|
I was just looking up the progress of the Scottish legislation (a few friends of mine got engaged a while back and are starting to plan for their wedding  ), and based on my understanding of the Scottish Parliament; the bill should be done by February? Its day 2 of stage 2 in a few weeks and a bunch of silly amendments have just been tabled, so I'm thinking that'll shove it back a few weeks...Also, it looks like the Equal Opportunities committee support removing the spousal veto from the bill as well. I'm not quite sure if this is something that will actually happen in committee - hopefully it will - and it would complicate things for the UK government in that area which I am all in favour of...
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 01:57 |
|
|
IceAgeComing posted:I was just looking up the progress of the Scottish legislation (a few friends of mine got engaged a while back and are starting to plan for their wedding It's completely possible they could get the bill passed so that couples can marry as of March 29th; it's a toss-up, really. As for the spousal veto, while both gender recognition and marriage are devolved matters, if Scotland gets rid of the spousal veto, there might be a case for a contravention of the ECHR due to discriminating on regional origin. And really Westminster's handling has been awful, because of the Tories. Thankfully, Liberal Youth and Young Labour have passed comprehensive trans policy that I helped write, so there might be pressure on a possible Labour/Lib Dem coalition to sort out a lot of the awful stuff currently in law.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
Is it possible for you to explain the regional origin thing? I'm not an expert in either the ECHR or the differences between English and Scots law; so to me it sounds like you could use that to justify ruling lots of things as being against the convention... (I also learned that is Cameron gets his wish to withdraw from the ECHR, we'd join Belarus as the only European nations not to be a party to it...  )
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
IceAgeComing posted:Is it possible for you to explain the regional origin thing? I'm not an expert in either the ECHR or the differences between English and Scots law; so to me it sounds like you could use that to justify ruling lots of things as being against the convention... Article 14 prohibits discrimination on a broad swathe of characteristics when Convention Rights are involved. As marriage and gender recognition are protected under Article 12, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to suggest that by not legislating for the entire country when they have the competence to do so, then the government are discriminating against English and Welsh trans people (in the case of the spousal veto) or Northern Irish couples (in the case of same-sex marriage). Case law is iffy, but it was enough to concern Stormont back in July.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
Arizona: Gov. Jan Brewer is being sued by 4 gay couples in a federal class-action lawsuit. They're using the same DOMA ruling argument against the constitutional ban that resulted in Utah becoming the latest state to legalize marriage equality (albeit temporarily on hold there). New Mexico: Gov. Susana Martinez won't try to overturn their Supreme Court's ruling resulting in the state legalizing marriage equality. Texas: Two gay couples are suing the state, using the Supreme Court's DOMA ruling as an argument as well. I'll be honest, Arizona or Texas becoming the next state to legalize marriage equality would be perfect. Chris James 2 fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Jan 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:I'm having trouble finding a story about the judge's original denial of the stay--Google keeps pointing to results talking about the SCOTUS granting a stay--but I vaguely remember the Utah attorneys failing to request a stay properly, which resulted in the rush of marriages immediately after the decision. Usually parties ask for an immediate stay after a decision like this, which was granted (for example) in the California case that struck down Prop 8. Thrilling timeline. Friday, Dec. 20: District Judge Shelby overturns the ban, does not issue a stay on his own, and demands a written request. State begins issuing marriage licenses. Motion 1: State sends Shelby a request for stay pending appeal. Motion 2: State sends 10th Circuit a half-assed request for a stay until Shelby rules on Motion 1. Sunday, Dec. 22 10th Circuit denies Motion 2 on procedural grounds. The request was really terrible. Monday, Dec. 23 Motion 3: State sends revised request to 10th Circuit 10th Circuit denies Motion 3. They wrote it correctly, but it's still a bad request and the Court wants to let Shelby rule first. Shelby holds a hearing. Transcript is Exhibit B. Shelby denies Motion 1. Motion 4: State sends 10th Circuit request for stay pending their appeal. Tuesday, Dec. 24 10th Circuit denies Motion 4 on the merits, but expedites the appeal. Tuesday, Dec. 31 Motion 5: Application for Stay Pending Appeal sent to SCOTUS. Monday, Jan. 6 SCOTUS grants Motion 5. No more marriage licenses. UltimoDragonQuest fucked around with this message at 07:53 on Jan 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 07:50
|
|
|
Sweeney Tom posted:Texas: Two gay couples are suing the state, using the Supreme Court's DOMA ruling as an argument as well. Looks like they'll be hearing arguments on this one next month. I hope it's not terrible of me to want the ban here overturned as much for the meltdown and crazy political drama it would cause as much as I do for equality and because it's generally the right thing to do. Because of the way Texas is held up as some sort of conservative stronghold and the biggest jewel in the GOP crown, the fallout from a judicial ruling overturning the ban would be particularly spectacular. e: and the judge hearing the case appears to be a Clinton appointee and a former Democratic representative in the state House. That's possibly good. ReidRansom fucked around with this message at 08:12 on Jan 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 07:52
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:Hot hot procedural recap
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
gently caressquote:The office of Utah Governor Gary Herbert (R) said same-sex couples who were married after the state's ban on gay marriage was struck down, but before the Supreme Court halted gay marriages in the state, will not be recognized as legally married. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/08/utah-gay-marriage_n_4562488.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
And apparently Utah is not gonna recognize the same-sex marriages that happened before the stay was issued: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/01/08/3135831/breaking-utah-governor-says-stay-recognize-1300-sex-marriages-performed-state/
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Saddened, but not surprised. Here's hoping SCOTUS doesn't kick this one down the road.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that he can't actually stop their recognition, but he definitely can be a pain in the rear end about delaying it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
I reckon that they will be required to recognize those marriages no matter what-- they were legally wed at the time of marriage, and even if they get their ban reinstated they would likely have to recognize existing legally married couples. Otherwise, you might have couples who are only married federally, not by any state, which would be an absurd result. The best case scenario for Utah is that they only have to recognize the 1,250 or so marriages that have occurred already, California style.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:I reckon that they will be required to recognize those marriages no matter what-- they were legally wed at the time of marriage, and even if they get their ban reinstated they would likely have to recognize existing legally married couples. It seems like this would be a bad move on the part of the Utah government. It creates two classes of legally married couples, and that the government is treating these two classes unequally. Of course I have no legal expertise, and would be curious to hear what others with more knowledge of the law have to say.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Basically Herbie waving his arms around and freaking out will just make things worse, I think. They're so used to getting their way around here that they aren't looking at what happens if/when they lose (and ultimately they will lose, be it now or 5 years from now when SSM is legal everywhere in the US). Car is going over a cliff? Don't calm down and try to figure out a way to slow down, just mash on the loving gas and hurtle right over!
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
What ways are there to generate a test case against Utah besides having someone's spouse in the hospital or morgue?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:What ways are there to generate a test case against Utah besides having someone's spouse in the hospital or morgue? Does Utah have any state taxes where married couples file differently and pay different rates than single people?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:What ways are there to generate a test case against Utah besides having someone's spouse in the hospital or morgue? Taxes (state ones), housing, business transactions, financial accounts, adoption, child birth, divorce, property ownership, spousal privilege in court, child custody, wills, inheritance? Those are just some ones off the top of my head, I'm sure there are many more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
ACLU's letter to the Utah Attorney General about trying to invalidate the marriages that have taken place: Edit: Was going to post some of the text but scribd is getting hammered. It's a nice little legal smackdown saying how courts have upheld marriages even if (temporarily) preventing new ones.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:ACLU's letter to the Utah Attorney General about trying to invalidate the marriages that have taken place: The Utah AG has to be the most wildly incompetent AG's office in the country right now. Lord.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:The Utah AG has to be the most wildly incompetent AG's office in the country right now. Lord. Well, the competent AGs left after taking a metric ton of bribes. Now all that are left are incompetents who don't understand law or the implications of what they're doing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
They come off like such sour grapes sore losers. What a bunch of punks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
Gygaxian posted:Well, the competent AGs left after taking a metric ton of bribes. Now all that are left are incompetents who don't understand law or the implications of what they're doing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
Missouri's Republican Governor (Jay Nixon) made and signed an executive order letting gay married (in other states) couples file joint tax returns. In the speech, he also endorsed gay marriage.Missouri Governor Jay Nixon posted:Many Missourians, including myself, are thinking about these issues of equality in new ways and reflecting on what constitutes discrimination. To me, that process has led to the belief that we shouldn’t treat folks differently just because of who they are. I think if folks want to get married, they should be able to get married.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
e: He's a Democrat.  That is a good development and it is nice to have his support. Utah incompetence update: Chris Geidner posted:Among other reasons Utah/case is a shitshow: State's 10th Cir brief due on 1/27, & they have outside counsel [request for proposal] now out until 1/14. UltimoDragonQuest fucked around with this message at 08:36 on Jan 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 08:24
|
|
|
Despite being a BYU alum still living in Utah County, my Facebook feed has been nothing but support for passing marriage equality in Utah. Governor Herbert is going down very negatively for his actions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
How does The Church feel about it anyway? Are they easing up like they did with black guys holding the priesthood?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Wojtek posted:How does The Church feel about it anyway? Are they easing up like they did with black guys holding the priesthood? I think the Prop 8 thing backfired enough to scare them if they won't go balls-in here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
They've eased up in general on gay people--as in there are no longer open calls for violence, shunning, or immediate excommunication of gays--but it's still pretty rough. As for the church position on marriage equality: LDS Church posted:The Church has been consistent in its support of traditional marriage while teaching that all people should be treated with respect. This ruling by a district court will work its way through the judicial process. We continue to believe that voters in Utah did the right thing by providing clear direction in the state constitution that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and we are hopeful that this view will be validated by a higher court. Edit: Beaten! Edit 2: As many as 40% of homeless youth in Utah are LGBT, and as many as 50% of that number were kicked out of Mormon homes.  So yeah, still a while to go.
The Macaroni fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Jan 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:Edit 2: As many as 40% of homeless youth in Utah are LGBT, and as many as 50% of that number were kicked out of Mormon homes. Keep in mind that "Utah" culture and "Mormon" culture aren't always the same thing. I grew up in an LDS household out in Ohio and was shocked to see the differences when I moved to Utah. The culture here tends to be much more conservative, isolationist, and bizarre. Mormons out east mix a bit more liberally with the real world, plus there is a higher number of converts. Kicking out your teenage son for being gay is not something that lines up with anything actually in the doctrine, and it's not something you would see preached during General Conference (at least not as long as I've been alive). But when that many Mormons band together in this little area, the echo chamber turns a lot of people very homophobic. I'm still shocked when I find out about these numbers because it's so incredibly different than everything I was taught growing up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Couldn't the same-sex couples in Utah sue for marriage rights like they have in other states based on the grounds that, recognized currently or not, Utah legally married some couples while denying it to others? Without the "SSM isn't *real* marriage" excuse it seems like they would have a decent case for damages
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Absolutely they can sue, which is why the ACLU is all 
Zero VGS fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Jan 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:As many as 40% of homeless youth in Utah are LGBT, and as many as 50% of that number were kicked out of Mormon homes. Considering how overwhelmingly Mormon Utah is, I'm surprised that it isn't much more than 50% that were kicked out of Mormon homes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
The proposed Indiana marriage amendment has been changed to HJR-3. The previous bill number, HJR-6, has been used by opponents in promoting opposition. There is also a companion piece, HB1151, that outlines the ballot measures should HJR-3 pass such as when it'll take place and language used. It also attempts to clarify what the amendment does and does not do. Strange, since you can't typically legislate what a constitutional measure is unless it is in the constitution. Indiana blogger and lawyer Doug Masson has a pretty good rundown on the two issues. HJR-3 has a hearing January 10th in the Judiciary Committee.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
MokBa posted:Keep in mind that "Utah" culture and "Mormon" culture aren't always the same thing. I grew up in an LDS household out in Ohio and was shocked to see the differences when I moved to Utah. The culture here tends to be much more conservative, isolationist, and bizarre. Mormons out east mix a bit more liberally with the real world, plus there is a higher number of converts. Kicking out your teenage son for being gay is not something that lines up with anything actually in the doctrine, and it's not something you would see preached during General Conference (at least not as long as I've been alive). But when that many Mormons band together in this little area, the echo chamber turns a lot of people very homophobic. I'm still shocked when I find out about these numbers because it's so incredibly different than everything I was taught growing up. Edit: And I think the whole Prop 8 thing has taken the wind out of the sails of a lot of the hardliner types. The Macaroni fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Jan 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Considering how overwhelmingly Mormon Utah is, I'm surprised that it isn't much more than 50% that were kicked out of Mormon homes. I think that's 50% kicked out, as opposed to other way people get homeless. So, you know, 'running away because Mom and Dad hate who I am.'
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
That's a good scam by the amendment backers from Indiana. A fake intent law might be a useful campaign ad. They know the civil union ban is an albatross but can't afford to delay the process another 2 years. Utah AG's office sent a memo to county clerks. The ~1000 marriages are valid, but not in Utah. The rest is about finishing the paperwork. Some clerks didn't follow up on issued licenses because of the stay. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Are there any valid anti-gay arguments that don't fall back on religion?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 01:08
|
|
Wojtek posted:Are there any valid anti-gay arguments that don't fall back on religion? Other than an appeal to a tradition, no, not really.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 01:57 |
|
|
Wojtek posted:Are there any valid anti-gay arguments that don't fall back on religion? The religion arguments generally aren't valid either, even if taken as given that the holy scriptures in question is 100% truth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 01:10
|
|