|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: 13 and counting
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
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"
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
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. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
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).
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Unfortunately, Same-Sex Marriage Ban Survives Challenge in Tennessee.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
There's no new or interesting arguments explored in the decision itself. The judge's brainpower apparently extends only far as copy+pasting part of the State's submission into his decision rather than giving any reasoning himself. In sum, the decision is pretty short, and just endorses the standard fundamentalist position. Marriage is apparently reducible to making babies and biology.
I doubt any other courts will be persuaded to agree with this decision or take it overly seriously, though I imagine Scalia's already adding it to the 100 page dissent he'll be writing for the eventually forthcoming Supreme court legalization of marriage...
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Unfortunately, Same-Sex Marriage Ban Survives Challenge in Tennessee.
This is an unimportant decision that will have zero effect in the larger judicial process. This was the ruling of a mere county judge - undoubtedly an elected position and strictly a local one occupied by a local lawyer-politician reflecting local sentiments and attitudes. It will set no precedents.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
The Supreme court has stayed the decision in favor of same-sex marriage in Virginia until the Supreme Court decides if it will take the case on appeal.
Since the sixth circuit may actually rule against same sex marriage it may be hard for the Supreme Court to duck the case.
[ 23. August 2014, 21:21: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
A federal Judge in Florida ruled that the state ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. The decision was stayed pending an expected appeal by the State.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Apparently Wisconsin and Indiana had a rough day in court trying to explain why marriage should be limited to opposite-sex couples.
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?
This doesn't necessarily indicate how the 7th Circuit will rule, but it does indicate states have to work harder and affirmatively prove their case. A simple shrug of "tradition" apparently doesn't cut it any more.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
For those of you who can't get enough appeals court arguments, you can listen to the forty-five minutes of oral arguments mentioned above at this link.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
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.
Sadly, was only a matter of time. There's already been dissents at the appellate level. The reasoning (encouraging biological families) looks mighty shoddy, and ought not to survive appeal.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
looks mighty shoddy, and ought not to survive appeal.
From what I can tell from google, not much this judge does survives on appeal. He appears to have had a career full of scandals and to not be very well regarded.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
Same sex marriage just won at the appeals court level in Wisconsin and Indiana. In a 3-0 decision the judges ruled:
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.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
An interesting (non-)decision by the U.S. Supreme Court:
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.
There have been a few indications that the Supreme Court may only take up the question if there is a split among the Circuit Courts. At any rate, with the denial of certiorari the rulings of the circuit courts in question stand. This potentially affects all states within the given circuit, unless some other state can come up with a novel and convincing argument as to why their ban on same-sex marriage is different than those argued by Virginia, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin and Indiana.
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.
Of course, if there were a novel and convincing argument to be made along those lines, wouldn't someone have made it already?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
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.
True, Kennedy's ruling in Windsor was heavy on states' rights.
Denying cert is a good ruling. As the circuits are (so far) unanimous, there's simply no need for the Supreme Court to get involved at this stage. The issues on appeal have yet to be resolved. If the circuits split, SCOTUS can rule in a later term.
[ 06. October 2014, 17:33: Message edited by: Byron ]
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
There's never a guarantee when it comes to the Supremes, but Anthony Kennedy is still the median vote for most issues, including gay rights. Despite being opposed by gay rights groups during his nomination (he was a Reagan appointee so they justifiably feared the worst) he's actually written the three biggest gay rights affirming opinions of the late-twentieth/early twenty-first centuries (Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, and U.S. v. Windsor). As a justice nearing the end of his tenure, it seems unlikely that he'd vote to undermine his legacy of the past several decades.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
There's no end to hypotheticals, but in general with Gay Marriage, the sooner the better. Once it happens in a state and people realize that the world does not end in hellfire, the harder it is for the opposition to convince anyone that revoking it is a good idea.
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.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
Not necessarily. The Supreme Court usually feels more obligated to hear a case if the Circuits are split on the issue. If a Circuit upholds a same-sex marriage ban (and the Fifth and Sixth Circuits are considering such cases right now) it could lead to the Supremes reconsidering reviewing a case.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Yes, and that's why I said that said reconsideration would happen in the tenure of the same court.
The argument for why it would be better for the court to take the case is the assumption that Republicans take the Senate and the Presidency and get to appoint new Justices of the Scalia/Roberts sort who vote against same sex marriage. That may happen, but not in the next two years.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Also, anyone who picked "Utah" in their "Last American State to Legalize Same-Sex Marriage" betting pool is now very disappointed.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
John Oliver kept interjecting "Mississippi" in his discussion of what would be the last state to accept same sex marriage. We shall see.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
Today the 9th Circuit appeals court, who presumably were waiting on the Supreme court decision, issued their ruling, unanimously striking down the marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada. Presumably that ruling is final now that the Supreme court has stuck its head firmly in the sand.
Furthermore, the 9th Circuit has jurisdiction in several other states that don't yet have marriage equality: Oregon, Montana, Arizona, Alaska. Presumably this decision will be binding on them in short order.
So 11 states got immediate or impending marriage equality yesterday as a result of the Supreme court ducking the issue, and today we've got another 6. That's one third of the US in two days...
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Oregon came out for equal marriage back in May -- pretty much a formality, as it'd recognized same-sex marriages performed elsewhere since last fall, marriages offered by its neighbors to the north & south.
The best outcome would be for the other circuits to uphold equal marriage, never risking the Supreme Court vote. In refusing appeals, the Court might've given 'em a push in that direction, which would suit it no end. Seeing the direction of travel, the conservative holdouts may bow to the inevitable, and decide that this isn't a hill they can defend.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
It would be nice, but as mentioned up thread, the fifth circuit court of appeals is considering cases (Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi) and they have already denied an expedited appeal on the stayed ruling of a Federal Judge in Texas who struck down a ban on same sex marriage.
The Supreme Court may have left a clue in the last denial of review, but it's unlikely to impress a very conservative circuit.
The sixth circuit case is also one that was seen to be quite likely the other way.
It's barely possible that a split ruling doesn't mean the Supreme Court has to take the case. They should, but that's not a good guide. Either way, it could be very messy.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The sixth circuit case is also one that was seen to be quite likely the other way.
Interestingly that article's main thesis is that after listening to the oral arguments the person strongly believed that the deciding factor will be the US Supreme Court's 1972 refusal to accept the appeal in Baker vs Nelson (an implicitly anti marriage equality decision), because in oral arguments the swing judge firmly expressed the view that that precedent is still in effect. Now of course that judge may simply fishing for reasons to decide the case in a way that suits his biases. But I would have thought the Supreme Court's refusal this week to accept the appeal (an implicitly pro marriage equality decision) utterly blows Baker vs Nelson out of the water as a precedent - it's a replica of Baker vs Nelson that carries the exact opposite implications. 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. I guess this is where we find out if that judge is biased or whether he really believes his own logic.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I found this graph interesting.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I found this graph interesting.
The hover text is also 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.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
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. [...]
Excellent point! For all we know, the SCOTUS may have refused cert for this reason. Judges and their clerks talk to one another, after all.
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.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
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.
That would seem the obvious way to go.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
I'm a bit surprised to hear that denial of review is interpreted as a precedent.
as wikipedia article on Supreme Court procedure points out
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.
It's hard to see the remaining 9,000 are considered precedents by being denied review.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
Hmm yeah, wiki on the 1971 dismissal says:
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
So this week's dismissal may not fully negate that precedent I guess.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
That article also says
quote:
The question of Baker's value as precedent is likely to remain until the U.S. Supreme Court addresses the question directly.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
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.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
Arizona has just joined the list!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
With all the interest in the USA, we've neglected another Mexican state making the move. Coahuila, which occupies the bend in Texas.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
