quote:Originally posted by Geraine: My cousin (who is gay) posted on Facebook that he was uber excited that the SCOTUS was going to hear the Prop 8 case....
Honestly I thought he would be mad about it. The previous courts ruled against Prop 8, so if the SCOTUS denied hearing the case the previous ruling would stand, correct?
Hearing the case now opens up the possibility that the SCOTUS say that marriage is a state issue, in which the amendment to the CA constitution would stand, effectively banning gay marriage.
Am I misunderstanding something?
It's not really a possibility. That's probably what you're missing. Prop 8 is so baldly anti-constitutional, so badly defended and so indefensible that it stands almost no chance of being upheld, and the previous decisions stand almost no chance of being reversed. And a decision on Prop. 8 from the supreme court effectively sets precedent against any such future laws. It will establish a powerful reason for federal courts to easily dismiss such laws, and thus a powerful disincentive for proposing them.
The mistake, or inevitable miscalculation by anti-SSM folks in California was trying to manipulate our state constitution. That got the feds involved, and now it's a federal matter- and the decision will go against prop. 8. That is as near a certainty as we can have about a SCOTUS decision. How much against is the only question.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Despite Gingrich’s two divorces and history of infidelity, he has attempted to present himself as a defender of traditional marriage throughout his unsuccessful campaign for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. He signed the National Organization for Marriage’s pledge to support a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex unions. He said the movement toward marriage equality was a “temporary aberration that will dissipate” and compared same-sex relationships to “pagan behaviors.”
quote:On gay marriage, meanwhile, Gingrich argued that Republicans could no longer close their eyes to the course of public opinion. While he continued to profess a belief that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, he suggested that the party (and he himself) could accept a distinction between a “marriage in a church from a legal document issued by the state” — the latter being acceptable. “I think that this will be much more difficult than immigration for conservatism to come to grips with,” he said, noting that the debate’s dynamics had changed after state referenda began resulting in the legalization of same-sex marriage. “It is in every family. It is in every community. The momentum is clearly now in the direction in finding some way to … accommodate and deal with reality. And the reality is going to be that in a number of American states — and it will be more after 2014 — gay relationships will be legal, period.”
quote: In explaining the legal merits of their cause (equal protection under the 14th Amendment; Loving v. Virginia, in which the court called marriage one of the “basic civil rights of man” as well as a “fundamental freedom”), the challengers [AGAINST PROP 8**] are also adept at claiming emotional territory.
They point out that “in their 65-page brief about marriage in California,” the supporters of Proposition 8 “do not even mention the word ‘love.” Nor do the supporters understand “the privacy, liberty, and associational values” that underlie marriage. They believe the institution exists so that society can channel “heterosexual potential parents into ‘responsible procreation.’”
Arguing against this “cramped,” “state-centric,” “utilitarian” take — which doesn’t make sense because the state could theoretically deny any infertile couple the right to marry — the challengers emphasize that marriage involves “love, commitment and intimacy.” They present themselves as champions of the human heart.
As they frame the debate, it’s man versus machine. So-called traditionalists see marriage like a state-owned factory for creating new citizens, while those who endorse equality value the rights and feelings of individuals.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The NYTs is siding with the opponents of Proposition 8, and talking about what soulless dummies the proponents are?
posted
I'm still nervous about how they decide the issue of standing. I think DOMA gets knocked down regardless, but I don't want it to happen on a technicality.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The NYTs is siding with the opponents of Proposition 8, and talking about what soulless dummies the proponents are?
to be honest, it IS a pretty soulless and mechanical envisioning of marriage that they used to try to find some space they could work the no-homo angle as a legitimate state interest, and I don't need to make the case that the proponents were dummies, they did a good enough job of doing that on their own, in court.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not speaking to the merits of their arguments. But if the National Review came out with a big opinion piece on why Obamacare proponents are big government ninnies, and their arguments all rest on a sense of "entitlement" but that opponents have clear effective passionate arguments that support personal freedom, the economy, and better healthcare, I'd have the same response.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to claim the NYT has no bias, but in the blog post linked above the NYT heavily quotes from the merits brief submitted by Olson/Boies.
No bias is necessary here from the NYT; they seem to convey the spirit of the brief as written. That is precisely the tone used in the introduction of the brief:
quote: Proponents accuse Plaintiffs (repeatedly) of “redefining marriage.” E.g., Prop. Br. 2. But it is Proponents who have imagined (not from any of thisCourt’s decisions) a cramped definition of marriage as a utilitarian incentive devised by and put into service by the State—society’s way of channeling heterosexual potential parents into “responsible pro-creation.” In their 65-page brief about marriage inCalifornia, Proponents do not even mention the word “love.” They seem to have no understanding of the privacy, liberty, and associational values that underlie this Court’s recognition of marriage as a fundamental, personal right... under Proponents’ peculiar, litigation-inspired concept of marriage, same-sex couples have no need to be married and no cause to complain that they are excluded from the “most important relation in life.” Indeed, Proponents’state-centric construct of marriage means that the State could constitutionally deny any infertile couple the right to marry, and could prohibit marriage altogether if it chose to pursue a society less committed to “responsible” procreation.
This, of course, reflects a complete “failure to ap-preciate the extent of the liberty at stake,” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 567 (2003), not to mention matters such as love, commitment, and intimacy that most Americans associate with marriage. As Proponents see it, marriage exists solely to serve society’s interest; it makes no sense to speak of an individual’s right to marry.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The NYTs is siding with the opponents of Proposition 8, and talking about what soulless dummies the proponents are?
I'm not sure I'm following the complaint here. Are you upset that they are reporting the truth that fits into your perception of their bias?
I also think you're reading it wrong. Though the leaders of prop 8 supporters are pretty terrible people, that's not what I see as the point here.
What I read was about the pretty clever maneuver the anti-prop 8 people pulled to highlight how far the pro people had to stretch to make the we need to keep gays from marrying argument. You have to strip all the emotional, personal contexts from marriage (you know, the stuff that the vast majority of people see as the primary aspects of marriage) to even have a chance of denying it to gay people.
As I read it, the author isn't explicitly agreeing with this perspective (I mean, you get that he is, but I think that's also because it is so obviously the truth). Rather he's describing the way they've framed the argument.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'm not speaking to the merits of their arguments. But if the National Review came out with a big opinion piece on why Obamacare proponents are big government ninnies, and their arguments all rest on a sense of "entitlement" but that opponents have clear effective passionate arguments that support personal freedom, the economy, and better healthcare, I'd have the same response.
Well, that's an equivalent response that you can only have specifically by not speaking to the merits of the article's argument.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The NYTs is siding with the opponents of Proposition 8, and talking about what soulless dummies the proponents are?
I'm not sure I'm following the complaint here. Are you upset that they are reporting the truth that fits into your perception of their bias?
I also think you're reading it wrong. Though the leaders of prop 8 supporters are pretty terrible people, that's not what I see as the point here.
What I read was about the pretty clever maneuver the anti-prop 8 people pulled to highlight how far the pro people had to stretch to make the we need to keep gays from marrying argument. You have to strip all the emotional, personal contexts from marriage (you know, the stuff that the vast majority of people see as the primary aspects of marriage) to even have a chance of denying it to gay people.
As I read it, the author isn't explicitly agreeing with this perspective (I mean, you get that he is, but I think that's also because it is so obviously the truth). Rather he's describing the way they've framed the argument.
I'm not upset at all. I read the NYTs every single day. But the opinions of their editorial staff on this issue are basically unanimous. So any pieces dealing with this issue (right or wrong) is going to be lopsided. It'd be like a New England paper in the 1850s talking about slavery needing to be abolished. Expected, and unsurprising.
-----
quote:Well, that's an equivalent response that you can only have specifically by not speaking to the merits of the article's argument.
How very true!
-------
quote: Apparently 75 signed on so far (and counting?).... finally!
I wish it hadn't taken so long. There is so much to conservatism that speaks to giving people the freedom to enter into contracts and compacts like marriage without government interference.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: there is also the remaining assumption, that I certainly don't want to see borne true but which I cynically assume:
he was probably killed because of his open homosexuality
I suspect that is likely the case.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Since OSC is on the board, maybe he can tell us in what order they are going to organize their boycotts against the corporations who, like Starbucks and General Mills, "took sides in the culture war" by signing amicus briefs in *support* of gay marriage for the upcoming SCOTUS cases.
Beware the wrath of NOM, you puny corporations! Let the boycotts begin!
quote:A - Adobe Systems, Amazon.com, Apple, Inc. B - Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Boston Medical Center, Corp. C- CBS Corporation, Citigroup, Credit Suisse Securities D - Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Deustche Bank, AG E - EBay, Inc. Eldercare, Inc. F - Facebook, Inc., 500BC G - The Goldman Sachs Group, Google, Inc. H - Homeward Pet Adoption Center, Horizon Air Industries I - Intel Corp., Intuit, Inc. J - Jet Blue Airways, Johnson & Johnson K - Kimpton Hotel and Restuarant Group, Kinzer Real Estate L - Levi Strauss & Co., Liberty Mutual Group, Inc. M - Mars, Inc. Microsoft Corporation, The McGraw-Hill Companies N - New York Life Insurance Company, NIKE O - Oracle America, Orbitz Worldwide P - Pfizer, Inc. Puma Spring Vineyards Q - Qualcomm, Inc. R - Ray Holley Communications, Resource Systems Group, Inc. S - Silicon Valley Progressive Faith Community, Starbucks Corporation T - Total Home Improvement, Inc. Twitter, Inc. U - U.S. Balloon Company, Unigo, LLC V - Viacom, Inc. Vulcan, Inc. W - Walt Disney Company, Wasserman Media Group, X - Zerox Corporation Z - Zynga, Inc.
quote:Originally posted by Anthonie: Okay, N.O.M., what's the plan?
Since OSC is on the board, maybe he can tell us in what order they are going to organize their boycotts against the corporations who, like Starbucks and General Mills, "took sides in the culture war" by signing amicus briefs in *support* of gay marriage for the upcoming SCOTUS cases.
Beware the wrath of NOM, you puny corporations! Let the boycotts begin!
quote:A - Adobe Systems, Amazon.com, Apple, Inc. B - Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Boston Medical Center, Corp. C- CBS Corporation, Citigroup, Credit Suisse Securities D - Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Deustche Bank, AG E - EBay, Inc. Eldercare, Inc. F - Facebook, Inc., 500BC G - The Goldman Sachs Group, Google, Inc. H - Homeward Pet Adoption Center, Horizon Air Industries I - Intel Corp., Intuit, Inc. J - Jet Blue Airways, Johnson & Johnson K - Kimpton Hotel and Restuarant Group, Kinzer Real Estate L - Levi Strauss & Co., Liberty Mutual Group, Inc. M - Mars, Inc. Microsoft Corporation, The McGraw-Hill Companies N - New York Life Insurance Company, NIKE O - Oracle America, Orbitz Worldwide P - Pfizer, Inc. Puma Spring Vineyards Q - Qualcomm, Inc. R - Ray Holley Communications, Resource Systems Group, Inc. S - Silicon Valley Progressive Faith Community, Starbucks Corporation T - Total Home Improvement, Inc. Twitter, Inc. U - U.S. Balloon Company, Unigo, LLC V - Viacom, Inc. Vulcan, Inc. W - Walt Disney Company, Wasserman Media Group, X - Zerox Corporation Z - Zynga, Inc.
I guess they have to stop using computers and cell phones (Apple, Microsoft, Intel, Qualcomm, Google, etc.). Maybe that means we'll hear a lot less from them.
Posts: 1357 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man, I admit it's so easy to hold NOM in contempt. Perhaps not a good thing to feel (although I'm not convinced it's actually bad to feel satisfaction when someone or thing bad is thwarted), but I do. It's also satisfying to watch the rather brisk pace of their turn from status-quo majority to derided fringe.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by narrativium: I guess they have to stop using computers and cell phones (Apple, Microsoft, Intel, Qualcomm, Google, etc.). Maybe that means we'll hear a lot less from them.
Either that or move to Korea or China. Which would be fun to watch for other reasons.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: A member of the Illinois Republican Party’s central committee says a meeting was canceled partly because there weren’t enough votes to fire party chairman Pat Brady.
Some committeemen wanted to oust Brady, largely because he publicly supported a bill to legalize gay marriage earlier this year.
A meeting had been scheduled for Saturday. It was canceled Friday night amid pressure from prominent Republicans, including U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk and House Republican Leader Tom Cross.
Yet another lost battle for NOM who has been actively advocating his removal as GOP party chair. I wonder how much longer it will take until NOM finally fades away?
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have been thinking that the upcoming SCOTUS cases on DOMA and Prop 8 have the potential to repair the rift in the GOP over gay marriage rights.
If the Court rules in favor of gay marriage nationwide, that will diffuse the GOP infighting over the issue, since it will be settled in a way that they can say was out of their hands. That would repair the inter-generational schism within the party, since a majority of younger Republicans support gay nuptials. Such an outcome would allow GOP candidates to rant about how they disagree with the decision and thus maintain the support of far right voters within their party base, including many Evangelicals, but at the same time remove any need for politicians to have to vote "no" on pro-gay legislation which would alienate younger Republicans and moderates.
I wonder if some behind-the-scenes pressure may be coming from party leaders pushing for such an outcome? It makes sense that they may find it in their best interest for a sweeping decision from the Court to "impose" equal marriage.
Of course, eliminating gay marriage bans throughout the country is the correct decision legally and morally no matter the political considerations.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have a link, but a federal district court judge heard arguments on Thursday for gay marriage in Michigan. It was a hotly anticipated decision that has been in the making for more than a year, but he ended up pushing off his ruling until after SCOTUS rules. Most people think it's because if SCOTUS rules against gay marriage, he can rule on other grounds. So it looks like the ban in Michigan is in danger.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anthonie: Of course, eliminating gay marriage bans throughout the country is the correct decision legally and morally no matter the political considerations.
The smartest possible thing the Republicans could do right now, even better than actively supporting gay marriage, would be to just stop talking about it, full stop. Let the court decisions change the laws, let the legislatures write new ones, let the Democrats introduce national legislation, and let it pass by a slim majority. That would take the wind out of victorious sales for Democrats who never fought very hard for gay rights in the first place, most of them.
As it is, the only thing Obama has on Republicans is that he righted his ship a year or two before everyone else had gotten around to it (although late for a democratic). It's not much of a victory for dems unless the Republicans make it one by fighting against reason, hope, and, really, the whole basis of our democracy.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: "You're looking at what is the best course societywide to get you the optimal result in the widest variety of cases. That often is not open to people in individual cases. Certainly adoption in families headed, like Chief Roberts' family is, by a heterosexual couple, is by far the second-best option," said John Eastman, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage.
posted
Senator Rob Portman, once speculated to be a strong potential V.P. running mate for Romney, comes out *for* gay marriage.
His son is gay.
Having a close friend or family member who is gay often seems to trump philosophical rationalizations against gay rights and gay marriage. It personalizes the issue.
quote:Overall, those who say they have a family member or close friend who is gay are more than twice as likely to support gay marriage as those who don’t — 55% to 25%.
The survey is from 2007 data; I couldn't locate a more recent one. But the same relationship held as well in a 2003 Pew poll with percentages of 39% versus 21%.
quote:"...most importantly, every gay person must come out. As difficult as it is, you must tell your immediate family, you must tell your relatives, you must tell your friends — if they indeed are your friends — you must tell your neighbors, you must tell the people you work with, you must tell the people in the stores you shop in, and once they realize that we are indeed their children and that we are indeed everywhere, every myth, every lie, every innuendo will be destroyed once and for all. And once you do you will feel so much better.”
quote:on March 26th & March 27th the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of DOMA and California's Prop 8. What's all this and why should you care?
Prop 8 The first case that will be heard is Hollingsworth v. Perry In 2008 the California Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was legal under the California constitution which made gay people very happy and started getting gay married as hell and made bigots sad because gay people were happy and enjoying some legal protections. Unfortunately for the gays the California constitution was amended to implicitly state that no gay marriage was allowed anymore by the California constitution by California's retarded proposition system. In response a lawsuit was filed now known as Hollingsworth v. Perry that asserted that Prop 8 was unconstitutional under federal law. Why Hollingsworth and not the Gov? Well the last two administrations decided that Prop 8 was dumb and terrible and wouldn't defend it in court so some asshole by the name of Dennis Hollingsworth stepped in and said "I want to be known as the bigot trying to hurt gay people" and thus the lawsuit moved forward.
DOMA is a federal law banning federal recognition of gay marriage and this makes us homosexuals sad because like to be recognized, why do you think we wear all that glitter? Also federal recognition of gay marriage comes with a lot of other benefits under the law such as joint filing of taxes and taxation of property upon death of a spouse which is why we are here:
United States v. Windsor
The second arguments will be on United Starts v. Windsor which is a case challenging the constitutionality of DOMA which is a case brought by Edith Windsor after the death of her spouse Thea Spyer. In 2007 they legally married in Canada and returned back to New York which under state law recognized their same sex Canadian marriage as valid, then Thea Spyer died and let her assets to her wife Edith. Under federal law assets left to a surviving spouse are not taxed as income but the federal government is prevented by law from recognizing same sex marriages like Edith and Thea's and that includes the IRS which sent Edith a bill for $363,000 which pissed her off because it is grossly unfair and caused her to file a federal lawsuit challenging it. Pretty much everyone agrees that DOMA is unconstitutional as hell which includes the US Department of Justice under Obama who said they would not defend the law because it was terrible and unconstitutional and a huge waste of money so noted protectors of limited government and fiscal responsibility House Republicans stepped in and shoveled $3M into a private law firm to defend it.
quote:This might be the most important case the SCOTUS will decide in recent history and a lot of us will be following the hell out of it, it will be live blogged, twittered, facebooked, myspaced, AOLed and lots of other Web 2.0 buzzwords and the court has also said they will release audio of the hearing very quickly. Expect to hear lots of dumb as hell stuff from people that should know better because the opposing arguments are all terrible and offensive that will simultaneously cause us to laugh and cry.
Over the next three days I will update this thread with links to resources to follow the hearings and we can all laugh and cry together at the circus both inside the court room and outside as gay supporters (decent human beings)and opposition (terrible bigots) are both rallying around the court house.
posted
SCOTUSblog @SCOTUSblog 30m Breaking: 1st update- #prop8 unlikely to be upheld; either struck down or #scotus won’t decide case. More in 30 mins.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: SCOTUSblog @SCOTUSblog 30m Breaking: 1st update- #prop8 unlikely to be upheld; either struck down or #scotus won’t decide case. More in 30 mins.
At first I thought this said this: "#prop8 likely to be upheld, struck down, or #scotus won't decide case..."
I'll put my money on that.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
yeah, this is over. Arguments concluded. Proposition 8 will either stay invalidated, or actively be ruled unconstitutional.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
If SCOTUS decides not to rule on it, then the previous Circuit Court ruling stands which means no more Prop 8. But if they say there is no standing, then they would also vacate the previous court's ruling which means Prop 8 would stay on the books.
Everything seems to hinge on Justice Kennedy.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because I am clearly not a lawyer, why would a ruling of no standing vacate the previous rulings?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My understanding is that it would vacate only the federal court ruling below it, not the district court below that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It's actually not so cut and dried.
If SCOTUS decides not to rule on it, then the previous Circuit Court ruling stands which means no more Prop 8. But if they say there is no standing, then they would also vacate the previous court's ruling which means Prop 8 would stay on the books.
dagonee, you're posting on the wrong account :B
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: My understanding is that it would vacate only the federal court ruling below it, not the district court below that.
So it would vacate the ruling on Perry v. Schwarzenegger?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It's actually not so cut and dried.
If SCOTUS decides not to rule on it, then the previous Circuit Court ruling stands which means no more Prop 8. But if they say there is no standing, then they would also vacate the previous court's ruling which means Prop 8 would stay on the books.
dagonee, you're posting on the wrong account :B
Zounds! I've been found out!
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like seriously I guess you can get away with saying "It's actually not so cut and dried" but honestly this is pretty over. Anyone who thinks that Prop 8 stands a good chance of being saved by the supreme court
For all its flaws, every human being on the SCOTUS (yes, all seven of them) know that the social forces at play here are so monumental that the only thing they have in their power is to move us forward in removing the delay and denial of a right for homosexuals. It is not within their power to stop gay marriage. It is only within their power to monkeywrench into their legacy that time that they temporarily re-instituted Proposition 8, and they know they will not live the infamy of that ruling down, and the history books will say "the damage was later undone" by future rulings and/or legislation. They know what they're looking at, so the odds of them saving proposition 8 are minuscule.
Intrade may be dead, but my love of fat stacks of easy cash is not. Perhaps if some are convinced otherwise, I should let them put their money where their mouth is.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh I don't think Prop 8 is safe, I think it's going to leave eventually. But SCOTUS has so many other legal issues it has to consider, not just the actual case in front of them, but the manner in which it reached them.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
