|
Install Gentoo posted:Chiropractic, homeopathic, naturopathic and so on are all still legal, can all cause harm (including the harm of not seeing a real doctor for serious medical condition) but are all still legal. Just being junk medicine that hurts people and gets done to kids against their will, unfortunately, isn't illegal.
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 16:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 16:07 |
|
|
Are there any objections to recognizing same-sex marriage that aren't either based on religion or pure animus? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Romen's holding (or perhaps dicta) disallow animus against a group as a reason for making a classification? I'm probably unlikely to find a SSM opponent here, but I really can't believe this is still controversial.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 16:43
|
|
|
There are some but they're mostly the fringe arguments. Sometimes in the federal debate the libertarians will get pissy because blah blah blah states' rights. You also have the apathy voters who don't really OBJECT to it they're just lazy pieces of poo poo who don't want to be educated so they go with the status quo because they don't care. Also I suppose you can't always lump the 'gays are gonna pervert our kids by making us acknowledge' them with 'religious' if only because most of the time they avoid admitting their group is religious. The biggest one to fight is that last one, they have a lot of bullshit data and just straight up lies about how kids need a mom and dad and blah blah blah how can I explain this to my kids. They almost always are religious groups like Focus on the Family and all, but in their arguments they don't admit to it, and you can't really go 'objection this dude's really working for a religious group' in a court when the other guy is just throwing out lovely 'data'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 16:48
|
|
|
shitthedd posted:Are there any objections to recognizing same-sex marriage that aren't either based on religion or pure animus? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Romen's holding (or perhaps dicta) disallow animus against a group as a reason for making a classification? The objections that get raised publicly at this point tend to claim reasons based in tradition, preserving the family, and encouraging procreation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 16:51
|
|
|
shitthedd posted:Are there any objections to recognizing same-sex marriage that aren't either based on religion or pure animus? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Romen's holding (or perhaps dicta) disallow animus against a group as a reason for making a classification? Not really. I don't know Romen, but the problem is the standard of scrutiny applied. Unless an elevated level of scrutiny is applied, all the state needs to do is show a compelling interest in regulating something, which can be completely hypothetical. Like, you can claim that gay people can't have children, the state has a compelling interest in having children, banning gay marriage causes more children, ergo ban gay marriage. It's transparently bullshit, but the Supreme Court has bent over backwards to apply low standards of scrutiny to sexual orientation despite obvious histories of discrimination and other things which should induce strict scrutiny. This is starting to break somewhat, when California's Supreme Court ruled on marriage protection pre-Prop 8 it applied strict scrutiny for one of the first times. The Prop 8 case is another interesting one, the anti-gay-marriage folks did such a bad job making their case the judge didn't even find a rational basis let alone a strict scrutiny. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Dec 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 16:52
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I don't know Romen, but the problem is the standard of scrutiny applied. Unless an elevated level of scrutiny is applied, all the state needs to do is show a compelling interest in regulating something, which can be justified by nearly anything even without affirmative proof of your claim. Like, you can claim that gay people can't have children, the state has a compelling interest in having children, ergo ban gay marriage. While the Supreme Court has never held sexual orientation discrimination is subject to intermediate or strict scrutiny, the version of the rational basis test that has been getting applied to it is stricter scrutiny than usual, just without the name (It's been referred to as rational+ scrutiny).
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 16:56
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Not really. Sorry, it's Romer v. Evans, in which the Supreme Court invalidated a Colorado constitutional amendment, finding it motivated only by animus against an unpopular group (homosexuals). And yes, the standard of scrutiny applied was called rational basis, but it had more teeth to it than rational basis review usually does. I'm convinced that Romer will be more important as precedent than Lawrence* in overturning bans on gay marriage. (I loved ConLaw, but have very rarely used any of it since taking the bar exam nearly five years ago.) *Anyone read "Flagrant Conduct", Dale Carpenter's recent book on Lawrence? Carpenter is fascinating - gay Republican law professor and advocate for gay marriage. He's fond of making conservative arguments to attack opponents of gay marriage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 17:49
|
|
|
twodot posted:While you are right about this, I do think there is room for regulation concerning state licensed practitioners on best practices and standards of conduct, especially with regard to potentially permanent effects on minors. You can't really outlaw some wacko berating kids for having boners, but we can hold licensed healers to a scientific standard. The state definitely has a vested interest in licensure, but evidently the practice of "gay therapy" is a First Amendment issue rather than a public-health issue under Ninth Circuit jurisprudence, because banning such has the ancillary benefit of supporting a particular viewpoint on a non-health, speech-related issue (gay rights). Since "gay therapy" requires speech to perform such therapy (like psychiatry, for example), regulating "gay therapy" implies a regulation of speech. And since such the law is inherently content-/viewpoint-based (as it supports a particular viewpoint on gay rights), in the Ninth Circuit, that means it's subject to the First Amendment's strict scrutiny standard rather than a lower standard used to judge the regulation of other forms of medical conduct. So basically, the primary reason "gay therapy" is ostensibly constitutional is because it's a form of medical treatment that makes extensive use of speech. They could ban certain physical approaches (provided that they banned its use for all psychological treatments), but they could not ban any sort of verbal/group treatment without undergoing strict scrutiny (and thus requiring that lawmakers demonstrate direct causation of harm by such "gay therapy" that makes use of verbal/group treatment). If the law is struck down based on strict scrutiny, the only response Californian lawmakers would have is to either a) wait for direct causation to be shown (good luck with that one), b) ban all forms of coercive mental health treatment without regard to the intent of the treatment (and even this might get struck down as an 'overly broad' law) or c) explicitly ban specific forms of coercive mental health treatment without regard to the intent of the treatment (which might survive an attack based on being overly broad, but then leads to a cat-and-mouse game between lawmakers and "gay therapists") ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Dec 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 20:36
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Chiropractic, homeopathic, naturopathic and so on are all still legal, can all cause harm (including the harm of not seeing a real doctor for serious medical condition) but are all still legal. Just being junk medicine that hurts people and gets done to kids against their will, unfortunately, isn't illegal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 00:53
|
|
|
Why can't we make those illegal? Like, have it so you can say whatever but if you claim your rocks are going to fix people and charge money for it you can be charged with fraud? I'm not being snide I legitimately thought there is valid standing to sue someone for selling you a box of crystals to cure your cancer or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 01:11
|
|
|
Homeopathic "medicine" is allowed because a homeopathic doctor was in the senate when the drug regulations were first started. A lot of other things are allowed under various laws that explicitly authorize "natural" supplements and poo poo passed due to lobbying. It's all like that. I do believe some of it got allowed on basis of free speech too the way anti-gay abuse is being.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 01:20
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:While the Supreme Court has never held sexual orientation discrimination is subject to intermediate or strict scrutiny, the version of the rational basis test that has been getting applied to it is stricter scrutiny than usual, just without the name (It's been referred to as rational+ scrutiny). I always laugh at the procreation rationale. Want more people to have kids? Maybe start with affordable childcare and early childhood development programs. I know plenty of people who aren't having kids because they can't afford it. Those reasons inevitably melt under scrutiny to reveal some flavor of bigotry, religious or otherwise when pressed in conversation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 02:28
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:I always laugh at the procreation rationale. Want more people to have kids? Maybe start with affordable childcare and early childhood development programs. I know plenty of people who aren't having kids because they can't afford it. Also, the procreation rationale leaves out infertile and elderly couples, as well as fertile couples who don't want to have kids. Also, it ignores same sex couples who decide to have children. The procreation rationale just doesn't work on the face of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 08:31
|
|
|
The people defending the Nevada marriage amendment have petitioned for SCOTUS appeal. This is a really good strategy. Their best shot at winning is to get a ruling on a fundamental right as soon as possible. Nobody knows if this will affect the conference that should happen Friday. UltimoDragonQuest fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 01:23
|
|
|
This happened today, in Washington State.  http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/12/05/be-it-proclaimed-marriage-equality-is-signed-sealed-and-about-to-be-deliverd It's legal. It's actually legal and binding now, signed by the Governor. And the same-sex marriage applications will start to be received art 12:01 am tonight. They already have crowd control measures set up, as they expect this to be an absolute madhouse here in Seattle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 02:41
|
|
|
Same sex marriage is now officially legal in the State of Washington. Marriage licenses are now being distributed. The first couple just got their license. 
Qu Appelle fucked around with this message at 09:03 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 09:01
|
|
|
Dow Constantine's speech was really great. Also, the Kiro helicopter is looking at the administration building. It's a beautiful sight. Oh, poo poo. They cut to the stoners.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 09:08
|
|
|
I hope somebody made a fistful of tiny joints to throw instead of rice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 09:17
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:The people defending the Nevada marriage amendment have petitioned for SCOTUS appeal. Wait. So if I'm reading this correctly, the specific legal question involved in this case whether or not marriage equality is a Constitutional right? So if this goes to the Supreme Court, it could be the case that universally legalizes same-sex marriage nationwide?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 11:13
|
|
|
VirtualStranger posted:Wait. So if I'm reading this correctly, the specific legal question involved in this case whether or not marriage equality is a Constitutional right? Nevada has domestic partnerships so they could instead rule that separate institutions are unacceptable and bring in 8 more states instead of 41. But even if they dodge on the Nevada case there's a Michigan case behind that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 22:28
|
|
|
Of course the Supreme Court can decide however it wants, but unless the Court addresses the Equal Protection claims, merely striking down Section 3 of DOMA is going to quickly end up in serious administrative headaches. Just imagine all the same-sex couples that get legally married, move to a non-recognizing state and then seek divorce (or even just a bankruptcy).
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 23:06
|
|
|
While we wait for the SCOTUS to make a move on these cases, let's have some good news from Mexico. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/12/05/world/americas/ap-lt-mexico-gay-marriage.html?ref=samesexmarriage quote:MEXICO CITY (AP) — Mexico's Supreme Court has ruled that a law in southern Oaxaca state that bans same-sex marriages is unconstitutional, paving the way for same-sex couples to marry in that state and possibly in the rest of Mexico. Supreme court rulings in Mexico are not binding across the entire nation like in the US, so this really only applies to that specific state.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 09:20
|
|
|
Mexico's laws are interesting. Every state recognizes but only two and the capital issue licenses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 09:55
|
|
|
My understanding is that it was legalized in Quintana Roo (the state where Cancun is) because someone realized that the wording of the marriage law for that state only specified that marriage was for "two people" or something and didn't specify the sex of the individuals. So a same sex couple was like, well all right then, got married, there was a lawsuit of some kind and the courts decided that yeah, the law did not prevent it
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 14:07
|
|
|
Supreme Court just agreed to hear the prop8 case: http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/2012/12/07/breaking-supreme-court-decides-to-review-prop-8-doma-cases/
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 21:17
|
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:Supreme Court just agreed to hear the prop8 case: http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/2012/12/07/breaking-supreme-court-decides-to-review-prop-8-doma-cases/ Oh poo poo. Here we go.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 21:22
|
|
|
ultramiraculous posted:Oh poo poo. Here we go. By which you mean, here we wait for a few months?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 21:23
|
|
|
Notable part of the grant: they did add standing questions to the QPs, so if there's a desire to punt for whatever reason and not get to the merits, that option is left in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 21:25
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:By which you mean, here we wait for a few months? Exactly. Plus this is the less interesting one. Any word on the DOMA case?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 21:25
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:Exactly. Plus this is the less interesting one. Any word on the DOMA case? They're reviewing those as well: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/supreme-court-to-take-up-gay-marriage-cases They have also given themselves ways to get out of having to decide: quote:In Windsor, the government petition (12-307) is the one granted. In addition to the petition question -- whether Sec. 3 of DOMA violates equal protection under 5th Amendment, there are two other questions: does the fact that government agreed with the 2d CA decision deprive the Court of jurisdiction to hear and decide the case, and whether BLAG (House GOP leaders) has Art. III standing in this case. In case you're wondering why it says 5th Amendment: the 14th Amendment only requires states to apply equal protection. It doesn't apply to the Federal Government. So the Supreme Court simply read an equal protection requirement into the due process requirement of the 5th to apply against the Federal government. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Dec 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 21:26
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:Exactly. Plus this is the less interesting one. Any word on the DOMA case? They're apparently looking at the Windsor case on Section 3.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 21:28
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:They're reviewing those as well: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/supreme-court-to-take-up-gay-marriage-cases The plot thickens. With Prop 8 a decision upholding the 9th's very, very narrow rationale is likely, but the Court can't hide on DOMA. Edit: or they say Boehner et al. don't have standing and hide on DOMA anyway. Patter Song fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Dec 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 21:29
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:By which you mean, here we wait for a few months? Hurry up and wait. Fake edite: they're taking the DOMA case too. Scotusblog is doing a live blog right now. Live Blog
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 21:30
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:The plot thickens. With Prop 8 a decision upholding the 9th's very, very narrow rationale is likely, but the Court can't hide on DOMA. Actually as I edited in, they've given themselves an out: they can rule there's no case or controversy (because the United States agrees with the 2nd Circuit since the DOJ ceased defending the law) and the House group doesn't have standing. That would leave the 2nd Circuit judgment intact without getting to the merits of the case.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 21:31
|
|
|
I think there is a very high chance that the Supreme Court will use these cases to effectively legalize gay marriage nationwide, and that it will be a 5-4 or a 6-3 decision by Justice Kennedy. You guys are focusing too much on the opinions below in the specific cases granted. Anthony Kennedy couldn't give less of a poo poo what Judge Reinhardt did in the 9th, this is going to be his capstone opinion with his special form of jurisprudence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 21:31
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:I think there is a very high chance that the Supreme Court will use these cases to effectively legalize gay marriage nationwide, and that it will be a 5-4 or a 6-3 decision by Justice Kennedy. Gay marriage is good for business, and most of the conservatives on the court right now are more the "Corporations are people" conservatives rather than the "the bible says" conservatives.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 21:37
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:I think there is a very high chance that the Supreme Court will use these cases to effectively legalize gay marriage nationwide, and that it will be a 5-4 or a 6-3 decision by Justice Kennedy. Man, I hope so. Color me skeptical for now, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 21:38
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Gay marriage is good for business, and most of the conservatives on the court right now are more the "Corporations are people" conservatives rather than the "the bible says" conservatives. Kennedy is strongly libertarian and has been writing pro-gay decisions for decades. This is one of those subjects Kennedy's solidly with the liberal bloc on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 21:39
|
|
|
Lyle on the Scotusblog thinks the marriage cases will be heard in March.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 21:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 16:07 |
|
|
The tell that the pro-gay marriage side was the side that pushed to get the grant here was that Windsor (the New York DOMA case) got granted over Gill (the Massachusetts DOMA case). The only plausible reason to do that was to avoid a 4-4 deadlock because Gill would have probably resulted in Justice Kagan's recusal. The side that wants to avoid the deadlock is the side that has that justice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 21:41
|
|