|
Tujague posted:Once again, New Mexico fails to either make me proud or enrage me. We have a vaguely tea-partyish Republican governor lady and a various-shades-of-blue Democratic majority in the Roundhouse. New Mexico is actually kind of an interesting case, because it's not actually de-jure illegal to transact same-sex marriages there (it's just that they are de-facto illegal and unrecognized by the state). As a result, New Mexico actually holds the curious title of being the second state in which same-sex marriages were issued, and the state in which the oldest non-void (i.e. still legally in effect) same-sex marriages in the United States were effected (as the San Francisco marriages were eventually ruled to have been legally void from inception). On February 20, 2004, after San Francisco started issuing the first licenses for same-sex marriages, and before Massachusetts's Supreme Court ruling took effect, Sandoval County Clerk Victoria Dunlap (a Republican!) issued about 66 marriage certificates to same-sex couples before Patricia Madrid (a Democrat) ordered them to stop. Furthermore, a 2010 divorce case between one of the married couples found that the 2004 marriage, in and of itself, was not void (and thus was subject to standard divorce proceedings), even though a district judge in 2004 had ruled that marriage licenses in and of themselves could not be issued by Sandoval County. quote:Dunlap may have been negligent or mistaken, Singleton said, but the licenses she issued are "not void from the inception, but merely voidable." The judge said that under state statutes, the only type of marriage that might be void from the beginning would be an incestuous one. Dunlap's same-sex marriage licenses were never invalidated because the matter was never litigated to its conclusion after former Attorney General Patricia Madrid persuaded Dunlap to stop issuing them. That said, this is not to say that public opinion in NM is absolutely going to provide for same-sex marriage in the near future. (45% in favor, 43% against). ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Feb 21, 2012 |
#
¿
Feb 21, 2012 22:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 23:10 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:This doesn't mean the facts of the case, i.e. harms caused to traditional marriage, will be re-done, right? Because if not, this case is pretty drat airtight. No. The findings are only based on the original case. It's now in the ninth circuit's court to decide if they want to hear the case. If so, the stay will drag on for another 6-12 months as the en banc panel basically rehears everything the three-judge panel did. Worst case, 9th and SCOTUS refuse to hear any appeal, and California (and California alone) gets same-sex marriage back. Really, the narrow holding of the ninth circuit (so far) is the troubling bit, as it effectively gives SCOTUS grounds to pull off a 5-4 decision upholding same-sex marriage (effectively) EXCLUSIVELY in California, rather than applying it nationally.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2012 02:50
|
|
|
Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer has weighed in on Obama's statement:quote:But there's one thing that I wish the president had done, which is to say which is now his side of the debate, show a little respect for the other side. Because as we saw with Prop 9, and other referendums on gay rights, those people who oppose gay marriage are demonized by the pro-side as bigots, as haters and often suffer boycotts and worse. Whereas I think he ought to say to the country, a difficult decision, each side ought to respect the other and not demonize them. But they ARE bigots, Charles. Would you not have people call a spade a spade? (Answer: Not when it's a bad label applied to Republicans!)
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2012 18:59
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:The appeals court ruling was incredibly limited and I don't think SCOTUS will decide on a broader application (like Walker's) in the next year. The ruling explicitly dodges the question of whether it is ever legal to ban same sex marriage because the CA Supreme Court already decided that right existed. Yeah, as much of a "loss" the 9th circuit decision was, it basically gave the Supreme Court the opportunity to rule Prop. 8 unconstitutional on a much more narrow interpretation than Vaughan Walker's decision would have provided for. Given the Supreme Court's love of ruling on narrow grounds, it's not improbable they'll rule using the 9th's narrow grounds rather than Walker's much broader grounds, and it'll be up to the Massachusetts DOMA case (and even that won't likely help except in getting Federal recognition.) Making Prop. 8 constitutional is pretty much a lost cause, but if they can limit the harm to California and those few states which have re-banned gay marriage (I think either Maine or New Hampshire was close to this scenario earlier this year?), the anti-gay-marriage groups will have still succeeded at establishing a firewall against other states having to recognize gay marriage. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 04:30 on May 12, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 12, 2012 04:27
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Specifically, Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon on February 12, 2004 in San Fran, which was later voided. Oregon also issued licenses that were later voided before Massachusetts. Mass just had the first ones to stick. Actually, the earliest legally recognized marriages were otherwise illegally issued in the state of New Mexico on February 20, 2004!  quote:Dunlap's same-sex marriage licenses were never invalidated because the matter was never litigated to its conclusion after former Attorney General Patricia Madrid persuaded Dunlap to stop issuing them. A judge issued a temporary restraining order to stop Dunlap from issuing more same-sex marriage licenses, but that order expired. EDIT: I guess the Minnesota case would be the earliest filed, but the New Mexico ones are the first that have been (to my knowledge) de jure recognized as valid by state law (as opposed to de facto) and not eventually ruled void from inception. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 16:53 on May 20, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 20, 2012 16:46
|
|
|
After digging into the press releases, it looks like this is another case that specifically attacks Section 3 (federal recognition). It still leaves Section 2 (state recognition) intact from the looks of the press releases.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2012 18:16
|
|
|
Yiggy posted:In the campaign thread someone was saying it'll be effective in the areas the 2nd appeals court has immediate jurisdiction over, but won't have effect outside of those areas until the supreme court affirms it or declines to adjudicate the case. This of course, supposes they don't grant an injunction pending SCOTUS hearing the case.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2012 17:38
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Sweeney Tom posted:The lawyer appointed by the Supreme Court to determine if the Court has jurisdiction over the DOMA case of Edie Windsor, and if the House of Representatives has standing to defend DOMA, has answered “no” to both questions. The lawyer, Harvard law professor Vicki Jackson, made her case last night. That's actually not a good thing is it? Because now they'd have to fight DOMA Article III in every Circuit to prevent a hypothetical President Christie from undoing the status quo, no?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:Question for some of the legal scholars out there: How would a federal court ruling against DOMA impact state-level DOMA laws, if at all? Presumably depends on how state-level DOMA is worded. There might be a few state cases to resolve any conflicts between state-level DOMA laws and laws that define marriage relative to federal definitions (e.g. for taxation purposes), but as far as I'm aware Section 2 (states don't have to acknowledge other states' gay marriages) is going to stick around regardless of the constitutionality of Section 3.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:...how so, that appears to be a call for gay marriage at both the state and federal level? I don't get it. It certainly comes off that way in practice if they've decided to punt on it until 2014 because there was no "political will" for it. How is it committing to those values if you don't actually follow through?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2013 02:20
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:Well... They're not wrong. New Mexico never defined marriage in the orgy of dickery that was the 2000s. If bills have been introduced in the NM legislature and they have failed, it might be viewed by judges as acquiescence to the idea that marriage is gender neutral. It's also worth noting that New Mexico is home to the oldest extant legal gay marriages in the United States ever since the San Francisco marriages were declared null and void by Lockyer.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2013 04:46
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:New Mexico declared those were not valid and I don't believe anyone challenged it. It's still Mass that holds the real title. Not true. While Patricia Madrid, then state attorney general, issued an opinion that said marriages were void, unlike California, the state dropped their Lockyer-style court case when Victoria Dunlap, the Republican county clerk who issued the licenses, lost her next primary by a 4-to-1 margin and was subsequently booted from her position. As a result, at least one of the 66 marriage licenses was declared to be valid (i.e. not void ab initio) and was subject to standard divorce proceedings in a 2010 court case. It's still in a legal grey area, and Masschusetts certainly has the earliest undebatably legal extant marriages, but there's now some legal precedent suggesting that the Sandoval County marriages remain non-void. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 13:37 on Mar 20, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2013 13:26
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:Introducing a bill 3 weeks after the marriage bills passed committee is really weird and I don't know if it means the guy is nuts, it's a concern troll, or somebody's done the whip count and decided it looks better if the GOP starts this process rather than the DFL giving up weeks before floor votes. Dunno, isn't the marriage bill on a knife's edge in the chamber though? If this "sways" the people on the edge, it might scuttle both plans... 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL posted:New Mexico is the one that was always grayed out for "Who Knows???" on all the Marriage Equality maps, right? How did that happen? No reference to gender in the law, but clerks weren't issuing? Or were some issuing and others weren't, just kind of working off their interpretation of vague laws? Basically New Mexico is the last state left in the pre-1973 mentality of "We don't explicitly ban gay marriage, but we also don't grant licenses." Unlike every other state in the country (which largely acted following Baehr v. Mike in 1993 and DOMA in 1996), New Mexico has never passed an explicit ban on or granted explicit permission for gay marriage. Curiously, despite its lack of any laws granting or banning gay marriage, New Mexico arguably may lay claim to the oldest still-legally-binding gay marriages in the United States. (A state court case in Santa Fe upheld the validity of one of said marriages that had been illegally granted by one of the county clerks, in so far as it was not void ab initio, but this never went up to the state Supreme Court, just as the case regarding the illegal issuance of licenses never arrived to the state Supreme Court for them to be subsequently voided a-la Lockyer) ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Jun 6, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:Wasn't New Mexico the one state that never actually passed a ban in the first place? It's also home to the oldest still-legally-valid gay marriages in the US! 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
made of bees posted:Dammit, the people who use the 'gays are trying to destroy marriage' are going to use this as evidence, aren't they? It's really surreal when you think about it: "The gays have destroyed marriage! Because they forced us to destroy marriage in order to save it!"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:What's the deal with this jail thing? First I've heard. It's Wisconsin's version of the Uniform Marriage Evasion Act. It's basically a set of laws passed in the early 20th century in several states, possibly to support anti-miscegenation laws in those states which had them (or possibly to dodge Gin marriage laws; it's unclear). Romney used a similar law to try to prevent out-of-staters from gay marrying in Massachusetts.. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Feb 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
"It's a decision in the line of Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson..." /  (moments ago on KQED's Forum) EDIT: I'll have to pull the full quote once today's episode is put online. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Jun 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
grilldos posted:What. Yep. He literally said that on the air when they had him on about 10 minutes ago. He continued the analogy a bit but I don't remember what other ridiculous case he tried to compare Obergefell to. happyhippy posted:Who is this? Brian Brown, Leader of National Organization of Marriage, so you can probably guess.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:It's actually really kind of cool that they announced this today instead of Monday though, give people the weekend to celebrate. SF Pride is tomorrow so 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 23:10 |
|
|
Aleksei Vasiliev posted:http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/26/supreme-court-says-same-sex-marriage-is-a-constitutional-right/ Brian Brown really likes the Dred Scott analogy. The longer quote from Forum earlier, now that the audio has been posted: quote:Oh, well it's definitely a defeat, but no defeat is permanent. What has happened is essentially that by one judge, in a 5-4 decision, we've upended our understanding of marriage, we've upended over 15 million voters' votes, we've stripped them of their civil rights, and we've done so not based on any understanding of the Constitution based in law (Justice Roberts refers to this in his dissent) but simply because Justice Kennedy wills this to be so! It's wrong. It's an illegitimate decision. It's a decision in the line of Dred Scott or Plessy or Buck v. Bell. It's a decision that we will work to overturn and this doesn't end the fight. This settles nothing. What it does is just as Roe v Wade did is guarantee that we will live in a much more polarized and divided country. We're going to see some almost immediate consequences and mainly those consequences will be the marginalization and discrimination directed at churches, individuals and organizations who stand for the truth of marriage. We've already seen some of that, but we're going to see a lot more. EDIT:  someone is so angry about ponies again
ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Jun 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 20:34
|
|