T1B

We told you how SCOTUS would rule....

Let the melting commence. :twisted:

relax corky. pedophillia is still illegal in 57 states.

Settle down.

This is not unexpected. The DOMA ruling was just as everyone thought it would be. If a state recognizes a marriage then the Feds have to as well. This makes sense to damn near everyone, and it also pretty much says this is a state issue, not a Federal issue. Therefore we will end up where same sex marriage is legal in 15 to 20 states and illegal in 30 to 35 states.

And the Prop 8 decision wasn't a wide sweeping change, rather it was based on a technicality.

The court's rulings only effect California and states where gay marriage was already legal. This does nothing to overturn dozens of states that have constitutional bans on same sex marriage. It also doesn't change the fact that gay marriage is advancing only because of judicial rulings and state legislatures. The will of the people (votes 34 times gay marriage has been defeated) still openly oppose same sex marriage. But hey, go do your happy dance.

If I had to pick one case to win this week it would have been yesterdays pre-clearance.

It's a great day to be gay!

Jsc,

Didn't the court also send a message that this is a state issue in the DOMA case?

Further if prop 8 is unconstitutional as per the lower court ruling in California, then we have to uphold other lower court rulings in other states. Many of which have upheld the validity of statewide constitutional amendments banning same sex marriages and civil unions.

So, when lower courts in MS or FL uphold the statewide vote banning gay marriage, the SCOTUS wouldn't have much reason to hear an appeal. And if they did then states would be open for any challenges to their "rights".

Is this thinking correct or am I missing something?

trev wrote:It's a great day to be gay!

damn straight (pardon the pun).

sin,

Not so much, but it will allow photo ID to finally move forward.

The top 8 ways to be traditionally married in the Bible...

Jsc810 wrote:Only the most willfully ignorant are failing to see the end result here. Scalia predicted this in his dissent in Lawrence. Discrimination against homosexuals is wrong, whether it is in the context of marriage, adoptions, employment, or whatever else.

But is it really discrimination, Jsc?

Shared customs, laws, and traditions define Society. The people of California, by popular referendum, simply re-affirmed what has been commonly accepted by ALL societies on this earth for well over 10,000 years: That marriage (spiritual or otherwise) is defined as a union between a man and a woman.

So a Federal judge is now suddenly smarter than the collective wisdom brought by 10,000 years of custom and tradition, AND the collective will of the people of California?

Then if such a referendum was so egregious, and so remarkably unconstitutional, then how in the hell did it ever make the ballot in the first place? And here's the irony:

If that vote were to take place today, Prop 8 would most-likely fail. So why subject the people's will of 2007 to judicial activism? If gay folks and their supporters are now SO confident that marriage, as defined by popular vote six years ago, would now be determined by new parameters, why not put it to another vote, instead of hiding beneath a radical judge's robes?

rapist must pay victim's father 50 shekels of silver for property loss

Only 50 shekels? What a steal!

-Tarddowen

Pedo in Seattle wrote:Own It, Thumpers

Go 'own' the business end of a sawed off shotgun, cum breath.

Whatsa matta, Wags? :twisted:

Make sure you clean up your puddle when you're done melting.

88;
I agree that it's not a total victory for those of us in favor of equal access to marriage. But from the majority opinion in the DOMA case I'd say that other states are going to have a tough go of it trying to get a DOMA-like law upheld. It's just a matter of time before other states are held to the same standard as the feds.

Diego in Seattle wrote:It's just a matter of time before other states are held to the same standard as the feds.

It's a states rights issue in the first place of which 34 of them have ruled against same sex marriage. The Fed has no business issuing marriage decrees or ruling on the legality thereof.

Which part of "government derives their powers under the consent of the governed" don't you get?

schmick wrote:Why not just have the government not recognize marriage at all? If a couple, be they straight, gay or trans-species, wants to be recognized as a legal couple, they will need to have a civil union. Then if they want to be married in the eye of their sky fairy, they will need to find a church willing to provide them with the marriage service.
That way we will be able to determine once and for all if the gays want the "marriage" thing so they can have equal rights under the law. Or, if they still push for marriage after there is no legal benefit to it, it is because they want to stick their disgusting lifestyle in everyone else's face.

While that's an equitable proposal, it ain't going to happen. You think conservatives are going to be willing to give up their privileges? Not in this lifetime.

Jsc810 wrote: And what a screwed up vote, how often do you see Scalia and Thomas on opposing sides? Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breuer, and Kagan on one side, with Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor on the other.

I think we'll see statist v constitutionalist more frequently than right v left or republican v democrat.

New lines are being drawn.

schmick wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:

schmick wrote:Why not just have the government not recognize marriage at all? If a couple, be they straight, gay or trans-species, wants to be recognized as a legal couple, they will need to have a civil union. Then if they want to be married in the eye of their sky fairy, they will need to find a church willing to provide them with the marriage service.
That way we will be able to determine once and for all if the gays want the "marriage" thing so they can have equal rights under the law. Or, if they still push for marriage after there is no legal benefit to it, it is because they want to stick their disgusting lifestyle in everyone else's face.

While that's an equitable proposal, it ain't going to happen. You think conservatives are going to be willing to give up their privileges? Not in this lifetime.

You think liberals are going to give up their privileges in this lifetime?


And what privileges would the conservatives have to give up?

See the DOMA case to see just one.

Jsc810 wrote:Yes, Prop 8 was not rendered on the merits, at least at the SCOTUS. And what a screwed up vote, how often do you see Scalia and Thomas on opposing sides? Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breuer, and Kagan on one side, with Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor on the other.

But make no mistake. Prop 8 is unconstitutional, as held by the trial court. The SCOTUS didn't like this case procedurally? Fine, get ready for similar suits all over the country.

Only the most willfully ignorant are failing to see the end result here. Scalia predicted this in his dissent in Lawrence. Discrimination against homosexuals is wrong, whether it is in the context of marriage, adoptions, employment, or whatever else.

What? Didn't Scalia write the dissenting opinion?

If all of this was initiated out of a situation concerning benefits to others when someone dies, why don't we simply get rid of the restrictions on those benefits. Why does someone have to be married to pass on their estate tax free when they die? Of course I know the answer. The federal government wants their cut of the estate. The government should have nothing to do with marriage as we know/knew it.

I love how Obama called the plaintiff today to congratulate her after saying 13 months ago he believed marriage should remain between a man and a woman. Spineless piece of shit.

13 months ago he was still a candidate for re-election.

Carson wrote:13 months ago he was still a candidate for re-election.

Integrity has never been Obama's strong suit.

It's not a lack of integrity. Willy just evolves a little better than right wingers, just like Barry.

Jsc810 wrote:Today, the cases hold that women are "persons" under the 14th Amendment. Scalia disagrees with that.

No, he doesn't. Fuck off, you lying sack of shit.

Scalia was absolutely right, you lying piece of shit. The 14th Amendment didn't include women and, as a point of fact, had fuck all to do with women. If the 14th covered women, there would have been no need for the 19th, you stupid dickhead.

His entire point is that times change and opinions change. The law doesn't change. If you don't like the current laws, you repeal them or you amend them. What you do NOT do, is pretend that they mean something now that they clearly didn't when they were written.

It's a pretty simple concept to grasp for anyone with the tiniest sliver of intellectual honesty.

Now fuck off.

Papa Willie wrote:So are most liberals.

Gonna have to call bullshit on that one.

Jsc810 wrote:You will acknowledge, for the non-lawyers here, that Scalia's theory of constitutional interpretation is not in the majority of legal thinking today, won't you? He has his theory, but most lawyers and judges reject it, right?

Why?

Jsc810 wrote: Or in other words, our Constitution is what these folks say it is, nothing more and nothing less.

You were fine until you got here. And maybe you've just tapped into why half this country is at odds with the other.

88 and Scalia are right:

"...the United States Constitution was drafted by people who, at least for amendments made before the 1930s, defined rights as negative rights. Thus, when the Constitution in the Fourteenth Amendment protects the "life, liberty, or property" and "equal protection of the laws" to "any person," it is referring to acts which government must refrain from doing, not to any positive duty of the government to act. The only time the government has a positive duty to act is when it has already deprived a person of liberty (e.g., prisoners, and arguably children compelled to attend public schools). Unfortunately, the Court since the 1940s has departed sharply from this basic tenet of civilized law. It has read positive rights into the Constitution, thereby depriving citizens and other persons of negative rights to which we are entitled."

mvscal wrote:
I think we'll see statist v constitutionalist more frequently than right v left or republican v democrat.

New lines are being drawn.

Since when are constitutionalists not statists :?

Originalism suggests that the Constitution has a static meaning

Scalia sounds interesting, he's jumbled between the methodology of an historian and a lawyer. A bunch of a priori principles existing without any kind of temporal, spatial, social or political context. A reductionist notion of liberty because he's too lazy to reach for genuine understanding of things.

Dr_Phibes wrote:
Since when are constitutionalists not statists :?

I suppose that depends upon who's constitution you subscribe, Doc. Our Bill of Rights falls far short of any suggestion of statism. Please tell me you're trolling...

Dr_Phibes wrote:A reductionist notion of liberty because he's too lazy to reach for genuine understanding of things.

So our constitution really doesn't mean what it says, and any strict interpretation of it is construed as unimaginative and castigated as laziness? Ponderous. You'd make a fine American Congressman, Phibes.

But the very fact that you're debating it now and can't come to a reasonable, concrete conclusion, tells me that there's vagueness in the consitution. While it should be a formal science, it's social in that it deals with people and attitudes which are ever shifting. For something to remain static, it should be more like a mathematical formula. People are not so precise.

Dr_Phibes wrote:But the vary fact that your debating it now and can't come to a reasonable, concrete conclusion, tells me that there's vagueness in the consitution.

That's one conclusion. Another one might be that there is a large, ill-disposed constituency in this country that hates the document as written, and will use any means necessary to obfuscate its meaning and circumvent its intent.

Dr_Phibes wrote:While it should be a formal science, it's social in that it deals with people and attitudes which are ever shifting. For something to remain static, it should be more like a mathematical formula. People are not so precise.

mvscal, paraphrasing Scalia wrote:(Scalia's) entire point is that times change and opinions change. The law doesn't change. If you don't like the current laws, you repeal them or you amend them. What you do NOT do, is pretend that they mean something now that they clearly didn't when they were written.

Mv gets it, but the law does change, it isn't a formula. It's a reflection of attitude and circumstance, the law is not concrete. I understand that you're special and you've got a constition and whatnot, you're as much subject to social mores as anyone else. It's slightly bigger than your little corner.

mv got toasted again. How shocking. Since 2006, he's had the predictive power of a mood ring.

I did?