Just read the Twitter updates.Yeah, I think Scalia stole his spine and hid it in the coat room.
Kennedy's a pussy.
As a reminder, the Perry case could have several different outcomes:
1.) The case could be dismissed if the Supreme Court finds that the Prop 8 proponents lack standing in the case.
2.) The Supreme Court could rule that statewide bans on same-sex marriage do not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protections Clause.
3.) The Supreme Court could uphold the Ninth Circuit's limited ruling that a state cannot grant a right such as marriage and then rescind said right. This would affect California and theoretically any other state in which this has occurred.
4. The Court could rule that gays and lesbians have a fundamental right to marry and that prohibitions on same-sex marriage are inherently unconstitutional. This move would affect all fifty states, the majority of which do not currently recognize or allow same-sex marriages.
EDIT: Since the decision is expected this June, when we come closer to the deadline I'll start a poll on what people think the results will be.
As a reminder, the Perry case could have several different outcomes:
1.) The case could be dismissed if the Supreme Court finds that the Prop 8 proponents lack standing in the case.
2.) The Supreme Court could rule that statewide bans on same-sex marriage do not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protections Clause.
3.) The Supreme Court could uphold the Ninth Circuit's limited ruling that a state cannot grant a right such as marriage and then rescind said right. This would affect California and theoretically any other state in which this has occurred.
4. The Court could rule that gays and lesbians have a fundamental right to marry and that prohibitions on same-sex marriage are inherently unconstitutional. This move would affect all fifty states, the majority of which do not currently recognize or allow same-sex marriages.
EDIT: Since the decision is expected this June, when we come closer to the deadline I'll start a poll on what people think the results will be.
I am hoping that the 4 option will be the one that is favored and this will have a profound effect never seen since the days of the civil rights movement (I forget which specific cases came before the SCOTUS at the time.)
I am hoping that the 4 option will be the one that is favored and this will have a profound effect never seen since the days of the civil rights movement (I forget which specific cases came before the SCOTUS at the time.)
Either way then, Prop 8 will be invalidated. And even that I'd gladly accept more than the Court upholding the ban.I am hoping that the 4 option will be the one that is favored and this will have a profound effect never seen since the days of the civil rights movement (I forget which specific cases came before the SCOTUS at the time.)
From what I'm seeing on the Twitter feed, looks like Kennedy's gonna pussy out and they're likely either going to issue a very narrow ruling or dismiss it.
I wonder how much whining we'll get from the fundies if the court rules in favor of same-sex marriage.
Has anyone made a running count of how people forgot about the 14th amendment to the constitution?
JUSTICE SCALIA: When did it become unconstitutional to ban same-sex marriage? Was it 1791? 1868?
TED OLSON: When did it become unconstitutional to ban interracial marriage?
JUSTICE SCALIA: Don’t try to answer my question with your own question.
Update: To be fair to Scalia, here was his full answer: “It’s an easy question, I think, for that one. At — at the time that the Equal Protection Clause was adopted. That’s absolutely true. But don’t give me a question to my question.”
Nate Silver on Same-sex marriage statistics (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/how-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage-is-changing-and-what-it-means/?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes). I really want to keep this man all for myself, and he can be a great gambling partner.Gotta say, it's a good link, but I'm a tad disturbed (logically) that the red states most vehemently opposed to recognisig same sex unions, and providing equal rights, are also those which are more likely to condone bestiality...
*cough* 3/5ths and even that was only a proxy grab for power... *cough*QuoteJUSTICE SCALIA: When did it become unconstitutional to ban same-sex marriage? Was it 1791? 1868?
TED OLSON: When did it become unconstitutional to ban interracial marriage?
JUSTICE SCALIA: Don’t try to answer my question with your own question.
Update: To be fair to Scalia, here was his full answer: “It’s an easy question, I think, for that one. At — at the time that the Equal Protection Clause was adopted. That’s absolutely true. But don’t give me a question to my question.”
Let me get this straight: The constitution has something to the tune of "all men are created equal" but unless you make a specific clause for each group or situation... discrimination is ok?
Some handy numbers: http://news.msn.com/politics/gay-marriage-by-the-numbers (http://news.msn.com/politics/gay-marriage-by-the-numbers)
I'm hoping for the best here, but I really can't get over how ridiculous this entire situation is. The fact that we're still fighting for equality, and that so many people are still against it. I know their reasoning, but it's ludicrous.
Hell even in the land of cheese-eating surrender monkeys* not everyone is on board with the idea of gays and lesbians being human beings who deserve the same rights as heterosexuals.Some handy numbers: http://news.msn.com/politics/gay-marriage-by-the-numbers (http://news.msn.com/politics/gay-marriage-by-the-numbers)
I'm hoping for the best here, but I really can't get over how ridiculous this entire situation is. The fact that we're still fighting for equality, and that so many people are still against it. I know their reasoning, but it's ludicrous.
A thousand times this.
The fact that gay marriage and gay rights is still even an ISSUE is depressing.
Hell even in the land of cheese-eating surrender monkeys* not everyone is on board with the idea of gays and lesbians being human beings who deserve the same rights as heterosexuals.Some handy numbers: http://news.msn.com/politics/gay-marriage-by-the-numbers (http://news.msn.com/politics/gay-marriage-by-the-numbers)
I'm hoping for the best here, but I really can't get over how ridiculous this entire situation is. The fact that we're still fighting for equality, and that so many people are still against it. I know their reasoning, but it's ludicrous.
A thousand times this.
The fact that gay marriage and gay rights is still even an ISSUE is depressing.
*I'm French and therefore I can say that. I'm pretty sure that's how that works.
Hell even in the land of cheese-eating surrender monkeys* not everyone is on board with the idea of gays and lesbians being human beings who deserve the same rights as heterosexuals.Well to be fair, a lot of those douchebags are also against other groups of heterosexuals having the same sets of rights when it comes to other issues.
*I'm French and therefore I can say that. I'm pretty sure that's how that works.
From my reading of the case, I think we're most likely to see SCOTUS either just deny standing, or make a narrow ruling. I very much doubt they'll uphold Prop 8, but it's also unlikely that they'll make a broad ruling.Well if a lawsuit were started now in a state that does not offer same-sex marriages at all, it would still take at least a few years to make it to the Supreme Court. Remember, the Perry case began in 2009, and the Court's opinion will be revealed in June of this year. This would give ample time for more states to legalize it by legislation or ballot measure, as well as for more people (especially Republicans) to cross over to the pro-equality side. That might give the Court the push it needs.
Of course, if they make a narrow ruling, then I think the logical approach for gay marriage advocates is to sue somewhere else, preferably in a state that never granted gay marriage in the first place. Although seeing their waffling, I'm no longer quite sure that they would make a nationwide ruling given a lack of other options.
Flip flop from a guy who said that it would lead to people marrying dolphins
So, has Kennedy found his balls yet?Only in this Onion version (http://www.theonion.com/articles/supreme-court-on-gay-marriage-sure-who-cares,31812/) of the oral arguments.
I think they strike down DOMA but up hold prop 8, basically making what defines a marriage as a state issue.I sincerely doubt they'll uphold it. Most likely they'll dismiss it over the standing issue, letting the Ninth Circuit decision stand.
Was it Prop 8 in California that was found unconstitutional not because refusing gay marriage is a wrong, but because you can't take away rights that have already been given? Or was that another state? If the former, then it'll have horrible, horrible implications if it's upheld.Yeah that's California. Judge Walker's ruling was broad, striking down bans on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional in general, but the Ninth Circuit issued a much more narrow ruling which stated that you cannot grant a right such as marriage and then revoke that right.
Flip flop from a guy who said that it would lead to people marrying dolphins
I suspect that he still opposes gay marriage, he just thinks that the arguments put forward, being primarily based on Christian doctrine, are weak, and that sticking to those arguments will lead to gay marriage becoming the law of the land.
(Ugh, posted this in the wrong thread...)
I think they strike down DOMA but up hold prop 8, basically making what defines a marriage as a state issue.I sincerely doubt they'll uphold it. Most likely they'll dismiss it over the standing issue, letting the Ninth Circuit decision stand.
I kind of agree with you on that--the questioning at the oral arguments was more geared toward whether or not these specific Prop 8 proponents suffered harm which could allow them to have standing. That's why one of the Justices (I forget who) brought up the example of a Prop 8 supporter who would be forced to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. So while someone should be able to defend the law when the government refuses to, the question is about who is legally qualified to do so. So if they don't dismiss it for lack of standing then I believe the odds are stronger that they will invalidate Prop 8 in the narrowest way than to uphold it as constitutional, especially considering Kennedy's past decisions (no matter how cautious he appears).I think they strike down DOMA but up hold prop 8, basically making what defines a marriage as a state issue.I sincerely doubt they'll uphold it. Most likely they'll dismiss it over the standing issue, letting the Ninth Circuit decision stand.
I don't think they will dismiss it over standing. I think they are going to say that since this was a voter proposition the people can defend it when the state will not.
In fact I don't like the idea that voter approved laws could not be defended by people if the state does not want to.
Scalia is the original intent poster boy after all.
Of course he's also an old white landowning male, so what's he got to lose?
Some handy numbers: http://news.msn.com/politics/gay-marriage-by-the-numbers (http://news.msn.com/politics/gay-marriage-by-the-numbers)
I'm hoping for the best here, but I really can't get over how ridiculous this entire situation is. The fact that we're still fighting for equality, and that so many people are still against it. I know their reasoning, but it's ludicrous.
A thousand times this.
The fact that gay marriage and gay rights is still even an ISSUE is depressing.
I'm wondering when this is all said and done and gay rights is settled, how many gays will eventually oppress the trans lot when it's their turn to bat for full blown fight for rights (because let's face it, the gay community would rather focus on the rights of LGB and getting that through first)
I'm wondering when this is all said and done and gay rights is settled, how many gays will eventually oppress the trans lot when it's their turn to bat for full blown fight for rights (because let's face it, the gay community would rather focus on the rights of LGB and getting that through first)
I can tell you right now, too fucking many.
As it stands, many are already trying to backstab the trans* community. I don't know if they account for "most" or "some", but it's certainly a non-trivial number.
As for race this is not really true stateside but I see a lot of LGBT Europeans who are racist fucks (look at all the gay PVV members
So Prop 8 will probably be dismissed but it's looking like we've got 5 for DOMA to go away. That's the ruling I'm more interested in.
Ironbite-see you in June/July for that shit storm.
I have deep sympathy for gay people in Islamic countries. The sad irony is that their "hated enemy", Israel, is one of the most gay-friendly countries on Earth.
^This
They tend to overstate their LGBT record in a way of making them look better similar to the only democracy myth
Nate Silver on Same-sex marriage statistics (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/how-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage-is-changing-and-what-it-means/?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes). I really want to keep this man all for myself, and he can be a great gambling partner.Gotta say, it's a good link, but I'm a tad disturbed (logically) that the red states most vehemently opposed to recognisig same sex unions, and providing equal rights, are also those which are more likely to condone bestiality...
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/03/26/us/politics/fivethirtyeight-0326-marriage5/fivethirtyeight-0326-marriage5-blog480.png)
So where does that whole slippery slope argument come from exactly? Heck in those states, the best angle of attack might be to legalize marrying your pig, and see if it can extend over time to human beings...
Nate Silver on Same-sex marriage statistics (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/how-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage-is-changing-and-what-it-means/?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes). I really want to keep this man all for myself, and he can be a great gambling partner.Gotta say, it's a good link, but I'm a tad disturbed (logically) that the red states most vehemently opposed to recognisig same sex unions, and providing equal rights, are also those which are more likely to condone bestiality...
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/03/26/us/politics/fivethirtyeight-0326-marriage5/fivethirtyeight-0326-marriage5-blog480.png)
So where does that whole slippery slope argument come from exactly? Heck in those states, the best angle of attack might be to legalize marrying your pig, and see if it can extend over time to human beings...
Is it bad when I'm excited that my state is all the way up at 32.5% support? We're not dead last at something!
Whenever I think about how much I hate Ohio, I should think about how glad I am I'm not in Mississippi.I think the people of Afghanistan would be glad that they're not in Mississippi.
Whenever I think about how much I hate Ohio, I should think about how glad I am I'm not in Mississippi.I think the people of Afghanistan would be glad that they're not in Mississippi.