quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Perhaps Hobbes, but would you be so quick to assign a low value if I were to guess at their motives and praise them? That is essentially what BlackBlade did, after all-suggest the motive or part of it was a respectful gesture to the Romney campaign.
I was merely grasping at a plausible explanation for the churches behavior that was not born out of duplicity.
I didn't say I believed that explanation was more or less likely than what the Guardian was positing as true.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if this thread is only about the US, but I'd like to share a link from Brazil (in Portuguese, unfortunately). 130 gay couples (including two friends of mine) got married yesterday in a big ceremony sponsored by Rio's court of justice. :-)
posted
New Mexico is #17! The NMSC unanimously declared same-sex marriage a legal right with their ruling yesterday.
and... UTAH may be #18. (what, what, what??....Utah?? really?...UTAH? ). Federal district judge Robert Shelby in a summary judgment just threw out the gay marriage ban in Utah. His opinion was released today, only sixteen days after he heard oral arguments where each side pressed for summary judgment. It's an amazing read.
Here are a few bits:
quote: The State has presented no evidence that the number of opposite-sex couples choosing to marry each other is likely to be affected in any way by the ability of same-sex couples to marry. Indeed, it defies reason to conclude that allowing same-sex couples to marry will diminish the example that married opposite-sex couples set for their unmarried counterparts. Both opposite-sex and same-sex couples model the formation of committed, exclusive relationships, and both establish families based on mutual love and support. If there is any connection between same-sex marriage and responsible procreation, the relationship is likely to be the opposite of what the State suggests. Because Amendment 3 does not currently permit same-sex couples to engage in sexual activity within a marriage, the State reinforces a norm that sexual activity may take place outside the marriage relationship.
quote: In 1966, attorneys for the State of Virginia made the following arguments to the SupremeCourt in support of Virginia’s law prohibiting interracial marriage: (1) “The Virginia statutes here under attack reflects [sic] a policy which has obtained in this Commonwealth for over two centuries and which still obtains in seventeen states”; (2) “Inasmuch as we have already noted the higher rate of divorce among the intermarried, is it not proper to ask, ‘Shall we then add to the number of children who become the victims of their intermarried parents?’”; (3) “[I]ntermarriage constitutes a threat to society”; and (4) “[U]nder the Constitution the regulation and control of marital and family relationships are reserved to the States.” Brief for Respondents at 47-52, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), 1967 WL 113931. These contentions are almost identical to the assertions made by the State of Utah in support of Utah’s laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. For the reasons discussed above, the court finds these arguments as unpersuasive as the Supreme Court found them fifty years ago. Anti-miscegenation laws in Virginia and elsewhere were designed to, and did, deprive a targeted minority of the full measure of human dignity and liberty by denying them the freedom to marry the partner of their choice. Utah’sAmendment 3 achieves the same result.
posted
The first legal same sex marriages in Utah were performed today after the judge's ruling!! *pinch myself, am I dreaming?*
I hadn't realized that Judge Shelby's decision went into effect immediately with no stays waiting for appeal. Rather, the Utah AG will have file an emergency appeal for a stay.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The fact that the judge cited Scalia's Windsor dissent as part of the rationale for his decision is supremely hilarious.
quote:In his dissent in Windsor, Scalia was b****ing and moaning that the majority's rationale would inevitably lead to the same challenge being mounted against state-level DOMAs as it was then being mounted against the federal one. Shelby's reference to that was his way of saying, "That's right, b*****, here I go."
posted
it's really weird to see how completely some people here changed between 2006 and 2010. Like, as people.Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love the Irony. The LDS were instrumental in getting Prop. 8 passed in California. That prompted the lawsuit that eventually went to the supreme court and led to the decision that was used to overturned the Utah ban on same sex marriage.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
There will be a hearing for a regular non-emergency stay tomorrow morning at 9. But Clerk's Offices are opening at 8 so there will be at least an hour of marryin' time. It's also likely that some counties will still refuse to grant licenses, though Salt Lake and Weber counties are definitely on board, promising to be open at 8am sharp.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoeAlvord: I love the Irony. The LDS were instrumental in getting Prop. 8 passed in California. That prompted the lawsuit that eventually went to the supreme court and led to the decision that was used to overturned the Utah ban on same sex marriage.
The LDS church was instrumental in getting several bans on gay marriage passed before Prop 8. With it being involved so extensively it seems hardly surprising that one of those efforts became the main target of a counter-suit trying to remove all bans nationally.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: I was quite pedantic in my post...
I found it a little funny that you thought I would get an answer confirming what I already thought to be true (namely that the ban should be supported).
posted
Seems like a foregone conclusion now that Michigan will follow suit in February when the US district court judge finally hears the case and renders a verdict. He's been ducking a decision for months waiting for other courts to decide first. I think he wanted to go there but he wanted cover so it wasn't overturned. I think he was also waiting for better polling numbers. He has both in hand.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
There will be a hearing for a regular non-emergency stay tomorrow morning at 9. But Clerk's Offices are opening at 8 so there will be at least an hour of marryin' time. It's also likely that some counties will still refuse to grant licenses, though Salt Lake and Weber counties are definitely on board, promising to be open at 8am sharp.
Cache County where I am is also on board. They will be issuing licenses in the morning. Washington County (St. George) began issuing licenses during the last business hour Friday, and two same-sex couples got them before closing time.
Does anyone know the protocol for a hearing requesting a stay on a federal ruling in the 10th Circuit? Does Judge Shelby have to rule at the hearing itself or is there deliberation time? Apparently the Circuit Court cannot rule until Shelby makes a decision regarding the request for a stay. Personally, I hope he takes his sweet time deliberating so that many more couples have time to get licenses. After he rules on the request (which, based on the wording of his opinion, he is almost certain to deny), the Circuit Court will likely respond quickly granting the stay to 'maintain the status quo' .
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: I was quite pedantic in my post...
I found it a little funny that you thought I would get an answer confirming what I already thought to be true (namely that the ban should be supported).
I never did/have.
Yeah, well, that's more evidence confirming that I never ought to go into professional prognostication. Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: I was quite pedantic in my post...
I found it a little funny that you thought I would get an answer confirming what I already thought to be true (namely that the ban should be supported).
I never did/have.
Yeah, well, that's more evidence confirming that I never ought to go into professional prognostication.
That's OK, have you seen how badly prophets have it?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apparently Utah government lawyers are arguing that the uncertainty regarding a stay being granted is causing harm to gay couples who deserve to know what the status quo is going to be. So they would be better served by the restriction being reinstated for now.
Yeah, that sounds laughably like "This is going to hurt you more than it hurts me."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I've read, the Utah government's case has been really, truly bad from the getgo. Much like the defense of Prop 8 in California, it looks like many of the arguments were presented without any supporting evidence.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: From what I've read, the Utah government's case has been really, truly bad from the getgo. Much like the defense of Prop 8 in California, it looks like many of the arguments were presented without any supporting evidence.
I think this was more a symptom than the disease when it came to defending these things. It was like all of a sudden, once the courts actually started hearing these cases in earnest, the anti-equality people suddenly realized that all their defenses were horribly unjustified and stupid, and they couldn't think of better ones.
But the disease was the fact that the legal system had been so far behind in this arena, litigating the old legislation, that by the time the newwer reactionary laws in question were pushed through, they were so obviously unconstitutional and bunk that they were impossible to defend.
It's one thing when you're arguing against a new interpretation of an old set of laws and values: Does marriage as we understood it in 1990 mean gay couples? Nobody was sure legally. New decisions came slow or not at all. But when you're arguing in favor of a wholly new interpretation of the marriage laws (namely that they *do not* include marriage equality), it becomes much more clear who's in the right.
The disease is that these newer laws ever made it onto the books: their arrival was the death knell of segregated marriage. Just nobody explained that to these people.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: I was quite pedantic in my post...
I found it a little funny that you thought I would get an answer confirming what I already thought to be true (namely that the ban should be supported).
I never did/have.
Yeah, well, that's more evidence confirming that I never ought to go into professional prognostication.
That's OK, have you seen how badly prophets have it?
But aren't prophets officially amateur status, by their very nature?
Now those _oracles_, on the other hand...
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Presumably the Utah County clerk is now going to wait for a motion for a stay to be brought to SCOTUS, just to be sure.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt SCOTUS will hear the case. They've already ruled on this, and the lower decision was made in line with their previous one. A stay is only warranted if the court reasonably believes the case may present an opportunity for a more decisive decision at higher levels. In this case, there's no reason to believe that this is true. SCOTUS will likely not even hear this case- so no stay.
This is, after all, the way it works. SCOTUS sets a precedent, and then the dominos fall. No surprises actually.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brewer vetoed the Arizona legislation, and told them to quit wasting Arizona's time.
That combined with her implementation of the ACA makes me think that Arizona might be a saner place than Utah.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering things Brewer has said and done in the past, I'm convinced she's had a stroke in the last year.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
When you've got several fortune-500 companies pressuring you to veto a bill, I'm sure it makes it a lot easier to do so.
Even the hardest republicans are going to take notice when "big business" threatens to lessen their investment in your state. It sounds like Apple actually called her directly.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: When you've got several fortune-500 companies pressuring you to veto a bill, I'm sure it makes it a lot easier to do so.
Even the hardest republicans are going to take notice when "big business" threatens to lessen their investment in your state. It sounds like Apple actually called her directly.
Though I'm happy with the outcome, I'm not at all comfortable with "big business" directly contacting a governor to tell her how she should handle a particular bill.
posted
That is pretty much standard procedure in all government these days. Lobbyists do exactly that. or google VP Cheney's Energy Task Force sometime.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Apple opens up shop in Arizona and encourages gay people to work for them, and businesses in Arizona start shuttering their doors to their employees because of laws like this, Apple loses out on talent pool, its employees will be negatively affected by the environment, and its customers will want an explanation for why they knowingly opened a factory in Arizona where this is going on.
All of those things can be avoided with a simple veto. Seems like an obvious thing to make a phone call for.
Also I know Tesla Motors and presumably Panasonic are looking at Arizona as a site to build their ion battery factory which will more than double world production of the things. Telling no to Apple is a no to many other firms down the road.
Of course the decision to veto should not be made purely from a business standpoint, but I don't think we should ignore it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: When you've got several fortune-500 companies pressuring you to veto a bill, I'm sure it makes it a lot easier to do so.
Even the hardest republicans are going to take notice when "big business" threatens to lessen their investment in your state. It sounds like Apple actually called her directly.
Though I'm happy with the outcome, I'm not at all comfortable with "big business" directly contacting a governor to tell her how she should handle a particular bill.
Hobbes
I think there are a lot of problems with the way government and big business interact, but if we were to pretend that those problems didn't already exist, I'm curious how you would respond to a hypothetical situation:
You are a CEO, and a situation arises in which a state law would make it more difficult to operate your business. You do not think the benefits of the law outweigh the harm to your business and other like businesses. The governor is deciding whether to veto the law.
What do you do in this situation?
I think any rational CEO will urge the governor to veto the bill.
I think this is basically OK.
What do you think?
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: I'm more concerned about the governor taking the call than Apple making it.
Hobbes
I am too, but the truth is that call is being made constantly before the election, during the term, and after they leave office. And I don't feel I'm especially overstating things to say 'constantly', either. Campaign contributions, lobbyists, and the number of staffers who either come straight from or will go straight to various business and industry involvement (or both!), and the of course the actual politicians themselves.
This is instructive not because it's alarming or worrying, but because it's an indicator of how overt things would be if they were permitted.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: I'm more concerned about the governor taking the call than Apple making it.
Hobbes
That's a good point. I admit I was thinking of a public statement or something like that, not a phone call.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
YEAH SO LIKE IDAHO OR IOWA OR ONE OF THOSE PODUNK STATES
arkansas too? i'm seriously having trouble following the latest states to fall into wrath-tempting acceptance of sin and the rejection of christ or whatever
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What will happen now is a) more states will continue to domino, and b) the GOP will use it to get people to the polls. I'm glad to see this happen, but I'm not looking forward to the next five years or so.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
The Supreme Court has said it will not review several of the appeals in support of SSM bans. Several states, including Utah, are now on track to be performing SSMs again very soon.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
.
