|
Well then, So what's the deal with the SCOTUS and gay marriage, I went to this thread to find some information on that and ran into this.
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 11:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 22:42 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I just want to address this last smear. No I don't "support the South". I largely thought they were horrible racists like many whites of the day. I just believe that Lincoln was insincere and prosecuted a war that could have been avoided. Welp, you know, if the South had decided to not fire on Fort Sumpter like the traitorous little shits they were, maybe we wouldn't have had a Civil War. Just a thought. Also, this this thread is about marriage equality. I'm curious about how the Civil was plays into that? Was the South or North trying to expand marriage rights and I somehow missed that? Edit: I'll stop my part of the derail now. Sorry folks. Edit2: current post on the SCOTUS blog link. I'm hoping it's a no news is good news situation. platedlizard fucked around with this message at 11:22 on Dec 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 11:09
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:Well then, So what's the deal with the SCOTUS and gay marriage, I went to this thread to find some information on that and ran into this. They haven't taken any action on it, might next week. That can mean a whole lot of things so really nothing new to discuss.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 11:13
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:Well then, So what's the deal with the SCOTUS and gay marriage, I went to this thread to find some information on that and ran into this. In basic terms, they're choosing which cases to take. The next release will be on Monday. There are several challenges to DOMA up right now; which one they pick will have an effect on the arguments they can write and maybe whether Justice Kagan has to sit this one out (she worked on some of them as Solicitor General). They're all but guaranteed to take up at least one of the DOMA challenges, though. There's California's prop 8. The 9th circuit found it unconstitutional on narrow, Cali-specific grounds. The lower court ruling is stayed so SCOTUS gets a chance to look at it if they want it. The best thing we can reasonably hope for is that SCOTUS doesn't take prop 8; that would mean the 9th's ruling goes into effect and California instantly has marriage equality again. If they do take it, it's probably not good news - there's a lot to lose and not much to gain (assuming that we don't get a "marriage equality in all 50 states" ruling out of it - I think we can safely file that one under pipe dreams). Finally, there's an Arizona law they might want to take a look at, on grounds similar to prop 8. Basically, Arizona gave state employees' partners health benefits, but then passed a law saying that only married couples could receive those benefits. Since Arizona has a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage, this adds up to something that's arguably targeted discrimination, in a way that the court really doesn't like: offering rights and then snatching them back. In all of the cases, we're looking at a long time before oral arguments even start. And, we might not even get marriage-related orders on Monday - everybody expected something on Friday and instead we got some genetics patent stuff. But, what SCOTUS chooses to accept will have a big impact on how those cases proceed - and, in the case of prop 8, could have immediate policy implications. So a lot of people will be refreshing SCOTUSblog on Monday morning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 11:30
|
|
|
platedlizard posted:Pssh advancing the libertarian agenda is more important than your silly human rights issue. Being stuck in Libertarian Lalaland is awesome and fun and not derailing at all, no siree Honestly I just like getting it from goons first for some reason! Also I'm really tired of libertarians seeming to infest everything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 11:31
|
|
|
Edit: I actually have a good feeling about SCOTUS review coming up, because I think that the not-completely-terrible justices see the writing on the wall and won't want their names to go down as one of the last votes against a huge civil rights issue.
CheesyDog fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Dec 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 16:15
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:Edit: I actually have a good feeling about SCOTUS review coming up, because I think that the not-completely-terrible justices see the writing on the wall and won't want their names to go down as one of the last votes against a huge civil rights issue. I seem to remember Scalia making comments in the past that he hopes gay marriage never comes before him because he'd have to support it. He's actually gone and said enough poo poo that was originally just satire that I have trouble keeping it all straight. Point is he's not just an arch-conservative rear end in a top hat; he's a formalist robot arch-conservative rear end in a top hat. This might just be some wishful thinking delusion on my part, but I could see him end up ruling for marriage equality on some sort of "technically correct, the best kind of correct" basis.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 16:26
|
|
|
The least you jerks could have done is steered that derail towards asking how he thinks immigration through marriage would work in his libertarian douchebag fantasyland < >
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 17:03
|
|
|
At the same time, it'd be jolly good fun watching the crazy Christian right crucify Scalia like they did Roberts with Obamacare. It was argued here that Roberts stuck up for Obamacare because of his legacy(not wanting to slap down a President's Signature Legislation), if you take that argument and go further, he likely wouldn't be the voice that stands up against the tidal wave of progress in this regard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 17:10
|
|
|
It won't happen, but if it did, oh god if Scalia voted to strike down DOMA  . One could only hope outside of the issue of marriage this could cause the Tea Party folks to go somehow even more to the right, and nominate people for the 2014 election who make Mr. "Rape babies are god's gift to women" look sane.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 17:23
|
|
|
Yeah a Scalia vote to strike it down is impossible. I remember his butthurt dissent in Lawrence; that was the moment I realized he's just a cranky old bigot who may have once been a great legal mind. e:  quote:Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.... [T]he Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Dec 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 18:02
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Point is he's not just an arch-conservative rear end in a top hat; he's a formalist robot arch-conservative rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 21:55
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:In basic terms, they're choosing which cases to take. The next release will be on Monday. The bolded part is a bit wrong. Any cases they grant at this point (even if they delay granting until after another conference) will be argued between February and April 2013, with decisions coming in June. That's not all that long. I'd probably think they'd want to have this argued fairly early after their winter break so they have more time to consider things. Also, like I said in my post before the big libertarian brou-ha-ha broke out, they could hold off on a decision for another week. If nothing comes out Monday, then they'll probably have held it for another conference on Friday, and I'm certain that if they've taken 2 cracks at this set of cases, they'll definitely have orders Friday afternoon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 23:50
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:There's California's prop 8. The 9th circuit found it unconstitutional on narrow, Cali-specific grounds. The lower court ruling is stayed so SCOTUS gets a chance to look at it if they want it. The best thing we can reasonably hope for is that SCOTUS doesn't take prop 8; that would mean the 9th's ruling goes into effect and California instantly has marriage equality again. If they do take it, it's probably not good news - there's a lot to lose and not much to gain (assuming that we don't get a "marriage equality in all 50 states" ruling out of it - I think we can safely file that one under pipe dreams). This is very false, Perry was designed from the early pre-trial stages to be the constitutional test at the Supreme Court on gay marriage case and has about as favorable of a record below as you could want for such a case, including two different rationales for why, one by Walker and one by Reinhardt. This is the case you want certiorari granted for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 00:50
|
|
|
Why did Perry v. Hollingsworth become Hollingsworth v. Perry when appealing to SCOTUS? Does the order flip when the respondent loses and appeals?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 01:29
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:Does the order flip when the respondent loses and appeals? Most of the time, yes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 01:30
|
|
|
SporkOfTruth posted:The bolded part is a bit wrong. Any cases they grant at this point (even if they delay granting until after another conference) will be argued between February and April 2013, with decisions coming in June. That's not all that long. I'd probably think they'd want to have this argued fairly early after their winter break so they have more time to consider things. In court time, it's not long. But I wanted to draw a distinction between "we're waiting for something very soon, maybe even on Monday" and the ultimate resolution of the case. jeffersonlives posted:This is very false, Perry was designed from the early pre-trial stages to be the constitutional test at the Supreme Court on gay marriage case and has about as favorable of a record below as you could want for such a case, including two different rationales for why, one by Walker and one by Reinhardt. This is the case you want certiorari granted for. As much as I'd love to see it happen, as a practical matter I don't think this court has the activist huevos to say, "it's strict scrutiny time, motherfuckers," as Scalia rends his robes, five pairs of sunglasses descend from the ceiling, and Mississippi gets marriage equality. Denying cert means that California gets marriage back, and it leaves the door open for a ruling a few years down the line when national opinion has largely evolved but half the country still has idiotic amendments to their state constitutions kicking around. I'd love to be wrong, but I see a lot more room for bad outcomes than good ones if the court takes the case.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 01:50
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:As much as I'd love to see it happen, as a practical matter I don't think this court has the activist huevos to say, "it's strict scrutiny time, motherfuckers," as Scalia rends his robes, five pairs of sunglasses descend from the ceiling, and Mississippi gets marriage equality. Denying cert means that California gets marriage back, and it leaves the door open for a ruling a few years down the line when national opinion has largely evolved but half the country still has idiotic amendments to their state constitutions kicking around. You don't need strict scrutiny, you need Kennedy's de facto heightened rational basis from Romer and Lawrence. And I have yet to see a compelling case on how there aren't five justices firmly in that direction already, in which case you're holding back for no reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 01:58
|
|
|
Any chance that the age of the court members is going to play into this? Kennedy, Ginsberg, and Breyer are all in their 70s, and politically this is going to be the best time for them to retire and get a Obama-nominated replacement in. Having a historical decision like recognition of gay marriage nationally as one of your final rulings has got to be tempting when you're thinking about your legacy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 02:37
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:their son Milton, 12, and their daughter Ayn, 6. I'm probably a horrible person but this post was hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 02:41
|
|
|
I had thought that it was Perry v. Brown? Did the intervener respondents get put in as the full respondents?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 02:45
|
|
|
zachol posted:I'm probably a horrible person but this post was hilarious. I'm pretty sure the other people were named for characters in Atlas Shrugged. And yes, that was brilliant. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 02:47
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:I had thought that it was Perry v. Brown? Did the intervener respondents get put in as the full respondents? Yes, that's exactly what happened. Wikipedia says posted:Attorney General Brown chose not to defend the lawsuit, saying that Proposition 8 violates the 14th Amendment and should be struck down.[12][24] Governor Schwarzenegger also declined to participate in the defense but said it was appropriate for the courts to hear the case and "resolve the merits of this action expeditiously" because it "presents important constitutional questions that require and warrant judicial determination."[25] On November 2, 2010, Brown was elected governor and Kamala Harris was elected attorney general. Both ran on platforms promising not to defend the proposition,[26] so despite the change of administration, the state continued to decline defending Proposition 8 in court.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 03:56
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:Well then, So what's the deal with the SCOTUS and gay marriage, I went to this thread to find some information on that and ran into this. Yeah, I came home to check the usual set of paltry replies in this painfully slow-moving thread and figured a sudden 300+ post spike meant something loving amazing just happened like "Scalia exits closet, vows to spend remaining presence on court as a tireless LGBT advocate as an act of hysterical contrition". Came for eight pages of carlton-dancing My dreams Crushed
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 06:12
|
|
|
Are we done with straight Libertarian neckbeards trying to tell us queer people how to live our lives? Yes? Good. if you're in Seattle, I invite you to a party! If you want to actually witness the ceremonies and weddings first hand, and support our wonderful couples: http://www.seattle.gov/wedding/ If you want to just party with the newlyweds, there's a public reception - Wedding Reception for All at the Paramount Theatre starting at 6 p.m. (For those unfamiliar, the Paramount Theater is on 9th and Pine Street. It's on a zillion bus lines, and the Light Rail) 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 06:32
|
|
|
Qu Appelle posted:Are we done with straight Libertarian neckbeards trying to tell us queer people how to live our lives? Congratulations! I'm in Portland, but I plan to crack open a beer for you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 06:55
|
|
|
Ugh, I hate missing out on a good Confederate apoligist derail jrodefeld please start a new thread about the Civil War when you get back and leave the freedom loving peoples of the SSM thread alone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 15:05
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:This is very false, Perry was designed from the early pre-trial stages to be the constitutional test at the Supreme Court on gay marriage case and has about as favorable of a record below as you could want for such a case, including two different rationales for why, one by Walker and one by Reinhardt. This is the case you want certiorari granted for. I see how that description would apply to Walker's ruling, but not to Reinhardt's. As far as I can tell, that one was deliberately tailored to affirm Prop 8's unconstitutionality on the narrowest grounds possible*, for the precise purpose of discouraging the Supreme Court from granting review. Anyway, the order list is out. No decisions from SCOTUS until Friday at the earliest. *In that it ignored questions of scrutiny classification and the inherent constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans, and built on the Romer ruling to establish a "precedent" that was only applicable to California, as it was the only state where gays were granted the right to marry, had that right subsequently removed, and retained the same legal rights granted to married couples through an institution with another name (domestic partnerships). Barry Convex fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Dec 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 16:07
|
|
|
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/supreme-court-defers-announcement-on-gay-marriage-cases Supreme Court punts the certiorari issue again, next chance for an announcement is Friday. I think this indicates there's a real debate over what to do with these cases, with both sides trying to feel out Kennedy to see if they'll have vote 5.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 16:23
|
|
|
Evilweasel or anyone else knowledgeable on this: so, whats the flowchart here? There's some method by which if they refuse to hear the argument a couple times then basically it legalizes same sex marriage in California right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 16:39
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Ugh, I hate missing out on a good Confederate apoligist derail jrodefeld please start a new thread about the Civil War when you get back and leave the freedom loving peoples of the SSM thread alone. It feels like its about time for another Civil War thread. When was the last one? One, two years ago? They're always so much fun.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 16:40
|
|
|
Riptor posted:Evilweasel or anyone else knowledgeable on this: so, whats the flowchart here? There's some method by which if they refuse to hear the argument a couple times then basically it legalizes same sex marriage in California right? They eventually have to decide if they will hear the case or not. You need 4 votes to hear the case. If they decide to hear the case, the stay on the lower ruling continues until they issue a decision. That decision is binding on all circuits (though they can decide to hear the case, then decide later that was a mistake and undo it making it as if they never heard it at all). If they decide they will not hear it, the lower court ruling is affirmed (though without precedential value for other circuits: it becomes the law of, say, the 1st Circuit but the 7th Circuit is free to reach the opposite decision and have that be the law of the 7th Circuit until the Supreme Court finally hears a case and standardizes it for all circuits). If they genuinely can't decide, they're free to ask the parties to submit extra briefs or the like on the issue of if the court should hear the case. I think this is pretty rare and not likely in the current situation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 16:45
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:They eventually have to decide if they will hear the case or not. You need 4 votes to hear the case. If they decide to hear the case, the stay on the lower ruling continues until they issue a decision. That decision is binding on all circuits (though they can decide to hear the case, then decide later that was a mistake and undo it making it as if they never heard it at all). But how many times do they get to punt like this? It is maddening.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 17:18
|
|
|
Chin Strap posted:But how many times do they get to punt like this? It is maddening. They don't have to hear any case except in a very limited subset of cases where they're required to take it. In every case going up to the court, the Supreme Court refusing to hear it locks in gains for the equality side. They can keep discussing if they are going to hear it as long as they want: they're almost certainly taking a long time because this is a really serious issue. They can't duck this forever, and the DOMA splits nearly require them to step in there. But there's going to be the liberals on one side trying to figure out if they want to go whole hog right now, or wait for the current gains to be consolidated a little more. The conservatives will be looking at Kennedy and trying to figure out what portions of these cases they've got a chance at peeling him off on, and try and review only those cases they can win. And throughout it all everyone's going to be considering the political ramifications - especially Roberts. There are a whole host of issues they have to decide: do they review Prop 8? What issues for Prop 8 do they review? Do they review DOMA? What parts of DOMA do they review? Do they consolidate the cases? Which ones? None of this is easy. We want an answer but even if they've decided to hear the cases there's a lot of hard decisions that will be fought over.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 17:27
|
|
|
Apparently a judge just granted a preliminary injunction preventing California from enforcing SB1172 (Ban on "gay therapy" for minors) on grounds of it possibly violating freedom of speech. Getting this from a couple groups on facebook so can't attest to the absolute validity of this information, but they are trusted groups. edit: they posted a link, http://www.scribd.com/doc/115423340/2-12-cv-02484-55 hangedman1984 fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Dec 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 07:58
|
|
|
I think Scalia's comments on how he would have to rule on same-sex marriage stem from his dissent in Lawrence that basically said "if we accept gays are a suspect class, then it follows from Loving that same-sex marriage is a right". However, dissents are obiter dictum, and, given the chance, he would overturn Roe... I don't think you should look too much into it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 09:00
|
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:Apparently a judge just granted a preliminary injunction preventing California from enforcing SB1172 (Ban on "gay therapy" for minors) on grounds of it possibly violating freedom of speech. Getting this from a couple groups on facebook so can't attest to the absolute validity of this information, but they are trusted groups. The judge actually likens the case to Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association in justifying their belief it'll fail strict scrutiny. That's right, banning "sexual orientation change efforts" is just like banning violent video games for minors! The ruling even references an APA document or two saying: quote:The [American Psychological Association] task force concluded that sexual orientation change efforts can pose critical health risks to lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, including confusion, depression, guilt, helplessness, hopelessness, shame, social withdrawal, suicidality, substance abuse, stress, disappointment, self-blame, decreased self-esteem and authenticity to others, increased self-hatred, hostility and blame toward parents, feelings of anger and betrayal, loss of friends and potential romantic partners, problems in sexual and emotional intimacy, sexual dysfunction, high-risk sexual behaviors, a feeling of being dehumanized and untrue to self, a loss of faith, and a sense of having wasted time and resources. . . . The American Psychiatric Association published a position statement in March of 2000 in which it stated: “Psychotherapeutic modalities to convert or ‘repair’ homosexuality are based on developmental theories whose scientific validity is questionable.” and quote:However, studies from both periods indicate that attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts. But apparently since there aren't any studies that actually indicate direct causation (after all, the studies just say that gay therapy may cause distress), we gotta let these therapies stay legal (after all, didn't you liberals correctly point out that there aren't any explicit studies saying that violent video games make children violent?) Apparently thanks to Brown you now need a number of studies which basically say "gay therapy activates this ion channel in the brain which causes psychological harm" in order to ban them. We just can't ban the therapy because there's no way we'll ever really know for sure why all these gay people are committing suicide! It could just be magnets or something! I mean, the whole "gay therapy causes depression" is just a THEORY... And it's just the APA's opinion that it causes harm...  I mean, I get the whole strict scrutiny bit, and can even sorta understand why you need to indicate direct causation to demonstrate that it's necessary because Brown was really out there, but 
ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 09:17 on Dec 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 09:06
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:I mean, I get the whole strict scrutiny bit, and can even understand why you need to indicate direct causation to demonstrate that it's necessary, but
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 09:13
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:Direct causation seems like such a spineless maneuver, though. Gay conversion "therapy" has no proven benefit, a potential for harm, and is often being done against the patient's will if the patient is a minor. Am I wrong in assuming that more or less any other procedure in the medical field would be regulated similarly? It really just seems like someone's trying to say "I should be allowed to practice junk medicine on an unwilling minor because of my religion" and this judge is saying that he thinks that constitutes protected "speech". It's definitely doing some crazy contortions to justify direct causation being necessary to beat strict scrutiny. But I guess that since the whole sexual orientation thing touches on ~religion~, it's now a free speech I-believe-you-believe issue. It's pretty loving shameful that this case could actually legitimize medical quacks and incompetent "religious" doctors as a free-speech issue rather than adhering to scientific orthodoxy and the "least harm principle", because that's really what this is potentially doing. But that's just the post-factual world we live in I guess!  EDIT: I suppose I should caution that it's still a fine line, because it really is a battle between the mantra of "correlation != causation" (e.g. you can't prove gay therapy is causing harm) and "least harm" (e.g. well, maybe if the violent games could be causing kids to grow up and become violent, we should ban them). Both have their place [i.e. on the opposite side of the issues presented a moment ago], and it's wrong to blindly dismiss one or the other. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 09:27 on Dec 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 09:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 22:42 |
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:Direct causation seems like such a spineless maneuver, though. Gay conversion "therapy" has no proven benefit, a potential for harm, and is often being done against the patient's will if the patient is a minor. Am I wrong in assuming that more or less any other procedure in the medical field would be regulated similarly? It really just seems like someone's trying to say "I should be allowed to practice junk medicine on an unwilling minor because of my religion" and this judge is saying that he thinks that constitutes protected "speech". 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 16:32
|
|