Polo-Rican posted:I was going to update the map I made until I read that this wouldn't take effect until January of 2013? I guess it takes a state 11 months to "prepare" for gay marriage. It really is just so that there isn't a lawsuit to stop it while a referendum happens, isn't it?
|
|
# ¿ Mar 2, 2012 15:49 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 25, 2024 23:24 |
Federal appeals court in Boston rules that DOMA is unconstitutional, to really not much surprise. Next step is the Supreme Court, pretty sure. http://www.latimes.com/news/la-naw-doma-053112,0,7656927.story
|
|
# ¿ May 31, 2012 16:34 |
Armyman25 posted:So, could that mean the end of DOMA if the Supreme Court upholds the ruling? Sounds like likely it would mean that federal law (i.e. taxes and other rights guaranteed in federal statutes) would apply to any legal marriages in any state, but it would not immediately require that all states recognize all marriages. Still, a good step if it's upheld.
|
|
# ¿ May 31, 2012 18:41 |
I usually look to http://www.scotusblog.com/ I'd imagine if anything comes out they'll have it.
|
|
# ¿ Nov 30, 2012 20:02 |
ultramiraculous posted:Oh poo poo. Here we go. By which you mean, here we wait for a few months?
|
|
# ¿ Dec 7, 2012 21:23 |
greatn posted:This probably explains why he wasn't VP nominee, or at least would have eliminated him from the running early in vetting. I mean, Mitt Romney clearly stated that it was *not* due to this that he was not selected. Not that Mitt Romney lies, ever.
|
|
# ¿ Mar 15, 2013 16:00 |
Brigadier Sockface posted:I don't understand. Would this make the mormon church officially pro marriage equality? Uhhh no, that's not the Mormon church. It's some heretic splinter I think.
|
|
# ¿ Apr 21, 2013 23:45 |
Sweeney Tom posted:Today, we will see votes from the Nevada House (if passed gay marriage is on the ballot in 2016), the Delaware House (if passed it goes to the Senate, where Dems have a majority, and the Gov has promised to sign it into law), the Rhode Island Senate Judiciary Committee (if passed it goes to their full Senate this week, and the Gov has promised to sign it into law), and the French legislature (if passed France has legal marriage equality). Looked like the Nevada one needs the exact same thing (senate and house) to happen next year, too, before it goes onto the 2016 ballot. Exciting stuff overall, though!
|
|
# ¿ Apr 23, 2013 15:21 |
UltimoDragonQuest posted:RI Senate floor debate/vote stream. Someone apparently pulled a fire alarm, though security shut it off quickly. Good plan, that.
|
|
# ¿ Apr 24, 2013 22:32 |
"Is my representative" usually means they live in the district, I'd say?
|
|
# ¿ May 7, 2013 15:13 |
Mo_Steel posted:This is the actual vote now, correct? 12 yes 9 no passed
|
|
# ¿ May 7, 2013 22:07 |
Whole lotta cheering right now.
|
|
# ¿ May 7, 2013 22:07 |
Red_Mage posted:Ummm... Not really? I mean the no leaders thing is still astoundingly stupid, but its hardly like they are creating seperate gay only troops or something. They are saying they won't kick someone out of the scouts (something they have done before) for being gay. For the closeted (by necessity) students in scouting, this is certainly a victory, if a small one. Actually, it's pretty accurate! Troops are welcome to continue to discriminate, but they are voting (maybe) to allow troops to not discriminate. In essence, they're creating gay-allowed troops but allowing no-gays-allowed troops to continue to exist, which honestly does sound quite like the analogy you quoted.
|
|
# ¿ May 23, 2013 19:52 |
It's hard for me to find exact wording, but articles that describe the actual proposal are suggesting that, yes, it's allowing troops to have gay members but is not mandating that all of them are required to allow gay members.
|
|
# ¿ May 23, 2013 20:11 |
Thesoro posted:Do you have a source on this? I'd love to share it. As I said, no, unfortunately, all I'm getting is out of articles that describe the change but I've yet to see one that spells out exactly what changed.
|
|
# ¿ May 24, 2013 18:50 |
seal it with a kiss posted:They changed the proposed "Troops get to decide on whether to allow gays" policy, originally outlined here. Good! It's been hard to find the wording in most articles. Thanks!
|
|
# ¿ May 24, 2013 20:17 |
Swing State Victim posted:Just Section 3. We should probably make sure people are checking the other thread, since the same question was just asked and answered the opposite way.
|
|
# ¿ Jun 26, 2013 15:24 |
platedlizard posted:Holy poo poo, I didn't notice No, not in any way shape or form. It was ready today, so it was released today.
|
|
# ¿ Jun 26, 2013 19:22 |
EBT posted:I would wonder more if it was just to do with both cases being issues near or at the end of the term. Well, yes, that's the reason why it's the anniversary. But it was not chosen to be such, it's just that both were such.
|
|
# ¿ Jun 26, 2013 21:57 |
Michael Steel, you say.
|
|
# ¿ Nov 4, 2013 17:06 |
Ballz posted:It's not who you're thinking of. Oh I'm aware. Was just a funny coincidence to me. (no e at the end of the name)
|
|
# ¿ Nov 4, 2013 18:33 |
Is that news, a prediction, or a logical deduction? (seriously can't tell)
|
|
# ¿ Jan 10, 2014 18:10 |
Thanks! Hard to tell with no link/text. It's a good result, but presumably fairly expected?
|
|
# ¿ Jan 10, 2014 18:13 |
Thrupple...
|
|
# ¿ Jan 13, 2014 18:53 |
Apparently Catholic > Gay for her.
|
|
# ¿ Jan 13, 2014 19:04 |
"I'm a former lesbian" okay I'm out.
|
|
# ¿ Jan 13, 2014 19:06 |
VitalSigns posted:that any attempt at a long-term loving relationship is a deluded lie. Actually, doesn't this happen quite a bit? At least, that's what popular culture would have me believe.
|
|
# ¿ Jan 21, 2014 16:43 |
computer parts posted:Popular culture relies on drama which for obvious reasons tends not to come from people who are married happily for 20 years. Yeah, what I meant was lovely breakup -> "I hate all <men/women> I'm going to never date again" is kind of a thing, regardless of sexuality.
|
|
# ¿ Jan 21, 2014 18:32 |
That's a good quote.
|
|
# ¿ Jan 23, 2014 17:05 |
Mr. Nice! posted:The punt on the prop 8 case was 100% the correct move. There are long standing rules regarding standing for suit and appeal. To hear that case would turn quite a bit of that on it's head. The supreme court acted correctly by saying "you fucks have no standing to file an appeal GTFO." Had it been the actual state filing the appeal, they would have heard the case and probably upheld the lower court's decision. Wasn't it DOMA that people were talking about, not prop 8?
|
|
# ¿ Feb 27, 2014 03:18 |
No no, banning people from being poor means giving the government the requirement to prevent it, thus allowing officials to just hand out stacks of cash. Yay!
|
|
# ¿ Mar 5, 2014 17:36 |
Deuce posted:Yeah but name changes aren't necessarily predicated on a marriage, are they? I can go into a court house and change mine for shits and giggles, I thought. Nope. Costs you for that. Requires more forms, more stuff. Changing your name back after getting divorced, by all accounts, is bullshit.
|
|
# ¿ Mar 25, 2014 16:50 |
(it is commonly written as "I have a problem. I know, I'll use perl to solve it! Now I have two problems." and replace perl with anything at all, from python to python snakes to pythia the oracle.)
|
|
# ¿ Apr 16, 2014 16:02 |
On the other hand, "I fired her because she investigated me" may be much, much less legal.
|
|
# ¿ Apr 19, 2014 03:08 |
SLOSifl posted:The real irony of the current progress is that the opponents of marriage equality will probably never hear about it again once the last state/US court case ends. Other than personally attending a same sex marriage (being invited to one seems unlikely) or paying very close attention to people's wedding rings all the time, there is nothing that should even indicate anything is different for them. But they will sure be thinking about it.
|
|
# ¿ May 23, 2014 14:32 |
FlamingLiberal posted:So supposedly Obama finally signed the executive order prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace under federal contractors? Yep! "ENDA would be preferred. Clearly Congress is not going to do that, so."
|
|
# ¿ Jun 16, 2014 18:04 |
Tatum Girlparts posted:From a bit back but I don't think any other Jewmo answered this. Yeah I'm not even observant but that picture irritated the *gently caress* out of me.
|
|
# ¿ Jun 20, 2014 18:15 |
Three Olives posted:The 9th circuit just struck down the bans in Nevada and Idaho. Yesss gay vegas weddings.
|
|
# ¿ Oct 7, 2014 21:15 |
You have to make some lovely analogy, like the Panama Canal is the straight wife of the Atlantic that he only married to fit into society but it was a sham marriage.
|
|
# ¿ Oct 18, 2014 13:34 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 25, 2024 23:24 |
Three Olives posted:So we may get a delicious preview of the SCOTUS case today, the 11th circuit just denied a stay on the Alabama gay marriage ban, if the SCOTUS denies a stay too... Delicious feels like the right word here, given the posts immediately previous to yours.
|
|
# ¿ Feb 3, 2015 17:26 |