I'm VERY happy to see these laws struck down. I thought Scalia's OH NOEZ IT'S STILL BAD argument was hilarious to read, and then frightening to realize that's how he actually thinks...
So, since that is out of the way, are we going to focus on the problem of the rich getting richer while the poor keep getting poorer now?
But that would involve the rich not getting richer, and we can't have that. They might not be able to afford there fourth month long vacation this year, or the third luxury car. Won't you feel there pain?
It's nice to see DOMA has gone. It's not shocking to see a bunch of idiots with no real knowledge about how 'unnatural' it is for a bunch of pasty old idiots to tell people it's 'unnatural' they're not allowed to love each other to continue the hate, but hey, it's a work in progress.
And as soon as Project: Arctic Political Battleground is complete, we can have all politicians, from across the globe, defend there position in one one one armed combat, for our amusement.
Republicans get a bad rap on this one, the crazy religious right republicans get all the press, but I'm sure there's a large number of free thinking republicans are fine with this ruling if not in open support of it.
I'm sure there are. Its too bad they don't try to get like minded Republicans elected.
|
Republicans get a bad rap on this one, the crazy religious right republicans get all the press, but I'm sure there's a large number of free thinking republicans are fine with this ruling if not in open support of it.I'm sure there are. Its too bad they don't try to get like minded Republicans elected.
Oh it is not for trying. Unfortunately most of those Republicans are from Mass. and then they lose to Democrats or get pummeled by the party like Weld to bring the rest of them more in line with an out of touch party.
I hate to be the one guy to ruin the parade, but it looks like the empire wants to strike back. Buckle up guys, because we are going to be in it for the long haul.
You know, its funny; the party that wants the government to stay out of our business is the same party that wants the government to legislate their morality on us.
My post was pretty negative but its too late for me to edit it :(
For balance, I'd like to point out that several republicans have been involved in getting us to this point, including Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Rep. Richard Hanna, and republican party strategist Steve Schmidt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
this maybe?
If our Congresscritters and related baboons would fling less poo and groom each other's parasitic insects more, more stuff that matters might get done.
I just find it funny how many Democrats that are singing the praises of the Supreme Court are some of the same ones that either voted for DOMA or, in one case, signed it into law.
The Prop 8 ruling is less than I hoped for, but exactly what I was expecting.
I love how "the executive branch is not defending it so Congress can step in as an affected party because it is a law they passed" is justification for DOMA defendants having standing but "the executive branch is not defending it so the people who led the referendum can step in as an affected party because it is a law they passed" was denied for Prop 8. I can see this coming in to bite them in the ass as it effectively neuters any state referendum measure that does not have the support of the governor.
I disagree. I think you're misreading the Prop 8 decision.
The reason that the proponents of the referendum don't have standing to sue is because they're not hurt by overturning the referendum. Any state referendum measure that benefits its proponents in no way whatsoever should be ignored, in my opinion, because the only reason for such a referendum is to screw over thy neighbor.
Consider as a hypothetical the Tesla-selling-cars directly dispute. Some states have laws mandating that cars only be sold through dealerships, others do not. Suppose that someone pushed through a referendum addressing this issue, which the courts then overturned:
One side would be hurt. Suppose the referendum said "all cars must be sold through dealers." If I owned a dealership, I'm injured when the referendum is negated and I have to deal with increased competition. That would give me standing to appeal the ruling as an injured party.
Similarly, if the referendum said "cars do NOT need to be sold through dealers," and I was someone trying to partner with Tesla to sell cars, I'm injured by the state interference and have standing to sue.
The reason that the proponents do not have standing to appeal Prop 8 is because gay marriage damages no one. None of the people involved could articulate an actual injury they suffered from having Prop 8 overturned. No injury, no standing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just find it funny how many Democrats that are singing the praises of the Supreme Court are some of the same ones that either voted for DOMA or, in one case, signed it into law.
Not that funny. It was a bad choice, made under duress, and they chose the lesser of two evils. At the time, the idea of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage seemed much more likely, and by "giving ground" it helped prevent that.
If I point a gun at you and demand 'your money or your life,' I would expect you to choose to give me your money. I'd still expect you to denounce me as a criminal at the earliest opportunity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just find it funny how many Democrats that are singing the praises of the Supreme Court are some of the same ones that either voted for DOMA or, in one case, signed it into law.Not that funny. It was a bad choice, made under duress, and they chose the lesser of two evils. At the time, the idea of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage seemed much more likely, and by "giving ground" it helped prevent that.
If I point a gun at you and demand 'your money or your life,' I would expect you to choose to give me your money. I'd still expect you to denounce me as a criminal at the earliest opportunity.
That's probably the worst analogy I've heard for a political argument in quite some time.
I doubt a Constitutional amendment would have passed as easily as you think, and I'm not that charitable to think that they were "taking one for the team" to bide their time.
The Prop 8 ruling is less than I hoped for, but exactly what I was expecting.
I love how "the executive branch is not defending it so Congress can step in as an affected party because it is a law they passed" is justification for DOMA defendants having standing but "the executive branch is not defending it so the people who led the referendum can step in as an affected party because it is a law they passed" was denied for Prop 8. I can see this coming in to bite them in the ass as it effectively neuters any state referendum measure that does not have the support of the governor.
I disagree. I think you're misreading the Prop 8 decision.
The reason that the proponents of the referendum don't have standing to sue is because they're not hurt by overturning the referendum. Any state referendum measure that benefits its proponents in no way whatsoever should be ignored, in my opinion, because the only reason for such a referendum is to screw over thy neighbor.
Consider as a hypothetical the Tesla-selling-cars directly dispute. Some states have laws mandating that cars only be sold through dealerships, others do not. Suppose that someone pushed through a referendum addressing this issue, which the courts then overturned:
One side would be hurt. Suppose the referendum said "all cars must be sold through dealers." If I owned a dealership, I'm injured when the referendum is negated and I have to deal with increased competition. That would give me standing to appeal the ruling as an injured party.
Similarly, if the referendum said "cars do NOT need to be sold through dealers," and I was someone trying to partner with Tesla to sell cars, I'm injured by the state interference and have standing to sue.
The reason that the proponents do not have standing to appeal Prop 8 is because gay marriage damages no one. None of the people involved could articulate an actual injury they suffered from having Prop 8 overturned. No injury, no standing.
But then you have to deny that heterosexual couples are harmed by gay marriage, a claim that is at the heart of the anti-gay marriage movement. They didn't do that here.
I just find it funny how many Democrats that are singing the praises of the Supreme Court are some of the same ones that either voted for DOMA or, in one case, signed it into law.Not that funny. It was a bad choice, made under duress, and they chose the lesser of two evils. At the time, the idea of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage seemed much more likely, and by "giving ground" it helped prevent that.
If I point a gun at you and demand 'your money or your life,' I would expect you to choose to give me your money. I'd still expect you to denounce me as a criminal at the earliest opportunity.
That's probably the worst analogy I've heard for a political argument in quite some time.
I doubt a Constitutional amendment would have passed as easily as you think, and I'm not that charitable to think that they were "taking one for the team" to bide their time.
Actually, it is a perfectly apt example for the situation that Clinton was in. Republicans were in a position to be able to override his veto and potentially push through a constitutional ban, and gay marriage support was arround 30%, so people thought the likelyhood that it would have passed if it went to public vote was strong. The bill was seen as a compromise favoring Democrats to allow them to buy time.
I just find it funny how many Democrats that are singing the praises of the Supreme Court are some of the same ones that either voted for DOMA or, in one case, signed it into law.
Why is it a bad thing for people to learn and change their opinions? Especially when they do so for the better?
But then you have to deny that heterosexual couples are harmed by gay marriage, a claim that is at the heart of the anti-gay marriage movement. They didn't do that here.
Er, they did do roughly that:
"Petitioners have no role—special or otherwise—in its enforcement. They therefore have no “personal stake” in defending its enforcement that is distinguishable from the general interest of every California citizen. "
"Article III’s requirement that a party invoking the jurisdiction of a federal court seek relief for a personal, particularized injury serves vital interests going to the role of the Judiciary in the federal system of separated powers. States cannot alter that role simply by issuing to private parties who otherwise lack standing a ticket to the federal courthouse."
The SCOTUS didn't have to "deny that heterosexual couples are harmed by gay marriage." That's not the way the court system works in the first place. The SCOTUS simply -- and correctly -- observed that none of the participants in this case were able to articulate being harmed in any meaningful way.
If you feel that you -- YOU, YOURSELF, AS AN INDIVIDUAL -- are harmed by allowing gay marriage generally, you are welcome to refile the case.
So, basically, the SCOTUS wasn't the one that denied that heterosexual couples are harmed by gay marriage. The heterosexual couples conveniently did that for them.
Actually, it is a perfectly apt example for the situation that Clinton was in. Republicans were in a position to be able to override his veto and potentially push through a constitutional ban, and gay marriage support was arround 30%, so people thought the likelyhood that it would have passed if it went to public vote was strong. The bill was seen as a compromise favoring Democrats to allow them to buy time.
.... which you can establish for yourself by digging around in the newspaper archives of the time and seeing what the commentators thought of that.
I'd also point out that the stratagem appears to have worked. While I sympathize with the people denied federal benefits for nearly 20 years, I'd rather have the denial be only 20 years rather than 120.
I just find it funny how many Democrats that are singing the praises of the Supreme Court are some of the same ones that either voted for DOMA or, in one case, signed it into law.Why is it a bad thing for people to learn and change their opinions? Especially when they do so for the better?
Is that what this is? I haven't heard one of them yet say "You know, at first I was against this, but now I see that it's the right thing." That, to me, would be an indicator of a change of mind, rather than the simple siding with the winners and going with the crowd that it seems to be.
But then you have to deny that heterosexual couples are harmed by gay marriage, a claim that is at the heart of the anti-gay marriage movement. They didn't do that here.Er, they did do roughly that:
Further to previous:
The only individuals who sought to appeal [the order overturning Prop 8] were petitioners, who had intervened in the District Court. But the District Court had not ordered them to do or refrain from doing anything. To have standing, a litigant must seek relief for an injury that affects him in a “personal and individual way.” (cites omitted) He must possess a “direct stake in the outcome” of the case. Here, however, petitioners had no “direct stake” in the outcome of their appeal. Their only interest in having the District Court order reversed was to vindicate the constitutional validity of a generally applicable California law. We have repeatedly held that such a “generalized grievance,” no matter how sincere, is insufficient to confer standing. A litigant “raising only a generally available grievance about government—claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large—does not state an Article III case or controversy.”
Stripped of the legalese,.... no harm, no case. Petitioners lack "a judicially cognizable interest of their own."
That's one of the reasons that so many cases (Roe v. Wade is a classic example) start with a plaintiff-hunt. In order to be able to file the suit against abortion restrictions, they first had to find a specific pregnant woman who wanted an abortion and was unable to get it. In fact, they found a half-dozen pregnant women, but all of them except for Roe herself were unable to establish to the court's satisfaction that they had standing (and their claims were ultimately dismissed). I can't sue simply because "I feel that this law is wrong." I have to be able to say "I have been personally and individually injured by this law" -- or non-law, in this case, and I have to be able to specifically trace that injury to the law I'm challenging.
Petitioners failed even to allege any injury. Hence, no harm, no case.
Unfortunately, where the Supreme Court is concerned, that 5-4 majority isn't much. Still, I know plenty of folks that support marriage equality, even my dyed-in-the-wool Republican parents.Where the Supreme Court is concerned, a 5-4 ruling has the exact same weight as a 9-0 ruling.
Of course it does. A ruling is a ruling. I'm just saying that such a close vote shows that this country isn't as far along the road of social progress as some people would like to think. Look at the hit the Voter Rights Act took, for example, and what followed in some states only hours afterwards.
Is that what this is? I haven't heard one of them yet say "You know, at first I was against this, but now I see that it's the right thing." That, to me, would be an indicator of a change of mind, rather than the simple siding with the winners and going with the crowd that it seems to be.I just find it funny how many Democrats that are singing the praises of the Supreme Court are some of the same ones that either voted for DOMA or, in one case, signed it into law.Why is it a bad thing for people to learn and change their opinions? Especially when they do so for the better?
Is this just generic cynicism towards politicians? Or is there a specific response you have a problem with?
By overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, the Court recognized that discrimination towards any group holds us all back in our efforts to form a more perfect union. We are also encouraged that marriage equality may soon return to California. We applaud the hard work of the advocates who have fought so relentlessly for this day, and congratulate Edie Windsor on her historic victory.
It doesn't sound like they're trying to take credit for the overturning. People in general have a hard time saying "I was wrong" or "I did the wrong thing back then".
If it's just generic cynicism, I won't disturb you any more and let you carry on.
I believe that was also argued in the district level appeal or the original case, probably the latter. Those arguing in favor of Prop 8 weren't able to show the harm they claimed.
Well, in the original case, the petitioners weren't involved at all -- it was a case against the State of California. So the question didn't arise.
After California lost the case at the district level, the State officially opted not to appeal, and the Appellate Court punted the question of standing to the California Supreme Court. (If you read the SCOTUS opinion, they're rather harsh about that decision to punt.) Once California decided the petitioners had standing, the Appellate Court accepted that decision, largely because they were going to confirm the decision anyway, so it didn't matter who was on the losing side.
Of course it does. A ruling is a ruling. I'm just saying that such a close vote shows that this country isn't as far along the road of social progress as some people would like to think. Look at the hit the Voter Rights Act took, for example, and what followed in some states only hours afterwards.
Public opinion polling and popular vote results are probably a better indication of where the country is at, socially, than the results of a ruling made by nine members of the AARP.
It was 17 years ago.
Man, you make me feel old.
Anyway, hated DOMA in 1996, hate it still.
More nostalgia: my hometown, a typical New Hampshire libertarian backwater, had its school board taken over by the Christian Coalition when I was a senior in high school. They waged a covert campaign around lower taxes and, of course, this being NH, they won.
As soon as they actually were sitting, they rammed through a slew of crap: moments of silence, no discussion of homosexuality in the classroom, no discussion of communism (hee hee! too late, suckers!), etc., etc.
The town exploded. Mass demonstrations (okay, maybe 100 people, but I was interviewed by Channel 9 wearing my Mao cap) in front of the school, mass refusal to abide by the moments of silence, every town meeting became a battleground, etc., etc.
As soon as there was an opportunity, the CC members were all kicked out on their asses.
Not bad for 1995. Of course, NH is the coolest state in the union.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is that what this is? I haven't heard one of them yet say "You know, at first I was against this, but now I see that it's the right thing." That, to me, would be an indicator of a change of mind, rather than the simple siding with the winners and going with the crowd that it seems to be.I just find it funny how many Democrats that are singing the praises of the Supreme Court are some of the same ones that either voted for DOMA or, in one case, signed it into law.Why is it a bad thing for people to learn and change their opinions? Especially when they do so for the better?Is this just generic cynicism towards politicians? Or is there a specific response you have a problem with?
By overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, the Court recognized that discrimination towards any group holds us all back in our efforts to form a more perfect union. We are also encouraged that marriage equality may soon return to California. We applaud the hard work of the advocates who have fought so relentlessly for this day, and congratulate Edie Windsor on her historic victory.It doesn't sound like they're trying to take credit for the overturning. People in general have a hard time saying "I was wrong" or "I did the wrong thing back then".
If it's just generic cynicism, I won't disturb you any more and let you carry on.
Normally, I would agree. In this case:
I realized that I was, you know, over 60 years old. I grew up in a different time. And I was hung up about the word. And I had all these gay friends. I had all these gay couple friends. And I was hung up about it. And I decided I was wrong.
Public opinion polling and popular vote results are probably a better indication of where the country is at, socially, than the results of a ruling made by nine members of the AARP.
Why you gotta hate on the AARP?
Public opinion polling and popular vote results are probably a better indication of where the country is at, socially, than the results of a ruling made by nine members of the AARP.Why you gotta hate on the AARP?
Not hating on them, just pointing out that it's pretty hard to call a group of nine elderly, highly educated political appointees an accurate barometer of national public opinion. Remember, the purpose of the Supreme Court is not to act as a proxy of the people (that is, ostensibly, the job of elected representatives) but rather to act as vanguards of the Constitution.
Turns out it wouldn't even be a proper barometer of the AARP.
Yeah, the original case didn't talk about standing, but it did address the "harm to anyone" issue. IIRC, the arguments that gay marriage harmed straight couples or children or anyone else were pretty laughable and demolished in the judge's ruling.
Well, it's hard to argue convincingly for something that isn't true.
You're right, of course. I've read few decisions that harsh an "expert" as badly as the SINGLE "expert" on the petitioners' side was harshed. Having said that, it's very hard to find a single way even in which the hard right will accept that "it's better for gays to live together and raise children while not married than it is for them to marry." Once you phrase the question that way, as the judge did from the bench, the entire anti-gay-marriage position collapses.
Is this just generic cynicism towards politicians? Or is there a specific response you have a problem with?
Perish the thought. I believe with all my heart and soul that every politician in Washington is there solely to further the benefit and welfare of the American people as a whole, free of any thought of self-service or outside agenda.
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perish the thought. I believe with all my heart and soul that every politician in Washington is there solely to further the benefit and welfare of the American people as a whole, free of any thought of self-service or outside agenda.
Is this just generic cynicism towards politicians? Or is there a specific response you have a problem with?
So then, your problem is with the ones who work outside the beltway? :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've read few decisions that harsh an "expert" as badly as the SINGLE "expert" on the petitioners' side was harshed.Do you have a link to that bit?
<Rummage, rummage, rummage> Of course I do. <Rummage, rummage, razzafrazzin' kids today don't know what Google is for...>
https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf
The good bit starts on page 37 with the discussion of David Blankenhorn, who "lacks the qualifications to offer opinion testimony" and as a consequence "none of Blankenhorn’s opinions is [sic] reliable." "Blankenhorn’s mere recitation of text in evidence" -- i.e., all he did was quote mining but no interpretation or analysis -- "does not assist the court in understanding the evidence because reading, as much as hearing, “is within the ability and experience of the trier of fact.”"
"Blankenhorn’s opinions are not supported by reliable evidence or methodology and Blankenhorn failed to consider evidence contrary to his view in presenting his testimony. The court therefore finds the opinions of Blankenhorn to be unreliable and entitled to essentially no weight."
Judges' opinions like that ones are career-enders. Of course, now that he's been proven in court to be fundamentally irrational and unreliable, he can go on to work for Fox News.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
<Rummage, rummage, rummage> Of course I do. <Rummage, rummage, razzafrazzin' kids today don't know what Google is for...>
Thanks for the link—that's some quality legal smackdown. ("Moreover, much of his testimony contradicted his opinions.")
(You'd think a guy who wrote a book called "Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem" would be all for a family with two daddies...)
Of course it does. A ruling is a ruling. I'm just saying that such a close vote shows that this country isn't as far along the road of social progress as some people would like to think. Look at the hit the Voter Rights Act took, for example, and what followed in some states only hours afterwards.Unfortunately, where the Supreme Court is concerned, that 5-4 majority isn't much. Still, I know plenty of folks that support marriage equality, even my dyed-in-the-wool Republican parents.Where the Supreme Court is concerned, a 5-4 ruling has the exact same weight as a 9-0 ruling.The Supremes are 9 people each appointed by a single person when the previous occupant of any given seat either died or retired since the Court has no fixed term of occupancy. I wouldn't read much into point spreads.
Also keep in mind that that while in many states 70-80+ percent of the population favor expanded marriage rites, that isn't being reflected in votes by their Tea Party representatives. Again... read point spreads with caution.
Also, it's not completely true that a 5-4 ruling is the same as a 9-0 ruling, as dissents do get studied and sometimes cited in later decisions. They are often used as support when a prior ruling is overturned.
Today is a good day. After five difficult years, I can once more embrace my conviction that California is superior to all the other states.Phbbt, we got gay marriage AND legal pot waaaay before they did. ;-)
Weird how those go together... what are you PUTTING in that stuff....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Very good news, just a shame in the very same period, the SC utterly destroyed the 5th amendment and the voting rights act. -_-
So, how will this change affect the military, where the benefits are quite good and iirc currently still not allocated to same-sex spouses (largely due to DOMA being federal law)? Especially since military members tend to move to all sorts of different states and aren't the ones who have final say in the matter.
Weird how those go together... what are you PUTTING in that stuff....Today is a good day. After five difficult years, I can once more embrace my conviction that California is superior to all the other states.Phbbt, we got gay marriage AND legal pot waaaay before they did. ;-)
Happiness and equality, dude. Happiness and equality.
So, how will this change affect the military, where the benefits are quite good and iirc currently still not allocated to same-sex spouses (largely due to DOMA being federal law)? Especially since military members tend to move to all sorts of different states and aren't the ones who have final say in the matter.
I suspect we'll see some more court cases on the subject. My bet is that there will be a huge fight in Congress that fails to resolve anything and ten years from now SCOTUS will find that marriage equality is a human right.
[
I'm not sure it matters from the federal point of view where the couple lives. If they're legally married they should be treated so by the federal government, even if the state government doesn't recognize it.
Unfortunately, the Federal government defers to state governments about marriage, and different agencies have different standards. The IRS, for examples, says that you're married if the state you live in says you're married. Immigration says you're married if the state you celebrated your marriage in says you're married.
To regularize this will involve congressional action.