|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: 13 and counting
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
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. Dodging the substantive arguments is the best option if you don't want to look absurd.
The shaky opinion may well be grounds to justify an en banc hearing.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
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.
On the subject of absurdly weak arguments, pg 44-45 of the dissent is worth reading as it summarizes the main argument that is being made in these court cases by those who are anti gay marriage:
(my summary)
"Straight couples can produce children by accident. And marriage primarily exists (at least from the point of view of the Government) as a carrot to encourage the fathers of those mistaken pregnancies to stick around. The importance of all of this is the benefit to those children from having their father stick around. Gay people are inherently better than straight people because they can't irresponsibly procreate, and so unlike straight people they don't need the benefits of the carrot of marriage. But if gay people were allowed to get married... then that might scare a couple of straight fathers away from the concept of marriage...? Children currently being raised by gay couples, who would benefit from their parents being able to marry, shouldn't be considered in this analysis, just cos."
Obviously there are so, so, so many things wrong with that argument that it is just amusing. And I think most people's jaws would drop if they actually realized that yes that is what the anti same-sex marriage people are really actually arguing in courts up and down America. Yes that really is their main argument, and yes that is why they keep losing in court.
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. And after lawyers throughout the country have conducted an exhaustive search for such arguments over the course of several decades, I think we can safely conclude that there is absolutely not a single valid secular argument of any kind against same-sex marriage.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
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. [...]
Totally. 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.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
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.
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. They will literally say "We live in a Christian nation. The bible is against homosexuality. Therefore gay marriage should be banned." They make absolutely explicit endorsement of the idea of basing secular law on Christian teachings, and their fundamental premise is the idea that they live in a Christian nation. I see that claim made regularly and repeatedly by conservatives in the US. I think quite a lot of them would get quite upset if they really knew and realized that "the bible is against is" is no longer accepted by US courts as a valid legal argument.
But what shocked me most and almost made me fall over in shock was when I heard it from a conservative relative here in New Zealand (we are ~50% non-religious, ~50% Christian according to the latest census data, and it's been 15 years since we last had a religious Prime Minister... you've got to be deep in nutbar land to think NZ is a Christian country by any sort of stretch of the imagination, whereas clearly the US is a country full of Christians who are very politically active even if the country is technically constitutionally secular). So, I'm afraid to say, that even long after the Christians have had their hands prized off the reins of political power, you'll find that conservative Christians will still be convinced in their own minds that they live in a 'Christian country' and that the country ought to follow their interpretation of biblical law (as I call it: 'a Christian version of shariah law').
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
I have to say I was struck by exactly that when reading bits of the majority (haven't read the full thing, just quotes from news sources). "It's not for us to decide" is just flat out wrong as a matter of legal principle.
It is absolutely for judges to decide, and it's got absolutely nothing to do with them deciding whether same-sex marriage is "good" or "bad" as a matter of policy. It's to do with them deciding whether State bans on same-sex marriage conflict with Federal law in a way that isn't permissible. It's 100% a conflict of laws issue, which is a standard thing for judges to be doing regardless of the subject matter.
--------------------
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
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
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?
At this level, they're all Article III judges, nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate. Since they enjoy life tenure, keeping the job isn't an issue.
It's not easy to break down in party terms, either, as judges have such diverse philosophies of the law. The two judge majority in the 6th Circuit ruling are both Republican appointees, but the strongest ruling in favor of equal marriage, from the 7th Circuit, is courtesy of Reagan appointee (and greatest judge never to have made it to the Supreme Court) Richard Posner.
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. [...]
Oh tell me about it, and for a long while, it was de facto true, but the times, they are a-changing. America (along with Canada, New Zealand & Australia, and Europe) is leaving behind its Christian roots, and becoming a genuinely pluralist state. The dominionists can either adapt, or get pushed aside, to dominate a log cabin in the mountains.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
The judges are appointed by the President to the Federal Circuit Court with the approval of the Senate. There's been some traditions that are crumbling about not nominating Judges that the Senators from the state disapprove of and various procedural delays that have led to nominating Judges that are more centrist. 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.
You'll be seeing more of this if one of the Supreme Court Justices has to be replaced in the next two years.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
I remember reading an analysis of why this widely-held bit of political folk wisdom is actually wrong. The best illustration of this are the FDR-appointed justices, mostly because they were so many of them (eight appointments and one elevation from associate justice to chief justice) and they were all picked for having similar judicial philosophies (in this case an expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause).
What was found was that these eight justices started disagreeing more over time not because they'd changed their minds (they were all Commerce Clause maximalists for their whole tenure) but because the kinds of cases they were deciding in the 1950s and 1960s were very about very different issues than the ones they were appointed to decide in the 1930s and 1940s (e.g. more civil rights cases, fewer Commerce Clause ones). In other words, they disagreed about Constitutional issues that hadn't been considered during their initial appointments.
[ 09. November 2014, 21:42: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Federal district judges in Arkansas and Mississippi struck down each of those state's same-sex marriage bans yesterday, 25 Nov. Undoubtedly, those states will appeal these decisions to the federal Circuit Courts within whose jurisdictions they fall. Still, the movement continues apace to final victory for the right to marry.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Well the high water mark is January. After that it will be interesting to see if the newly Republican Congress tries to re-instate DOMA or the Supreme Court has to take the case.
Still the longer it goes, the longer the precedent is established and there are real people visible who will be harmed by reinstating the ban, the harder it will be to do so.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
Finland has joined the civilized world, becoming the 18th country to do so.
[ 28. November 2014, 22:14: Message edited by: Starlight ]
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
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.
[ 29. November 2014, 13:45: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
In Loki we trust!
Repaganization's an intriguing idea. Northern paganism's undergoing something of a revival, and, well, have folk seen that vid of Norwegian soldiers invoking Valhalla? I suspect that pagan spirit never quite died out in the north ...
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
So long as we have Christians impaling angels on top of fiery "Christmas" trees, there will still be tribal memory of pagan rites.
C'mon, how much of "Christmas" has anything to do with the birth of Jesus? But Christians everywhere dote on burning logs, mistletoe, fir trees, reindeer, and even such ancient symbols as the Santa Claus designed by the Coca-Cola marketing department.
For a second opinion on this, may I offer "Confused Rhode Island Christianists sing secular song to defend pagan symbol" ...and this in a state founded to guarantee freedom of religous practise!
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Apparently, the Mormons agree, if Enoch's experience is reliable.
Firenze, three posts later, confirms his existence (Enoch's and Woden's)
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Ad Orientem, you are aware that Norse/Scandi Pagan culture was pretty homophobic, right? How does Paganism = homosexuality in that case? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
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.
Paganism was not necessarily characterised by hedonism. The Emperor Augustus, for example, was quite puritanical and attempted a public morality campaign. Some pagan Romans were hedonists, others were not -- much as the case in culturally Christian societies today, and I'm sure as in other pagan societies. Wasn't Socrates accused of offending public morality? As ever, an accusation made against those whom one dislikes.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
And atheism and (confusingly) promoting new gods. The confused charges against Sokrates were fairly jumbled because the amnesty following the fall of the Thirty Tyrants prevented him from being prosecuted for what the Athenians felt was his true offense: promoting a philosophy that produced people like Kritias and Alkibiades.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
The US Supreme Court just voted 7-2 to temporarily allow same-sex marriages in Florida while the issue continues to be appealed through the court system.
Game over.
I can't interpret this ruling any other way than to conclude that this means the Supreme Court will rule in favour of same-sex marriage when the case gets to them. This makes me very happy, because up to now I wasn't sure I trusted the Supreme Court to make the right decision on this issue.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Starlight, hinges on why they voted to let 'em go ahead: even Scalia, part of this two-judge minority along with Thomas, voted to allow equal marriage to go ahead in California on the grounds that the appellants lacked standing.
I do agree, though, that the signs are good. I've been a moderate on this before, but now I think, screw it, just send the case to the Supreme Court. The worst they can do is reject it, and if they do that, there'll be a furious national campaign to make 'em revisit the case.
This isn't the mid-80s anymore. A rejection won't set the gay rights movement back, it'll galvanize it.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Vietnam's gone and done an interesting thing. It's removed a prohibition of same-sex weddings, but without any kind of government recognition/support for a same-sex marriage.
So I guess that means that a couple is free to have a ceremony and have their status recognised socially, by friends and family.
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
Imagine that.
--------------------
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
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
South Dakota is now on the map. "Plantiffs have a fundamental right to marry" ruled the judge.
Meanwhile the Supreme Court continues to hide their head in the sand on the issue, although they get another chance to run away from taking a case as early as this Friday.
Meanwhile in Egypt there's been a "not guilty" ruling on sodomy charges, although it's being appealed.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
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.
[ 14. January 2015, 19:52: Message edited by: Starlight ]
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Well, the Church does need to make an extra effort to convince the students in their care that being a proper Catholic means being intolerant bigots. The article mentions all the students who called him.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
New Hope Ministries (apparently some kind of Protestant non-denom, as near as I can tell) sees your engagement firing and raises you one interrupted funeral.
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.
Firing someone for getting engaged: dickish and grinchy.
Standing over someone's dead body, denouncing them, and throwing a temper tantrum mid-funeral: really dickish and extra grinchy.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
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.
I would have thought that the scandal isn't that they gave him the sack now but that they allowed him to remain for so long whilst publicy acting in a way that went against the faith of the school.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Well, firing him on the first hint of gayness would at least have been in tune with their institutional rules, while being a bit more honest about expressing their opinion to him personally.
But we have learned that a hierarchy suffering from institutional inertia doesn't understand much about public opinion.
Meanwhile, back at another ranch: This Just In.
The Supreme Court of the US will hear four cases dealing with SSM this spring.
Two questions: The first is whether the U.S. Constitution requires states to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples. The other is whether states must recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
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...
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Having opposing rulings at the Appeal level forces the Supreme Court to address the issue. It's likely they would have preferred to duck the issue, possibly until there might be a new Republican Justice.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
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
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
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?
Well Loving v. Virginia was because Virginia would prosecute the couple if they wanted to live in Virginia after marrying out-of-state so it was non-recognition with a vengeance. BTW the only other group that I'm aware of which has this patchwork of allowing, recognizing, not recognizing are first cousin marriages; some states allow, some don't allow but will recognize out-of-state marriages, and some don't recognize and for some it is a prosecutable offense (see social security web page for possible effects).
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
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...
It does look promising, although they may have been hoping that the circuit courts would do the job for them.
The worry is that Kennedy based Windsor partly on state's rights. Although you'd hope he wouldn't want overturning thousands of marriages between gay couples as his legacy.
A victory's more likely, but I hope contingency plans are in place if it goes the other way. Vigorous campaigning at the state level would, I guess, be the first step, with a possible rehearing down the line.
[ 17. January 2015, 05:33: Message edited by: Byron ]
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
But we have learned that a hierarchy suffering from institutional inertia doesn't understand much about public opinion.
What's public opinion got to do with it?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Public opinion influences whether people can be talked into coming to your church or not. Saying and doing unnecessarily stupid or nasty things does not help evangelise.
You can be as "right' as you may think necessary, but, if your group is seen as nasty, they won't come.
How many priests are actually pedophiles? But the manner in which the church handled the problem made a huge difficulty for the whole church.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
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 bf perceived as "nasty".
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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?
[ 17. January 2015, 16:43: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
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.
That isn't an answer at all. That's still all rather relative, "nasty" merely being those who believe differently to you.
[ 17. January 2015, 17:57: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
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?
On the contrary. The same Church, I would argue, exists today.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
If you are arguing that Christianity is a continuous entity, you are quite obviously correct.
If you are arguing that your modern (for a given value of modern) worship service is something that either Peter or Paul would have attended, you are manifestly wrong.
--------------------
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
|
|
Printer-friendly view
