|
Brave New World posted:Unfortunately, they won't flail around as impotently as we would hope. This will be a moment when certain extreme-right elements would perceive themselves as being truly cornered in an "alien" culture. I would expect to see things like states such as Alabama and Mississippi calling for secession, and not in the quaint little online petition way that they have been here post-election. The most you're going to see are county clerks loudly refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples until they are forced to either by the state or a federal judge. I suppose it would be possible for clerks to legally abstain from issuing any marriage license to any couple, gay or straight, but I doubt that's a policy that would be widely adopted.
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 05:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 07:43 |
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:I live (unfortunately) in Georgia, I really don't want civil war 2.0 If I actually thought the Southern conservative leadership was that unhinged I wouldn't be joking, believe me. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 06:23
|
|
|
By the way, did everyone hear? The APA has stricken "gender identity disorder" from the Manual of Mental Disorders. That's right; you are no longer officially insane if you are transgender. Not quite a marriage equality issue, but I thought I'd share. A small victory, but an important one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 06:40
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I don't think even Scalia is corrupt and hateful enough to want to appear on the wrong side of history for the rest of eternity. If he doesn't want to vote with the pro-gay marriage bloc can he just abstain? Of all the justices in the last....century? Since Black? Scalia might be the least concerned about his legacy. Thomas too. They do not give a drat about legacy or being on the 'right' side of history. Scalia is his own legacy. They are the right side of history.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 06:41
|
|
|
resurgam40 posted:By the way, did everyone hear? The APA has stricken "gender identity disorder" from the Manual of Mental Disorders. That's right; you are no longer officially insane if you are transgender. Not quite a marriage equality issue, but I thought I'd share. A small victory, but an important one. Eh...As someone both transgendered and a Psychology major it's more nuanced change than that. The "disorder" label is a holdover from a more regressive time which is why people didn't like it, but I always felt the disorder meant the lack of congruence between body and mind, so the solution is you either cure the body or the mind. Traditionally the attempt was to cure the mind, not unlike "cure the gay" treatments which of course is wrong. Today they tend to favor "Curing" the body, through hormonal regiments and sex reassignment surgery. This obviously isn't going to change, that's generally exactly what trans people want. They're going to continue to deal with it in this manner. The big picture doesn't change, other than dressing it up in a name that people like more. The more subtle changes are in how it's diagnosed. The old diagnosis was very presumptuous and made a lot of symptoms that were not universal (Example: One of the old symptoms was an insistence on dressing up like the opposite sex and insisting they WERE that in childhood. I personally did not do this in childhood, it came around my teen years and by then I kept it repressed due to embarrassment) RagnarokAngel fucked around with this message at 07:54 on Dec 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 07:26
|
|
|
I actually have a friend who was worried about that because she thought it meant that without it being 'official' it'll be even harder for insurance to cover hormones and all. I have no clue how valid a worry that is but yea it's a way more tricky situation than homosexuality being listed was.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 07:52
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:If I actually thought the Southern conservative leadership was that unhinged I wouldn't be joking, believe me. You'd be amazed, we did just have a state senator give a 4 hour briefing on how Obama is using mind control.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 08:00
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:I actually have a friend who was worried about that because she thought it meant that without it being 'official' it'll be even harder for insurance to cover hormones and all. I have no clue how valid a worry that is but yea it's a way more tricky situation than homosexuality being listed was. DSM-V deserves a thread from somebody who understands that stuff. There's all kinds of politics and debate over the stigma of inclusion and how you get insurance to cover necessary treatment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 08:46
|
|
|
Suppose the court strikes down some parts of DOMA (whatever portions of it that are under consideration). Does that effectively mean that gay marriage is "legalized" across the country, a la Mexico where you can get your license in one of the legal states as an annoying formality? If so, will the rest of the fight be sort of symbolic?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 11:31
|
|
|
Houston Euler posted:Suppose the court strikes down some parts of DOMA (whatever portions of it that are under consideration). Does that effectively mean that gay marriage is "legalized" across the country, a la Mexico where you can get your license in one of the legal states as an annoying formality? If so, will the rest of the fight be sort of symbolic? No. The only part of DOMA that is currently under consideration is section 3. Section 2 prevents state government from being required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in another state. If section 2 were to be struck down, states would be required to officially recognize gay marriages performed in other states, and you would then be able to travel to a state where gay marriage is legal and have that marriage be binding in your home state, regardless of whether or not it is legal where you live. Section 3 officially designates marriage as between two members of the opposite sex for the purposes of federal law. If section 3 were to be struck down, the federal government would be required to officially recognize same-sex marriages performed in a state where they are legal for the purposes of federal benefits and taxation. quote:Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 11:51
|
|
|
VirtualStranger posted:No. The only part of DOMA that is currently under consideration is section 3. Although I do believe that the court would have the capacity to legalize gay marriage nationwide in their opinion, however unlikely that may be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 12:03
|
|
|
The Mexico scenario is possible but unlikely. The remaining fight would not be symbolic because being forced to go out of state is an undue burden. Consider Hawaii for an extreme example. SCOTUS is free to overturn Section 2 and all of DOMA. In a vacuum, overturning Section 2 creates the Mexico scenario. With the Prop 8 ruling coming the same month(day?), it won't happen. If you're willing to rule that every state must recognize same sex marriages you're probably willing to rule that every state must perform them. UltimoDragonQuest fucked around with this message at 12:19 on Dec 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 12:16
|
|
|
resurgam40 posted:By the way, did everyone hear? The APA has stricken "gender identity disorder" from the Manual of Mental Disorders. That's right; you are no longer officially insane if you are transgender. Not quite a marriage equality issue, but I thought I'd share. A small victory, but an important one. Nope, we're just sexual deviants instead. gently caress Ray Blanchard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 21:23
|
|
|
I'm not saying that this Blanchard guy isn't a piece of poo poo, but the DSM IV and (most likely) the the DSM 5 does have an additional criteria for a paraphilic disorder diagnosis that says "It causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of life". I'm pretty sure that without meeting that criteria paraphilias don't actually count as disorders. So basically, you can cross-dress, be a furry, or gently caress cars all you want and it's not a disorder until it becomes a problem in the non-sexual areas of your life. The DSM does have a lot of problems, but I doubt they're actively trying to diagnose everyone who doesn't exclusively enjoy heterosexual sex in the missionary position as having a paraphilic disorder. edit: just took a shower and realized that maybe this post might come across as insensitive? At any rate, I think that a lot of the stuff they jam in under paraphilias doesn't even need to be there (like this transvestitic stuff) because most of it never turns into a problem for people or if it does it's for reasons that could fall under other (real) disorders and be treated as such. The stuff that I think should be there is stuff that actively harms people/things like pedophilia, zoophilia and abuse/harm that masquerades as BDSM play. DurianGray fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Dec 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 00:33
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Nope, we're just sexual deviants instead. gently caress Ray Blanchard. I like how it sounds like the new super umbrella could cover a woman wearing pants while she has sex or something. Blanchard is really just a puritan era time traveler isn't he?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 00:40
|
|
|
DurianGray posted:I'm not saying that this Blanchard guy isn't a piece of poo poo, but the DSM IV and (most likely) the the DSM 5 does have an additional criteria for a paraphilic disorder diagnosis that says "It causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of life". I'm pretty sure that without meeting that criteria paraphilias don't actually count as disorders. So basically, you can cross-dress, be a furry, or gently caress cars all you want and it's not a disorder until it becomes a problem in the non-sexual areas of your life. Glitterbomber posted:I like how it sounds like the new super umbrella could cover a woman wearing pants while she has sex or something. Blanchard is really just a puritan era time traveler isn't he? I'm replying to both in the same reply because they're linked: Blanchard, like most "experts" on gender identity issues, is a complete shitbag. In particular, he's been pushing his own pet theory of "autogynephilia" (that trans women are more receptive to the idea of having sex as women) for decades. The thing is, though, transvestic disorder is effectively completely redundant to gender dysphoria, as the significant impairment that trans women get when dressing in their preferred gender's clothing is a result of social pressure plus dysphoria-fuelled anxiety. In that context, the only reason I can see for including transvestic disorder in DSM V is so Blanchard can make his pet theory official. It's not surprising. The appointment of both he and Ken Zucker (a leading voice of GID in children, supports reparative therapy) to the gender and sexual disorders working group were criticised by the National Gay & Lesbian Taskforce for that exact reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 01:32
|
|
|
TinTower posted:
Yeah, that realization was what made me amend my post. Although I will say that any phychiatrist/psychologist worth their salt would never use the Blanchard diagnosis for someone who obviously has dysphoria/is trans. I'm pretty sure that there's almost no way a person would be diagnosed with both, either, if that's a reason for concern (you're not supposed to double up on diagnoses with similar features/criteria if one of them fits better than the other, no matter how similar they seem). All that said, psych is far from a perfect or exact science and I'm sure people are going to make mistakes or get misdiagnosed no matter how many revisions the DSM goes through. The problem is that without it there's no standardization at all (rather than occasionally faulty standards) and people can't get things covered through their insurance at all if it's not recognized in there. Really, though, someone should probably just start a DSM 5 thread who knows what they're doing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 01:41
|
|
|
So if I'm following this correctly (I'm probably not, law language is strange voodoo), possible outcomes on the Prop 8 case are: 1) Court rules that denying right to marriage violates the 14th Amendment; national precedent set, state and federal laws banning gay marriage become invalid, marriage equality on paper for the entire country, full access to federal and state benefits. 2) Court punts the case on some basis I'm not really clear on (ruling that the defenders of Prop 8 had no right to act as the defenders?), no national precedent, Prop 8 struck down, marriage equality for California, full access to state benefits only. 3) Court overturns the 9th Circuit's decision; nobody really seems to consider this to be very likely, but would make Prop 8 stand, setting national precedent that state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage can be put to a popular vote. What parts am I wrong about? What am I leaving out?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 10:55
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL posted:
As best I can tell this isn't true. The only question in the Prop 8 case is whether a state and give rights to a minority and then take them away at a future date. The question of whether gay couples could have their right to marriage blocked by a state isn't in question.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 16:13
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL posted:So if I'm following this correctly (I'm probably not, law language is strange voodoo), possible outcomes on the Prop 8 case are: I think the most likely outcome is banning state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, along the logic of Romer v. Evans. In other words a state doesn't have to legalize it but they can't put a ban in their constitution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 17:00
|
|
|
Yea the Prop 8 case is not 'gay marriage' in the sense of it's a ruling on gay marriage as a whole, it's a rather specific case of basically deciding if a state can change their mind later and remove rights from a minority. It's an important case, but it's also much more specific than many are saying it is. Also there's the whole 'can a state ban gay marriage in its constitution' aspect that may have some fun results.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 17:05
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:Yea the Prop 8 case is not 'gay marriage' in the sense of it's a ruling on gay marriage as a whole, it's a rather specific case of basically deciding if a state can change their mind later and remove rights from a minority. It's an important case, but it's also much more specific than many are saying it is. Also there's the whole 'can a state ban gay marriage in its constitution' aspect that may have some fun results. I don't agree. The Prop 8 case was brought specifically to get a ruling legalizing gay marriage nationwide. The 9th Circuit chose to make a very narrow decision along those lines, but Kennedy is free to ignore their decision and make as sweeping or narrow a decision as he'd like.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 17:11
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I think the most likely outcome is banning state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, along the logic of Romer v. Evans. In other words a state doesn't have to legalize it but they can't put a ban in their constitution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 19:43
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:Yea the Prop 8 case is not 'gay marriage' in the sense of it's a ruling on gay marriage as a whole, it's a rather specific case of basically deciding if a state can change their mind later and remove rights from a minority. It's an important case, but it's also much more specific than many are saying it is. Also there's the whole 'can a state ban gay marriage in its constitution' aspect that may have some fun results. They can make a ruling on gay marriage as a whole if they want to. All they have to do is strike down DOMA and Prop 8 with the right reasoning (open up Loving v. Virginia.doc, copy-paste, change a few words, done). Or, they can make a very narrow decision that doesn't rock the boat, and essentially kicks the issue a few years down the road. Overall, at this stage of the game I think the pro-equality side is winning. Yeah, it's reading tea leaves and all, but there's a vast amount of maneuvering room. If jeffersonlives is right and it's possible to get 5 votes for "gay marriage for everybody from Massachusetts to Mississippi," then that can happen. If somebody turns out to be a bit too conservative for that, the court can walk back to "sorry, nobody had standing in the first place, Prop 8's gone and we'll see you all in a few years for DOMA again." That's not the greatest outcome, but in the mean time popular opinion will continue to evolve, and a few years from now a wide-ranging pro-equality decision won't seem so far ahead of the mainstream. Green Crayons posted:Best addendum would be that once a status is conferred to a group of people (e.g., homosexuals being able to marry), it cannot be taken away if that status is still afforded to others. I think that would be a great opinion that is within the confines of what some Justices/observers think SCOTUS can do in light of legitimacy concerns. "Legitimacy concerns" are nonsense. The Supreme Court has, in the past, made incredibly wide-ranging decisions, well ahead of public opinion. They're still considered a legitimate part of government. When Brown v. Board came down in 1954, public opinion a lot of places was still very strongly in favor of segregation. The court didn't give a drat; they realized that part of their role in government is to protect the rights of minorities even when public opinion is against it. Of course, it's an open question whether the current court will display that kind of political courage. But, there's no question that they have the power to do it, and the court as a body has done it in the past while only reinforcing its legitimacy in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 20:02
|
|
|
My dream situation would be a 6-3 decision (Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Roberts, Sotomayor, and Kagan) with two dissents: One penned by Alito and joined by Thomas and one read from the bench from Scalia who then resigns in disgust at the ruling.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 20:51
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:"Legitimacy concerns" are nonsense. The Supreme Court has, in the past, made incredibly wide-ranging decisions, well ahead of public opinion. They're still considered a legitimate part of government. When Brown v. Board came down in 1954, public opinion a lot of places was still very strongly in favor of segregation. The court didn't give a drat; they realized that part of their role in government is to protect the rights of minorities even when public opinion is against it. But I agree that legitimacy concerns are fairly overblown. The moment the judiciary is considered illegitimate is the day we're no longer a Republic with a separation of powers; and that's a two-way street, so not only must the judiciary do something "illegitimate" (which has to be something more than coming to a decision someone doesn't agree with), but another branch/tier of government has got to say "gently caress off." One difference between now and Brown is the history of lower-court decisions that the NAACP was conscious to build up in the decade or so prior to bringing the case to SCOTUS. Though there are 8 cases on DOMA, they are all being brought up simultaneously and on the same point (so no gradual progress in the lower courts that points to the correct resolution); and the Prop 8 case is the only one of its kind that I'm aware of. To the extent existing case law manufactures a sense of legitimacy, the current cases are wanting on that point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 21:08
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:My dream situation would be a 6-3 decision (Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Roberts, Sotomayor, and Kagan) with two dissents: One penned by Alito and joined by Thomas and one read from the bench from Scalia who then resigns in disgust at the ruling. If the Court does rule in favor of marriage equality, Scalia's dissent is going to be amazing. People thought he got unhinged in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, but this would be something else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 21:11
|
|
|
^^Scalia deserves to be super smug after predicting what Lawrence would lead to. That dissent will be loaded with hilarious stuff. I'm hoping for something more amusing than "It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war".Green Crayons posted:and the Prop 8 case is the only one of its kind that I'm aware of.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 22:36
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:^^Scalia deserves to be super smug after predicting what Lawrence would lead to. That dissent will be loaded with hilarious stuff. I'm hoping for something more amusing than "It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war". I hope he brings up incest, bestiality, and masturbation again  quote:Nevada, Hawaii, and Michigan cases are substantially the same. Even if they punt on Prop 8, the issue will come back next year. I think Green Crayons is referring to Prop 8 taking away a right that had previously been granted. He's suggesting it's unique in that SCOTUS can agree with the lower court's ruling that you can't take a right away after granting it and simply punt on every other gay marriage ban.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 22:49
|
|
|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:I hope he brings up incest, bestiality, and masturbation again The plaintiffs argued for a fundamental right to same sex marriage rather than comparing the process to Romer and the District judge agreed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2012 23:01
|
|
|
To cheer things up a bit, this buzzfeed article owns a whole lot: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/60-moments-that-gave-me-the-chills-during-seattle
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 20:49
|
|
|
Scalia is shadowboxing in preparation to face Big Gay Antonin Scalia Defends Legal Writings Some View As Offensive, Anti-Gay quote:Speaking at Princeton University, Scalia was asked by a gay student why he equates laws banning sodomy with those barring bestiality and murder. "Is buttfucking murder? What if it was? I'm not saying; I'm just saying." 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 08:42
|
|
|
Haha one of the most powerful legal authorities in our nation, everybody.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 08:43
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:Haha one of the most powerful legal authorities in our nation, everybody. If this doesn't discredit the Supreme Court a decision making body, I don't know what else would.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 09:57
|
|
|
Nobody would say that. Quit making things up, HuffPo! quote:But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible-murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals-and could exhibit even "animus" toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of "animus" at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct The Romer dissent is pretty funny outside of the wildly offensive parts. quote:The problem (a problem, that is, for those who wish to retain social disapprobation of homosexuality) is that, because those who engage in homosexual conduct tend to reside in disproportionate numbers in certain communities, see Record, Exh. MMM, have high disposable income, see ibid.; App. 254 (affidavit of Prof. James Hunter), and of course care about homosexual-rights issues much more ardently than the public at large, they possess political power much greater than their numbers, both locally and statewide.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 11:39
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Scalia is shadowboxing in preparation to face Big Gay He is amazingly terrible. I guess he's at least honest?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 16:05
|
|
|
He's just saying that the argument "mere moral disapproval isn't sufficient to ban a practice" can't be right by a reductio ad absurdism argument; maybe murder is a bad example but incest and animal cruelty are probably good. Scalia is pretty clever, as much as I disagree with him. Sorry folks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 16:14
|
|
|
Houston Euler posted:He's just saying that the argument "mere moral disapproval isn't sufficient to ban a practice" can't be right by a reductio ad absurdism argument; maybe murder is a bad example but incest and animal cruelty are probably good. Scalia is pretty clever, as much as I disagree with him. Sorry folks. If he was clever he wouldn't have said murder, he knew the implications to that, he's just a garden variety homophobe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 16:18
|
|
|
Houston Euler posted:He's just saying that the argument "mere moral disapproval isn't sufficient to ban a practice" can't be right by a reductio ad absurdism argument; maybe murder is a bad example but incest and animal cruelty are probably good. Scalia is pretty clever, as much as I disagree with him. Sorry folks. No he isn't because there are reasons beyond the moral for both of those, and murder isn't even in the same loving ballpark. He isn't remotely clever here, he's just extremely dedicated to being a terrible person to the point where he can't see the flaw in using murder in this argument.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 16:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 07:43 |
|
|
Houston Euler posted:He's just saying that the argument "mere moral disapproval isn't sufficient to ban a practice" can't be right by a reductio ad absurdism argument; maybe murder is a bad example but incest and animal cruelty are probably good. Scalia is pretty clever, as much as I disagree with him. Sorry folks. Man am I sick of this refrain, Scalia is a reasonably erudite man who also happens to be a bigot, but his bigotry is not erudite it's just the same irrational "gays are yucky" attitude you'll get from mouth-breathers the world over. Also whatever intellect Scalia once possessed has been atrophying at an exponential rate. He's the one whose fully bought into the culture war and it's not at all hard to imagine he's spends his night relaxing to Hannity and O'Reilly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 16:31
|
|
