Gay Marriage

[mister d]

So the last grown up to have faith in > 45% of America has fallen?

[Ryan]

The sad undertone that is being missed right now is that 4 out of 9 people on that court would still rather deny a human the right to happiness based on the fact that they think 2 boys or 2 girls fucking is icky.

...just focus on the positives BSF....focus on the positives....

Just think of it as a 56-44 popular vote landslide

That's even worse that 44 out of 100 would seek to deny people.

Yeah, but over the last few elections, about 50 out of 100 would elect a president that would put those kind of jurists on the bench.

[tennbengal]

Thomas' dissent is a piece of work. Check the slavery stuff.

[P.D.X.]

Who is excited for some Scallia d...?!?!? Just me??

[L-Jam3]

TennBenn, where'd you find the transcripts? I'm looking at the usual news suspects and they're not up yet.

[tennbengal]

TennBenn, where'd you find the transcripts? I'm looking at the usual news suspects and they're not up yet.

Getting snippets from my twitter feed.

Here's a link the Thomas passage that would be so lol if it wasn't deeply disturbing:

http://fusion.net/story/157284/clarence ... ign=/feed/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[tennbengal]

Oh Clarence:

“The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government,” Thomas wrote in his dissent. “Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved.”

The Bush-appointed Justice went on to further compare the conversation pertaining to the rights of LGBT people to that of Japanese Americans detained during World War II.”

“Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them,” Thomas wrote. “And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.”

[Gunpowder]

In every single event like this, the dissenters always seem to be on the wrong side of history.

[Gunpowder]

Conservatism without religion involved would presumably say "let them do what they want, it doesn't affect you", no?

[Ryan]

He's a fucking pube on the soda can that is America

And yes, it's soda. We win that one too.

[Steve of phpBB]

Howard, will you marry me?

[Johnnie]

That Scalia dissent tho...

Business Insider link.

[howard]

Howard, will you marry me?

I would have, yesterday, in Michigan. I'm a civil disobedience kind of gay, I mean guy. Now? Nope; the thrill is gone.

[Steve of phpBB]

Damn. Day late and a dollar short.

For those of you so inclined (NTTAWWT), here's the opinion.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14 ... 6_3204.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Rush2112]

Legal nationwide.

5-4 decision by the SCOTUS. No link yet but it's on your TV right now, I'm sure.

Between the Rebel Flag stuff, the Obamacare decision, and now this the streets will flow with the sweet, sweet tears of Religious Conservatives everywhere...

Lets Go Liberals, Clap, Clap, Clap, Lets Go Liberals, Clap, Clap, Clap.

[A_B]

That Scalia dissent tho...

Business Insider link.

Thats...um...provocative?

[Gunpowder]

That Scalia dissent tho...

Business Insider link.

I'd like to see how he votes if the marijuana question gets to the Court.


EDIT: Actually he seems relatively consistent on that. Stickin' to principles is good at least.

[howard]

Hey Lawyers:

Wasn't this shit decided by Loving v Virgina in 1967? I'll take my answer over the air.

( I assume it was cited in the majority opinion today.)

[Bensell]

I suppose it's been a roller coaster kind of week for Confederate Fags?

This is deserving of a gold star.

I think all Swampers know how I feel on this and I'm just disappointed it wasn't 6-3 like yesterday's ACA ruling (I know Thomas, Scalia & Alito would never go for it)

[brian]

Conservatism without religion involved would presumably say "let them do what they want, it doesn't affect you", no?

Right. I had a buddy that posted this on Facebook this morning:

Huge win for conservatives as marriage is de-regulated.

[brian]

I have a couple of gay friends getting married on Sunday (in Nevada, where it was already legal). Should be a great party all weekend.

[Brontoburglar]

From Dr Jill Biden's twitter account just now:

oe is running through the halls with a rainbow flagged tied on like a cape high fiving everyone.

Pictures, dammit! I need to see a picture of that!

Pair - O - D

[DaveInSeattle]

That Scalia dissent tho...

Business Insider link.

So when does he turn in his resignation, since the Court is so bad and not reflective of the country as a whole?

[Steve of phpBB]

Of course, Scalia is the guy who ruled that George Bush had a fundamental right to stop the state of Florida from counting ballots cast by its own citizens in the 2000 election. I don't see that anywhere in the 14th Amendment.

So fuck Scalia.

[howard]

Conservatism without religion involved would presumably say "let them do what they want, it doesn't affect you", no?

Right. I had a buddy that posted this on Facebook this morning:

Huge win for conservatives as marriage is de-regulated.

That is a positive in my personal, twisted set of political values, something for the liberal, the conservative, and libertarian sides of my brain. But afaic, a win win. A minority group of human beings that historically has been horribly fucked with gets legal equality (and this dwarfs all other considerations); government takes a step back from both telling people not to do behaviors that affect no one else as well as a step back from regulating marriage, which imo is none of the govt's damn business.

Oh, and fuck Scalia. His little pet Thomas too.

[The Sybian]

In every single event like this, the dissenters always seem to be on the wrong side of history.

At the risk of stepping on a good joke, dissenting Opinions are often the touchstone for the Court to overrule previous decisions. But that is typically when the majority declines to advance society, so yeah.

... and the next generation of conservatives retroactively claims it wasn't a liberal POV, but something totally obvious.

Totally. I particularly love all the Conservatives claiming credit Lincoln freeing the slaves because he was a Republican, and Liberals trying to hold back the Civil Rights movement because Conservative Dixiecrats were Democrats. Or in the buildup to Iraq, calling out Liberals saying that Liberals would appease Hitler, while it was Conservatives who refused to get involved in WWII prior to Pearl Harbor, because they were isolationists who valued personal comforts over stopping Hitler.

Hey Lawyers:

Wasn't this shit decided by Loving v Virgina in 1967? I'll take my answer over the air.

( I assume it was cited in the majority opinion today.)

I think it is a perfect analogy, and I'd be shocked if it isn't in the Opinion. I've made this argument for years, and I am confident that in 20-30 years, gay marriage will seem as normal as interracial marriage is today. Wrong side of history indeed.

Conservatism without religion involved would presumably say "let them do what they want, it doesn't affect you", no?

Not really, that is more of a Libertarian view. Conservatives, especially Scalia, believe in States Rights. They believe the States should make these decisions, not the Federal government and certainly not the Courts. I see it as preventing Constitutional Rights violations, they see it as Federal Government overreach.

[Gunpowder]

Well they'd think that the state's should allow it in that case. I don't understand why you are only cool with government oppression if it comes from a state.

[brian]

I'm being a total sore winner about this on social media today and I don't even care.

[sancarlos]

Let me go out and find a lesbian to kiss.

Hey, are you out here in the Bay Area right now? It's Pride weekend here in SF, so it wouldn't be hard for you to find a candidate, or fifty thousand.

[Brontoburglar]

I do wonder how many people are truly happier for the schadenfreude aspect than they are for the people that are allowed to get married now.

Not that I'm not enjoying it either.

[howard]

Let me go out and find a lesbian to kiss.

Hey, are you out here in the Bay Area right now? It's Pride weekend here in SF, so it wouldn't be hard for you to find a candidate, or fifty thousand.

I'm too pretty to be in SF on Pride Weekend. (That was a true statement 20years ago.)

[The Sybian]

Well they'd think that the state's should allow it in that case. I don't understand why you are only cool with government oppression if it comes from a state.

Scalia is a "Strict Constructionalist," which means if a potential Right is not explicitly granted in the Constitution, only the States have the power to grant it. The Enumerated Powers Clause of the Constitution does state that any power not enumerated in the Constitution to the Federal Government is given to the States. Since the Constitution doesn't specifically mention gay marriage, it isn't within the Federal government's authority to grant it as a Right, and therefore refusing to legalize gay marriage is not oppression.

All of the Civil Rights cases hinge on some very stretched logic. Cases preventing private businesses from discriminating linked the 14th Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Clause and essentially argue that all private businesses (unless they are clubs with memberships and do not serve the general public), are considered State actors and are prevented from violating Rights that are only protected from government violation.

Cases along the same lines, like Griswold v. Connecticut, which found a Connecticut law banning the sale of contraceptives Unconstitutional as it falls under the "penumbra of the Right to privacy." These lines of cases are where the term "activist judges" and "legislating from the bench" come from. Conservatives still push the notion that Liberal Activist judges are forcing Liberal agendas down their throats (Fuck I hate that phrase), but that happened in the 1960s FFS, and now we have an out of control Supreme Court completely ignoring all binding case law and common sense to make corporations people, campaign donations free speech and stripping employee rights in lesser known cases.

The world is a hell of a lot different today than it was in 1787, when a stronger centralized government wasn't feasible. Scalia's view of the Constitution just doesn't make sense in this era. The world has changed in the last 200+ years, and Scalia refuses to acknowledge it. It doesn't help that he publicly discusses how his job is to aid God in a Biblical war against demons. Yes, he believes Satanic demons are real, and became very indignant and angry when an interviewer reacted with surprise.

[Steve of phpBB]

Hey Lawyers:

Wasn't this shit decided by Loving v Virgina in 1967? I'll take my answer over the air.

( I assume it was cited in the majority opinion today.)

Loving was cited several times in the majority opinion, but it was not heavily featured.

The Court gave nearly equal play to a couple of other marriage-as-a-fundamental right cases, one holding that prisoners could not be denied the right to marry and one striking down laws that barred a parent from marrying if he or she was behind on child support.

The people behind these lawsuits did a great job of choosing their plaintiffs. The named plaintiff, Obergefell, sued the state of Ohio to be recognized as the surviving spouse on his husband's death certificate; they had gotten married in Maryland in 2013 when the husband was terminally ill. Two other plaintiffs were a female couple who are jointly raising three kids, but legally the kids can only be adopted by one member of the couple (so if that one dies, the other parent has no legal rights whatsoever regarding the kids). Another plaintiff is a soldier who married his dude in New York before deploying to Afghanistan. His marriage is not recognized in Tennessee, where they now live and work for the Army Reserve.

[sancarlos]

Let me go out and find a lesbian to kiss.

Hey, are you out here in the Bay Area right now? It's Pride weekend here in SF, so it wouldn't be hard for you to find a candidate, or fifty thousand.

I'm too pretty to be in SF on Pride Weekend. (That was a true statement 20years ago.)

That brings back a funny memory. Years ago my two brothers were visiting me out here when we stumbled into a festival on Polk Street (one of the old line gay SF neighborhoods for those of you who don't know). Neither of them had been around gay people much so, it was funny for me when a few obvious poof boys approached them and were brazenly hitting on them. One brother was so uncomfortable and uptight I was afraid he was going slug one of them. The other brother was much cooler. Despite being hetero-only, he enjoyed the attention and actually flirted back with them. Still a story that gets retold at family gatherings.

[Rush2112]

Man SF is going to be fun this weekend. ALA (American Library Conference), Pride Week, and the Fare Thee Well Dead concerts.

[howard]

All of the Civil Rights cases hinge on some very stretched logic.

But the room for flexibility in our system of government is greatness that transcends limited, literal reading of language in the body or the amendments. Allows us to go from Dred Scot to the 14th (I'm sure there is a better example that does not include that little nastiness in between that cost 600,000 lives.)

Loving was cited several times in the majority opinion, but it was not heavily featured.

Are you trying to entice me to actually read the damn thing, with such an ambiguous come-on? But this stuff is inherently fascinating to me.

The people behind these lawsuits did a great job of choosing their plaintiffs. The named plaintiff, Obergefell,

I think you misspelled that

[The Sybian]

Man SF is going to be fun this weekend. ALA (American Library Conference), Pride Week, and the Fare Thee Well Dead concerts.

Shit, if I knew the ALA conference was this weekend, I'd have booked a flight out out.

[Steve of phpBB]

Conservatives, especially Scalia, believe in States Rights. They believe the States should make these decisions, not the Federal government and certainly not the Courts.

At least, that's what they claim. They have no problem disregarding states' rights when the states are doing something they don't like.

Roberts' dissent probably makes the best "conservative" case against requiring states to allow and recognize gay marriage. Basically, he says that marriage has always been one man and one woman, and that courts need to be really really careful in finding additional "fundamental rights" protected by the Due Process Clause. He refers to Dred Scott and Lochner v New York as examples of judicial overreach in finding fundamental rights. He also points out that if the man-woman aspect of marriage cannot be upheld despite millennia of existence, then the "two persons" aspect also cannot. If states have to recognize gay marriages, they also would have to recognize polygamous marriages.

He also argues that rulings like this threaten the legitimacy of the courts, when they step in and short-circuit the democratic process that has been going on for the past several years on this issue:

To me, it is hard to disagree with any of the arguments Roberts makes on their own. They are just outweighed by the need for courts to act to prevent the unjustified discrimination and harm being suffered by real people right now.

[Steve of phpBB]

I think you misspelled that

Just what I was thinking. Thanks for finding that.

[rass]

heh