quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
Or are nuts attributing disasters to God's vengeance for giving the time of day to gays purely an American affliction?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
What's the timetable like in the UK?

---

quote:

---

orfeo: Homosexuals cause droughts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
What's the timetable like in the UK?

---

The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill* is currently in Committee Stage in the House of Commons. I haven't heard any reports about what's been going on in Committee, so hopefully no news is good news.

*If this Bill doesn't change to become the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill before gaining royal assent I think we should sack the lot of them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
I found the video of the people singing in Parliament, I understand it's a Maori love song. Can't keep my eyes dry watching that one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:

It's nice to see rejoicing in the victory after a long hard battle. The opposition was described as a Christian group. It will be interesting to see what they do next as marriages start to be a reality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mrs whibley:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
What's the timetable like in the UK?

---

The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill* is currently in Committee Stage in the House of Commons. I haven't heard any reports about what's been going on in Committee, so hopefully no news is good news.

*If this Bill doesn't change to become the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill before gaining royal assent I think we should sack the lot of them.

---

I think England and Scotland are having a bit of a legislation-race on this one. We looked like we were winning towards the middle of last year, so David Cameron hurried his bill on a bit...
Both should be ready in 2014, although AFAIK Scotland is planning to allow religious ceremonies from the off and England isn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:

It's nice to see rejoicing in the victory after a long hard battle. The opposition was described as a Christian group. It will be interesting to see what they do next as marriages start to be a reality.

---

Preparing for the apocalypse, likely.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
One MP had a rather amusing take on some of the predictions he'd had conveyed to him.

---

quote:

---

Arabella Purity Winterbottom: Forgot to say that NZ events do tend to have singing attached if there are Maori people present. Its one of the things I love about NZ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
As I read various dire predictions - not only for New Zealand, but the odd American youtube poster who thinks their country is becoming more cursed by God as same-sex marriage spreads - I started to wonder why the Netherlands is taking so long to become afflicted with God's fury. It's been 13 years and it still appears to be a much nicer place to be than an awful lot of other places.

---

quote:

---

lilBuddha: God really likes tulips??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
God really likes tulips??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
An Australian conservative who gets it.

---

At last some sense! If Julia did the same she might have a ghost of a chance at the next election!!
 

---

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
This is perhaps tangential, but related.

Does the legalisation of same sex marriage, or as I might prefer to call it, equality of marriage, change anything about homosexual relationships? I am going to cite the stereotype and acknowledge in advance that it is just that, but also suggest that my perception is that it contains some level of truth (unless I can be set straight that it does not). The stereotype is that gay men have more sexual partners and more causal sexual liaisons where, for example, there is no connection other than the sex, versus non-gay men. The stereotype does not seem to be in general perception nearly as much for lesbians.

Questions: Does marital equality lead to more committed relationships among gay men and lesbians, and, does it lead to gay men and lesbians having fewer sexual partners? Does marital equality lead to homosocial couples becoming more like heterosocial couples?

[ 22. April 2013, 19:42: Message edited by: no prophet ]
 

---

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
I think that this stereotype applies to men vs. women more than gay men vs. straight men, and in that respect it is true enough. Biology explains it. A woman can't have as many children as a man can. Therefore she must be choosier, and also concerned that her man will hang around and help raise the kids. So a same-sex relationship between two men, i.e. two who are inherently more likely to wander, will probably be distinctly more vulnerable than one with two who are inherently less likely to wander. The latter might be more apt to be monogamous than the average heterosexual relationship.

On the other hand, the radio show This American Life reported a study which tried to identify the best and worst marriages by observing all details of a conversation-- both language and body language. I'm sure that this was done and reported during Bush administration, because the researchers had a government grant which they would never have received had their proposal contained any obvious indication that, just out of curiosity, they hoped to study a few same-sex couples as well. With any standard language to that effect, a computer would probably have rejected it before ever being seen by human eyes.

Their most remarkable finding surprised them: according to everything they could observe, the same-sex couples interacted in a way that was off the charts. In short, they understood each other better than most man/woman pairs. Ira Glass quipped that this research had stumbled upon that earnestly-sought evidence that same-sex marriages threaten straight marriages: they do it by being happier and more successful!

In the case of men, whether this natural increased ability to communicate with a spouse will predominante over the increased tendency to stray is anyone's guess. But look at the good business sense of the old disco operators: great cunning was exercised to make a discotheque seem like a good place to hitch up, but not actually be a good place. In reality, it would be an unusually poor place. The ubiquitous high sound level, the darkness and flashing colored lights, the shortage of seats, the alcohol and drugginess, the anonymity and narcissism encouraged by the atmosphere...

It all started, I gather, because of local laws and ordinances in many places that prohibited a same-sex couple from body contact in public, or from even being identifiable partners on a dance floor. Presto, from resourceful and creative gay people: disco. They made such delectable lemonade from the lemons served to them, that pretty soon straight sheeple were voluntarily rushing to make their own prospects just as unpropitious as they had made those of gays. (Sweet revenge!)

And why this cunning? Because the proprietors knew that any enduring match made on their premises would mean two satisfied but former customers. Gotta keep 'em coming back. Couples knew this: going back to the bars, even together, was reputedly one of the most fatal temptations for a relationship. Such smart business types probably knew what was good for them.
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I know a gay couple in the Netherlands, they have been married for a while. Their wedding is so boring that it's almost a caricature. They mostly stay at home, have few friends and as far as I know they have no sexual escapades - and they're happy with this!

Maybe this is the biggest achievement of this struggle, that gay couples have as much right to a boring wedding as a straight couple

[ 23. April 2013, 00:28: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
 

---

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
My own experience of my own friends, gay/lesbian and straight, suggests that Alogon is right - its a male/female thing rather than a gay/straight thing.

That said, all my gay and lesbian friends bar one are happily in looooong term relationships - we're one of the shorter partnerships and we've been together 20 years. So all of those relationships reach back before the law changed to allow civil unions, let alone marriage.

Honestly, the gay agenda consists of looking bleary just like everyone else when you wake up, doing chores, working at a job, and coming home to cook dinner. Sorry if you were hoping for more glam, but that's the way it is for most of us.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
This is perhaps tangential, but related.

Does the legalisation of same sex marriage, or as I might prefer to call it, equality of marriage, change anything about homosexual relationships? I am going to cite the stereotype and acknowledge in advance that it is just that, but also suggest that my perception is that it contains some level of truth (unless I can be set straight that it does not). The stereotype is that gay men have more sexual partners and more causal sexual liaisons where, for example, there is no connection other than the sex, versus non-gay men. The stereotype does not seem to be in general perception nearly as much for lesbians.

Questions: Does marital equality lead to more committed relationships among gay men and lesbians, and, does it lead to gay men and lesbians having fewer sexual partners? Does marital equality lead to homosocial couples becoming more like heterosocial couples?

---

quote:

---

Homosexuals cause droughts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
If you tell gay men that their relationships are shallow and meaningless and nothing more than promiscuous sexual escapades, they will tend to believe you.

Same-sex marriage is about telling them that their relationships mean something, after all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
If you tell gay men that their relationships are shallow and meaningless and nothing more than promiscuous sexual escapades, they will tend to believe you.

Same-sex marriage is about telling them that their relationships mean something, after all.

---

Please be clear, I would never use such terms: "shallow and meaningless and nothing more than promiscuous sexual escapades". The judge of the meaningfulness of a relationship is the parties involved.

But further to the point, there is a difference between a relationship and extracting a single activity out of the context of relationship. I have heard discussed before that men are more promiscuous, but are they?

Is the suggestion that the 'standard' for meaning in relationship is the heterosocial married couple? Thus does marriage equality means gay and lesbian couples come to resemble hetero ones? Certainly there are examples of this, including children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
Is the suggestion that the 'standard' for meaning in relationship is the heterosocial married couple? Thus does marriage equality means gay and lesbian couples come to resemble hetero ones? Certainly there are examples of this, including children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Congratulations France and Delaware!

---

And it looks like Rhode Island as well.

EDIT: Heck of a month, really.

[ 26. April 2013, 04:28: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
Is there any way to edit thread titles?

 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I have a vague feeling a Host can do it! Hehe, I should know, rather than have a vague feeling.
 

---

Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Is there any way to edit thread titles?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Such beautiful days we are living through.

---

Amen.
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
Minnesota may be next. There's a floor debate in the House of Representatives that looks promising.
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Minnesota may be next. There's a floor debate in the House of Representatives that looks promising.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
According to the article (and assuming the governor signs it), Minnesotans who are so inclined can enjoy same-sex starting August 1.

---

Gov. Dayton has scheduled a signing ceremony for tomorrow on the capitol steps. St. Paul is officially celebrating afterwards.

St. Paul celebration
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
I'm thrilled that Minnesota has passed Equal Marriage!
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
It's great that Minnesota has passed Gay Marriage and without any gutting amendments.

While I was clicking my way here. I pondered the thought that for a dead horse there is a lot of progress; you could almost see this resolve in our lifetimes.. at least off board.


 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
Heh heh, I guess there's life in this little old horse yet

But I must say that I'm surprised with the speed at which this is happening. The Netherlands are the first country to legalize equal marriage rights, and I'm proud of that. But I have the feeling that it took us years or even decades to get there. The US are seeing some surprisingly fast changes, not only in the number of states with equal marriage rights, but also in the rapid shift in public opinion. And this in the face of some very vocal opposition.

Keep going!
 

---

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kyzyl:
IT PASSED!!!!

---

Amen.

It's about damned time. I mean, seriously - we're behind IOWA?


 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
If Illinois helps a little, the thread title "13 and counting" will be valid again at the end of the month
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
If Illinois helps a little, the thread title "13 and counting" will be valid again at the end of the month

---

quote:

---

Palimpsest: and from Brazil

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Oddly enough on National Public Radio in the US today there was a small feature on the increased hopes in Australia for same sex marriage, inspired by New Zealand and some electoral preparations for the next elections I didn't quite understand?

Can any of our antipodal experts give any light or is this jusr spin. They did quote some minister on the tax revenue fortunes to be made if the gays were allowed to organize their own weddings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
They have to wait for the 9th Circuit to lift the stay, which probably can't happen until the SCOTUS decision takes effect in 25 days.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
And it has. It's now on the statute book.

First same-sex marriages in England probably next summer.

---

I never thought I'd we see actually happen ! Now both my church and my country are willing for me to marry - I just need to find a spouse ...

[ 17. July 2013, 20:05: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
 

---

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
As I understand it the C of E is still prohibited from performing same sex marriage, but I would imagine that you can find an accommodating congregation out there.

Still, it is up to you to find your partner.
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
Congratulations England! Just remember that you'll still have to serve watery coffee after the wedding service, otherwise it won't be an English SSM
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
George Clooney capsules at my local church. You see, England rocks. (irony alert).
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
It will be interesting to see where British couples wanting same sex church marriages end up doing the church ceremony.

It reminds me of the little church around the corner
 

---

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
As I understand it the C of E is still prohibited from performing same sex marriage, but I would imagine that you can find an accommodating congregation out there.

Still, it is up to you to find your partner.

---

I am a Quaker, Britain Yearly Meeting approved gay marriage a couple of years ago and started lobbying for a change in the law.
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Here's an interesting ruling handed down by federal court in the state of Ohio. The judge issued a temporary order requiring the state of Ohio legally recognize a same-sex marriage performed in Maryland. The reasoning is pretty straightforward. Since the state of Ohio has a statute requiring it to recognize marriages legally performed in other states that would be against Ohio's law to perform locally (e.g. marriages of first cousins, marriages of couples too young to marry in Ohio), singling out same-sex couples for non-recognition is a violation of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

I don't know how common such statutes are, but if they're widespread this could be a way to effectively render section 2 of DOMA a dead letter.
 

---

Posted by Kyzyl (# 374) on :
 
A bit of nice news from my state....
Betty Crocker likes teh gayz!
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
So, same-sex couples are now getting legally married in Minnesota. The ground had failed to open up and swallow the state and civilization has (once again) failed to collapse.

When will we get to see the apocalyptic stuff the anti-equality folks have been warning about since same-sex marriage was first suggested as a possibility?
 

---

Posted by Kyzyl (# 374) on :
 
As a Minnesotan, I can confirm that it is a beautiful summer day. No earthquakes have occurred, fire and brimstone has not rained down and I have seen no locusts. However, my dog has been acting rather odd; most likely due the rabbits that have moved in to the yard but still

[ 01. August 2013, 20:32: Message edited by: Kyzyl ]
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
So, same-sex couples are now getting legally married in Minnesota. The ground had failed to open up and swallow the state and civilization has (once again) failed to collapse.

When will we get to see the apocalyptic stuff the anti-equality folks have been warning about since same-sex marriage was first suggested as a possibility?

---

• Neither the New Mexico state constitution [PDF] nor its state laws say anything about the gender of the parties to a marriage.
• The New Mexico state constitution does have a clause forbidding discrimination by gender.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
So are we at 15 now?

---

For countries, it's getting hard to know how to count! It's 15 if you count Brazil but don't count England/Wales which hasn't come into force yet.

To be honest I'm not even sure how to label the UK situation, damn them and their strange constitutional arrangements.

United States, it's 13 states plus DC, not including New Mexico.
 

---

Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
So are we at 15 now?

---

For countries, it's getting hard to know how to count! It's 15 if you count Brazil but don't count England/Wales which hasn't come into force yet.

To be honest I'm not even sure how to label the UK situation, damn them and their strange constitutional arrangements.

United States, it's 13 states plus DC, not including New Mexico.

---

quote:

---

Two months after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling to expand federal recognition of same-sex marriages, striking down part of an anti-gay marriage law, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg officiated at a same-sex wedding.

The officiating is believed to be a first for a member of the nation's highest court.

Ginsburg officiated Saturday at the marriage of Kennedy Center President Michael Kaiser and John Roberts, a government economist.

---

quote:

---

Abbott said her catchy hit "Hot n Cold" would make a good election anthem for his party, but Perry was not so sure.
"I don't know, I don't know if that's the best song we can pick for a politician," she said of a song that begins with the lyrics: "You change your mind like a girl changes clothes".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
New Jersey Judge Mary Jacobson ruled that the new federal rulings establishing federal recognition of same sex marriage means New Jersey has to offer same sex marriage rather than civil partnerships under equal protection laws. She's ordered New Jersey to start marriages by Oct 21.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Hmm, that's an interesting one. Whether that form of reasoning would survive, I'm not sure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm finding it a little confusing, and
Which reminds me... (best put in a separate post)

---

It is notable that same sex marriage legalizations barely make the headlines anymore, they've become so unsurprising.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Nice.

---

One red sock and one blue sock - nice indeed!

 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 

quote:

---

Tasmania tried to introduce [SSM] but several upper house members voted against because they said they had legal advice that it WASN'T constitutionally valid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Nice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Nice.

---

One red sock and one blue sock - nice indeed!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I didn't understand the references to compatibility with the Commonwealth Marriage Act. Is that Australia or Commonwealth law applying to all countries in the Commonwealth? If it is the latter what happens when the UK legalizes same se Marriage?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kyzyl:
And in Hawaii... Hawaii marriage bill

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
SIT DOWN EVERYONE

The government of Ireland ( IRELAND ! ) are proposing a referendum on SSM - granted not until 2015 but still.

And they're doing it because support for SSM is reckoned to be about 75% of the population

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It boggles the mind that SSM is being considered but not abortion, but this is still great news.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It boggles the mind that SSM is being considered but not abortion, but this is still great news.

---

quote:

---

HAYNE J: The second point that seems to be wrapped up in it, but which may be not unimportant, is that the notion of marriage is not now, at least on one available point of view, never has been fixed.

MR GLEESON: Will your Honour bear with me if I - - -

HAYNE J: Of course.

MR GLEESON: - - - deal with that at point 4? Thank you.

HAYNE J: Leave the time bomb just ticking there, Mr Solicitor.

MR GLEESON: I was interpreting it as a happy present, your Honour, but as always I am mistaken.

HAYNE J: It is that time of year, Mr Solicitor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, the first legally authorised same-sex weddings in Australia are happening today. Started at midnight, so some people have been married for... ooh, over 13 hours now!

Whether their marriages continue to be valid will be discovered in 5 days time.

---

On a related note, do any Aussies have a guess as to why the NSW premier seemed to chicken out at the last minute about passing SSM? Did he just not have the votes and try to save face? Was Abbott twisting his arm? Was the whole support of SSM thing just a political ploy but not an intent to actually change policy? Or did he really believe from the beginning that a state should not change the marriage law without first changing it for the Commonwealth?
 

---

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 
A couple of updates from New Zealand:
1) The NZ defence force has released this great little video in support of its LGBT members.

2) The NZ Baptist union had previously announced a national ban on same sex marriages being held in Baptist churches, but after a local congregation called their bluff and went ahead anyway, the national body realised it didn't really have the power to enforce such a ban. So at last month's national baptist convention they opted for a "non-binding recommendation" against Baptist churches performing same sex marriages.
 

---

Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :
 
Meanwhile in India, gay rights have taken a step backwards
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, the first legally authorised same-sex weddings in Australia are happening today. Started at midnight, so some people have been married for... ooh, over 13 hours now!

Whether their marriages continue to be valid will be discovered in 5 days time.

---

On a related note, do any Aussies have a guess as to why the NSW premier seemed to chicken out at the last minute about passing SSM? Did he just not have the votes and try to save face? Was Abbott twisting his arm? Was the whole support of SSM thing just a political ploy but not an intent to actually change policy? Or did he really believe from the beginning that a state should not change the marriage law without first changing it for the Commonwealth?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
Meanwhile in India, gay rights have taken a step backwards

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, the first legally authorised same-sex weddings in Australia are happening today. Started at midnight, so some people have been married for... ooh, over 13 hours now!

Whether their marriages continue to be valid will be discovered in 5 days time.

---

~sigh~
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Less of a sigh than you'd think. Because the court has ruled that same sex marriage is constitutionally possible.

In the long game, that's actually far more important. The alternative was that it could only be done state by state, never nationally.

When the national law is changed, this decision will preclude an argument that same-sex marriage is inherently invalid.

This will also firmly turn the pressure back on at the national level.

[ 12. December 2013, 00:48: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Not a surprising result. Given the course of the oral argument, the smart money was on a ruling of inconsistency. I feel sorry for those who went through the ceremony only to have their hopes dashed.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Full decision now available here.

They literally spend half the judgement saying why same-sex marriage is allowed under the Constitution. In the long term, that's going to be incredibly important and has me going .
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Yes, the ability of the Cwlth to legislate in favour is now very clear. All we need is the will…...
 

---

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
Meanwhile in India, gay rights have taken a step backwards

---

quote:

---

“Procreation,” wrote Justice Edward L. Chavez, author of the opinion, “has never been a condition of marriage under New Mexico law, as evidenced by the fact that the aged, the infertile and those who choose not to have children are not precluded from marrying.”

---

quote:

---

SALT LAKE CITY — A federal judge on Friday struck down Utah’s same-sex marriage ban, saying it was unconstitutional.

The judge, Robert J. Shelby of Federal District Court for the District of Utah, issued a 53-page ruling that said Utah’s law, which was passed by voters in 2004, violated the rights of gay and lesbian couples to due process and equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

Judge Shelby said the state had failed to show that allowing same-sex marriages would affect opposite-sex marriages in any way, and that the state’s unsupported fears and speculations were not sufficient to justify barring same-sex marriages.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
It will be interesting to see if the federal court rulings gets sent up the appeal ladder to the Supreme Court without the Supreme Court ducking out from another ruling.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
They [SCOTUS] simply seem reluctant to be too activistic until the momentum is in their favour...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Utah????!!!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The Utah request for a stay pending appeal was denied by the court. The appeal continues as do the marriages.

---

quote:

---

The State’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason. Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional.

The State of Utah has provided no evidence that opposite-sex marriage will be affected in any way by same-sex marriage. In the absence of such evidence, the State’s unsupported fears and speculations are insufficient to justify the State’s refusal to dignify the family relationships of its gay and lesbian citizens.

---

quote:

---

But just because the law is clear doesn’t mean I expect the courts to feel bound to follow the law.

---

quote:

---

We found a relatively quiet place and I married my two dear friends. I could not see it, but I am told that behind us a group had gathered and after I finished the blessing, there was applause from total strangers. You could hear applause all over the second floor of the County Building as couples were married. Marriages were happening everywhere!! It was incredible and wonderful and I loved it. I have never been in such a chaotic and joyous place for a wedding.

---

quote:

---

At some level it’s just deeply weird that this joy upsets some people. Why should others’ joy be upsetting? Even they can’t say for sure. But this joy just makes them angry.

---

quote:

---

Why do Christians prefer anger?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
In more news, this New York Times article (pay wall after a limited number of articles) talks about how the state of Indiana ponders state amendment to ban same sex marriage.

It has to pass two separate legislatures. It passed the first time by a wide margin. Now the Republican dominated legislature is finding that it may or may not want to deal with the backlash from the business community if they pass the amendment a second time. Indiana is a fairly conservative state so the ban is likely to pass, but it's interesting to watch how much things have changed in such a short period.

---

quote:

---

The Supreme Court put same-sex marriages in Utah on hold Monday morning while the state appeals a federal judge’s order that allowed them.

Hundreds of couples have been married since U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby ruled Dec. 20 that the state’s ban on such unions violated constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. But Utah said each marriage was an “affront” to the state’s ability to define marriage as only between and man and a woman, and asked the high court to intervene.

Both Shelby and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver had denied the state’s request for a stay. The appeals court in Denver has put review of Shelby’s decision on a fast track.

But the Supreme Court, in a short order, said Shelby’s ruling should be stayed while the appeals continue. Utah’s request was made to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who is designated to handle emergency requests that originate in the 10th Circuit. She referred the matter to the entire court, which issued the stay without discussion or recorded dissent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
It was always expected that Utah would get someone to issue a stay, but it's interesting that it was the U.S. Supreme Court that felt it necessary to step in and do it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
The story I heard was that the Utah Attorney General neglected to ask for a stay prior to Shelby's decision in the event the state lost, something which is routine for cases of this magnitude. So since the state missed its chance to get a stay from those proceedings, they had to go higher to get it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
It was my understanding that the Utah AG did as Shelby for a stay (perhaps post facto) and Shelby wrote a rather scathing denial.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
^ Given that these ruling are on the basis of inconsistency with federal law (rather than some previous rulings which were about inconsistency with a State's own constitution), it's surely the best approach to get a national single ruling on the issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
^ Given that these ruling are on the basis of inconsistency with federal law (rather than some previous rulings which were about inconsistency with a State's own constitution), it's surely the best approach to get a national single ruling on the issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The new Virginia Attorney General announced he will not defend the Virginia ban on same sex marriage because he thinks it's unconstitutional. The court case goes forward because there are other defendants, but it's an interesting precedent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
He called the exorcism a “fitting” response, saying such services are needed when the “church is under persecution or some opposition, and certainly the redefinition of marriage is very much in opposition to God's plan for married life.”

---

Yeah. Because the second half of that sentence REALLY supports the first.

And exorcisms for persecution?

It's like someone threw catchphrases into a random number generator.
 

---

Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :
 
It's looking almost inevitable that Holyrood will go later today. By tomorrow I will be in a "qualifying civil partnership" under Scottish law.

 

---

Posted by To The Pain (# 12235) on :
 
Yup, might have been a foregone conclusion, but it went through and that's what counts. They didn't even slap any of the restricting amendments on it, so Scotland might just have the most comprehensive legislation out there.

Also, one of the MSPs quoted my girlfriend - it's like she's gone down in history or something.
 

---

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by To The Pain:
Yup, might have been a foregone conclusion, but it went through and that's what counts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TonyK:
Would you like me to change the thread title to show 17?

---

Personally I like it how it is, as a historical artifact.
 

---

Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
Then I'll leave it as it is
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
Nevada is an interesting case. There's been a strong pro same sex marriage support in recent months from... the hospitality and tourism industry. They are worried about losing the wedding and honeymoon revenue from gay couples who might decide to stay in California. So your right to a same sex marriage officiated by an Elvis impersonator is a dream that will soon be attainable.
 

---

Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
So your right to a same sex marriage officiated by an Elvis impersonator is a dream that will soon be attainable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
Best wishes to Nevada. Boy, the order in which states have accepted gay marriage is interesting. I never would have guessed Nevada before Oregon.

---

quote:

---

A federal judge has ruled that Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, striking down part of the state ban.

In 23-page a ruling issued Wednesday, U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II concluded that Kentucky's laws treat gay and lesbians differently in a "way that demeans them." The constitutional ban on same-sex marriagewas approved by voters in 2004. The out-of-state clause was part of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Given that difficulty, would there be any grounds for the Supreme Court to decide against allowing SSMs when the case finally gets there?

Or will the Court go the same way as the Harper Tories in Canada, and just let things go along?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
That's one of the advantages of being the Supreme Court. They don't have to take any cases they don't want to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
The rate at which these rulings are happening in the USA now is quite dizzying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
It is interesting also, that we have now seen that family breakup also happens, with the same parallels in divorce court.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yep. That's why it's called "marriage equality", not "lifestyle one-upmanship".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
The rate at which these rulings are happening in the USA now is quite dizzying.

---

quote:

---

“State Defendants will not defend the Oregon ban on same-sex marriage in this litigation. Rather, they will take the position in their summary judgment briefing that the ban cannot withstand a federal constitutional challenge under any standard of review. In the meantime, as the State Defendants are legally obligated to enforce the Oregon Constitution’s ban on same-sex marriage, they will continue to do so unless and until this Court grants the relief sought by the plaintiffs.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Illinois has gone further. Legal marriages will be available here for people of all genders starting in June I think.

---

quote:

---

There is no reason to delay further when no opposition has been presented to this Court and committed gay and lesbian couples have already suffered from the denial of their fundamental right to marry.

- U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman, in a ruling instructing the Cook County Clerk to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples immediately

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I was honestly a bit surprised by that one - not by the ruling but by the fact that anyone would mount a court case to overturn a ban that is already on its way out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I was honestly a bit surprised by that one - not by the ruling but by the fact that anyone would mount a court case to overturn a ban that is already on its way out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Net Spinster:
There are a few couples where one partner is dying and might not live that long.

---

quote:

---

A federal judge has struck down Texas' ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday it has no "rational relation to a legitimate government purpose."

The decision is the latest in a series of federal and state court moves to overturn current laws forbidding gay and lesbians from legal wedlock.

---

quote:

---

Judge Orlando Garcia, based in San Antonio, stayed enforcement of his decision pending appeal, meaning homosexual couples in Texas for the time being cannot get married.

---

The reactions to this one are likely to be quite interesting (and occasionally appalling).
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
The thing is, every judge is basically going to come to that conclusion (is there any that hasn't?), and in fact a more conservative, small-government judge is more likely to come to the conclusion that there is no legitimate purpose to the ban. If they're looking at this stuff logically and on the basis of principle rather than the kind of emotive language that politicians and church leaders are fond of.

The reason that all these judges keep following the same reasoning is that they look at the reasoning of their predecessors and find it impeccable.
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
I would be surprised if there's a unanimous set of state court rulings eliminating bans on same-sex marriage. Sooner or later one of the judges will decide to ignore the impeccable logic and keep a state amendment. Still it's nice to see things bump along. This completely confuses me as to what constitutes a dead horse.
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I would be surprised if there's a unanimous set of state court rulings eliminating bans on same-sex marriage. Sooner or later one of the judges will decide to ignore the impeccable logic and keep a state amendment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The governor of Arizona has vetoed the "religious protection against gays" bill. She castigated the legislature for wasting her time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
The KS, AZ, GA, MS, MI, etc. laws are meant to protect right-wing Christians from lawsuits rather than identify gay people to discriminate, though I supposed if you walked into a Denny's with your partner and held hands at the table, the staff could have kicked you out.

---

quote:

---

“The intent of my bill is to directly protect clergy, churches, man or woman of the cloth, to protect them from doing marriage ceremonies that go against their faith,” Montenegro said.

He could not provide an example of a clergy member in Arizona who has been forced to act against his or her beliefs in marrying individuals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Well, SB1062 is dead, but AZ is advancing a similar bill to prevent clergy from officiating marriages that are inconsistent with their beliefs.

Spotlight of SB 1062 swings to new bill

quote:

---

“The intent of my bill is to directly protect clergy, churches, man or woman of the cloth, to protect them from doing marriage ceremonies that go against their faith,” Montenegro said.

He could not provide an example of a clergy member in Arizona who has been forced to act against his or her beliefs in marrying individuals.

---

Perhaps the AZ legislature will spend even more taxpayer dollars debating and passing bills that state that the Sun must rise in the east.

Clowns.

---

quote:

---

4. "Minister" means an individual who is authorized to solemnize a marriage pursuant to section 25‑124.
.
.
.
Government may not require a minister to solemnize a marriage that is inconsistent with the minister's sincerely held religious beliefs.

---

quote:

---

25-124. Persons authorized to perform marriage ceremony; definition

A. The following are authorized to solemnize marriages between persons who are authorized to marry:

1. Duly licensed or ordained clergymen.
2. Judges of courts of record.
3. Municipal court judges.
4. Justices of the peace.
5. Justices of the United States supreme court.
6. Judges of courts of appeals, district courts and courts that are created by an act of Congress if the judges are entitled to hold office during good behavior.
7. Bankruptcy court and tax court judges.
8. United States magistrate judges.
9. Judges of the Arizona court of military appeals.

B. For the purposes of this section, "licensed or ordained clergymen" includes ministers, elders or other persons who by the customs, rules and regulations of a religious society or sect are authorized or permitted to solemnize marriages or to officiate at marriage ceremonies.

---

I've marked in bold all the "ministers" we wouldn't ordinarily think of as clergy and who are "ministers" largely due to grants of power by the state. If my reading of the legalese is correct, this bill would grant certain government officials the ability to engage in religiously-based discrimination in the discharge of their duties.
 

---

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
Yep yep. Good point.

TPM: Arizona Not Done! Bill Would Allow Judges To Discriminate Against Gays



 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Yep yep. Good point.

TPM: Arizona Not Done! Bill Would Allow Judges To Discriminate Against Gays

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Yep yep. Good point.

TPM: Arizona Not Done! Bill Would Allow Judges To Discriminate Against Gays

---

Almost, but not quite right. Judge can refuse to perform same-sex marriages in Arizona because Arizona law forbids marriage between partners of the same sex. The broad writing of the bill allows judges to refuse "to solemnize a marriage that is inconsistent with the minister's sincerely held religious beliefs". Any beliefs, as long as you preface it with "God says . . . " Don't like inter-racial marriage? Just say your God is against it. Inter-faith marriages? Marriages with a wide age gap? The bill is pretty much carte blanche to engage in exactly the kind of behavior we have civil rights laws to prevent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I look forward to the supporters of the Bill explaining why it would never be used in the literal ways you suggest. That's usually what happens when a law is written in general terms because no-one wants to be seen to say something explicit in a law like "yeah, the 'religious views' we're protecting here are the ones against gays".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kyzyl:
Michigan... federal judge declared SSM ban unconstitutional. Can't do a linky from my phone.

---

quote:

---

U.S. District Judge Bernard A. Friedman dismissed the state’s contention that Michigan voters adopted the ban on the premise that heterosexual married couples provided the optimal environment for raising children.

There is no proof that such a premise is true, Friedman wrote, and he declared the testimony of the state’s main witness “entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration.”

---

quote:

---

“The funder clearly wanted a certain result, and Regnerus obliged.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
The judge's comment on Regnerus's research was:

“The funder clearly wanted a certain result, and Regnerus obliged.”

---

quote:

---

The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration.
....
Whatever Regnerus may have found in this “study,” he certainly cannot purport to have undertaken a scholarly research effort to compare the outcomes of children raised by same-sex couples with those of children raised by heterosexual couples. It is no wonder that the NFSS has been widely and severely criticized by other scholars...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Croesos:
I haven't read the full transcript, but what I have seen indicates he kind of crashed and burned on the stand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
Regnerus admitted, yet again, that his NFSS study didn't prove anything about same-sex parenting. (It seems strange that the defence in these cases keeps trying to cite his study and use him as a witness, given he and everyone else admit that his study doesn't prove the things that it's claimed it does.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
However, he stated his own belief that the current scientific literature in general s not sufficiently definitive on the subject of same-sex parenting to justify the conclusion which all the large scientific organisations have drawn from it, namely that same sex parents are as good at raising children as opposite sex parents.

He argued in the stand along the following lines (which I found an interesting argument):
1. Children benefit from family stability (ie lack of divorces, remarriages, parents changing partners etc)
2. Lesbian relationships are less stable than heterosexual relationships (ie have a higher rate of divorce / separation)
3. Therefore children in lesbian relationships typically do less well than those in heterosexual relationships.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
It's only "strange" if you buy the self-serving bullshit Regnerus is serving up about his (self-reported) purity of motive. These kinds of "studies" exist for the sole purpose of giving a scientific veneer to religiously-based prejudice. In other words, they give cover for claiming that legalized same-sex marriage will lead to opposite-sex couples having teh buttsehks and being unfaithful when addressing the media or sympathetic audiences but, as observed in similar circumstances, a witness stand is a lonely place to lie. In other words, the whole purpose of the "study" was to generate cover for PR talking points. Using it as evidence was always going to be risky for whoever drew the short straw and had to parse words very carefully on the stand.

---

quote:

---

What set off my alarm bells when I finally read through his testimony was how far afield (Scandinavia) he had to go to find a result to fit his desired narrative.

---

quote:

---

The U.S. jurisdictions that have legalized full marriage for same-sex couples have (to date) shown a lower rate of divorce for same-sex couples of both genders than for opposite-sex couples of similar longevity.

---

US data's not great to use because marriage equality there is so recent / ongoing, and you really really want to filter for the fact that a lot of homosexual couples getting married have been together for years and unable to marry (and now that they are allowed to marry, they do) and statistically there is a much lower likelihood of a couple that has been together 20 years already getting divorced within the first 3 years of marriage than there is for a couple that has only been together for a year before getting married (so that skews the divorce rates massively in favor of same-sex couples who are already in long-lasting relationships.). Sadly Denmark, that has had civil unions for 25 years now, the longest of any country in the world (and thus who's data would suffer least from this effect), doesn't even publish the same-sex divorce rate data. The Wiki page really isn't very great... This article explains which countries are publishing data and why some aren't. I guess I could go dig through their data and update the wiki article with it.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
Under cross-examination Regnerus agreed that there are certain groups scientifically well-known to be worse on average at raising children (lower income parents, less educated parents), but Regnerus thought they should still be allowed to marry and agreed that ability to raise children well shouldn't be a legal pre-requisite for marriage. So I guess he did come across looking a bit stupid for trying to peddle a gays-shouldn't-marry-because-they-might-raise-children-badly talking point when he wants groups who do raise children badly to be able to marry. The same self-contradiction applied to those groups with a high divorce rate (African-Americans, interracial couples, second marriages), who Regnerus was happy to see get married despite their higher divorce rates, yet he self-contradictingly wanted to prohibit same-sex marriages due to their allegedly higher divorce rates. Notably the judge agreed in the verdict, and observed that marriage has never been prohibited to groups that are well-documented scientifically as raising children poorly, and thus trying to prohibit gay people from marrying by claiming they raise children poorly is "a glaring inconsistency".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
According to Rachel Maddow, the great state of Michigan paid Regnerus $40,000 of taxpayer money for his worthless testimony.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
More likely the various Attorney Generals don't want to litigate a court case that they feel certain will lose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
No arguments except the ones used to deprive needy African children of the support that so-called Christians had promised (thread started here )

---

quote:

---

Way to Go, home team! Really good idea to score an own-goal!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
A few hours ago, some blokes got hitched in London and in Brighton. The weather forecast for the weekend is sunny and warm.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I am very pleased for same-gender marriages in England and Wales, but sadly it's marred by the backwards step the law has taken for trans* people. The spousal veto is a dreadful law and should never have been included in such an otherwise happy and equalising piece of legislation. I cannot consider it truly equal marriage until there is also equality for trans* people who want to get married - unfortunately the new law actually prevents trans* people from marrying, so not very equal for them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I am very pleased for same-gender marriages in England and Wales, but sadly it's marred by the backwards step the law has taken for trans* people. The spousal veto is a dreadful law and should never have been included in such an otherwise happy and equalising piece of legislation. I cannot consider it truly equal marriage until there is also equality for trans* people who want to get married - unfortunately the new law actually prevents trans* people from marrying, so not very equal for them.

---

Forgive me, what's the asterisk for?

From what I understand of this veto (which admittedly isn't a great deal) I don't quite understand the claim that the law prevents transgender people from marrying. If a would-be spouse objects to something the couple are presumably unlikely to be married in the first place?

There's a separate (not entirely inconsequential) point that the legislation never set out to create 'equal' marriage in the first place, since the laws on consummation and adultery apply to heterosexual marriages but not homosexual marriages.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
A few hours ago, some blokes got hitched in London and in Brighton.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
A few hours ago, some blokes got hitched in London and in Brighton.

---

In related news, all opposite-sex marriages in England and Wales suddenly lost their "sanctity". I know it's harrowing, but it might be useful if some of the now-desanctified shipmates would tell us how they're dealing with this difficult development in their lives.

---

You will doubtless be surprised to learn that we have not noticed anything
Laughing together at the idiotic comments of Andrea Thingy, we feel as sanctified as we did last week. And very happy for those couples who can now marry if they want to.

Hoping General Synod does not take very long to catch up... (and pleased at ++Justin's sensible reaction)
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by JoannaP

quote:

---

...pleased at ++Justin's sensible reaction...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
A few hours ago, some blokes got hitched in London and in Brighton.

---

In related news, all opposite-sex marriages in England and Wales suddenly lost their "sanctity". I know it's harrowing, but it might be useful if some of the now-desanctified shipmates would tell us how they're dealing with this difficult development in their lives.

---

quote:

---

Ironically enough, it is just about the ten year anniversary of the one vote I took in the Michigan legislature that haunts me the most. The one I cannot come to terms with. Every excuse I make in my head is washed away by my conscience. Others took a principled stand and I thought they were nuts. I took the easy road. They went the other way and paid dearly.

It was just about this time ten years ago we voted in the Michigan House on the question of whether to put the question of whether marriage should be between one man and one woman in Michigan's Constitution.

<snip>

There are a lot of us in the GOP who think we get a free pass because we aren't one of THOSE people... you know.....the kind that mouthed off about it like Rick Santorum.... I just voted to put it on the ballot. This is common discussion when you get Republicans in private. It takes two seconds to realize the error in this logic, however much comfort it gives.

When we are quiet, everyone assumes that we are in 100% agreement. That creates the juggernaut that gives the "mouthy" ones the power to do the harm. Whether we are mouthy or not, the harm is still done. There are no free passes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kyzyl:
Arkansas...
AR same sex marriage ban struck down

The judge's written comments should be read by all.

---

Link to the actual decision (13 pages).

The judge extensively compared same-sex marriage to interracial marriage. He noted that "the issue at hand is the fundamental right to marry being denied to an unpopular minority. Our judiciary has failed such groups in the past."

His decision ends with:
"It has been over forty years since Mildred Loving was given the right to marry the person of her choice. The hatred and fears have long since vanished and she and her husband lived full lives together; so it will be for the same-sex couples. It is time to let that beacon of freedom shine brighter on all our brothers and sisters. We will be stronger for it."


 

---

Posted by Kyzyl (# 374) on :
 
Idaho...
Idaho judge strikes down ssm ban
 

---

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 
Today the New Zealand branch of the Anglican church in its general synod announced that they will continue to refrain from performing same-sex marriages, but will revisit the issue in 2 years' time.

Also they are allegedly sorry for the pain and distress suffered by gay people due to the church's ongoing rejection of them.

 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
Idaho scramples in the same sex marriage case. The judge refused a stay. The state is appealing to the 9th circuit for a stay. That may or may not happen, but they refused a stay before and the Supreme Court gave a stay.

If the 9th circuit refuses a stay, it will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court will give one. In the mean time, there may be some people who get married quickly before the stay.
 

---

Posted by Kyzyl (# 374) on :
 
I found this interesting... Southern Baptist convention
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
It's interesting to me that all of these Federal judge's decisions are going the same way, because if the Supreme Court is going to overturn them, it would have to overturn a LOT of them.
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kyzyl:
I found this interesting... Southern Baptist convention

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
And now Oregon, which is surprising only in that this happened after states like Utah and Idaho.

---

True but unlike those states it is unlikely to be appealed (no one has standing who wants to appeal) and stayed. Oregon also already recognized out-of-state marriages.
 

---

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
Pennsylvania.
 

---

Posted by Kyzyl (# 374) on :
 
Damn, Justinian beat me to the punch!
 

---

Posted by Kyzyl (# 374) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kyzyl:
Damn, Justinian beat me to the punch!

---

quote:

---

Despite the fact that these co,uples present so vividly the characteristics of a loving and supportive relationship, none of these ideals we attribute to marriage are spousal prerequisites under Oregon law. In fact, Oregon recognizes a marriage of love with the same equal eye that it recognizes a marriage of convenience. It affords the same set of rights and privileges to Tristan and Isolde that it affords to a Hollywood celebrity waking up in Las Vegas with a blurry memory and a ringed finger. It does not, however, afford these very same rights to gay and lesbian couples who wish to marry within the confines of our geographic borders.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Personally, I like the writing style in the Oregon decision better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
The Oregon ruling I regard with a bit of skepticism since there were no defendants in the case and the judge himself is openly gay.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
That seems a bit like arguing that Thurgood Marshall (for example) was unfit to try cases involving racial discrimination because he was black. It's somewhat telling that being openly straight is not seen as a bar in cases where the importance of privileging heterosexual relationships is argued by one of the parties.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
But having no defendants and having a gay judge... then what? A lot of gay people sat around and told each other how much they thought they should have the right to marry. That's far from an ideal looking court case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
If the premise is that openly gay people are inherently untrustworthy because their interests are at stake in the controversy but that straight people (and closeted homosexuals) are unbiased

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
Asking a member of the oppressed minority if they think they should have equal rights (as this court case essentially did) is not a particularly interesting thing to do. Of course they are biased, and rightly so: they are being discriminated against.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
I don't think this applies in other cases once full human rights have been legally granted to the minority group. eg nothing wrong with a black judge ruling on a racism case. But a black judge ruling that slavery or the jim crow laws were unconstitutional back in the day would have been obviously biased.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
But the beneficiaries of a discriminatory system are completely neutral and unbiased?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
But the beneficiaries of a discriminatory system are completely neutral and unbiased?

---

In many cases of discrimination there are no beneficiaries. eg Who benefits from denying women the right to vote?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
Who benefits from denying gays the right to marry?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
My view is that on human rights issues, the oppressed minority wants equality and the goal is to get the oppressing majority to grant equal rights. ...

---

quote:

---

... I do think that members of the majority have a better potential to be unbiased than the members of the oppressed minority. ...

---

No, actually, the members of the majority don't have to give a rat's ass about the oppressed minority. The majority is not unbiased, it is uninterested. Unconcerned. Unaffected. Big difference.
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
If the majority gains no benefit from the oppression of the minority, then they lack standing to oppose the legal action of the minority to gain their rights.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
The whole point of an impartial court system is that it's supposed to say to a majority that it doesn't get its way just by virtue of weight of numbers, and to work with principles of law rather than personal opinion.

If you're going to treat members of courts as simply behaving as representatives of their own social groups based on their personal characteristics, you might as well not have courts decide these questions at all! Just stick with the popular vote method, and wait until enough people in the dominant social group are happy to give those rights, and that'll be when they're given.

I find that approach misconceived precisely for the reason that Soror Magna gives. Human rights are principles-based, not popularity-based.

The basic point of reasoning in all of these court decisions - not just the recent ones, but stretching back for years and years - is that pretty well every constitution in the United States system has a clause about equal treatment and not giving unequal treatment on an irrational basis. All of these court decisions make the same basic point, that the MAJORITY were involved in making that statement of principle, and that the courts assume they meant something by it, and that the ban on same sex marriage is inconsistent with that statement of principle.

I don't see any reason why the individual identity of a judge either allows or forbids that judge to make these basic observations. The texts are there for any judge to read, regardless of gender, colour, orientation or political persuasion. Every decision is going the same way because the fundamental principles involved are actually quite straightforward and well settled. The ban on same-sex marriage keeps being found invalid because it's based on moral values rather than legal principles, and is inconsistent with broader, previously stated legal principles that the populace of each of these American States claims to have signed up for.
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
Eloquently put to Orfeo and Soror Magna.

The more interesting issue is the decision of the State Attorney General not to defend the law and now in Pennsylvania, the decision of the Governor not seek a stay pending appeal.

In some ways, this is the majority deciding that the law is no longer worth trying to enforce, and in some ways it's the decision that it's obviously unconstitutional. I wouldn't want the executive to go around enforcing old Jim Crow laws or anti-blasphemy laws, but the decision to not enforce is a more mixed bag. One problem is that it leaves the law on the books. There's a reason that recent gay rights decisions have often been civil suits. The state isn't that interested in stopping sodomy in the streets any more so it falls to civil suits to remove unconstitutional laws. The other is the blurring of the legislative and executive boundaries. The executive makes enforcement decisions all the time, but I'm not sure if there's a clear bright line.

In general, I find this sort complaint nonsensical. It's like saying that the case should be so compelling that the judge should be willing to rule while hopping on one foot. If the case is not that compelling, well, it's not the perfect ideal ruling so it shouldn't happen.
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The more interesting issue is the decision of the State Attorney General not to defend the law and now in Pennsylvania, the decision of the Governor not seek a stay pending appeal.

In some ways, this is the majority deciding that the law is no longer worth trying to enforce, and in some ways it's the decision that it's obviously unconstitutional.[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I'm finding a hard time seeing the difference. In both case, the executive is refusing to defend the law in court, by either not providing a defense or not seeking a stay during appeal of a lawsuit. In neither case is this about actual enforcement of a law which has been voided by the court.

---

quote:

---

“The United Church of Christ believes in advocating for justice,” says the Rev. Dr. J. Bennett Guess, a national officer of the denomination and an openly gay man, according to the UCC’s denominational website, “We believe that the UCC is called to be a prophetic church. God calls the church to speak truth to power. We are standing up for the freedom of religion, and to protect the rights of our ministers to do their jobs in faith.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Churches can do whatever the hell they want in religious terms

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I'm finding a hard time seeing the difference. In both case, the executive is refusing to defend the law in court, by either not providing a defense or not seeking a stay during appeal of a lawsuit. In neither case is this about actual enforcement of a law which has been voided by the court.

---

No, there is a difference, because until the court decision the law is on the books and presumed valid.

This placed obligations on the Executive to APPLY the law. 'Enforce' is perhaps the wrong word, because we're not talking about something like the criminal law where there is a discretion whether to charge someone. People come looking for a marriage licence.

If a same-sex couple asked for a marriage licence before the court decision, it would actually be quite improper for a member of the executive to issue one when there's an explicit law banning same-sex marriage on the books, even if the Executive thinks the law is in fact invalid. The Executive is not allowed to make definitive judgements for itself on such questions, even if it has an opinion on such questions.

Not seeking a stay is different. It is accepting a change in the law, created by the court ruling, such that the proper law for the Executive to apply is now the court ruling. This is true even if there is an appeal in the meantime. It doesn't matter whether or not the Executive thinks the new rule is right, in exactly the same way that it didn't matter whether or not the Executive thought the old rule was right. What matters is which rule a court has said is currently in force.

Whether or not a stay exists has to do with what happens outside the court room, not inside it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The two cases I was discussing were the refusal of the Oregon AG to defend the law in court and by the Governor of Pennsylvania not seeking a stay on the court case.

Is there another case where the Executive branch issued a same sex marriage license which was against the current law prohibiting it? I'm not aware of one in the U.S.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Churches can do whatever the hell they want in religious terms

---

The part I found interesting in the linked article is the allegation that it is illegal "for a minister to perform a marriage ceremony for a couple that hasn’t obtained a license". ie The state is apparently prohibiting certain religious ceremonies being performed in a Church by a minister. The state refusing to recognize same-sex marriages is one thing, but "threaten[ing] ministers with jail, probation and/or community service for conducting wedding ceremonies" is quite another thing.

I would tend to think that the state telling churches what religious ceremonies they can/cannot conduct on their premises, when those ceremonies carry no legal weight and harm no one, does seem like it impinges on religious freedom in an obvious way.

I've seen it claimed by some people who opposed same-sex marriage that gay couples "ought to be content with just getting a civil union, because nothing stops them having a wedding ceremony if they want, and nothing stops them referring to their relationship as a marriage if they feel like it, so they've got everything they want and why should the rest of us be forced to call it a marriage if we don't want to and don't believe it is one?" Now, admittedly North Carolina doesn't even have civil unions, but apparently the second part of that pro-civil-unions/anti-marriage suggestion isn't possible either in North Carolina - since the gay couples can't legally have their local church conduct a wedding ceremony for them even if the church wants to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:


If they are in fact being threatened with jail, etc. there may also be some government officials missing some nuance, too. My instinct is that a court would be likely to find that the state only has power to forbid a church from claiming to create a state-recognised marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
No, but I'm explaining the different effect of the two situations. You said you didn't see any difference. I (and others) are explaining to you what the difference is. A stay is about the operation of the law outside the courtroom. It has nothing to do with the arguments mounted inside the courtroom.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
No, but I'm explaining the different effect of the two situations. You said you didn't see any difference. I (and others) are explaining to you what the difference is. A stay is about the operation of the law outside the courtroom. It has nothing to do with the arguments mounted inside the courtroom.

---

A stay is request of the court by a litigant, in this case a member of the executive branch, and granted or denied by the judge. The executive follows the ruling or appeals to a higher court. To me this makes it an argument mounted inside a courtroom as part of the legal process.

---

quote:

---

Seven couples have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the ban on same-sex marriage in North Dakota, the last remaining state without a court challenge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
This thread may be doomed.

---

Surely this thread ends when all the countries in the world accept same-sex marriage? The state-by-state US crawl is moderately interesting/amusing, but other countries matter too.


And now for something completely different...
Wisconsin's ban was struck down today.
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
Wisconsin judge strikes down same sex marriage ban

Another day, another state. This time there's a stay pending appeal, but a few hundred couples managed to get married, thanks to the Madison and Milwaukee Clerks who kept their offices open this Saturday.
 

---

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :
 
Not sure if this is the right thread for it, but the Presbyterian Church (USA) has just voted to allow its ministers to conduct same sex marriages in those states where it is legal, to be of immediate effect at the close of the General Assembly.

More details here.
 

---

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cottontail:
Not sure if this is the right thread for it, but the Presbyterian Church (USA) has just voted to allow its ministers to conduct same sex marriages in those states where it is legal, to be of immediate effect at the close of the General Assembly.

More details here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cottontail:
Not sure if this is the right thread for it, but the Presbyterian Church (USA) has just voted to allow its ministers to conduct same sex marriages in those states where it is legal, to be of immediate effect at the close of the General Assembly.

More details here.

---

Per the article:

"This change will not become church law until a majority of the 172 regional presbyteries vote to ratify the new language."

So it doesn't take effect until ratified. Still, after they allowed the ordination of partnered gay ministers (which I believe wasn't ratified the first time but took a second), this probably will sail though.

---

quote:

---

One of those steps – passing an authoritative interpretation – gives PC(USA) ministers leeway to perform same-sex marriages, although it does not require pastors to do so, and has almost an immediate effect. That authoritative interpretation will take effect at the close of this assembly on June 21.

The second step is to approve an amendment changing the definition of Christian marriage in the PC(USA) constitution to say that marriage involves “two people, traditionally a man and a woman,” instead of the current wording stating that Christian marriage is between “a man and a woman.”

Any change in the PC(USA) constitution requires approval from a majority of the denomination’s 172 presbyteries – a process which takes roughly a year.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cottontail:
Not quite. There are two steps to the process. The first - permission for ministers to conduct same sex weddings - starts this Saturday! The second step - changing the definition of Christian marriage in Church Law - is the one that will take a year to approve (or not, as the case may be

---

quote:

---

“Worship is a central element of the pastoral care of the people of God (W-6.3001, W-6.3010) in which a teaching elder’s discernment of the leading of the Holy Spirit is indispensable. The necessity of ensuring the exercise of freedom of conscience in the interpretation of Scripture (G-2.0105) in the planning and leadership of worship has deep roots in our Reformed tradition and theology. Because a service of marriage is one form of such worship, when a couple requests the involvement of the church in solemnizing their marriage as permitted by the laws of the civil jurisdiction in which the marriage is to take place, teaching elders have the pastoral responsibility to assess the capabilities, intentions, and readiness of the couple to be married (W-4.9002), and the freedom of conscience in the interpretation of Scripture (G-2.0105) to participate in any such marriage they believe the Holy Spirit calls them to perform.

“Exercising such discretion and freedom of conscience under the prayerful guidance of Scripture, teaching elders may conduct a marriage service for any such couple in the place where the community gathers for worship, so long as it is approved by the session; or in such other place as may be suitable for a service of Christian worship. In no case shall any teaching elder’s conscience be bound to conduct any marriage service for any couple except by his or her understanding of the Word, and the leading of the Holy Spirit.”

---

In American Presbyterian-speak, "teaching elder" = minister of Word and Sacrament.
 

---

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :
 
Thanks, NT. Blessed indeed is the one who can grasp Presbyterian polity! And of course, your systems are really quite different to ours - and I barely understand ours!

One way or the other, I am delighted by the news. It may also help us, maybe just a tiny little bit, on this side of the Presbyterian Pond.
 

---

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cottontail:
Thanks, NT. Blessed indeed is the one who can grasp Presbyterian polity! And of course, your systems are really quite different to ours - and I barely understand ours!

---

Ha! Too true. And I don't understand yours at all.

I will say that there are already voices, including those of people who support the result of what the Authoritative Interpretation does, who think the General Assembly exceeded its authority with this particular AI. That doesn't invalidate it, of course, but it does undermine confidence in ways that I wish had been avoided. But that, I suppose, is a subject for a polity thread.
 

---

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cottontail:

One way or the other, I am delighted by the news. It may also help us, maybe just a tiny little bit, on this side of the Presbyterian Pond.

---

I know the local minister here is not looking forward to having to raise either equal marriage or gay clergy with her Kirk Session.
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
Methodists Reinstate Pastor who was defrocked because he presided at the wedding of his gay son in a startling by a United Methodist Church appeals committee. The punishment for him officiating at the same sex marriage of his son was reduced to the 30 day suspension he has already served.
 

---

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
The Northern Province of the Moravian Church (which I believe is the largest in North America) will allow the ordination of partnered gay clergy.

Moravian Church Northern Province Synod approves ordination of gay and lesbian pastors
 

---

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
A federal judge ruled today that Indiana's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, immediately allowing same-sex couples across the state to receive marriage licenses.
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Utah, too!
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Today's winner is Kentucky.

quote:

---

"In America, even sincere and long-hold religious beliefs do not trump the constitutional rights of those who happen to have been out-voted," U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II wrote, invalidating Kentucky's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Heyburn held in February that Kentucky must recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

Heyburn put his ruling today on hold, staying it pending the outcome of several gay marriage cases at the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Today's winner is Kentucky.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
When gay couples were only allowed a civil union, the rate of gay civil unions had held constant at 1% of total unions for several years, a rate surely lower than the rate of gay people in the general population, suggesting a substantial number of gay couples were choosing not to formalize their relationship. However the rate of gay marriages is now 2.5% of the total union rate, a substantial increase in the rate of gay people obtaining formalized unions. (Whether that is reflective of the rate of gay couples in the general population is unclear, as there is no official data on the subject, though survey results suggest it is probably on the lower end of the correct range)

---

It very interesting, but probably not surprising. As half of a couple in a civil union (we refer to ourselves as "civilised") I'm happy to stay there. We had such a nice party and everyone referred to it as us "getting married." Neither of us feels the need to go on and get another piece of paper.
 

---

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 
There is a very strange and complicated situation developing in Colorado. My understanding of it is as follows:

On 21 Dec 2013 Utah had its ban on gay marriage struck down by a district judge. The state of Utah subsequently appealed this case to the relevant appeals court. (In the US, different appeals courts have jurisdiction over half a dozen or so states each) On June 25 the appeals court ruled against Utah (in a 2-1 decision - the dissenter being notable as the only judge to decide against same sex marriage in the last 12 months in the dozen or so rulings we have seen since the Windsor case last year). Utah has stated its plan to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court, who frankly, no one seriously expects at this point to rule against same-sex marriage, but such a decision wouldn't happen until June 2015 so Utah achieves an extra year of delay.

However, meanwhile in the state of Colorado, a state that falls under the same appeals court as Utah, a marriage clerk and her lawyer have looked at the pro-marriage decision of the appeals court and decided that since that decision is binding on Colorado that the courts have therefore ruled that gay marriage is a constitutional right in Colorado. Therefore she began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Colorado. This caused state officials in Colarado to get upset. The state of Colorado then engaged in some legal shenanigans to try to get an injunction stopping her.

(At which point a different case before a different judge in Colorado independently struck down Colorado's marriage ban, but that judge issued a stay on his decision, pending appeal.)

And thus we get to today's preliminary ruling where a Colorado judge denied requests from the State to tell the Clerk issuing marriage licenses to immediately stop. The court said that it's friggin obvious to everyone at this point (from the dozen unanimous US court decisions) that gay marriage is a constitutional right. But the court warned the Clerk that she may not have the authority to actually issue those marriage licenses yet as the legal situation is currently murky, and so she was instructed to warn the couples that she is issuing the licenses to that those marriages may yet be ruled invalid if the judge eventually decides she shouldn't have been issuing them yet. As a result of this ruling, a second Clerk has today begun issuing same-sex marriage licenses in Colorado.

Notably the same logic would seem to apply to the states of Kansas and Wyoming who I believe are in the same position as Colorado with regard to falling under the ruling of the appeals court against Utah.


I guess the takeaway is that many of us are glad we don't live in the US and don't have to deal with their arcane pseudo-justice system.
 

---

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
A judge in Florida overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage today.
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
Federal appeals court strikes down Oklahoma law against same sex marriage The decision is stayed pending appeal.

Another federal court said that Utah could stay "interim marriages" that were made prior to the judicial stay when same sex marriage was made legal.


President Obama also passed an executive order prohibiting discrimination by Federal Contractors. Controversially, it does not include an exemption for faith based organization allowing them to discriminate when using government funding.
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Two questions: 1) Does a government-funded contractor have the right to act against government orders (e.g. those involving equal treatment of its workers) while accepting the government's money?

2) Why does a Christian organisation, presumably cognisant of the Second Great Commandment, have the need to discriminate against any set of persons when those persons are merely employees, not members of the specific private club?

I know that latter question impinges on the Hobby Lobby case, but why aren't those Christian entities being sued on the grounds that they don't actually follow their religious belief?
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
In the US, there have been exemptions for non-discrimination rules for faith based organizations granted by the Bush administration by executive order. They failed to get a law passed by Congress. Various religious organizations were pressing for a similar exemption in the current executive order. There was significant protest by gay activists which probably motivated Obama not to include such an exemption. There's an organization representing a fair number of groups who are going to try to fight the order.

2)
Well, sure do seem to be a lot of Christians organized to want to discriminate this way. Feel free to do the "They're not real Christians" dance.

In the US it's very difficult to sue Religious organizations due to the first amendment. There's no implied contract that hypocrisy violates from a fraud sense. As a gay taxpayer, I don't see why my money should go to such groups, but they don't seem to mind that the way they mind having to hire gay employees. It must be part of their interpretation of "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's"



 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 

quote:

---

Palimpsest: Feel free to do the "They're not real Christians" dance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Palimpsest: Feel free to do the "They're not real Christians" dance.

---

Is that the one where you stick up your nose really high?

---

Done properly it requires a kilt.
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
Federal Court strikes down Virginia ban on same sex marriage

A Three judge panel of the Federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals just struck down the Virginia ban on same sex marriage by a vote of 2-1. It will not take effect until after the time to file an appeal to the en banc court or higher, so no rush to get marriage before a stay is executed.
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
I guess they can take that asterisk off the state tourism slogan soon.
 

---

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Federal Court strikes down Virginia ban on same sex marriage

---

This ruling is actually quite different from others under the hood. The logic used was much more strongly in favour of gay marriage rights than previous rulings. They decided that "strict scrutiny" was the appropriate level of analysis (ie the most favourable to gay people), which as far as I'm aware none of the previous rulings have done. Basically they said "Marriage is a fundamental human right. Period. You're trying to deny some people that right? Bzzzzz. Wrong answer."

Previous rulings have approached the subject from the angle of looking first and foremost at gay people as a class of people and establishing what kind of level of discrimination against gay people on the grounds of their sexuality is allowable. Whereas this ruling dived into the analysis by looking at the fundamental human right to marriage and how important that right is as a right. And the fundamental human right to marriage (which is very well established in US law due to past issues with people of colour being denied it) turns out to be a better horse to bet the legalize on than is trying to protect gay people from discrimination (which is not at all well established in US law).
 

---

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 
Uganda's Constitutional court today ruled that the anti-gay legislation recently passed in Uganda was improperly passed. They have therefore nullified it.

This doesn't prevent, however, the government from re-passing it properly.
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
In what was called an unusual move, the pro-same sex marriage victors in the Utah Same Sex Marriage Case joined the losing Attorney General in asking the Supreme for an expedient judgment on the appeal of the lower court decision.
If they do act promptly, it may be on the court docket this year.
 

---

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Unfortunately, Same-Sex Marriage Ban Survives Challenge in Tennessee.

 

---

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Unfortunately, Same-Sex Marriage Ban Survives Challenge in Tennessee.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Unfortunately, Same-Sex Marriage Ban Survives Challenge in Tennessee.

---

quote:

---

Federal appeals judges bristled on Tuesday at arguments defending gay marriage bans in Indiana and Wisconsin, with one Republican appointee comparing them to now-defunct laws that once outlawed weddings between blacks and whites.

<snip>

Richard Posner, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, hit the backers of the ban the hardest. He balked when Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General Timothy Samuelson repeatedly pointed to "tradition" as the underlying justification for barring gay marriage.

"It was tradition to not allow blacks and whites to marry — a tradition that got swept away," the 75-year-old judge said. Prohibition of same sex marriage, Posner said, derives from "a tradition of hate ... and savage discrimination" of homosexuals.

Posner, who has a reputation for making lawyers before him squirm, cut off Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher, just moments into his presentation and frequently chided him to answer his questions.

At one point, Posner ran through a list of psychological strains the children of unmarried same-sex couples suffered, including having to struggle to grasp why their schoolmates' parents were married and theirs weren't.

"What horrible stuff," Posner said. What benefit to society in barring gay marriage, he asked, outweighs that kind of harm to children?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
We have a loser folks, it's Louisiana. It's only at the district court level so it's not going to matter. It does however break the winning streak of more than 20 consecutive rulings in the past year that have ruled in favour of marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
looks mighty shoddy, and ought not to survive appeal.

---

quote:

---

The challenged laws discriminate against a minority defined by an immutable characteristic, and the only rationale that the states put forth with any conviction— that same-sex couples and their children don’t need marriage because same-sex couples can’t produce children, intended or unintended—is so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously.

---

quote:

---

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to decide once and for all whether states can ban gay marriage, a surprise move that will allow gay men and women to marry in five states where same-sex weddings were previously forbidden.

By rejecting appeals in cases involving Virginia, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin and Indiana, the court left intact lower-court rulings that had struck down the bans in those states. But the high court's action means there will be no imminent national ruling on the issue, with litigation in states where gay marriage is still banned likely to continue.

---

quote:

---

Other states under the jurisdiction of appeals courts that have struck down the bans will also be affected by the Supreme Court's decision, meaning the number of states with gay marriage is likely to quickly jump from 19 to 30. The other states would be North Carolina, West Virginia, South Carolina, Wyoming, Kansas and Colorado.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Just came down here to post on this.
So, it is not a great thing in the states where the ban is now upheld, but is it good or bad that this court did not take the issue? There is certainly no guarantee they would have sided with marriage equality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Just came down here to post on this.
So, it is not a great thing in the states where the ban is now upheld, but is it good or bad that this court did not take the issue? There is certainly no guarantee they would have sided with marriage equality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
It's possible that there may be a circuit court reversal on same-sex marriage that triggers a review but if so, that is likely to be the same court that just denied review so nothing will be gained.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The sixth circuit case is also one that was seen to be quite likely the other way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
I found this graph interesting.

---

quote:

---

People often say that same-sex marriage now is like interracial marriage in the 60s. But in terms of public opinion, same-sex marriage now is like interracial marriage in the 90s, when it had already been legal nationwide for 30 years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
[...] If your logic for deciding the case was previously that the refusal to hear the Baker vs Nelson case was binding precedent then by that logic you surely now have to conclude that this week's Supreme Court refusal to hear the case supersedes that, and therefore you'd have to decide in favour of marriage equality. [...]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
If the 6th Circuit does refuse an appeal on those grounds, plaintiffs can always request an en banc hearing of the entire court, which may be granted in these extraordinary circumstances.

---

quote:

---

Each year, the court receives approximately 9,000–10,000 petitions for certiorari, of which approximately 80–100 are granted plenary review with oral arguments, and an additional 50 to 60 are disposed of without plenary review.

---

quote:

---

Because the case came to the Supreme Court through mandatory appellate review (not certiorari), the dismissal constituted a decision on the merits and established Baker v. Nelson as precedent

---

quote:

---

The question of Baker's value as precedent is likely to remain until the U.S. Supreme Court addresses the question directly.

---

 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
For those willing to deal with the limited NY Times paywall here's an article on the same sex marriages after recent court cases that allow marriages in 7 more states.

No real news but an interesting sense of the momentum of the wave and the scrambling to deal with it. It's also a reminder that it's about people and not just a count and legalisms.


 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
On Sunday a federal judge in Alaska ruled the Alaska ban on same sex marriage ruled unconstitutional. It's been a busy week. The Republican Attorney General for Alaska said that the state would appeal the ruling.
 

---

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Arizona has just joined the list!

 

---

Posted by fullgospel (# 18233) on :
 
More states being freed by the day.


http://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/10/17/obama-admin-recognize-sex-marriage-7-new-states/
 

---

Posted by fullgospel (# 18233) on :
 
This is a fuller compendium :

http://www.vox.com/2014/10/6/6110151/where-is-gay-marriage-legal-state-equality-status-courts
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
With all the interest in the USA, we've neglected another Mexican state making the move. Coahuila, which occupies the bend in Texas.
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
A Puerto Rico federal judge dismissed a same sex marraige lawsuit. It will be appealed (to the First Circuit appeal court and is likely to be over-ruled.
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
A federal judge in Kansas rules the gay marriage ban uncosntitional citing the 10th Circuit precedent.
 

---

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 
In a major development today, the 6th Circuit Court of appeals ruled against gay rights in a 2-1 decision, upholding several state bans on marriage! (Four other circuit courts of appeal have already ruled in favour of same-sex marriage.)

The logic of the decision appeared to be focused on the idea that gay marriage is a social issue better decided by voters and society than by the courts. (Unfortunately, in practice, when gay rights are put to the general public for voting, the campaigns against gay rights often get really nasty and slanderous, and so gay people have learned to their cost to try and avoid giving opportunities to hate groups to campaign against them.)

This ruling will either be appealed to the full court of the 6th Circuit, or will be appealed to the Supreme court. The Supreme court has previously avoided this issue on the apparent grounds that there was no disagreement at the appellate level, but they would presumably not be able to duck the issue now. I would personally hope that the ruling is appealed to the full court of the 6th Circuit and overturned there, because I am not at all confident of the competency or inclinations of the US Supreme Court and putting the issue to them is dangerous in the sense that if they ruled the wrong way it could undo a substantial amount of progress for gay rights in the US.
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
I would agree with your assessment of the competency and inclinations of the Supreme Court. It does seem that whichever way the full circuit court rules, it will be passed up to the Supreme Court to take or duck again.
 

---

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
Disappointing, but not a surprise. The SCOTUS clearly want to duck this for as long as possible, so this latest could well get overturned and finalized en banc.

I doubt Kennedy would destroy his legacy by stripping away marriage rights, but the Windsor majority want to build a national consensus first. The longer this can be spun out at circuit level, the happier they'll be to step in and make it permanent.

I gotta admit that, legally, this is on shaky ground, but this is one of those times when the letter of the law should give way to the spirit of the law.
 

---

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 
Reading the dissent is interesting, as she's clearly frustrated with the other two judges for avoiding actually dealing with the legal issues.

quote:

---

Judge Martha Daughtrey, dissenting (pg 43)

The author of the majority opinion has drafted what would make an engrossing TED Talk or, possibly, an introductory lecture in Political Philosophy. But as an appellate court decision, it wholly fails to grapple with the relevant constitutional question in this appeal: whether a state’s constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, the majority sets up a false premise—that the question before us is “who should decide?”—and leads us through a largely irrelevant discourse on democracy and federalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
Just goes to show how strong the case for equal marriage is. As illustrated by the string of court victories, there's no rational basis to deny marriage to gay couples.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
[...] Because, of course, what's really going on is that the vast majority of people who object to same-sex marriage do so on religious grounds. But "I object on religious grounds" isn't a valid argument in the secular court system, so they have to basically make up some sort of non-religious based objection to same sex marriage. [...]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
This isn't just about equal marriage, but whether religious groups have the right to impose their beliefs on society at large. In a secular, pluralist nation, they don't, and they need to recognize that fact.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
Reading the dissent is interesting, as she's clearly frustrated with the other two judges for avoiding actually dealing with the legal issues.

quote:

---

Judge Martha Daughtrey, dissenting (pg 43)

The author of the majority opinion has drafted what would make an engrossing TED Talk or, possibly, an introductory lecture in Political Philosophy. But as an appellate court decision, it wholly fails to grapple with the relevant constitutional question in this appeal: whether a state’s constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, the majority sets up a false premise—that the question before us is “who should decide?”—and leads us through a largely irrelevant discourse on democracy and federalism.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Are judges at this level elected, or appointed for their legal background? IOW, does one have to be publicly party-biased to get the job, and to keep it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
The thing is that they don't accept that they live in a secular, pluralist nation. They really think they live in a Christian nation. [...]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The judges also have a long history of changing their stance after they are elected. That happens to people who serve for 20 or 30 years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
Finland has joined the civilized world, becoming the 18th country to do so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
Finland has joined the civilized world, becoming the 18th country to do so.

---

A sad day in Finland's history, turning back on it's 800 year Christian heritage. Re-paganisation is going full steam ahead in Europe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
Finland has joined the civilized world, becoming the 18th country to do so.

---

A sad day in Finland's history, turning back on it's 800 year Christian heritage. Re-paganisation is going full steam ahead in Europe.

---

Are you sure they had same-sex marriage in pre-Christian Finland? What's your source?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
A sad day in Finland's history, turning back on it's 800 year Christian heritage. Re-paganisation is going full steam ahead in Europe.

---

I thought that atheism and non belief in deities of any sort was the growth category in Religion in Finland . Is Paganism really the growth segment?

[ 29. November 2014, 21:15: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
 

---

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
Ad Orientem, you are aware that Norse/Scandi Pagan culture was pretty homophobic, right? How does Paganism = homosexuality in that case?
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Why is it that so many Christians have to pick at "others" because those others do more interesting things sexually?

Greener pastures, maybe? Just a wee hint of envy?

Was sex intended to be a guilt-ridden activity that should be avoided at all costs? The Shakers solved that problem. No sex at all, and, eventually, no Shakers But they didn't demand repression of everyone else's activity. You had to join the club first.

What makes you assume that pagans have more/better/other sex than you do?

Oh, just BTW, SSM is about commitment specifically, not sex. Quite a lot of straights do sex without commitment. We should be thankful that Gays want to practice commitment, not grumpily demanding that they should fornicate.
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
Finland has joined the civilized world, becoming the 18th country to do so.

---

A sad day in Finland's history, turning back on it's 800 year Christian heritage. Re-paganisation is going full steam ahead in Europe.

---

Are you sure they had same-sex marriage in pre-Christian Finland? What's your source?

---

I'm not aware that I made such a claim. Rather I'm referring to paganism and all its hedonism, including sexual immorality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Wasn't Socrates accused of offending public morality? As ever, an accusation made against those whom one dislikes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Florida starts same sex marriages starting midnight Monday.

Meanwhile dynastic heir Jeb Bush softens stance on Gay Marriage going from a statement that it should be left up to the states to a call for respect for good people on all sides of the debate. He has previously been actively opposed to allowing same sex marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
I cringe at the level of dickishness and grinchitude that the Catholic hierarchy must have in order to be this nasty and vindictive at a time when people are supposed to be celebrating.

---

quote:

---

Hundreds of Vanessa Collier's friends and family gathered Saturday at New Hope Ministries, sitting before an open casket that held the woman they loved, when suddenly the minister overseeing her funeral stopped the service.

The memorial could not continue, Pastor Ray Chavez said, as long as pictures of Collier with the love of her life, the spouse she shared two children with, were to be displayed.

Chavez said there could be no images of Collier with her wife, Christina. There could be no indication that Collier was gay.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
Once again the Catholics are gifting a publicly gay school-teacher with the engagement present of firing them when they get engaged.

Maybe someone should remind the Catholics that kitchen items are generally considered the more appropriate engagement present?

And that you're supposed to give good things to marrying couples?

I cringe at the level of dickishness and grinchitude that the Catholic hierarchy must have in order to be this nasty and vindictive at a time when people are supposed to be celebrating.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
This Just In.

The Supreme Court of the US will hear four cases dealing with SSM this spring.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The other is whether states must recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The other is whether states must recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

---

Out of curiosity, did this ever come up as an issue with inter-racial marriage? Was there a court case on states not recognising marriages that had been validly performed in other states?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
This Just In.

The Supreme Court of the US will hear four cases dealing with SSM this spring.

---

It is worth noting that when the 4th, 7th, 9th and 10th Circuit appeals courts ruled that SSM was a constitutional right, the Supreme Court wasn't interested in hearing any appeals. But when the 6th Circuit ruled against SMM, the Supreme Court are like "Oh, yeah, we'll let you appeal that decision".

Gee, I wonder which way there are going to rule...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
But we have learned that a hierarchy suffering from institutional inertia doesn't understand much about public opinion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Isn't "nasty" rather relative. Of course, it's quite possible that someone might be, but how much of what you believe are you expected to compromise in order not to be perceived as "nasty".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Isn't "nasty" rather relative. Of course, it's quite possible that someone might be, but how much of what you believe are you expected to compromise in order not to be perceived as "nasty".

---

Observers perceive nastiness from looking at actions.

So if your beliefs tell you to be loving and kind towards others, then you don't need to compromise any of your beliefs in order to act with love, respect, and kindness. However, if your beliefs tell you to be really really nasty to other people, then I guess you need to compromise your beliefs quite a lot to avoid acting nastily towards others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Evey church, every religion is built upon changes. Not a one exists now as it did when founded. They all now include things that were not specified originally. So is your church false now or was it false then? Is your church the result of a compromise?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
I don't think there's a convincing legal argument to protect equal marriage via the Fourteenth Amendment, but also think the courts should do it anyway, 'cause it's right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
In this article about Supreme Court accepting petitions onlookers have noted an oddness about the way the petitions have been split into two cases; one on the requirement of a state to issue same-sex marriage licenses and one on the requirement of a state to recognize marriages done in other states.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
They've invented an entire school of jurisprudence, the "living constitution," that translates as, "ignore the intent of the authors and enactors, just make it up as we go."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
First off, the U.S. Constitution is a living document, having been changed eighteen* times. Second, that kind of interpretation is necessary when a document is heavy on generalized principles and short on material specifics. For example, are U.S. courts bound by James Madison's opinions on whether or not e-mails count as "papers" in the meaning of the term in the Fourth Amendment? Because I'm pretty sure he never gave the matter any real thought.


--------------------
*I'm counting the Bill of Rights as a single "change", since its slate of amendments were all passed at the same time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
It's a good thing the people struggling for the right to same-sex marriage are very successfully ignoring the likes of your "ultra-pragmatist" advice. And they are unlikely to do so in the future. That's a good thing, since your "pragmatic" advice is bad.

---

quote:

---

Recognition but not a right to marry may happen, but it's not a desirable goal. The right to marry is not just recognition of out of state marriages, but the ability to make such a marriage where you live. Establishing a second class right is a terrible idea.

This is what Martin Luther King was saying in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail about the moderates who kept counseling "not yet".
I can just hear "pragmatists" like you saying that a "whites-only" bathroom isn't so bad as long as there is a "colored" facility no matter how terrible.

---

quote:

---

Anyhow, the case is before the court now. It may be reading too much into the division of the case, but there are rumors that the case has a good chance of succeeding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
This is what Martin Luther King was saying in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail about the moderates who kept counseling "not yet".
I can just hear "pragmatists" like you saying that a "whites-only" bathroom isn't so bad as long as there is a "colored" facility no matter how terrible.

---

Was Thurgood Marshall, who argued Brown before the Supreme Court, a "white moderate" by your reckoning? 'Cause Brown didn't overturn segregation overnight. It was a major stepping stone.

---

Marshall argued in Brown that government racial discrimination was inherently contradictory to the Fourteenth Amendment. I think you're unfairly assuming that the Court's narrow application of this argument solely to the field of public education and the glacial pace of enforcement were primarily the product of plaintiff's counsel rather than due to the actions of others. I'm not sure why you believe it's the lawyers for victorious parties who write the opinion of the court and oversee enforcement. Is that the way things work in your country/planet?
 

---

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I'm saying that if it gets split into two cases, and only recognition passes, it's not "A win in all but name" because of the ability to buy cheap bus tickets to get married. It's a partial defeat, and the pressure needs to continue for a complete victory. That doesn't mean tossing away what partial victory you get, It means not stopping. If you think not stopping means you have to throw away a partial victory no wonder you give such bad advice.

Certainly a partial victory is better than total defeat. But calling a partial victory pragmatically good enough is delusional.

And I certainly wasn't comparing you to Thurgood Marshal and I doubt King was describing him either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Marshall argued in Brown that government racial discrimination was inherently contradictory to the Fourteenth Amendment. I think you're unfairly assuming that the Court's narrow application of this argument solely to the field of public education and the glacial pace of enforcement were primarily the product of plaintiff's counsel rather than due to the actions of others. I'm not sure why you believe it's the lawyers for victorious parties who write the opinion of the court and oversee enforcement. Is that the way things work in your country/planet?

---

quote:

---

I never said anyone should stop if the result's 36 states + recognition, just the opposite, I said it should (and would) be used to extend marriage rights nationwide.

The practical result, however, would be that equal marriage was available to near everyone who wanted it, in their home state. All substantive protections and recognition would be there.

Second class rights would be settling for civil unions. I've not for a second suggested that. I don't think we even disagree on strategy, just what counts as a result.
I was using Brown (and Windsor) as examples of how incremental successes can prove to be victories. Do we even disagree on that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
If the Supreme court rules that states aren't required to issue same-sex marriage licenses, what will that mean for states that are currently required to do so by existing judicial orders?

The pro-marriage decisions of the various appellate courts are not, strictly speaking, on trial here. So would they be automatically negated by a Supreme court decision here? Or would that cause a second wave of ligation through those appellate circuits?

I'm also slightly confused the by very narrow wording of the Supreme court's topic of analysis: "Does the 14th Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?" I was under the impression that the various successful same-sex marriage cases had used at least 3 differing lines of reasoning to reach their conclusions. Do the Supreme court intend to only examine one of those lines of reasoning, or do all of them ultimately refer back to the 14th Amendment? (I'm pretty sure I've seen other amendments referenced over the last year in these marriage cases)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Incremental Successes are incremental successes. Victories are victories. The former may be useful steps, but it's wise not to confuse them with the latter. Calling an incremental success a victory in all but name is not useful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Marshall argued in Brown that government racial discrimination was inherently contradictory to the Fourteenth Amendment. I think you're unfairly assuming that the Court's narrow application of this argument solely to the field of public education and the glacial pace of enforcement were primarily the product of plaintiff's counsel rather than due to the actions of others. I'm not sure why you believe it's the lawyers for victorious parties who write the opinion of the court and oversee enforcement. Is that the way things work in your country/planet?

---

Just ... no. I said nothing whatsoever about Marshall's abilities, nor am I under the impression that counsel write opinions. Marshall was a genius, went on to become a giant of 20th century jurisprudence, not to mention heroic.

I was using Brown (and Windsor) as examples of how incremental successes can prove to be victories. Do we even disagree on that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
Amendments and fresh application of underlying principles aren't the issue with originalists, just the opposite, they welcome 'em. Their issue is ignoring authorial intent. Great for a po-mo lit class I'm sure, not so great for interpreting laws. As Justice Stanley Reed said of Brown, if justices just do what they like, it risks creating a kritarchy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
Was Thurgood Marshall, who argued Brown before the Supreme Court, a "white moderate" by your reckoning? 'Cause Brown didn't overturn segregation overnight. It was a major stepping stone.

---

quote:

---

Some may more quietly commemorate the suffering, struggle, and sacrifice that has triumphed over much of what was wrong with the original document, and observe the anniversary with hopes not realized and promises not fulfilled. I plan to celebrate the bicentennial of the Constitution as a living document, including the Bill of Rights and the other amendments protecting individual freedoms and human rights.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
Sweet home Alabama is today's lucky winner.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore says he will continue to recognize ban on same-sex marriage

Apparently he thinks the state constitution trumps the federal constitution.

Moore said the ruling by U.S. District Judge Callie V.S. "Ginny" Granade "raised serious, legitimate concerns about the propriety of federal court jurisdiction" over the Alabama amendment

Moore has previously attracted attention by refusing to remove a statue of the ten commandments from a courthouse.

He's asked probate judges and clerks not to issue licenses. The Federal judge has issued a stay until February 9 so the state can appeal the ruling.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Oh, you were doing a lot more than that. You started off with the rather interesting assertion that the "authorial intent" of the Radical Republicans who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment was to preserve the racial caste system of the American South as closely as possible to what had existed prior to the just-concluded U.S. Civil War.

[...]

The standard history is that one of the motives to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment was as a reaction to the "Black Codes" enacted by southern states after the Civil War. If you have some kind of alternate interpretation, I'd be interested to hear it.

---

quote:

---

You then went on to imply that the fact that the Brown decision didn't immediately end Segregation everywhere and all at once was due to the arguments advanced by Thurgood Marshall when arguing the case and that this was Marshall's desired outcome.

---

quote:

---

There's no reason to mention Thurgood Marshall in this context unless that's the point you're trying to make: that the slow progress of desegregation is at least in part due to his influence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Stop trying to mutate my criticism of your "Victory in all but name" by implying I was criticized Thurgood Marshall for incomplete success. I do not, but I recognize it as a step toward success.
This is especially inappropriate because Thurgood Marshall recognized the incomplete success of the movement to establish full civil rights.

quote:

---

Some may more quietly commemorate the suffering, struggle, and sacrifice that has triumphed over much of what was wrong with the original document, and observe the anniversary with hopes not realized and promises not fulfilled. I plan to celebrate the bicentennial of the Constitution as a living document, including the Bill of Rights and the other amendments protecting individual freedoms and human rights.

---

Please spare me more straw men about how my criticism of what you see as your ultra pragmatism is a criticism of all that has been done in civil rights.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:

...I accept that "victory in all but name" is insufficient to acknowledge the inequality that remains with 36 states and full faith and credit...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carex:
Also remember that many of the current states where equal marriage is the law, it is because discrimination was found to be unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court rules otherwise, those laws that are still on the books will be reactivated, and states will be free to pass new ones.

---

quote:

---

So don't assume that equal marriage will survive a contrary SCOTUS decision in all states where it currently is in force.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Please show me where Thurgood Marshall decided it was fine to lose one of two cases fighting discrimination before the Supreme Court.

---

quote:

---

Your wrong and unfortunate description as "Victory in all but name" bears no relation to Marshall's strategy. He took his losses and called them losses and set out to reverse them.

---

quote:

---

The victories so far are progress. The losses so far are not irrelevant toward the goal of equality. Tolerating a second class status "for pragmatic reasons" threatens the victories and impedes further progress.

---

quote:

---

It may be due to reconciling the needs of different petitions but some are seeing this as a set up to issue a split ruling which allows states to keep same sex marriage bans while requiring them to recognize marriages done in other states.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
If states are compelled to recognize marriages conducted across state lines, if it includes their own residents, it's a win in all but name. With the proliferation of equal marriage, few live out-of-reach of a town clerk empowered to do the necessary.


If marriage equality is batted back to the coasts and Great Lakes, however, it'd be a far more serious blow. Even California would lose equal marriage, unless it overturned Prop. 8.
...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
[...] You were busily trying to claim I think that the other half of the case is unimportant. I do not. Winning the recognition of marriage made by states that are allowing same sex marriage is not a "loss". No one has said so that I can see.[...]

---

quote:

---

If the other half of the case (now split) to require states to grant same-sex marriage fails, that will be a loss.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
I desire it so much that I openly admit I want them to ignore the letter of the law.

---

quote:

---

He didn't, however, call Brown a "loss," which, on what you're saying here, it presumably would be (being something short of the total abolition of segregation).

---

quote:

---

My position's that it depends exactly what the Court orders. If states are free to ban equal marriage, I agree, it's a terrible loss, and said as much.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
It will go on making rulings for many years to come, and if you start saying it's okay to ignore the letter of the law in a case where you like the outcome this will get you, sooner or later the Court will bite you with a ruling that you don't like, and you'll protest to no avail that the ruling isn't in accordance with the law.

In other words, confidence in the process is, in the longer term, more important than the a single outcome. You're so keen to win this battle that you're prepared to risk losing entire wars.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Who do you think is paying them, then?

---

quote:

---

And why is it that these corrupting influences have somehow failed to get to the lower Federal judges?... Or have they?...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
This still strikes me as a fundamentally dangerous position. This ruling is not the end game of Supreme Court rulings.

It will go on making rulings for many years to come, and if you start saying it's okay to ignore the letter of the law in a case where you like the outcome this will get you, sooner or later the Court will bite you with a ruling that you don't like, and you'll protest to no avail that the ruling isn't in accordance with the law.

In other words, confidence in the process is, in the longer term, more important than the a single outcome. You're so keen to win this battle that you're prepared to risk losing entire wars.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Your presumption is at tortured extrapolation of my saying that losing half a case on same sex marriage is a loss means that I think Brown is a loss. That's your defective thinking and not anything I said about Brown. So I'm glad we've cleared up another one of your erroneous claims as to what I said.

---

quote:

---

You've shifted your statement to be

quote:

---

My position's that it depends exactly what the Court orders. If states are free to ban equal marriage, I agree, it's a terrible loss, and said as much.

---

So when you were saying "a victory in all but name" you really meant "a terrible loss". depending on what the courts rule. Thanks for clarifying that.

---

quote:

---

If the court says that states have to give full faith and credit but don't have to permit same-sex marriage, then many of the states will be able to pass laws to reverse the current requirement to perform same sex marriage. The "once you have rights you can't take them away" is a very vulnerable position compared to a ruling that it's a constitutional right. It will be attacked immediately. The states could even allow the existing marriages and deny future ones or appeal stayed judgments.

---

quote:

---

Requiring same sex marriages is not ignoring the letter of the law. It's having the law declared unconstitutional which is paying attention to the letter of the superior law.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
If you're looking for corruption Bush v. Gore is a good example. The justices appointed by Bush did not recuse themselves. Can you detect a Quid Pro Quo? The ruling was sufficiently embarrassing that they added the caveat that their ruling was not to be considered a precedent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
I could (with extreme reluctance) support the Australian High Court judgment that marriage has to be defined by the Commonwealth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

(I personally think that the increasing corruption in US politics is one of the biggest threats to the world in the present day, and I think the US's allies should be actively intervening to try and decorrupt US politics. A billion dollars spent fighting corruption in the US would repay itself many times over in stopping the US pulling the West into corrupt oil wars and forcing corrupt trade agreements on the rest of us. The corruption in the US has been getting steadily worse since Reagan, and has gotten even worse since Bush Jr.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:
I could (with extreme reluctance) support the Australian High Court judgment that marriage has to be defined by the Commonwealth.

---

Good, because that judgment is one of the most vital wins for same-sex marriage this country has ever seen.

But the ruling was not that it "has to be" defined by the Commonwealth. The ruling was that it has been. There's a major difference. There's no obligation on the Commonwealth to do so, but the Commonwealth has done so.

Marriage is a matter on which the Commonwealth has power here. The constitutional arrangements are completely different to the USA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
And how would you go about the decorruption?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
What makes you think that the states are "largely less corrupt"? There's *lots* of corruption at state level.

---

quote:

---

I was mostly interested in your idea about other countries getting involved in our internal politics. How would you go about it? That is likely to backfire spectacularly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Is it a coincidence that this was your 666th post?

---

OOoooooooh! Good spotting!


 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
What makes you think that the states are "largely less corrupt"? There's *lots* of corruption at state level.

---

Key positions at the State level, such as governors etc are certainly subject to a lot of corruption. However, your run-of-the-mill average State politician has an order of magnitude less corruption happening than does the average member of Congress. The amount of money spent on the electoral races of most states is tiny by comparison, as is the amount of time that the politicians spend begging rich donors for donations. (By all reports, members of Congress now spend the majority of their work day calling potential donors and asking for money.)

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I was mostly interested in your idea about other countries getting involved in our internal politics. How would you go about it? That is likely to backfire spectacularly.

---

Yeah, do it wrong and it could definitely backfire spectacularly.

Various ways of doing it that come to mind:

1. Talking & negotiations. In each and every diplomatic meeting, US's allies should emphasize to the US representatives how dissatisfied they are with the state of US corruption, and how they would like to see something done about it. If nothing else, this keeps the top people in US politics constantly thinking about the issue, and they will likely then start to mention in their own speeches at home. The more something is talked about, the more chance of something getting done. It doesn't have to be just talk either, eg in a diplomatic meeting a US ally could say "well, we'll agree to join you fighting ISIS if you do X, Y, or Z to combat corruption." The US's allies regularly give it support for it's wars and they are in a good position to demand something in return.

---

quote:

---

2. Trade agreements. All trade agreements (eg the TPP) these days tend to have a lot of clauses about local laws. If other countries keep shoveling anti-corruption clauses into their trade agreements in the US, that can be a back-door way of forcing laws onto them. Now, granted, a trade agreement can't directly overturn a Supreme Court decision, however you can work on it in tidbits by putting a few dozen minor anti-corruption provisions into the agreement that cumulatively have a significant effect.

---

quote:

---

3. Money. US laws on money donation are so lax now, and transparency so non-existent, that other countries could easily funnel money through various off-shore companies, shell companies, 3rd parties and super-PACs with no one any the wiser. If the UK wanted to funnel $1 billion to a particular candidate in a US election without the candidate or anyone else knowing where that money had come from, they could do so easily if their lawyers, accountants, or spies, were even remotely competent. (Granted if they got caught out it would look bad and backfire, but the chances of getting caught out until years later would be remote.) When I mentioned in my post about spending a few billion to decorrupt the US, this is primarily what I was thinking of: Funnel the money through a few 3rd parties and into anti-corruption organisations in the US such as Mayday or Wolf PACs, or into your own PACs and use it to influence specific political races of your choice. I don't think anyone in the US has woken up to what a mammoth threat to national security that money-in-politics is, because a US enemy could exploit the lack of transparency and corruption there just as easily as a US ally. An alternative is to donate money openly: Embarrass the US public by saying openly "We, country X, are giving Y billion dollars to organisation Z in the US that fights corruption, because the US is embarrassingly corrupt and we want to help you guys out." There are plenty of anti-corruption organisations in the US that could be legitimate recipients of such money. And the very fact that the US is being deemed "too corrupt" by an ally can make for some embarrassing headlines within the US which might inspire people to talk about the issue and take action on it themselves.

---

quote:

---

Basically, if I was the leader of a US ally, I would use all three methods in all their forms. Because, to my mind, the issue of climate change alone justifies both open and secret political intervention in US politics: Due to the amount of money they receive from rich donors and the oil industry, the majority of Congresspeople in the US currently don't publicly accept that climate change is human-caused and actively impede laws to do anything about the subject, and this actively harms the rest of the world. The Koch brothers (oil barons) are about to put $1 billion in donations into the next US election cycle: Well I would like to see ten times that amount mysteriously materialize in anonymous donations to candidates supporting action on climate change (and even better: on candidates that support action in decorrupting US politics).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
You're going to need most everyone to be on the same page, and stick with it, for a long, long time. Per Wikipedia, " attempts to regulate campaign finance by legislation date back to 1867".

Good luck with that.

---

quote:

---

Section #3 is so mind-bogglingly naive, ignorant, and arrogant, all at the same time, that I barely know what to say. What you're talking about doing? That, in itself, would be extremely corrupt. Just as much as when the US pulls that crap.

---

quote:

---

PS The US has helped allies with *their* wars, too.

---

Really???
Israel is the only one that really comes to mind in the last 70 years.

None of the US's major Western allies have been attacked since WWII, and all the assistance has gone the other way: The West has been helping the US in its various wars. (I was saddened to read this weak that the US has talked our political leaders into sending troops to help them out, yet again, in Iraq. Maybe "no boots on the ground" means "no American boots on the ground, but we browbeat our allies into sending boots")

quote:

---

But doing any of the things you proposed, the way you proposed them, is apt to make Americans of all stripes grab their pitchforks, attach flags to them, and go extremely isolationist and nationalist.

---

I guess it's American exceptionalism at it's finest: It's 'okay' for the US to dramatically intervene in foreign countries to the point of overthrowing their democrating elected governments and installing dictators due to motives involving oil or corporate interests (eg bananas, canals), but if a foreign country were to intervene in the US in a much more benevolent way to improve the democratic process and to a much smaller extent then that would be "aBSoLuTEly eViL!!!!" and cause for the US to chuck the toys out of their cot. Because things like that are only moral when it's the US that's doing them.

 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Starlight--

Did you miss--in the section you quoted about #3--where I said that that it's just as bad "when the US pulls that crap"??

I believe I said a couple of similar things in a previous post, too.

I don't think anyone should be messing around with another's country, unless asked. The US has overthrown other gov'ts--one way or another--more often than "occasionally". It's awful. And we don't just do it directly--look up "School of the Americas" (now renamed "WHINSEC"). It's trained torturers and assassins. There's also SOA Watch, a human-rights organization which fights against it. The US has done all kinds of bad things and has all sorts of problems--and there are lots of people trying to change that.

I'm not into American exceptionalism, manifest destiny, or American imperialism. I'm not naive about my gov't--that's why I pointed out all the obstacles I could think of. When 9/11 happened, there was an everyday woman on the news who said,"Why do they hate us???" I had a pretty good idea why.

But I--and some other American Shipmates--get really tired of outsiders chanting, "The US is the source of all the evil in the worrrllllldddd, just be like us and do THIS, and everything will be riggghhhhhtttt". It ain't that simple.

And, respectfully, NZ may not be quite as clean as you think. In the NZ Herald , I found "Bryce Edwards: Political roundup: Is NZ really the least corrupt country?" Edwards is on the NZ board of Transparency International, the group that listed NZ as least corrupt. He has some other ideas, and so wrote an opinion piece as a private individual.

I'm not sure how all this relates to US states approving same-sex marriage, unless people think that's only because of political corruption. That may well be a huge chunk of it. But, honestly, a lot of Americans are against anything to do with LGBT; and a lot of others can't wrap their minds around changing something that they perceive as part of the bedrock of society. Your interventionism won't change that.

And, for the record, I voted for same-sex marriage twice. When former SF mayor Gavin Newsom made it legal here, I was thrilled, and I think it's the one good thing he did in office. (That and ask Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, a couple for 50 years, to be the first wed. ) I grew up in conservative circumstances, and in a fundamentalist church. It took me a long time and a lot of work to get to this point, so I have a little bit of sympathy for people who have a hard time accepting changes.


(BTW, my war allies comment was primarily about WW2.)
 

---

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Did you miss--in the section you quoted about #3--where I said that that it's just as bad "when the US pulls that crap"??

---

quote:

---

I don't think anyone should be messing around with another's country, unless asked.

---

quote:

---

The US has overthrown other gov'ts--one way or another--more often than "occasionally". It's awful.

---

quote:

---

But I--and some other American Shipmates--get really tired of outsiders chanting, "The US is the source of all the evil in the worrrllllldddd, just be like us and do THIS, and everything will be riggghhhhhtttt". It ain't that simple.

---

quote:

---

And, respectfully, NZ may not be quite as clean as you think.

---

quote:

---

I'm not sure how all this relates to US states approving same-sex marriage, unless people think that's only because of political corruption.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
This goes beyond his earlier suggestion. Some judges had already said they wouldn't marry anyone. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. It's not clear the probate judges will pay attention to the order or just ignore it and what recourse is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
What I find more interesting is the Supreme Court's silence. I was expecting their decision to allow or refuse a stay to be a useful barometer for their final decision (If they thought they might rule against legalizing marriage, then they would surely stay the Alabama decision. So refusing a stay would indicate imminent victory for gay marriage.). In the other cases so far they have always ruled to allow, or (more recently) refuse, a stay. Silence in response to the question is a new tactic. It's an implicit refusal, but it's not nearly so clear-cut.

---

quote:

---

...it is a rare case in which a State will be unable to make at least some showing of a likelihood of success on the merits.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bad man:
Well, a stay has now been refused, despite a rather petulant dissent by Justice Thomas (supported by Scalia).

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

...it is a rare case in which a State will be unable to make at least some showing of a likelihood of success on the merits.

---

That's it. The stay was refused because the State could not, in the view of the majority, "make at least some showing of a likelihood of success on the merits".

---

quote:

---

In other words, the States are going to lose and gay marriage is going to win.

---

Yep.

quote:

---

Thomas must know that. It's dishonest of him to get all sanctimonious about the people who have supported plainly unconstitutional laws and to say nothing about the people whom a stay would deprive of their constitutional rights.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
It amuses me at how obsessive about States' Rights he becomes when it's convenient. Reading his arguments, you'd wonder how it would ever be possible for any court ever to find any law ever passed by any State to be unconstitutional, because in his mind the States have the right to do absolutely anything they please, and how dare the other judges think that the US Constitution might place any limits whatsoever on the supreme power and freedom of the individual States.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
[...] I amuses me at how obsessive about States' Rights [Thomas] becomes when it's convenient. [...]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
I see observers are using the same logic as me to call it on the Supreme Court's June decision:
Marriage Equality Is Coming To America This June: If there was any doubt left, Justice Clarence Thomas ended it on Monday morning.
No stay = Intention to legalize marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally stated by RBG:
The change in people’s attitudes on that issue has been enormous. In recent years, people have said, ‘This is the way I am.’ And others looked around, and we discovered it’s our next-door neighbor — we’re very fond of them. Or it’s our child’s best friend, or even our child. I think that as more and more people came out and said that ‘this is who I am,’ the rest of us recognized that they are one of us.

... I think [if the court legalized same-sex marriage] it would not take a large adjustment [for Americans to get used to it].

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Clarence Thomas:
[Rejecting a stay in Alabama] may well be seen as a signal of the court’s intended resolution [of the wider issue]

---

The legal director of Human Rights Campaign is calling it after the Alabama decision: "there is virtually zero risk that they will issue an anti-equality ruling this summer."


Meanwhile in Alabama... the federal judge has ordered the reluctant probate judges to go ahead and issue marriage licenses, and they are now complying.

[ 13. February 2015, 18:48: Message edited by: Starlight ]
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
Meanwhile, Gay Marriage Prompts Call for Clergy to Shun Civil Ceremonies

Some Christian clergy are deciding if they should stop performing civil ceremonies of marriage. They still perform opposite sex Christian marriage ceremonies, but require the participates to get their own license.

This is controversial; some see it as surrender, some see it as an abdication of a long held clerical duty.
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
There never was any reason that a given clergyman HAD TO perform a civil marriage ceremony, certainly not since most people got cars.

The clergy are doing a government registrar's job, which could always be done by (gasp!) a government registrar. That is what the GRs are paid to do, even if they has religious qualms about it. But they could always refuse to do their job, I suppose, at the risk of being fired, unlike the minister. Refusing to do the job you are paid for is a valid discipline issue, unlike simply being different from some other groups because of skin colour.

Maybe it is time for Alabama and other states to join the 20th century (or upgrade to the 21st) and let governments and churches function properly. A government MUST govern for all the people, regardless of (insert sinful attitude here).

A church is a private club that may exclude or ignore individuals as it sees fit (although it may receive some heat for not doing what Jesus preached, of course). Any church that prevents persons from receiving communion because they are baptised in the wrong manner is exercising that privilege (wrongly IMO, but allowably)
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
The article was not particularly about Alabama. I'm quite happy to have the religious ceremony be separated from the civil ceremony since the rules of eligibility may be different. Still, I would imagine it was a minor convenience for those involved not to traipse to the city hall before church as is the case in France.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Yes, it would in fact just mean falling into line with most of the world.
 

---

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 
Meanwhile in Egypt... stupid is as stupid does.

They have bought into religious conservative fantasies about the consequences of anal sex. When they suspect men of homosexuality they therefore get 'experts' to examine their anuses to see:
1) if "the shape of the hole has changed" to "look like a female vagina".
2) how large an object can fit up there, because "A normal man’s anus can’t take more than one joint of the small finger"
3) if the anus is "smooth" and lacks the "wrinkles" found on "normal" anuses.

Western doctors are left in awe of the ground-breaking 'science' being done by these Egyptian experts. "I could not tell a gay anal canal from a straight anal canal,” a US expert on anal dysplasia admitted. "Never in my 20 years of doing this have I seen an anus that looks like a vagina," admitted another US expert on anal cancer.

Meanwhile in Uganda, police are apparently checking to see if men they arrest for homosexuality are wearing diapers, since they know that gay people have to wear diapers due to incontinence.



[ 16. February 2015, 23:05: Message edited by: Starlight ]
 

---

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
Starlight, I think you know that once someone is arrested by the police in nations like the ones you mentioned for a homosexuality-related offense, they are already assumed to be guilty - and the shame of being arrested means that they are already going to shunned by society. So the anal examinations - regardless of whatever pseudoscience or cultural beliefs back them up - are just as much about subjecting them to even more humiliation as they are about determining their "guilt." For some of the men who were accused of having a gay marriage ceremony at a bathhouse in Egypt, the "gay test" you describe was said by them to be much more traumatic than the arrest or any of the abuse they suffered in police custody, because it was a clinical way of questioning whether or not, in that culture, they were men. The accused do not want to advocate for gay rights and stringently deny that they are gay, not only because of any legal issues, but because they do not want to bring any more shame on their families. Their families, rather than disowning them, are largely advocating for their innocence and supporting them. Homosexuality in Egypt has long been tolerated among middle and upper class families as long as men keep it secret, marry, and have children.

Culturally, it is related to "virginity tests" given to women and girls accused of sex before marriage. In Indonesia, some local lawmakers have suggested making "passing" such tests, which are also scientifically baseless, necessary for female students to graduate high school (only for female students ), and female police officers have also alleged that such a test was necessary in order to become a police officer (I assume married women are not allowed to become police officers).
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
Alabama Supreme court orders a halt to Same-Sex Licenses

The Alabama Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered probate judges in the state to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, ruling in direct contradiction to a federal judge that the state’s ban on same sex marriage did not violate the United States Constitution.

The vote was 7 to 1. Interesting times ahead.


I think this actually helps the case in the Supreme Court. A number of the Supremes may not like same-sex marriage, but that pales compared to their dislike of attempts to over-rule them by state courts.
 

---

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
OTOH, Nebraska.
 

---

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Alabama Supreme court orders a halt to Same-Sex Licenses

---

quote:

---

Today, March 3, Slovenia voted in favor of the freedom to marry to the country, amending the country's Marriage & Family Relations Act to include relationships between same-sex couples.

The amendment passed with a vote of 51-28 in the General Assembly. The bill was introduced on December 15 of 2014. On February 10, the Committe on Family, Social Policy, and Disability of the National Assembly voted to allow the bill to continue to the General Assembly, where it was voted on today.

The Slovene National Council now has seven days to decide whether or not the Assembly must vote again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
Probably I've missed a few obvious additional glitches with this argument. By all means enlighten me.

---

He also claimed that slavery was corrected through following the constitution...

I'm confused as to why the host seemed to accept his basic assertion that some people go into prison straight and come out gay... the interwebs seems to be having a field day with that claim now though, so...
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
Meanwhile, the Repubs have started sending in the clowns again . . .

Maybe Dr. Carson ought to request a refund for his degree(s).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Makes me wonder if something's gone wrong with him.

---

quote:

---

The Presbyterian Church (USA), the largest body of Presbyterians in the country, approved a change in the wording of its constitution to allow gay and lesbian weddings within the church, a move that threatens to continue to split the mainline Protestant denomination.

---

quote:

---

But some conservatives say lawyers and scholars who support religious liberty and oppose a constitutional right to same-sex marriage have been bullied into silence. “The level of sheer desire to crush dissent is pretty unprecedented,” said Michael W. McConnell, a former federal appeals court judge who teaches law at Stanford.

---

quote:

---

“It usually takes much longer for a position to become so disreputable that no respectable lawyer will touch it,” said Professor Yoshino, a writer for The Ethicists column in The New York Times Magazine and the author of “Speak Now,” a history of the challenge to Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
In an interesting NY Times article GOP struggles with shifts in Gay Marriage discusses the problem for the Republicans in the Presidential campaign. While their core supporters who show up in the primaries are anti same sex marriage, voters in general have become supporters, especially younger ones. The Democrats have decided to seize the pro Same Sex marriage plank instead of ducking it. So what was once a reliable GOP wedge issue is now looking more like a potential embarrassment.

---

quote:

---

“This is an issue that is being decided by demography every single day — 59 percent of Americans support marriage equality, including 52 percent of Republicans under 50 and more than 60 percent of evangelicals under 30 — and also by human experience,” said Ken Mehlman, a businessman who came out as gay after serving as the Republican national chairman. “When people see couples who have married, they see love, they see more stability, they see more commitment and they see more compassionate care for people who are old and are sick and more stable homes where children are being raised.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
The pro-same-sex lawyer (for the plaintiffs) comes across from the transcript as a bit bumbling. She got hammered by 3 conservative justices over and over again as they repeatedly say things along the lines of "For millennia, not a single other society" allowed same-sex marriage. She eventually admitted that she didn't know of any that had. The majority of her time was spent with those justices repeating that point over and over again at her. I found that quite astounding, given that it is factually false.* It's rather disturbing that the US Supreme court could be that ignorant of the anthropology of marriage at this point in time, and it suggests the American Anthropological Society was asleep at the wheel when it failed to provide the court with a briefing on this issue.

---

quote:

---

But [same-sex couples] wouldn’t be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was a millennium ago. I mean, it wasn’t possible. Same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a subordinate relationship. Yes, it was marriage between a man and a woman, but the man decided where the couple would be domiciled; it was her obligation to follow him.

There was a change in the institution of marriage to make it egalitarian when it wasn’t egalitarian. And same-sex unions wouldn’t — wouldn’t fit into what marriage was once.

---

It's particularly amusing to see legal conservatives cite a bunch of foreign law, which is something they claim to consider anathema in other contexts.
 

---

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
I was also struck by the arguments discussed on NPR's The Diane Rehm Show this morning, about marriage being all about sexual intercourse and issue therefrom.

Aside from the fact that many same-sex couples have children, not infrequently their own issue from previous unions, there also seems no recognition that modern birth control methods (not to mention legislation re abortion as a right) have increasingly de-linked procreation from marriage. Married couples can choose to be childless. Married couples can adopt rather than procreate. Married couples can involve a third party -- surrogate or sperm donor (though one could consider Hagar, Sarai, & Abram in this light in producing Ishmael), or a lab and medical technology, in engendering children for the marriage.

While adoption has been around "for millenia," other items from the list have not been available until recently. At any rate, marriages from earlier times (at least among the privileged classes) was often more about property and the consolidation of wealth than about procreation.
 

---

Posted by marzipan (# 9442) on :
 
Exciting day today in Ireland (hopefully) as it's finally referendum day
 

---

Posted by fullgospel (# 18233) on :
 
'It's a great day for the Irish' - I can't write out the tune here, but going thru my head --


and maybe yours ....
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Early indications are promising.

And some membes of the 'NO' campaign are already conceding defeat.

Who'd have thought it?
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Big yes votes in parts of Dublin, (70%), some no campaigners are conceding, go Ireland!
 

---

Posted by marzipan (# 9442) on :
 
The result is in!
Yes in all but one constituency (though I think the official result is based on overall numbers not number of constituencies? I'm not sure). I'm so glad.

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Who'd have thought it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Although the RCC officially opposed, many RC priests voted Yes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Net Spinster:
The advantage of a secret ballot though I know a few openly said they were voting yes. I wonder how many priests who voted no looked at their congregations today and wondered how many in them voted yes. Or the bishops the next time they face a group of their priests.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Net Spinster:
The advantage of a secret ballot though I know a few openly said they were voting yes. I wonder how many priests who voted no looked at their congregations today and wondered how many in them voted yes. Or the bishops the next time they face a group of their priests.

---

Surely some bishops voted yes too? I'm sure a proportion of priests and bishops are gay too and would very much understand the issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
I'm also slightly puzzled by the 'would understand the issue' comment - it's surely about agreeing or disagreeing rather than understanding the issue? I'm sure many No voters understood the question perfectly well....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Net Spinster:
The advantage of a secret ballot though I know a few openly said they were voting yes. I wonder how many priests who voted no looked at their congregations today and wondered how many in them voted yes. Or the bishops the next time they face a group of their priests.

---

Surely some bishops voted yes too? I'm sure a proportion of priests and bishops are gay too and would very much understand the issue.

---

Being LGBT =/= agreeing with marriage equality - and you don't have to be closeted to be gay and conservative on that issue either. I have a significant number of openly and happily LGBT Christian friends who nonetheless disagree with marriage equality. I'm also slightly puzzled by the 'would understand the issue' comment - it's surely about agreeing or disagreeing rather than understanding the issue? I'm sure many No voters understood the question perfectly well....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fullgospel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Net Spinster:
The advantage of a secret ballot though I know a few openly said they were voting yes. I wonder how many priests who voted no looked at their congregations today and wondered how many in them voted yes. Or the bishops the next time they face a group of their priests.

---

Surely some bishops voted yes too? I'm sure a proportion of priests and bishops are gay too and would very much understand the issue.

---

Being LGBT =/= agreeing with marriage equality - and you don't have to be closeted to be gay and conservative on that issue either. I have a significant number of openly and happily LGBT Christian friends who nonetheless disagree with marriage equality. I'm also slightly puzzled by the 'would understand the issue' comment - it's surely about agreeing or disagreeing rather than understanding the issue? I'm sure many No voters understood the question perfectly well....

---

Well, thank goodness for your significant number of lgbt anti-marriage equality friends, that it has not been made mandatory.

Then can continue being so open and happy.


But that was never even on the cards.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
A senior Vatican Official termed the Irish referendum vote a defeat for humanity. Apparently they think that they need to do more evangelization of young people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yeah, when I ask myself "which countries haven't really been exposed to Catholic teachings and evangelization?" (as I often do), Ireland is near the bottom of that list.

---

Yes, but this time there will be no more "Mr Nice Guy".


[ 02. June 2015, 05:56: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
The marriage debate in Australia has taken a bizarre turn in the last 24 hours, with several government MPs misrepresenting the French situation and basically suggesting the complete scrapping of heterosexual marriage as a government-recognised institution.

Given that the constitution gives the national Parliament power over "marriage" and not "civil unions", the problems with this particular thought bubble just pile up. But this is how keen some people are not to extend marriage. They'd rather retract it from millions of straight folk.
 

---

Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
Seriously? Is that likely or is that just empty gongs clanging? And there was me thinking that this couple were so far out on a limb that the tree is in another time-zone.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Seriously? Is that likely or is that just empty gongs clanging? And there was me thinking that this couple were so far out on a limb that the tree is in another time-zone.

---