsylvania_gay_marriage_gets_its_18th_straight_win_who_needs_the.html]their last word[/link] on marriage equality. It also reveals that the Supreme Court will almost certainly decide whether [i]all[/i] gay marriage bans are unconstitutional by the end of this coming term.
On Sept. 29, the court will consider each of these cases and possibly agree to hear one, two, or all three of them. (The justices can combine cases that present the same constitutional question.) In doing so, the court will essentially be forcing itself to resolve the chief civil rights issue of the decadedoes the 14th Amendment protect gay peoples right to marriage?by the end of the current term in late June 2015.
In addressing that question, the justices will also have to land on a precise legal rationale to explain their decision. The court might get ambitious and finally admit that gay people are a [link=http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Suspect+class]quasi-suspect class[/link]in other words, a historically disfavored minority that has faced discrimination based on an immutable characteristic. If so, any law targeting gay people will be subject to [link=http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intermediate_scrutiny]heightened judicial scrutiny[/link] and must be invalidated unless it furthers a substantial government interest. Or the court might simply apply Kennedys [link=http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/07/18/the_legal_argument_for_gay_marriage_hit_the_animus_bump.html]vague animus test[/link] and decide that because gay marriage bans are motivated by hostility toward gay people, they violate the Constitution.
Either way, there will be no opportunity for the justices to punt on an [link=http://blogs.findlaw.com/decided/2013/06/supreme-court-prop-8-supporters-have-no-standing-to-sue.html]arcane procedural matter[/link] this time around. Theyre going to have to rule once and for all. As usual, the case will surely come down to the vote of Justice Anthony Kennedy. And the man who [link=http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf]once wrote[/link] that a federal gay marriage ban degrade [s][/s]and demean gay couples doesnt seem likely to betray the jurisprudential crusade that he [link=http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_1039]helped to start[/link].
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Depends on what the meaning of is, is.
Is “not” my definition.-
Why on earth MUST the definition of “marriage” be “between one man and one woman”?
Perhaps HuggyBear forgets that the “definition” at one time was “one man, one woman, both of the same race”, and that the definition of a black person was “equivalent to 5/8 white person”, and that the definition of a “US Voter” was “adult male”, and that the “arms” referred to at the time the Second Amendment was written was a gun that shot a single lead ball that took a couple of minutes to reload.
Now, do we REALLY want to harp on traditionally engrained definitions?
-
-
Oklahoma!
Where gay marriage comes sweeping down the planes!
[link=http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/court-rules-gay-marriage-oklahoma-case-24618411]http://abcnews.go.com/US/…oklahoma-case-24618411[/link]
A federal appeals court ruling Friday that Oklahoma’s ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional spurred celebration among gay rights activists but sparked sharp anger among Republican leaders in a conservative state that prides itself on being the buckle of the nation’s Bible Belt.
Friday’s decision marks the second time the federal appeals court has found the U.S. Constitution protects same-sex marriage, after its June ruling in a Utah case.
Oklahoma! OK!
-
Quote from Cigar
Honest question: I’ve heard “marriage” referred to as a “right” delineated by the US Constitution.
How are people stating this, even as in interpretation? That is, what do they even appeal to? I don’t see it anywhere in our Constitution.
The quick answer to where it is in the Constitution is: In the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.
____
The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. Supreme court rulings use the US Constitution to determine whether laws violate individual rights.
The government of the United States recognizes “marriage” as a legal contract for many purposes (financial beneficiaries, survivor benefits, end of life decisions, etc). Under the constitution of the United States it is a violation of constitutional rights for those laws to be applied in a discriminatory fashion, as covered under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Therefore, if the government is to recognize a “marriage” as a legal contract of the union of heterosexuals, it would be discriminatory and a violation of constitutional rights to deny that same right to homosexuals seeking the same legal contract.
That is the legal argument behind the *right* to marriage.
The major direct reference to marriage as a “right” comes from the case of [i]Loving V. Virginia[/i]. In that case it was determined that the Equal Protection Clause as above extended to marriage.
Quote from SCOTUS
[i][i]Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” …….. 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. 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]
[i][i] [/i][/i]
[i][i]There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. [/i][/i][/i]
[i][i]
[/i][/i]
The precedents on same sex marriage cited [i]Loving[/i] consistently, as did the Supreme Court’s ruling on DOMA…. it violated the Equal Protection Clause.
-
Quote from RVU in February 2013
Federalizing the legal definition and perverting the very idea of ‘marriage’ isnt going to happen anytime soon. There will be a few enclaves were expanded notions of coupling are tolerated. However it is obvious not normative behavior and SCOTUS isnt going to make carve out for strange human coupling and call it marriage.
The above is from page 1 of this thread, only a year and a half ago. Hard to believe how quickly it all changed.
[link=http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21623671-week-americas-supreme-court-dealt-supporters-gay-marriage-great-victory-we-look]http://www.economist.com/…-great-victory-we-look[/link]
[b]So Far, So Fast[/b]
On October 6th Americas Supreme Court decided not to hear a number of appeals against previous rulings in various lower courts, all of which had upheld the right of gay men and lesbians to marry in the face of state rules trying to stop them. The Supreme Court thus made the rulings of the lower courts permanent in five states and opened the way to similarly irrevocable marriage rights in other statesbeginning, the next day, with Idaho and Nevada. Legal scholars expect several more to follow soon. In the light of this a successful challenge to gay marriage in any of the other 19 states which had already made it legal now looks next to impossible. Over half of Americas citizens now enjoy the right to marry as they choose.
The change since 2004, when Massachusetts pioneered the recognition of gay marriage, is remarkable. Massachusetts move ignited a national backlash as other states tumbled over one another to enact legal bans on gay marriage, often by constitutional decree, as quickly as they could. Though it took two tries in Arizona, these prohibitions passed everywhere they were offered, reaching 30 states in all and handing the marriage-equality movement one of the most impressive losing streaks in American political history.
Marriage traditionalists crowed that the people would never accept a hare-brained idea foisted upon them by homosexual activists and their elitist friends. Rare and brave was the politician who supported gay marriage. Barack Obama opposed it in his 2008 presidential campaign, despite what he promised would be his fierce advocacy of gay and lesbian equality.
What happened? Social change so marked and rapid can come only from a confluence of causes, but the most important was probably a change in moral judgment. Moral disapproval underlay not just opposition to same-sex marriage, but also support for the whole panoply of laws and customs that have historically discriminated against gay people. As it waned, support for same-sex marriage waxed. By 2013, nearly 60% had no moral problem with same-sex relations. Given that America, like most places, has viewed homosexuality as wicked since more or less the beginning of time, approval by a wide majority represents a watershed not just in contemporary politics but also in cultural history. This reversal, even more than sentiment about marriage as such, was the seminal change in public opinion. No anti-gay policy is likely to withstand it.
…a promise {was made by} a band of men made long ago, pledging their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honour to a proposition: All men are created equal. Though they could not have imagined same-sex marriage, its advent is a tribute to the revolutionary incrementalism of their liberal idea.
-
[link=http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/did-two-justices-vote-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases/]http://www.scotusblog.com…me-sex-marriage-cases/[/link]
SCOTUS won’t be hearing the gay marriage cases this term. Interesting little “inside baseball” from the court. It looks as if Scalia and Thomas were the only two justices who wanted to take a same sex marriage case this term but couldn’t get any support even from the rest of the conservative block.
The focus of Justice Thomass opinion was an expression of his frustration that the Court does not more or less routinely agree to review lower court decisions that strike down state laws under the federal Constitution, as it does when the nullified law was a federal statute.
Indeed, he wrote, we often review decisions striking down state laws, even in the absence of a disagreement among lower courts. He provided a few examples of that, including the agreement in 2012 to review a federal appeals court decision nullifying Californias Proposition 8 that states ban on same-sex marriage. (The Court wound up not ruling on the validity of the ban, because of a procedural defect in the appeal.) It seemed clear that the two Justices had been among those voting to take on the Proposition 8 case.
After reciting with obvious approval some instances in which the Court had taken on cases involving invalidated state laws, the opinion went on: But, for reasons that escape me, we have not done so with any consistency, especially in recent months. Then followed his list of the denials of review or stays in the recent same-sex marriage cases.
And it’s 35 States legal today …. if you’re counting. 🙂
-
Looks like it’s on in Alabama. Federal judge over rules ban, and ‘Bama Chief Justice.
[link=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/09/alabama-chief-justice-tells-probate-judges-not-to-issue-gay-marriage-licenses/]http://www.foxnews.com/po…gay-marriage-licenses/[/link]-
Good for them.
I hope Judge Moore’s order is universally ignored. And if not thatJudge’s following it in violation of the Federal ruling are sued and sanctioned.-
[link=http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/03/06/379-companies-want-gay-marriage-bans-overturned/24486461/]http://www.usatoday.com/s…s-overturned/24486461/[/link]
379 US Companies file amicus briefs asking SCOTUS to support sam sex marriage. As Bain Capital signs on I imaging Mitt Romney pulling over on the side of the road to cry.
____
[link=http://time.com/3734626/gay-marriage-supreme-court-republicans/]http://time.com/3734626/g…eme-court-republicans/[/link]
Also, over 300 Republicans sign off to SCOTUS to support gay marriage as well.
Interestingly though, the only potential GOP candidate to sign is Hunstsman.
-
-
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.
Same Sex Marriage has mostly gone under the radar in the 2016 campaign. Now it might heat up a bit.
[i]Politico[/i]: [url=http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/the-gops-other-convention-nightmare-221477#ixzz44r21llNF]The GOP’s [i]other[/i] Convention Nightmare[/url]; A divisive battle over gay marriage on the partys official national platform.Its an issue that drives intense passion, and one that splits the mainstream and evangelical wings of the GOP. With the convention less than four months away, both sides are mobilizing in anticipation of a bitter clash over whether the party should embrace a more moderate approach to gay nuptials in keeping with a public that is more open to it or maintain the hard line the partys base demands.
Some of the partys biggest financiers, attempting to transform the GOPs approach, have been helping to bankroll the American Unity Fund, a group that has launched a well-organized, behind-the-scenes effort to lobby convention delegates who will draw up the platform. It is asking them to adopt language that would accommodate same sex marriage.
Social conservatives, alarmed at what they view as an effort to topple a central plank of their movement, are also gearing up. Last week, Tony Perkins, the Family Research Council president and a vocal opponent of same sex marriage, secured one of Louisianas two slots on the platform committee. Perkins, who also served on the committee in 2012, is expected to take the lead in litigating any efforts to change the partys position.
-
they need a new tea party motto. Something like ‘don’t tread on me, but let me tread on you if you don’t have my exacting values’
-
-
-
-
Pence has really stumbled on this one. It is obvious he was wholly unprepared for the backlash.
Now I’ve heard him in two separate public events (Stephanopoulos on Sunday and the press conference today) sound just awful.
On both occasions he was working from a limited set of talking points and was not nimble enough to pivot off of them. It was so obvious that he was dodging that it painful to watch. He come off as halting, disingenuous, and evasive. “Not ready for prime time” comes to mind.
Now he has a real challenge. Pence and the Indiana legislature are under intense national scrutiny as they try to correct the mistake.
If they put forward a non-fix fix they risk doing more harm than good.
-
he needs to admit defeat and repeal the law
-
-
Interesting everyone jumping on Indiana including getting the NCAA final four to move. Twenty states have similar laws. Bill Clinton signed similar document during his administration. The only thing that separates the other states and Clinton’s signature was that Indiana’s law allows it to happen between individuals. Also, from other reports Clinton’s version has gone before at least 4 appellate courts that have upheld it and ruled that it includes between individuals. The politicians are jumping on this to get their names in the media. Malloy of CT and Cuomo of NY banned state business travel to Indiana. Malloy using it to dodge the financial budget mess he cannot correct after 5 years in office to put him in favor with others and out of negative spotlight. Cuomo of NY off to visit Cuba on a trade mission. A country that bans gay marriage. Total hypocrite. Much ado about nothing from a bunch of politicians trying to make names for themselves. Not one talking about Clinton signing a law, courts agreeing, and the other 20 states that have similar laws.
-
Federal and Indiana laws are different, made for opposite reasons. Indiana’s is deliberately discriminiatory.
-
Quote from Ixrayu
Interesting everyone jumping on Indiana including getting the NCAA final four to move. Twenty states have similar laws. Bill Clinton signed similar document during his administration. The only thing that separates the other states and Clinton’s signature was that Indiana’s law allows it to happen between individuals……..
Not one talking about Clinton signing a law, courts agreeing, and the other 20 states that have similar laws.This bill itself also greatly expands RFRA protections beyond what was in the original 1993 federal RFRA. When the federal RFRA was passed, it was intended for things like allowing Muslim prisoners have neatly trimmed beards, or Churches to distribute food to the homeless in parks.
A concise description of how the Indiana RFRA is substantially different from others in three ways:
[b][b]- Private parties are harmed[/b]. [/b]The Indiana law expressly provides that its special religious rights apply in disputes between private parties, where the government is not a part of the lawsuit. In other states — state laws make clear that these special religious rights apply only when an agency of the government itself is the one interfering with religious exercise.
[b][b]- There is no accountability.[/b] [/b] The Indiana law expressly provides that people can claim a special religious exemption to any law, regardless of whether the religious objection involves a tenet that is central to their faith, and regardless of whether their objection involves a matter that their religious actually compels. There is no accountability concerning the legitimacy of that claim so long as the person making the claim is sincere.
[b][b]- Corporations are given special rights.[/b] [/b] The Indiana law expressly confers these special religious rights on corporations and other for-profit businesses, so long as there are individuals who have “control and substantial ownership” of those businesses and who assert the religious objection.
Additionally, Lambda Legal points out that Indiana’s RFRA is different in that “(it) is so broadly written that someone can sue even without their religious beliefs having actually been burdened simply by claiming that is “likely” to happen.”
[b][b]Why were these changes made?[/b][/b]
[b]
[/b]
In the past, when people refused services to LGBT people and ran afoul of local and state level civil rights protections as a result, the defendants (those who refused service) usually lost. The courts generally have ruled that state RFRAs do not protect you from violating civil rights laws. The language in the Indiana RFRA is designed to maximize the chances that such a defense will succeed.
So there are the legislative differences —
Then there are also important [i]political[/i] differences.
This bill was passed after the state legislature [link=http://ballotpedia.org/Indiana_Marriage_Amendment_(2014)]failed to pass a ballot initiative[/link] in the 2014 election to ban same-sex marriage in the state, and the [link=http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/09/04/3479064/seventh-circuit-indiana-wisconsin-marriage/]7th Circuit struck down[/link]the state law banning same-sex marriage.
The law itself is also pretty clearly designed to allow discrimination against LGBT people. This has been a big issue with opponents of marriage equality and the religious right, who constantly tell “horror” stories [size=”0″]of [/size][link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-wont-review-new-mexico-gay-commitment-ceremony-photo-case/2014/04/07/f9246cb2-bc3a-11e3-9a05-c739f29ccb08_story.html]photographers[/link][size=”0″], [/size][link=http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/19/us-usa-washington-gaymarriage-idUSKBN0LN0B520150219]florists[/link][size=”0″] and[/size][link=http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/]bakers[/link][size=”0″] who were fined for refusing to serve gay couples getting married. The bill’s supporters clearly meant to target LGBT people, and it didn’t help that Governor Pence’s surrounded himself with [/size][link=http://www.glaad.org/blog/one-simple-graphic-shows-anti-lgbt-animus-behind-indianas-new-law]anti-LGBT activists[/link][size=”0″] when he signed the bill.[/size]
[size=”0″][IMG]http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2015-03-30-1427729322-1210268-PenceBusted-thumb.png[/IMG][/size]
-
-
[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kentuckys-legal-gymnastics-over-same-sex-marriage/2015/04/02/416b4732-d974-11e4-ba28-f2a685dc7f89_story.html?hpid=z2][size=”0″]Kentuckys farcical defense of anti-gay bigotry[/url][/size]
[size=”0″][/size]
And so we arrive at Kentuckys legalistic gymnastics.
In a [link=http://www.supremecourt.gov/obergefellhodges/partybriefs/14-574_Brief_of_Beshear.pdf]Supreme Court brief[/link] filed last week, a lawyer for the Bluegrass States Democratic governor argued that gays are not being discriminated against because theyre still allowed to get married so long as they disregard whom theyre sexually attracted to.
According to the brief: Men and women, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are free to marry persons of the opposite sex under Kentucky law, and men and women, whether heterosexual or homosexual, cannot marry persons of the same sex under Kentucky law.
This logic seemed so disingenuous when I first read it that I had to check whether it was an April Fools Day hoax. Its just too close to that old biting[link=http://harpers.org/blog/2007/06/france-on-the-majesty-of-law/]Anatole France[/link] quote about how the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
More to the point, Kentuckys argument closely resembles one used, and rejected, in a landmark Supreme Court case about marriage restrictions:[i]Loving v. Virginia[/i], [link=http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Loving_v_Virginia_1967]decided in 1967[/link]. Virginia [link=http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Excerpts_from_a_Transcript_of_Oral_Arguments_in_Loving_v_Virginia_April_10_1967]presented similar logic[/link] as to why its law banning interracial marriage like those then on the books in 15 other states, including Kentucky was not discriminatory. Both blacks and whites were allowed to marry inside their race, after all, and both were equally punished for marrying outside of it. The court didnt buy it. (In a delightful and almost poetic coincidence, one of the petitioners in the Kentucky same-sex marriage case is surnamed Love. History rhymes in multiple ways, it seems.)
Backed into a corner, the states defending same-sex marriage bans today have presented other, equally absurd arguments, too. Kentucky also said it should be able to ban same-sex marriage because the promotion of birth rates is a legitimate interest and supporting the formation of relationships that have the natural ability to procreate furthers the commonwealths fundamental interest in ensuring humanitys continued existence. Michigan made a related argument in the [link=http://www.supremecourt.gov/obergefellhodges/partybriefs/14-571_Brief_of_Snyder.pdf]brief[/link] it filed with the Supreme Court.
These and other arguments contained in the four states briefs often imply that gay men and lesbians can ignore and switch their sexual orientation at will, despite the scientific communitys consensus to the contrary. In the absence of the ability to legally marry, the states suggest, gay couples will simply shrug, break up and decide to procreatively pair up with a member of the opposite sex instead. This scenario is almost funny, in a sitcom-y sort of way. Or at least it would be, if so many loving couples fates didnt hang in the balance.-
[link=http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/rubio-no-constitutional-right-to-gay-marriage/]http://www.wnd.com/2015/0…right-to-gay-marriage/[/link]
[b]
RUBIO: NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ‘GAY’ MARRIAGE[/b][/h1]It doesnt exist, he [link=http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2015/04/26/marco-rubio-to-brody-file-there-is-no-constitutional-right.aspx]told David Brody[/link] of The Brody File in Des Moines Iowa this weekend. There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. There isnt such a right. You have to have a ridiculous, absurd reading of the U.S. constitution to reach the conclusion that people have a right to marry someone of the same sex. There is no such constitutional right. Can a state decide to change their laws? Yes, but only through the political process.
I’ve $100 says SCOTUS disagrees with him.
Gay marriage continues to look like a big issue for the GOP in 2016
-
Where is the Constitutional clause/Amendment/Article for hetero marriages? I can’t seem to find it anywhere.
Can anyone help me find it? Should be easy, a “constitutional right for hetero marriage?” -
Quote from dergon
I’ve $100 says SCOTUS disagrees with him.
It’s right below the ‘right to privacy’ and a paragraph above the ‘right to grow seed potatoes’.-
A constitutional court can find that an action is legal or that a right is present (or [i]illegal[/i] or [i]not[/i] present) without that being expressly written in the United States Constitution.
That is the entire field of constitutional law.
I say gay marriage is upheld 6-3 with Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissenting.
-
Quote from dergon
A constitutional court can find that an action is legal or that a right is present (or [i]illegal[/i] or [i]not[/i] present) without that being expressly written in the United States Constitution.
Yup, they make stuff up all the time.
There is no right to gay marriage. There IS however a right to get equal protection under the law. So if the government decides to sanction marriage, it has to do so without regard to the sexual orientation of the persons asking for that protection.-
“Yup, they make stuff up all the time. ”
Yes, a Constitution should explicitly state what rights you have and don’t, that should be explicit for now & all contingencies & events & circumstances of the unforseeable future. No “living” document for America. And it should be no more than a booklet a TP’er can carry in their back pocket.
The purpose of government is to expressly enumerate what rights you have – and don’t. For now and forever, & “make up” nothing and interpret nothing. -
Well. The court [i]has[/i] held that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals.
But yes, it is and has been a legal argument based on equal protection.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from Frumious
“Yup, they make stuff up all the time. ”
Yes, a Constitution should explicitly state what rights you have and don’t, that should be explicit for now & all contingencies & events & circumstances of the unforseeable future. No “living” document for America. And it should be no more than a booklet a TP’er can carry in their back pocket.
Correct. There is a democratic process to amend the constitution if it needs to be brought in line with a changing country. You should really read up on those kinds of things, makes you sound less ignorant.-
Irony, coming from you, fw. Didn’t know you were capable.
-
I always find Douthat’s analysis a bit forced and rambling and unsatisfying on a lot of topics. Including same-sex marriage.
Like, since the modern liberal mind is trained to ask for spreadsheet-ready projections and clearly defined harms, and the links that social conservatives think exist arent amenable to that kind of precise measurement or definition.”
Wha?
[link=http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/28/the-wild-ideas-of-social-conservatives/]http://douthat.blogs.nyti…-social-conservatives/[/link]
-
Forgetting persuasions or wishes, the comments yesterday made it look far more likely that Kennedy would rule against “gay marriage”.
-
Is Santorum changing his position? Maybe Jenner’s change is bringing reality to some people’s imaginings & fears.
If he says hes a woman, then hes a woman, Santorum said. My responsibility as a human being is to love and accept everybody. Not to criticize people for who they are. I can criticize, and I do, for what people do, for their behavior. But as far as for who they are, you have to respect everybody, and these are obviously complex issues for businesses, for society, and I think we have to look at it in a way that is compassionate and respectful of everybody.
Like many things, seeing real people deal with real issues instead of imagining malevolent caricatures changes peoples minds and attitudes.-
Since when did you care about Santorum? He’s old news. Now he’s sappy old news.
-
He’s an indicator or change in this.
-
ok
-
-
-
-
-
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.
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/tex-bill-would-bar-local-officials-from-issuing-same-sex-marriage-licenses/2015/05/11/a4657d24-f807-11e4-9030-b4732caefe81_story.html?hpid=z1]http://www.washingtonpost…e81_story.html?hpid=z1[/link]
[b]
[h1]Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses[/b][/h1]Supporters of the measure, which is scheduled for a vote as soon as Tuesday in the Texas House, said it would send a powerful message to the court. Taking a cue from the anti-abortion movement, [b]they said they also hoped to keep any judicially sanctioned right to same-sex marriage tied up in legal battles for years to come.[/b]
[link=http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/html/HB04105H.htm]The measure[/link], by Rep. Cecil Bell, a Republican from the outskirts of Houston, would prohibit state and local officials from using taxpayer dollars to issue, enforce, or recognize a marriage license … for a union other than a union between one man and one woman.
Bell said the bill simply preserves state sovereignty over marriage.-
And Ireland passes same sex marriage in an overwhelming YES vote recognizing LBGT people as people with rights, overcoming objections from the Catholic Church.
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/world/europe/ireland-gay-marriage-referendum.html]http://www.nytimes.com/20…rriage-referendum.html[/link]
[link=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/ireland/index.html?inline=nyt-geo]Ireland[/link] became the first nation to approve [link=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/same_sex_marriage/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier]same-sex marriage[/link]by a popular vote, sweeping aside the opposition of the Roman Catholic Church in a resounding victory Saturday for the gay rights movement and placing the country at the vanguard of social change.
With the final ballots counted, the vote was 62 percent in favor of legalizing [link=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/same_sex_marriage/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier]same-sex marriage[/link], and 38 percent opposed.
Surprising many who had predicted a generational divide, the support cut across age and gender, geography and income, early results showed.
There was support for the measure across the political spectrum, including from Prime Minister Kenny, of the center-right Fine Gael party, and his Labour coalition partner, which had pushed for the referendum. Sinn Fein, an opposition party, also expressed support.
Many placed the results in a national context, saying it pointed not only to change but also to the compassion and tolerance of the Irish people.
[/h2]When Same-Sex Marriages Became Legal [/h2] About 20 countries have already legalized same-sex marriages. Here is a list of when each did.
[ul][*] 2001[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/02/world/first-gay-couples-marry-in-the-netherlands.html] The Netherlands [/link]
2003[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/world/world-briefing-europe-belgium-parliament-approves-gay-marriages.html] Belgium[/link]
2005 [link=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/29/international/americas/29canada.html]Canada[/link] and [link=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/30/international/europe/30cnd-spain.html]Spain[/link]
2006 [link=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/world/africa/15safrica.html]South Africa [/link]
2009 [link=http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-06-17-gaymarriage_N.htm]Norway [/link]and [link=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/world/europe/02briefs-swedenmarriage.html]Sweden[/link]
2010 [link=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/world/americas/16argentina.html]Argentina[/link]. [link=http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/11/us-iceland-gaymarriage-idUSTRE65A3V020100611]Iceland [/link]and [link=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/opinion/sunday/bruni-same-sex-marriage-in-portugal.html]Portugal [/link]
2012 [link=http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-18363157]Denmark[/link]
2013: [link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/world/americas/brazilian-court-council-removes-a-barrier-to-same-sex-marriage.html]Brazil[/link], [link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/world/europe/britain-gay-marriage-vote.html]England and Wales[/link], [link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/19/world/europe/hollande-signs-french-gay-marriage-law.html]France[/link], [link=http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/new-zealand-leads-way-on-same-sex-marriage-in-asia-pacific/]New Zealand [/link]and [link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/world/americas/uruguay-same-sex-marriage-is-legalized.html]Uruguay[/link]
2014 [link=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/19/luxembourg-gay-marriage-_n_5511360.html]Luxembourg [/link]and [link=http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/02/04/world/europe/ap-eu-britain-gay-marriage.html]Scotland[/link]
2017 (Law becomes effective.) [link=http://sputniknews.com/europe/20141212/1015793024.html]Finland[/link]
[/ul]
America has stumbled behind in the individual rights camps, no longer the leader. Except for corporate rights.
-
-
-
-
