|
Another day, another case where DOMA is found unconstitutional. Only district court though. A widow sued the feds over estate taxes she was forced to pay because DOMA excluded her from the unlimited marriage deduction.
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 22:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 01:17 |
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:DOMA just got ruled unconstitutional in an NYCLU/ACLU case in Windsor! Trying to find a source, but for now, here's the NYCLU twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/nyclu http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/federal-court-in-new-york-rules-doma-unconstitutional
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2012 23:23
|
|
|
Yes! Here's their Web page. https://www.aclu.org/blog/lgbt-rights/another-doma-win It is a lower court in Manhattan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2012 03:12
|
|
|
After digging into the press releases, it looks like this is another case that specifically attacks Section 3 (federal recognition). It still leaves Section 2 (state recognition) intact from the looks of the press releases.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2012 18:16
|
|
|
The NAACP giving their public support to marriage equality has had major repercussions in the Iowa-Nebraska area. NAACP board endorses same sex marriage NAACP leader quits over gay marriage The former president of the Iowa and Nebraska regional conference of the NAACP was a bigot and an obstacle to cooperation between the gay and black communities. He attacked not just marriage equality but also being gay. Rev.Ratliff posted:"There is no parallel between gay rights activism and the civil rights movement of the 1960s. That is an insult to the civil rights movement." Rev.Ratliff posted:"Deviant behavior is not the same as being denied your right to vote." This was playing right along with the National Organization for Marriage's plan to continue to push for and exploit a divide between these two communities. NOM posted:"The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks -- two key Democratic constituencies" NOM Divisive Memos Hopefully his replacement will have a view toward equality that is more inclusive. It would mean a lot if the local NAACP were willing to support keeping marriage legal in Iowa and helping make it legal in Nebraska. There's always a lot of talk about the black community being strongly against gay rights, but the statistics I've seen when this comes up on SA seem to show otherwise. There's strong historical precedent for black support of gay rights. Black Panther Party founder Huey Newton said more than forty years ago: Huey P. Newton posted:"Whatever your personal opinions and your insecurities about The full text of Huey's speech is here. It's worth a read.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2012 20:31
|
|
|
That is a great speech by Newton.ComradeCosmobot posted:After digging into the press releases, it looks like this is another case that specifically attacks Section 3 (federal recognition). It still leaves Section 2 (state recognition) intact from the looks of the press releases.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2012 21:40
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:Nobody is touching Section 2 other than maybe the Prop 8 team (AFER) and they are far more aggressive than other LGBT legal orgs. Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but if the Supreme Court decides to uphold the lower court's ruling in the Prop 8 or the 1st Circuit DOMA cases on Equal Protection grounds then I'm not sure how Section 2 could then stand. If denying recognition of marriage violates equal protection, it's hard to see why it should matter if that recognition is denied by a state rather than the federal government. (Of course, the Justices could craft such an opinion, but I think they would have to use some tortured reasoning to get there.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2012 22:08
|
|
|
Opponents block Washington state gay marriageSeattle Times posted:Washington's gay marriage law was blocked from taking effect Wednesday as opponents filed more than 200,000 signatures seeking a public vote on the issue in November. Anyone here involved in Washington state? What's it looking like?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2012 23:31
|
|
|
platzapS posted:Opponents block Washington state gay marriage Seems like that's all the news.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2012 23:59
|
|
|
Thewittyname posted:Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but if the Supreme Court decides to uphold the lower court's ruling in the Prop 8 or the 1st Circuit DOMA cases on Equal Protection grounds then I'm not sure how Section 2 could then stand. If denying recognition of marriage violates equal protection, it's hard to see why it should matter if that recognition is denied by a state rather than the federal government. (Of course, the Justices could craft such an opinion, but I think they would have to use some tortured reasoning to get there.) The Prop 8 ruling is very narrowly written and couldn't really apply outside of California- it's based both on previously granting the right to marry and having an institution exactly the same as marriage other than the name.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 00:16
|
|
|
Sefer posted:The Prop 8 ruling is very narrowly written and couldn't really apply outside of California- it's based both on previously granting the right to marry and having an institution exactly the same as marriage other than the name. The 9th Circuit's ruling was narrow and only applied to California. However, the original district court ruling was much broader, finding that a SSM ban violated Equal Protection. That decision would, if adopted by the Supreme Court, legalize same sex marriage in every state.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 02:24
|
|
|
platzapS posted:Opponents block Washington state gay marriage Everyone here knew all along they were going to get the signatures to put it on the ballot and the pro-marriage campaign has been running hard for some time now. They expect to raise over $6 million for the pro-marriage campaign and while the polling isn't great (54% said they think gay marriage should be legal in a poll last week, but it didn't ask specifically how/if they'd vote on it) it isn't bad either. I'd ballpark it at 2/3rds chance of being approved by the voters. gohuskies fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Jun 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 05:32
|
|
|
Thewittyname posted:The 9th Circuit's ruling was narrow and only applied to California. However, the original district court ruling was much broader, finding that a SSM ban violated Equal Protection. That decision would, if adopted by the Supreme Court, legalize same sex marriage in every state.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 08:27
|
|
|
platzapS posted:Opponents block Washington state gay marriage This is about as surprising as the sun coming up next morning. All that stuff about "the law was supposed to go into effect tomorrow" is just a writer trying to inject drama into very boring government procedure. Overall, things are looking good. The ballot language has already been hashed out in court, and that was a fairly major victory: it went from the stock NOM attack line of "this bill would redefine marriage..." to "this bill allows same-sex couples to marry" with a disclaimer that it wouldn't affect religious organizations. The R-71 fight a few years back (over the "everything but marriage" civil unions bill) means that there's experience and contact lists for a substantial statewide field operation in support of same-sex marriage, which isn't easy to build from scratch. R-71's passage itself is another bright spot: in an off-year election, which has an electorate that tends to skew older and more conservative, we still managed to uphold recognition for same-sex couples. With the Obama machine and a big gubernatorial race driving turnout, things look even better. Polling looks similar to R-71 at this stage in the game, too. And, finally, NOM's January threat of $250k donations to anyone intending to primary a Republican state legislator who voted for same-sex marriage has come up totally empty. It's definitely not a sure thing, but there are a lot of reasons to be optimistic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 09:04
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:NOM's January threat of $250k donations to anyone intending to primary a Republican state legislator who voted for same-sex marriage has come up totally empty. The gently caress. Do people seriously pay no attention to the political climate in this state? This is not the South, if you try to play that game you get laughed at during elections, with the exceptions being in some of the Eastern Washington counties.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 08:49
|
|
|
Family Research Council releases a Documentary The Problem with Same-Sex Marriage This is fear mongering in its craziest forms. Guy breaks down crying because he got thrown in prison for saying his son should not be taught about gays...I wish I was joking. A lot of Former Homosexuals interviews quote:The Problem with Same-Sex "Marriage" is a documentary that shows in heartbreaking detail what happens when marriage is redefined. We follow the stories of David and Tonia Parker and Robb and Robin Wirthlin as their religious liberties run headlong into political correctness and pro-homosexual instruction in their public schools. This documentary will open your eyes to the pattern of intolerance and intimidation toward those espousing marriage as the union of one man and one woman. This documentary will also equip you to know your rights, and to make a difference in you community. It is worth watching I think because it gives you a view into how hosed these people are and the desire to strike fear into the hearts of parents.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 21:31
|
|
|
Does the documentary cover the most ridiculous "victim" of same sex marriage?quote:A man said he failed the Massachusetts bar exam because he refused to answer a question about gay marriage, and claims in a federal lawsuit the test violated his rights and targeted his religious beliefs.  tooquote:"Yesterday, Jane got drunk and hit (her spouse) Mary with a baseball bat, breaking Mary's leg, when she learned that Mary was having an affair with Lisa. As a result, Mary decided to end her marriage with Jane in order to live in her house with (children) Philip (and) Charles and Lisa. What are the rights of Mary and Jane?" e: VVVV I'm not used to exam questions about drunken assault and battery but I guess it's a reasonable legal scenario. UltimoDragonQuest fucked around with this message at 01:11 on Jun 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2012 00:52
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:Does the documentary cover the most ridiculous "victim" of same sex marriage? It's not that bad, look at with a heterosexual couple. Doesn't seem that out of place to me. law posted:"Yesterday, John got drunk and hit (his spouse) Mary with a baseball bat, breaking Mary's leg, when he learned that Mary was having an affair with Bill. As a result, Mary decided to end her marriage with john in order to live in her house with (children) Philip (and) Charles and Lisa. What are the rights of Mary and John?" Though I don't know if same sex marriages have all the same custody rights as opposite sex marriages.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2012 01:06
|
|
|
Their bigotry shows very clearly in the shallowness of their arguments. There's 2 premises to that video that if you don't already believe then that video isn't going to convince you of anything. 1. Being gay is inherently bad. 2. Christianity > * Every single thing they say goes back to either of those points. There is one great counterargument, though. If gay marriage is an issue of religious freedom then why can't those churches that want to have gay marriage also be protected under freedom of religion? I also love the part where they fap over the rightness of the royal wedding. These people don't want to live in a country with religious freedom. They want to live in a Judeo-Christian theocracy, and it pisses them off every time they're reminded that people that are different from themselves exist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2012 01:25
|
|
|
That documentary... Id laugh so much more if these people weren't a real force in America loving with peoples basic rights. Tony Perkins begins his chat about same sex marriage with a pithy quiff about Roe v Wade. Just to troll. This woman... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicky_Hartzler#Controversy Its just the editing of the film ffs At this point when it zooms in on a "Who's in a family?" diversity handbook or something there is literally what sounds like subtle hellfire noises like zooming in on a weapon at a murder scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egxB0dTajb4&t=391s So anyways, one real horrendous crux of their whole situation is one father who got arrested and spent like 6 hours in jail after making a big religious fuss at the school and refusing to leave after being trespassed. This is their mass persecution documented. One dad, 6 hours in jail. In 2005. And they have to lie out the teeth about it/give their own account only: http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.co.nz/2009/04/nom-lies-about-david-parker-controversy.html Such is the state of American Fundamentalist politics. And its hugely influential. Lemonus fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Jun 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2012 02:35
|
|
|
Lemonus posted:So anyways, the real horrendous crux of their whole situation is one father who got arrested and spent like 6 hours in jail after making a big fuss at the school and I can only presume called a school teacher a horrendous sinner/blasphemer for at one point bringing up to the kids the fact that same-sex marriage is legal. Of course, this ends up under the headline 'man jailed for expressing his christian beliefs'... It angers me to no end how they re-frame their hate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2012 03:09
|
|
|
SmuglyDismissed posted:Of course, this ends up under the headline 'man jailed for expressing his christian beliefs'... It angers me to no end how they re-frame their hate. Time was, being persecuted for being Christian meant genuine state oppression from enslavement on up to being torn apart by wild animals or in some other way being spectacularly murdered. These days, apparently it is means very occasionally not being able to force everyone else to follow your own social narrative, the poor dears.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2012 18:28
|
|
|
News(?) about the Maine referendum. In a new poll, a law allowing same sex marriage is supported 55-36. WBUR is unfortunately summarizing this as 55% support for the November referendum and every other news source is parroting that. They did not ask about the referendum or if you would actually vote for that law. They asked the text within the referendum which is a completely understandable mistake, but "Do you favor X?" is not equivalent to "Would you vote for a referendum that does X?" For example, the final opinion poll in North Carolina showed 55% believed civil unions or same sex marriage should be legal and 55% would vote for a constitutional amendment that banned both.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 07:35
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:They did not ask about the referendum or if you would actually vote for that law. They asked the text within the referendum which is a completely understandable mistake, but "Do you favor X?" is not equivalent to "Would you vote for a referendum that does X?" How does this even work? What mindset lets you say "I think this should be legal, but I would vote against making it legal"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 15:45
|
|
|
It's more, "I think this should be legal but I can't manage to get off my rear end and go vote for it"
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 16:04
|
|
|
The difference is people adjusting their answer to please the pollster - the people polling asking "do you think it should be legal" give off the impression it should, while those asking if you'd ban it more give off the impression it shouldn't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 16:40
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The difference is people adjusting their answer to please the pollster - the people polling asking "do you think it should be legal" give off the impression it should, while those asking if you'd ban it more give off the impression it shouldn't. Usually the question is asked would you support a law allowing same sex couples to marry? Would you support a law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman? It's funny how language effects people answer. Also, I have learned that if we poll a random sample of say 600 people, anyone can get around 5 percent in a poll because people don't want to sound stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 17:30
|
|
|
Riptor posted:It's more, "I think this should be legal but I can't manage to get off my rear end and go vote for it" But that's not the case here, since the second part of the statement implies that not only will the person in question get off his/her rear end to vote, he/she will vote against the opinion voiced in the first part of the statement. evilweasel posted:The difference is people adjusting their answer to please the pollster - the people polling asking "do you think it should be legal" give off the impression it should, while those asking if you'd ban it more give off the impression it shouldn't. This is possibly closer to the truth, but I just can't imagine it swinging 10-20% of the population -- is it really the case that one out of every ten people (enough to go from 55% in favor to 55% opposed) wants to please some stranger on the phone so badly they'll answer "yes" to anything at all?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 18:02
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:But that's not the case here, since the second part of the statement implies that not only will the person in question get off his/her rear end to vote, he/she will vote against the opinion voiced in the first part of the statement.  Then people went on to show they didn't know what it did.   But even if people did not understand what Amendment One did, the wording and ordering of questions is incredibly important and "Do you favor?" should not be summarized as "Would you vote for?" Maybe support wouldn't erode to such a degree but they are not the same question.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 21:14
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:Lambda and ACLU filed in Illinois today. Ill. prosecutors refuse to defend gay marriage ban quote:Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez have refused to defend the 16-year-old ban, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, saying it violates the state constitution's equal protection clause.  They haven't got a leg to stand on. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2012 09:41
|
|
V
|
Well somebody has to defend the law. A judge will be generous in granting standing when the alternative is giving the AG the power of nullification, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2012 10:19
|
|
|
Illinois county clerks/Thomas More Society were granted standing. Not a big deal. ACLU and Lambda Legal (the plaintiffs) are cool with it. quote:“We think their arguments have no merit, but it’s best to face them now rather than face them later on,” Knight said. “It gets us to a point where we can feel confident that we’ve won the freedom to marry statewide.” UltimoDragonQuest fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Jul 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 21:35
|
|
|
How does that Thomas More Society get to be a 501(3)(c)? It seems like they're doing pro-bono work only to fight for laws they agree with politically. I don't know anything about how that works but it just feels wrong. Edit: Nah I guess it makes sense the more I think about it? They just have to claim it's for the betterment of society? Zero VGS fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Jul 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 22:14
|
|
|
Zero VGS posted:Edit: Nah I guess it makes sense the more I think about it? They just have to claim it's for the betterment of society? Basically the IRS doesn't often enforce the political lobbying rule unless it's really, really blatant because of the legal process to revoke tax-exempt status is incredibly time and money consuming.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 22:18
|
|
|
Department of Justice filed for cert in the two major DOMA Section 3 (the ban on federal recognition) cases. I don't believe there are any practical effects other than possibly moving the Golinski case directly to SCOTUS without a 9th Circuit decision (oral arguments will still happen). The earliest SCOTUS could announce they are taking the cases is September 24th and the earliest ruling would be June 2013. With the present Justices I think Section 3 would be tossed out, but not all of DOMA. Nobody is arguing that all of DOMA should be thrown out but SCOTUS has that power. Then we will reach the annoying time when the rest of DOMA (states cannot be forced to recognize out of state same sex marriages) is on incredibly shaky ground but we don't have 5 votes to overturn it. UltimoDragonQuest fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Jul 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 23:00
|
|
|
Google is not loving around and launching a worldwide push for marriage equality focusing on particularly homophobic countries.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 05:42
|
|
|
Really good poll out of Maine today, assuming everything is legit. But there's no document or crosstabs available so I can't be 100% sure. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 21:28
|
|
|
Is that really the actual wording of the ballot question?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 21:53
|
|
|
WithoutTheFezOn posted:Is that really the actual wording of the ballot question? The public comment period ends on the 16th and then there are 10 days to appeal. Supporters are not happy and they've got a point considering it's a significant change from the 2009 language over the same law. 2009 People's Veto Question: “Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?” 2012 Question submitted by petitioners: “Do you favor a law allowing marriage licenses for same-sex couples that protects religious freedom by ensuring no religion or clergy be required to perform such a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs?”
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 22:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 01:17 |
|
|
I think I am out of my depth. I was debating marriage equality on facebook with a moron and he said his perfect system would be to "just remove the word marriage from the government lexicon all together, replace it with domestic partnership for everyone and leave the marrying to the individuals, their churches, and their deity" My first reaction was to agree with him but he hasn't said anything remotely reasonable up to this point. Is this a trap?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 04:58
|
|
