PDA

View Full Version : 35 Down, 16 To Go


Davian93
11-19-2014, 10:20 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/19/us/montana-same-sex-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Montana becomes the 35th of 51 US States and Federal Districts to legalize gay marriage as a Federal Judge overturns their ban. Figure maybe another 12-24 months for the other 17 to be overturned as these all work through the appellate courts.

SCOTUS could have made this much easier/smoother by just taking up one of the dozens of lawsuits and using the 14th amendment to overturn the bans nationwide.

Think about how crazy this would have seemed even 15 years ago.

Terez
11-20-2014, 12:03 AM
The decision in MS is expected within days. The judge deciding the case is an Clinton* appointee and made his views pretty clear in the hearing. So MS might be next. He might stay the decision pending appeal, though. He questioned doing so in the hearing, so we will see.

Isabel
11-20-2014, 12:30 AM
Yay:) good to hear!

Gilshalos Sedai
11-20-2014, 01:35 PM
Oddly, Texas has a problem (http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/05/15/5823992/texas-push-to-halt-same-sex-divorce.html). Currently, there's several couples that want divorces... which can't be granted unless Texas acknowledges they're married, so... still in deliberations and has been for the last few years. Texas may end up recognizing same-sex marriage ass-backwards.

And Houston City Council recognizes same sex benefits to city employees.

GonzoTheGreat
11-21-2014, 04:44 AM
From what I know of it, for a time Canada had a similar problem: they'd changed their marriage law so that same sex partners could marry, but their divorce law stated that divorce was something between "man and wife", so gay marriage was for life. Eventually, that was sorted out, but it was quite a surprise to a lot of people.

Terez
11-25-2014, 10:27 PM
Mississippi's ban has been overturned, with a two-week stay for appeal:

http://www.sunherald.com/2014/11/25/5935440/judge-overturns-mississippis-gay.html

Davian93
11-26-2014, 07:52 AM
Mississippi's ban has been overturned, with a two-week stay for appeal:

http://www.sunherald.com/2014/11/25/5935440/judge-overturns-mississippis-gay.html

36 Down, 15 to go!

Terez
11-26-2014, 08:23 AM
Didn't South Carolina and Arkansas also happen in the interim?

In other words, this is moving fast, y'all. It's getting hard to keep up with. SCOTUS will hear this before too long, and by then every state not covered by the recalcitrant 6th circuit will have already overturned their bans.

Terez
11-26-2014, 09:03 AM
This is the state of the union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_laws_on_same-sex_unions) at the moment. It's so nice that MS isn't last for once!

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i111/Terez27/ScreenShot2014-11-26at75338AM_zps954b66f9.png

Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee are in the 6th circuit which has upheld appeals, which is why those four states are still red. (Top four states in the right-hand red strip. That bit at the top is part of Michigan, which is why SBC specifies that she lives in the mitten.) The other red states just don't have rulings yet. (Clockwise-ish from the right, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota.)

PS: from what I understand, Texas and MS are both appealing to the 5th circuit. When the 5th circuit decides, MS, TX, and Louisiana will all go at once, assuming they don't follow the 6th circuit and overturn rulings. In that case we'll be back to waiting on SCOTUS.

GonzoTheGreat
11-26-2014, 09:29 AM
Maybe SCOTUS will ban marriage, saying that it is a religious rite and government has to stay out of it. That'd be fun, wouldn't it?

Terez
11-26-2014, 09:33 AM
They won't. Their decisions on DOMA and Prop 8, plus the recent refusal to hear appeals seeking to restore bans, make it clear which way they will go, short of a death and a protracted nomination battle.

Davian93
11-26-2014, 09:41 AM
SCOTUS looks pathetic for not taking one of these cases up and making a national ruling on the subject...basically the exact opposite of the Warren Court at this point out of Roberts.

Terez
11-26-2014, 10:10 AM
I don't agree. It's better to let the lower courts decide if they will; if the rulings after DOMA had been mixed, there would have been a good reason to step in. It's about the balance of power; it's not a good idea for them to wield it when they don't have to.

Davian93
11-26-2014, 10:12 AM
I don't agree. It's better to let the lower courts decide if they will; if the rulings after DOMA had been mixed, there would have been a good reason to step in. It's about the balance of power; it's not a good idea for them to wield it when they don't have to.

Its more of a unified statement when SCOTUS makes that sort of announcement. This patchwork approach works but this is a pure 14th amendment type of issue and full faith credit issue...right in their wheelhouse and they're avoiding it due to the conservative wing of the court (Roberts has to know it would likely be a 5-4 ruling in favor which makes them look bad)

Terez
11-26-2014, 10:24 AM
Its more of a unified statement when SCOTUS makes that sort of announcement.
That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that the decentralized decisions are more likely to reflect where we are as a country, which makes the unity effectively stronger when it comes time for SCOTUS to definitively overturn the few remaining bans. The spirit of democracy is decentralization. SCOTUS made the necessary herald call with DOMA; they are already the reason this is moving so fast through the lower courts. If they wait, they have a buffer between them and accusations of legislating from the bench. If the lower courts were more mixed, the cons of waiting might outweigh the pros, but as it is, waiting makes the decision more iron-clad.

GonzoTheGreat
11-26-2014, 10:52 AM
Careful. You're coming close to accusing them of rationality. I'm not sure you want to go there.

Terez
11-26-2014, 11:28 AM
I'm basically paraphrasing and expanding upon what the notorious RBG has said in public. (And SCOTUS members don't talk shop much in public, so this was a rare type of comment.)

Davian93
11-26-2014, 12:23 PM
That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that the decentralized decisions are more likely to reflect where we are as a country, which makes the unity effectively stronger when it comes time for SCOTUS to definitively overturn the few remaining bans. The spirit of democracy is decentralization. SCOTUS made the necessary herald call with DOMA; they are already the reason this is moving so fast through the lower courts. If they wait, they have a buffer between them and accusations of legislating from the bench. If the lower courts were more mixed, the cons of waiting might outweigh the pros, but as it is, waiting makes the decision more iron-clad.

Tis a good point.

Terez
11-26-2014, 06:54 PM
I hope I didn't jinx it.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/breaking_supreme_court_justice_ruth_bader_ginsburg _hospitalized_for_emergency_surgery

Terez
11-28-2014, 03:13 PM
Meanwhile, congrats to Naz:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/28/finland-legalises-gay-marriage

Nazbaque
11-28-2014, 04:20 PM
Yeah we've had our own version of middens hitting windmills on this subject and others that aren't exactly similar but are close to the hearts of the more open minded part of society.

In short every citizen has the right to suggest a law and then it goes through routes and gets adjusted and finally the parliament votes on it. It can get there smoothly as in the parliament just takes it up as something that certainly shoud be addressed or it can go the harder way and get petioned and then forced onto the parliament. Sometime back the legalization of gay marriege was petioned online and it reached the legal requirement by the afternoon and three times over at the end of the day. In the end it didn't go through as one of the steps demanded is to make sure it fits properly with the existing laws and the conservative assholes made a stink about some minor details. I had added my name to that petition, but it was really my sister who was passionate about it mainly because she hasn't yet become cynical enough in spite of having three years on me. She was seriously pissed over it.

Terez
01-16-2015, 04:07 PM
http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-care/same-sex-marriage-returns-to-the-supreme-court-20150116

The SCOTUS just decided to take up the appeal to the 6th circuit decision upholding marriage bans in four states. That was the first federal decision against marriage equality, and we have known since then that this case would probably end up before SCOTUS; it was just a matter of when.

In other words, nationwide marriage equality is coming soon. We know which way SCOTUS will go. Meanwhile, the 5th circuit is about to decide for MS, LA, and TX and all indications are that the 5th circuit will over turn state bans, so MS might get marriage equality before the national decision.

In the meantime, Vietnam has passed marriage equality. I can't recall any other countries since Finland.

Davian93
01-16-2015, 06:27 PM
http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-care/same-sex-marriage-returns-to-the-supreme-court-20150116

The SCOTUS just decided to take up the appeal to the 6th circuit decision upholding marriage bans in four states. That was the first federal decision against marriage equality, and we have known since then that this case would probably end up before SCOTUS; it was just a matter of when.

In other words, nationwide marriage equality is coming soon. We know which way SCOTUS will go. Meanwhile, the 5th circuit is about to decide for MS, LA, and TX and all indications are that the 5th circuit will over turn state bans, so MS might get marriage equality before the national decision.

In the meantime, Vietnam has passed marriage equality. I can't recall any other countries since Finland.

I wonder if Roberts can manage a 9-0 vote or will it be another 5-4 with Kennedy (reliably pro-gay rights) as the swing vote.

9-0 would be a lot more of a "statement" here.

Terez
01-16-2015, 06:30 PM
It will never be 9-0. The absolute best you'll get is 7-2; Thomas and Scalia will never, ever budge on this.

Davian93
01-16-2015, 06:37 PM
It will never be 9-0. The absolute best you'll get is 7-2; Thomas and Scalia will never, ever budge on this.

You'd think "strict constructionalists" would actually correctly interpret equal rights and the 14th Amendment...you'd be wrong.


FWIW, Alito will vote with them too...so at best it'll be 6-3 with Roberts swinging to the Majority just so he can write the "historic" opinion. He likes to do that for the big votes...especially when its going to pass regardless. Also, as CJSCOTUS, one of his privileges is getting to write the actual opinion of every decision he agrees with.

Terez
01-16-2015, 07:32 PM
If he screws it up bad enough then one of the other yea justices can write a concurring opinion.

Terez
01-16-2015, 09:26 PM
I thought I should also do a map comparison, just to show the specifics of what has changed.

This is the state of the union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_laws_on_same-sex_unions) at the moment. It's so nice that MS isn't last for once!

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i111/Terez27/ScreenShot2014-11-26at75338AM_zps954b66f9.png
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i111/Terez27/ScreenShot2015-01-16at82032PM_zps23ee2c4b.png

TX, LA, AR, and MS are in the 5th circuit so there will be a ruling on those four states soon. The reason why TX, AR, and MS are yellow but LA is red is because LA's state-level federal judge upheld their marriage ban, while federal judges in the other three states overturned those bans. The plaintiffs appealed in LA and the defendants appealed in the other three; all four are being considered together in the 5th circuit appeals court. The arguments have already happened; we are just waiting on a decision.

GonzoTheGreat
01-17-2015, 04:18 AM
Is there a connection between the spread of gay marriage and dropping oil prices?
If so, that would explain why Putin is bothered by those lower oil prices. Of course, I can't really figure out what the connective mechanism would be, so it does seem a bit uncertain for now.

Terez
01-17-2015, 03:18 PM
Perhaps Putin is upset about the oil prices because he gambled Russia's entire economy on them.

Southpaw2012
01-17-2015, 04:31 PM
Though I have religious questions regarding same-sex marriage, I think it would be unwise not to rule in favor at this point. Especially now that they will be using the Fourteenth Amendment.

Southpaw2012
01-17-2015, 04:33 PM
Scalia won't budge because he looks at what the words meant at the time the statute or in this case, the amendment was enacted. Though I agree with this interpretation, I do believe he will be wrong if he goes against in this case.

ShadowbaneX
01-17-2015, 05:59 PM
"Religious questions" is an oxymoron. Religion is designed to do your thinking for you. Saying you have "religious questions" about a topic just means "I haven't bothered to think about it."

Terez
01-17-2015, 06:20 PM
To be fair to him, I know a lot of religious people who have "religious questions" about this precisely because they've questioned whether they should allow their religion to do the thinking for them. Southpaw being a young person, it would be unsurprising if he has actually questioned himself, so maybe it's an oxymoron, but I wouldn't go so far to say he's probably never thought about it. A majority of Republicans under 30 favor marriage equality, and last I checked it was more than 60%.

Davian93
01-18-2015, 01:22 PM
Though I have religious questions regarding same-sex marriage, I think it would be unwise not to rule in favor at this point. Especially now that they will be using the Fourteenth Amendment.

That's good...given that its a civil question and we have a secular government based on civil laws.

Davian93
01-18-2015, 01:24 PM
Scalia won't budge because he looks at what the words meant at the time the statute or in this case, the amendment was enacted. Though I agree with this interpretation, I do believe he will be wrong if he goes against in this case.

Or...to be more honest, he makes up his mind beforehand based on his personal opinions and then bends the supposed legal precedents to defend his opinion regardless of any validity in the law.

Res_Ipsa
01-19-2015, 05:24 PM
You'd think "strict constructionalists" would actually correctly interpret equal rights and the 14th Amendment...you'd be wrong.

I am not sure if I am reading your point right, but there is no reason why they would read the 14A as anything more them as applying to Amendments 1-8 and also only in the cases of race. We have John Bingham's writings as well as other principle architects thoughts about that. Thus, even if they were strict constructionists (Scalia himself has said that he is not),it would not be adverse to that philosophy for them to be against the expansion of what "equal rights" entail.


As to predicting the outcome, I need to ask my old Con Law professor, he has something like a 90% prediction rate over the last 5 years based on a talk he gives every year in the fall about SCOTUS's big cases.

Terez
01-20-2015, 02:02 AM
As to predicting the outcome, I need to ask my old Con Law professor, he has something like a 90% prediction rate over the last 5 years based on a talk he gives every year in the fall about SCOTUS's big cases.
Just a prediction of the decision, or who votes what?

Res_Ipsa
01-20-2015, 09:40 AM
Just a prediction of the decision, or who votes what?

Both, and his reasons are always interesting.

Davian93
01-20-2015, 11:50 AM
Both, and his reasons are always interesting.

I look forward to an answer...

suttree
01-20-2015, 12:45 PM
Though I have religious questions regarding same-sex marriage,

Why should religion have any say in the matter?

Nazbaque
01-20-2015, 02:21 PM
Why should religion have any say in the matter?

So that God gets to punish people. It's why he gave them brains and comanded not to use them.

GonzoTheGreat
01-21-2015, 04:09 AM
Why should religion have any say in the matter?
Because legal contracts (of which marriage is but one example) are in the USA always subject to religious vetos. Don't you know anything?

Terez
01-23-2015, 07:29 PM
Federal judge in Alabama just ruled:

http://wiat.com/2015/01/23/federal-judge-rules-alabama-ban-on-same-sex-marriage-as-unconstitutional/

According to the map on Wikipedia, the decision has not been stayed, but I haven't seen that in any article and I'm not sure how to interpret the judge's conclusion in this respect. It appears to me from his wording that the laws against same sex marriage can no longer be enforced (by his order) but he doesn't say explicitly that the decision is not being stayed, so I don't know.

Alabama is in the 11th circuit with Florida and Georgia. Georgia's ban has not been overturned; Florida's has. The decision is not pending in Florida; same-sex marriages began this month. Florida has made an appeal to the 11th circuit, though, and some clerks have ceased performing all marriages, only issuing licenses as required by law.

Terez
02-09-2015, 10:06 AM
It will never be 9-0. The absolute best you'll get is 7-2; Thomas and Scalia will never, ever budge on this.

You'd think "strict constructionalists" would actually correctly interpret equal rights and the 14th Amendment...you'd be wrong.

FWIW, Alito will vote with them too...so at best it'll be 6-3 with Roberts swinging to the Majority just so he can write the "historic" opinion.
We got a clue on this today. The chief justice of Alabama's supreme court issued an order yesterday that probate judges should not perform same-sex marriages. As of yesterday, the SCOTUS had ignored Alabama's appeal on the expiration of the stay entirely, which was considered odd. But this morning they issued a ruling denying the request for an extension of the stay (which expired yesterday).

The ruling was 7-2. The dissenters? Thomas and Scalia.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-09/gay-marriage-cleared-by-u-s-supreme-court-to-start-in-alabama

Davian93
02-09-2015, 04:13 PM
The ruling was 7-2. The dissenters? Thomas and Scalia.

Shocking it was those two.

Terez
02-10-2015, 03:28 AM
Shocking it was those two.
My point in all those quotes was, of course, that Alito didn't vote with them. So it's possible he'll vote with the majority when this thing is finally decided, which I didn't expect. (Still not sure I expect it.)

By the way, the court-watchers are being a little more definite about the time we can expect a decision, which is June.

Davian93
03-04-2015, 08:23 AM
Alabama is doing its darnest to speed this whole process up. They've now officially defied the Federal court ruling and have ordered their court clerks to not issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples.

So, it might be time to spool up the National Guard to go LBJ on their dumb, ignorant asses.

Alabama Supreme Court Orders Judges To Stop Gay Marriages (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/alabama-court-orders-halt-same-sex-marriage-licenses)

All this is doing is forcing SCOTUS to act even sooner than their previously scheduled ruling on the subject in June (which will almost certainty end in a national overturning of any gay marriage bans anyway).

The writing is on the wall but this dumb ignorants fucks are apparently illiterate...not really a surprise given Alabama's education ranking among the 50 states.

Daekyras
03-04-2015, 08:30 AM
Ireland is currently passing a law that says Gay couples can be parents. (that is not its official title but it is one of the major points, in addition to allowing Dads become the sole care givers after divorce which currently our laws do not allow no matter the situation with the mother)

Then, we are having a vote on whether Gay couples can marry. It is sad that we actually need a referendum to make it legal in this country.

In many ways Ireland is a progressive country but in many others we are a dull backwater. Recently our minister for health "came out". It was the headline news for a week. And I shit you not, People actually questioned whether he was fit to hold his office.

I despair at things like that.

Davian93
03-04-2015, 08:31 AM
Well, you do have a very heavy conservative Catholic influence on your country for very obvious historical reasons. Didnt you only legalize divorce like 15 years ago?

Daekyras
03-04-2015, 08:46 AM
Well, you do have a very heavy conservative Catholic influence on your country for very obvious historical reasons. Didnt you only legalize divorce like 15 years ago?

We legalised divorce and then made it really difficult to get divorced.(must be a proven separtation of four years, assets must be divided equally etc)

It is the same thing with Abortion. There is limited abortion technically legal in our nation. It is only legal if there is a threat to the mothers life. One of these threats is Suicide but there must be three doctors and three psychologists that sign off on the danger to the mother.

In some very recent cases mothers have died even when their child was no longer viable.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savita_Halappanavar

Is a famous case where the mother was told she could not have an abortion because "this is a catholic country dear" and she then died from sepsis.

We can be very backwards. NB- this is not meant to represent a pro-choice view in any way. That is not part of this debate just relevant to what Dav posted.

GonzoTheGreat
03-04-2015, 09:08 AM
It is only legal if there is a threat to the mothers life. One of these threats is Suicide but there must be three doctors and three psychologists that sign off on the danger to the mother.
If they say no and the woman then kills herself, are they allowed to say "Oops!" as their official second opinion?

Morelikeunwisewoman
03-05-2015, 11:07 AM
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savita_Halappanavar


Did I read that correctly? They allowed her to die even after the foetus was clearly not viable?

GonzoTheGreat
03-05-2015, 11:39 AM
Did I read that correctly? They allowed her to die even after the foetus was clearly not viable?
Isn't Christianity great?

Davian93
03-05-2015, 11:49 AM
Isn't Christianity great?

Sure, okay...just awesome.

Stupid misguided versions of His message that somehow gain traction.

Daekyras
03-05-2015, 03:12 PM
Did I read that correctly? They allowed her to die even after the foetus was clearly not viable?

Yes.
1.she presented with bleeding.
2. Waters broke
3. Discovered the baby was non-viable but heart still beating
4. Doctors said it would come naturally as cervix had begun dilating.
5. After 20hrs asked for abortion. Told no.
6. Begins to feel sick at 30hrs. Told no again.
8. After forty hours crazy high fever and emergency abortion performed.
9.dies sometime later of septacaemia.

Davian93
03-05-2015, 03:56 PM
Yes.
1.she presented with bleeding.
2. Waters broke
3. Discovered the baby was non-viable but heart still beating
4. Doctors said it would come naturally as cervix had begun dilating.
5. After 20hrs asked for abortion. Told no.
6. Begins to feel sick at 30hrs. Told no again.
8. After forty hours crazy high fever and emergency abortion performed.
9.dies sometime later of septacaemia.

Blessed be His Name...

Kimon
03-05-2015, 04:51 PM
Blessed be His Name...

We joke, but this is the direction that out own country is heading.

http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/abortion-access/map-abortion-access-south/

Would anyone really be surprised if this same sort of story happened anywhere in the Confederacy?

Davian93
03-05-2015, 08:32 PM
We joke, but this is the direction that out own country is heading.

http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/abortion-access/map-abortion-access-south/

Would anyone really be surprised if this same sort of story happened anywhere in the Confederacy?

No...or even better that woman that was basically dead but they kept her body on machines for weeks while it rotted from the inside because she was like 14 weeks pregnant and they wanted to "save the baby". The woman wasn't just brain dead, she was dead dead and the body was rotting but the ultra christians wouldn't let the husband pull the plug.

Remember this crap from last year? http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/29/health/texas-pregnant-brain-dead-woman/index.html

Disgusting all around.

Up there with that woman in Florida that literally had no brain matter left but they kept her alive for years because Jesus. Schiavo or something like that.

Daekyras
03-06-2015, 04:08 AM
No...or even better that woman that was basically dead but they kept her body on machines for weeks while it rotted from the inside because she was like 14 weeks pregnant and they wanted to "save the baby". The woman wasn't just brain dead, she was dead dead and the body was rotting but the ultra christians wouldn't let the husband pull the plug.

Remember this crap from last year? http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/29/health/texas-pregnant-brain-dead-woman/index.html

Disgusting all around.

Up there with that woman in Florida that literally had no brain matter left but they kept her alive for years because Jesus. Schiavo or something like that.

Jesus saves.....but the devil picks up the rebound.

Terez
05-23-2015, 10:28 PM
Congrats to Ireland on the referendum. I thought I might as well resurrect this thread since our SCOTUS decision is expected within the month.

Meanwhile, Alabama's state Supreme Court has ordered its judges to ignore the order of a federal judge to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Said federal judge just reiterated her opinion (http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/21/politics/alabama-same-sex-marriage/) and reminded them of the supremacy clause, but she stayed her order pending the SCOTUS decision.

Daekyras
05-24-2015, 08:20 AM
Congrats to Ireland on the referendum. I thought I might as well resurrect this thread since our SCOTUS decision is expected within the month.

Meanwhile, Alabama's state Supreme Court has ordered its judges to ignore the order of a federal judge to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Said federal judge just reiterated her opinion (http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/21/politics/alabama-same-sex-marriage/) and reminded them of the supremacy clause, but she stayed her order pending the SCOTUS decision.

Wooooh!!!!

Terez
05-28-2015, 12:45 PM
I am amused that God showed up to tell the Irish how to vote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/23/rainbow-dublin-gay-marriage_n_7428358.html

How did I not hear about this until today?

Davian93
06-26-2015, 11:20 AM
So um...51 DOWN, ZERO TO GO!!!

http://jurist.org/images/wiki/14/09/same-sex%20marriage.jpg

This thread can be closed out now.