JustUsBoys.com gay porn forum

logo

remove these banner ads by becoming a JUB Supporter.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 106
  1. #51
    Sex God tigerfan482's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Columbia
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    862

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    Not specifically, but that's the end result of "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution...." following on "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
    The "Judicial Power" specified in there includes the power of judicial review, allowing the Supreme Court to declare laws unconstitutional. This was discussed in the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers, and even before that, both in England and the new colonies. While many people (incorrectly) believe that Marbury vs. Madison established judicial review, it was merely the first case that it was used to strike down a law as unconstitutional. The power resided in the court (as many delegates at the Constitutional Convention intended) before Marbury and was actually used to uphold a law as constitutional in Hytlon v. United States.

    So while the phrase "determine the Constitutionality of laws" was not specifically used in Article III, it was included in the "Judicial Power" that was being vested in the Supreme Court.

  2. #52
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Middle of Snowwhere.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    15,944
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    Not so fast, Kennedy clearly states the singling out without reason is improper. It is not a free-for-all, it does not open marriage to whatever people "might want to have." Government still has the power to determine who is qualified to marry, but that definition is subject to rational scrutiny.

    If there are other people who want to marry but can't, they will first have to convince a state that there is merit in recognising the relationship. If that happens and the Feds do not approve, the burden will then be on them to demonstrate why.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    That's exactly backwards -- it's an end to government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

    THe only reason to single out is if someone is doing harm. The burden is on government to show that there is harm.

    No the People are still in charge. This doesn't affect voting rights. And Kennedy clearly stated what he stated. He did not prohibit governments from deciding some kinds of relationship should not be considered "married." He just said they would need a damn good reason when those people are actually married by the state.

    He also did not oblige any state to accept as valid any suggested kind of relationship that comes its way.

    So, for example, in the case of polygamy, if a state were to record that relationship as "married," then the federal government would need a substantive reason to ignore that. They would be accountable to minimise any harm or indignity done in the course of ignoring a state-authorised marriage, which could only be achieved in the case of pressing and substantial reasons. In particular, more than "we don't morally like that." Distaste is not sufficient.

    But a state has not recognised polygamy. And whether it does, or whether it ought to, is in Kennedy's mind an entirely different question. At least the decision sure reads that way.

    First of all, governments ought to maintain the status quo unless otherwise directed by the people (directed either by exercise of their collective authority through granting an electoral mandate, or by a credible complaint from a minority that their interests have not adequately been protected).

    This means if someone doesn't like a state marriage law, they need to bring the matter to the attention of the government (i.e., the People.)

    If lawmakers deliberate and find substantive reasons why a change should not occur, the change should not occur.

    In the example of polygamy, "It makes us feel icky" would not withstand a challenge. However "We have 25 sociological studies and hundreds of witnesses that spoke before the legislative committee to point out that women and girls are generally disadvantaged by polygamous marriage; the evidence is persuasive, and there is a rational interest in discrediting the practice" then maybe the state has a case.
    Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

  3. #53
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,605

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Quote Originally Posted by ChickenGuy View Post
    I always consider (as I've stated before) that gays who live in staunchly Republican states get completely forgotten with this whole process. Yes, it is welcome that the Supreme Court is bringing in positive changes and that rights are being granted in parts of the country, but (correct me if I'm wrong) NO rights, not even the civil unions which I support either alongside marriage or a step along the way, will ever be passed by half of the states.
    You are quite correct, ChickenGuy.

    There are a number of states (although not "half") which will NEVER vote to allow gay marriage. They will only ever acknowledge gay marriages if they are forced to do so by the federal government.


    Quote Originally Posted by ChickenGuy View Post
    So what needs to happen at some point is a strategy to bring gay rights to those states which are never talked about here - e.g. - Utah, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee. It will NEVER happen by their local state congress, it will NEVER happen by their ballots, so how will it EVER occur?
    What was critical today was the fact that the Supreme Court did NOT rule that the federal government has no role in defining marriage in America. There were some hints, prior to the ruling, that the justices might do this. The fact that they did not leaves open the possibility that the court may rule in some future case (and relatively soon) that all Americans have a right to gay marriage, regardless of state of residence. The court could have made such a ruling today, and many of us are disappointed that it did not. The justices, presumably, did not feel that the country is quite ready for this yet. However, the fact that they left this door open says quite a lot. It now seems inevitable that such a ruling will be forthcoming from SCOTUS sometime within the next twenty years.

    The court's decisions today leave America a patchwork within which your rights as a gay married couple are dependent on your geographic location at the moment. A married gay couple may have their marriage effectively dissolved by moving to a non-gay marriage state. A married gay couple traveling in a non-gay marriage state will not be empowered to make medical decisions for each other, nor will they enjoy spousal hospital visitation privileges. Etc. etc. Obviously, the rulings today do not make gay marriage in America equivalent to straight marriage - not even in those states where gay marriage is the law. Gay marriage here clearly remains inferior to straight marriage, simply by virtue of the fact that it is not universally recognized.

    This situation is not sustainable, long term. It is inevitable that some issue will arise where some gay married couple is denied rights which would have been accorded to a straight couple in some part of America. A lawsuit will be filed, and the case will be appealed to the Supreme Court. At that time, the court will have an opportunity to impose gay marriage as the law of the entire land, much as it did for interracial marriage in 1967 in Loving vs. Virginia.
    Last edited by T-Rexx; June 26th, 2013 at 10:14 PM.

  4. #54
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,605

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Quote Originally Posted by tigerfan482 View Post
    So part of DOMA was that states weren't required to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states as they are with opposite sex marriages. Will this ruling invalidate that or will states still have the ability to not recognize same sex marriages from other states?
    The Supreme Court struck down only that portion of DOMA which prevents the federal government from recognizing gay marriage. It upheld the right of individual states to refuse to recognize gay marriages (and only gay marriages) performed in other states.

    States remain compelled to recognize straight marriages performed by other states.
    Last edited by T-Rexx; June 26th, 2013 at 10:22 PM.

  5. #55
    Sex God AstareGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Biloxi, MS
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    646

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    There are a number of states (although not "half") which will NEVER vote to allow gay marriage. They will only ever acknowledge gay marriages if they are forced to do so by the federal government.
    And, let me tell ya, they will NOT be happy about it!

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    It now seems inevitable that such a ruling will be forthcoming from SCOTUS sometime within the next twenty years.
    I doubt it will take that long. We've had six victories in the past year, with Maryland, Maine, Washington, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Delaware. More recently we've had popular votes and legislatures enacting marriage equality. And earlier today we just got California back. I bet there will be a challenge to Section 2 of DOMA very soon, which will force states to recognize the same-sex marriages of other states where it is legal. These red states may not be forced to perform the marriages, but they will be forced to recognize them.
    Brad's Search - 70,000 words and counting!

  6. #56
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,297
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    The Supreme Court struck down only that portion of DOMA which prevents the federal government from recognizing gay marriage. It upheld the right of individual states to refuse to recognize gay marriages (and only gay marriages) performed in other states.

    States remain compelled to recognize straight marriages performed by other states.
    This is what I'm not finding info on. Every article I find says "SCOTUS Guts DOMA" or "SCOTUS Strikes Down DOMA" or some such thing, but never tells the whole story.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  7. #57
    JubberClubber White Eagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Corpus Christi Tx
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Widower
    Posts
    10,836

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyBob View Post
    There still are a great many people who believe that if you're a homosexual there's something "wrong" with you. Also it's a choice that you could overcome it with the love of a pretty girl.

    About 10 years ago after telling a medical doctor I was gay, he replied, "is this something you can't control?" After replying it's not about control it's who you are he didn't want to talk about it anymore. That's the mindset of people like Scalia.
    That makes me think of this. When I told my Mother I was gay, around 28, she loaded me up in the car and drove me to the family doctor. An old man by any means. He told her to just accept it. Good for him! When I told my Dad I was working at a Gay bar he told me to "Just be careful".
    BEWARE! Harassing the Indian may result in sudden and severe hair loss.

  8. #58
    JubberClubber White Eagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Corpus Christi Tx
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Widower
    Posts
    10,836

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    This may have been posted in either of the other 2 SCOTUS threads, but here goes......



    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	SFrainbow.jpg 
Views:	251 
Size:	214.4 KB 
ID:	963264

    ...and wouldn't you know it's San Francisco City Hall?

    .. worth a thousand words.
    BEWARE! Harassing the Indian may result in sudden and severe hair loss.

  9. #59
    JUB Addict cm98059's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Holdenville
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Available
    Posts
    1,381

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    It would be nice to find out that the ruling today essentially makes All marriages legal through out the land. But I think that there are still going to be a couple more challenges needed in order to make that possible.

    I am not clear in the ruling on Prop 8, did the court say that the people defending Prop 8 did not have standing in the case, and therefore the ruling of the Ninth court was vacated, and the ruling of the state court declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional stands?

  10. #60
    JubberClubber White Eagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Corpus Christi Tx
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Widower
    Posts
    10,836

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Now for a little memorabilia.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...-DOMA-Decision

    --snip--

    The opinion of the Court was written by Justice Kennedy, who also authored the Court's overturning of anti-sodomy laws exactly ten years ago today, and it holds that DOMA is invalid because "no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity." His opinion is joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan; dissents were authored by the Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Alito, and below the gnocchi we'll hit all the pertinent details.
    BEWARE! Harassing the Indian may result in sudden and severe hair loss.

  11. #61
    JubberClubber White Eagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Corpus Christi Tx
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Widower
    Posts
    10,836

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    I went to this link just to read how Boehner helped defeat DMOA. I had been looking all through DailyKos trying to find a link to a petition asking Congress to pass "The Respect For Marriage Act and support full marriage equality." and lo and behold there it is at the bottom of this article.
    Sign the petition if you want to or don't if you don't.


    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...-s-nbsp-repeal

    Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 07:43 AM PDT
    Thank you John Boehner, for DOMA's repeal

    by Joan McCarterFollow

    House Speaker John Boehner spent $3 million of taxpayer money to hire Paul Clement for the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) to defend the Defense of Marriage Act.

    Turns out, that was a pretty good investment for our side. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, tells us that once the Justice Department dropped the defense of DOMA, the Court needed someone to step up so they had standing to actually decide the case.
    --snip--

    Please join us and call on Congress to finish the job that the Supreme Court started today. Sign the petition to pass The Respect For Marriage Act and support full marriage equality.
    BEWARE! Harassing the Indian may result in sudden and severe hair loss.

  12. #62
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Middle of Snowwhere.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    15,944
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    The Supreme Court struck down only that portion of DOMA which prevents the federal government from recognizing gay marriage. It upheld the right of individual states to refuse to recognize gay marriages (and only gay marriages) performed in other states.

    States remain compelled to recognize straight marriages performed by other states.
    Did they actually uphold it, or simply not deal with it? I understood the case wasn't about that section of DOMA, so they wouldn't even have considered it.
    Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

  13. #63
    JubberClubber White Eagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Corpus Christi Tx
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Widower
    Posts
    10,836

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    I clicked on this link just because it said only "Meanwhile". Looky what I found! This is all it said and all that was necessary.


    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...212/-Meanwhile



    Poor Fred Phelps.


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	fred.jpg 
Views:	234 
Size:	121.7 KB 
ID:	963309
    BEWARE! Harassing the Indian may result in sudden and severe hair loss.

  14. #64
    JUB Addict chrisrobin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    7,995

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Quote Originally Posted by White Eagle View Post
    This may have been posted in either of the other 2 SCOTUS threads, but here goes......



    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	SFrainbow.jpg 
Views:	251 
Size:	214.4 KB 
ID:	963264

    ...and wouldn't you know it's San Francisco City Hall?

    .. worth a thousand words.


    This one's for you, Harvey!

    Why should anyone have to know anything? - Sheldon Cooper

  15. #65
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    62,035

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    It will be intresting to see what Obama does. If he votes to only have the federal government acknowledge marriage and not civil unions or domestic partnerships,the lawsuits that are already in place will make it that much easier to win,because it will put to the rest the seperate but equal crap.

  16. #66
    JUB Addict evanrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Seattle
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,490
    Blog Entries
    16

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    Scalia's dissenting opinion on DOMA is 26 pages of pure rage, in which he argues that homosexuality is immoral and should be illegal.

    It is rather bizarre.
    scalia is bizzare on social issues but sometimes he makes sense on issues of liberty where breyer and the other wacko-cons do not make any sense.
    http://forum.justusboys.com/forum/signaturepics/sigpic30903_2.gif

  17. #67
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,605

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    Did they actually uphold it, or simply not deal with it?
    Not dealing with it is upholding it.

    States are compelled to recognize the straight marriages performed by other states. DOMA specifically "authorizes" states to deny gay marriages (and only gay marriages) performed by other states. If the court believed that this was unconstitutional, it would have so ruled. The court did not somehow overlook this glaringly unequal part of the law. They did "not deal with it" by design. They left this door open, because they want this issue to be dealt with by a future case, after the nation has had more time to "evolve" on the issue of gay marriage.

    The court is saying that, for now, it is constitutional for states to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed by other states. But, the court is also making a statement this may not be constitutional in a few years.


    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    I understood the case wasn't about that section of DOMA, so they wouldn't even have considered it.
    The court is free to rule on American law, generally. It is not compelled to rule only on the specific question that is brought to it by the case at hand. DOMA does not prevent individual states from carrying out gay marriages, but the court could have ruled that gay marriage is a right reserved to all Americans, regardless of state of residence, in handing down its decision on DOMA, even though the law does not even address that question. Or it could have ruled that gay marriage is unconstitutional in every state.

    It is sometimes wise for the court to rule broadly on an issue, if it decides that it is time for some fundamental aspect of American society to change. And it is sometimes wise for the court to rule narrowly on an issue, if it decides the nation is not yet ready for the change in question. In this case, the court chose the latter course.

  18. #68
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,297
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Quote Originally Posted by cm98059 View Post
    It would be nice to find out that the ruling today essentially makes All marriages legal through out the land. But I think that there are still going to be a couple more challenges needed in order to make that possible.
    A couple? I wish!

    First there will have to be a case where SCOTUS decides that a couple married in state A can't lose their federal benefits just because they move to state B. Then there will have to be a case deciding that a couple who adopted kids in state A can't have them taken away just because they moved to state B. Then... that if a couple married in state A, state B has to acknowledge that at least for the purpose of divorce proceedings. Then... the same for inheritance, and for other property rights.

    The way the Court is playing this, it will take another half dozen cases at a minimum, and fifteen years at least, before they grudgingly go ahead adjust say that the "full faith and credit" clause means no state can refuse to acknowledge a marriage performed in another state, which means they can't deny any of the benefits or privileges of marriage in their state just because their laws wouldn't allow the couple to have been married in the first place. After that, more will pass before they just apply Kennedy's rule to all the states and say they can't establish special categories of people with special rights, and hve to allow whoever wants to marry to do so.

    I think we might actually achieve marriage freedom and equality a dozen years later... if liberty is lucky.

    Quote Originally Posted by cm98059 View Post
    I am not clear in the ruling on Prop 8, did the court say that the people defending Prop 8 did not have standing in the case, and therefore the ruling of the Ninth court was vacated, and the ruling of the state court declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional stands?
    What they basically ruled there is that the laws of a state don't matter and even the Supreme Court of a state have no say in the meaning of those laws unless the 'Nipotent Nine decide to let them. In turn, that means that they oppose people passing their own laws; they just have to shut up and do what the Tyranny of Two decide -- the final implication if the people can't step up to efend laws they passed.

    I fear for the process of initiative and referendum across the nation now that SCOTUS has determined that the voice of the people doesn't count if the government decides to ignore it,

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  19. #69
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,297
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Quote Originally Posted by evanrick View Post
    scalia is bizzare on social issues but sometimes he makes sense on issues of liberty where breyer and the other wacko-cons do not make any sense.
    Sometimes -- shen he isn't making shit up or just lying in order to justify his stands against liberty.

    Scalia is just bizarre. He proved that beyond a doubt when he argued that a court given all judicial authority in the land has no power to deal with an issue of the law of the land.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  20. #70
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,297
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    The court is free to rule on American law, generally. It is not compelled to rule only on the specific question that is brought to it by the case at hand. DOMA does not prevent individual states from carrying out gay marriages, but the court could have ruled that gay marriage is a right reserved to all Americans, regardless of state of residence, in handing down its decision on DOMA, even though the law does not even address that question. Or it could have ruled that gay marriage is unconstitutional in every state.

    It is sometimes wise for the court to rule broadly on an issue, if it decides that it is time for some fundamental aspect of American society to change. And it is sometimes wise for the court to rule narrowly on an issue, if it decides the nation is not yet ready for the change in question. In this case, the court chose the latter course.
    Correct. For example, in the Amistad case, the Court could have held that the right to insurrection against tyranny pertains only to slaves, or affirmed that it applies to all men in all situations.

    Trivia: where did they actually land?

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  21. #71
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Middle of Snowwhere.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    15,944
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post

    The court is free to rule on American law, generally. It is not compelled to rule only on the specific question that is brought to it by the case at hand.
    I'm surprised you'd see it that way. In all of the recent cases (doma; 8; voter rights, I've read them for fun) the justices went to great length to explain what the question was and how they had authority to talk about it before giving their judgement. Both wings of the court feel compelled to be sure that they even have any business making a decision. They will never decide on something unless it is raised by the litigants.
    Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

  22. #72
    Thankfully Liberal & Gay
    frankfrank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Illinois (Agent Provocateur and Refujiunderground you can do it)
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    15,197
    Blog Entries
    5

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Quote Originally Posted by JayHawk View Post
    p.s. Made the most amazing Burgundy Mushroom Risotto with Sliced Chicago style steak atop for a celebratory meal. Drinking Patron and Lime-ade as well......

    "What do ya do with a drunken sailor? "
    I'll need to experience your cooking sometime...it just didn't happen this time.

    I remember hearing a version of that old sea shanty in 1989:

    "What shall we do with a drunken sailor?" (x3)
    ...Send him off to Exxon. (replaces "early in the morning")

    Quote Originally Posted by tigerfan482 View Post
    So part of DOMA was that states weren't required to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states as they are with opposite sex marriages. Will this ruling invalidate that or will states still have the ability to not recognize same sex marriages from other states?
    That's next, as Rachel Maddow gave an example last night - and some have said in this thread.

    Right now, NOTHING AT ALL is "forced upon" the non-aligned states by any Supreme Court decision yesterday, other than the lack-of-standing decision for California turning that state into one of the "aligned" states, by vacating the Federal appeals ruling (and removing jurisdiction from the SCOTUS at the same time) and making the California Supreme Court ruling, overturning Prop 8, the ruling of record.

    Quote Originally Posted by JayHawk View Post
    Well the ruling was you cannot have a law that creates separate classes of citizens. States not providing reciprocity would be doing juts that, so i imagine it will be challenged and overturned by a lower court.
    And, hopefully, sooner rather than later.

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    There is no reason for the federal government to deem a couple unmarried based on their current location.
    However, I think that's what Section 2 of DOMA was all about, and that part of DOMA still survives intact. I've heard something about Obama saying that this needs to be remedied, to allow the Federal government to continue to recognize the marriages when married same-sex couples move to what I've been calling "non-aligned" states.

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    In the example of polygamy, "It makes us feel icky" would not withstand a challenge. However "We have 25 sociological studies and hundreds of witnesses that spoke before the legislative committee to point out that women and girls are generally disadvantaged by polygamous marriage; the evidence is persuasive, and there is a rational interest in discrediting the practice" then maybe the state has a case.
    There is also the fact that polygamy IS ALMOST ALWAYS an arrangement with multiple women. If polygamy became even somewhat common, it would mean that many men would become "disenfranchised" because the entire remaining pool of eligible women would be grabbed up by polygamists. In that case, I believe, demonstrable harm could easily be argued.
    "All legal U. S. residents who are 18 years or older, shall have an unconditional right to vote." - 28th Amendment, US Constitution?
    "But, hey, who cares about women and their rights when the religious liberty of a nationwide chain of arts and crafts stores is at stake?" - Daily Kos, 30 June 2014
    "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires" - Susan B. Anthony

  23. #73
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,297
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    I'm surprised you'd see it that way. In all of the recent cases (doma; 8; voter rights, I've read them for fun) the justices went to great length to explain what the question was and how they had authority to talk about it before giving their judgement. Both wings of the court feel compelled to be sure that they even have any business making a decision. They will never decide on something unless it is raised by the litigants.
    But they can rule narrowly or broadly -- and broadly goes as far as they decide.

    Lately, OTOH, the tendency has been to rule narrowly.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  24. #74
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,605

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    I'm surprised you'd see it that way. In all of the recent cases (doma; 8; voter rights, I've read them for fun) the justices went to great length to explain what the question was and how they had authority to talk about it before giving their judgement. Both wings of the court feel compelled to be sure that they even have any business making a decision. They will never decide on something unless it is raised by the litigants.
    You are correct that the court recently has been narrow in its decisions.

    That is because this particular court lacks a spine.

  25. #75
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,297
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    You are correct that the court recently has been narrow in its decisions.

    That is because this particular court lacks a spine.
    And much of a forebrain....

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  26. #76
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Middle of Snowwhere.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    15,944
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    But they can rule narrowly or broadly -- and broadly goes as far as they decide.

    Lately, OTOH, the tendency has been to rule narrowly.
    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    You are correct that the court recently has been narrow in its decisions.

    That is because this particular court lacks a spine.
    I can account for part of that because even though they are supposed to be above the fray, they can only be accused by crazy republicans of "legislating from the bench" for so long before they have to start looking over their shoulders. So certainly the political mud-slinging will have narrowed their comfort zone as to how broadly they will rule, and perhaps some of the lengthy discussions of standing and justiciability and eligibility for review are just posturing to defend against or placate the crazies railing against "judge-made law."

    HOwever, lots of them, not just Sclerosia, took pains to say the Court can't just announce an opinion about something - even something blatantly unconstitutional - unless it comes to them via a current controversy between disputing parties.

    I even recall discussion on here where I learned about that aspect of your court. In Canada, Parliament can deem a matter of sufficient importance to send it directly to the Supreme Court for its decision as to the constitutionality of the matter. It's called a "reference case," being that it is referred by the Government without any suit from any party. I learned that the US system does not allow for that, and even takes pains to avoid that kind of "inadvertent" ruling in issues peripheral to the cases that are brought before it.

    I don't think it matters either way, except to note that in the US system, if no one begins by asking the court "Please strike down the whole law" then 9/10ths of the sections will remain standing even if they are blatantly treasonous, because no one asked the court to do anything about it or sued anyone to stop doing it. Axing the rest of the law requires another day in court. It doesn't mean the rest of the law is sound.
    Last edited by bankside; June 27th, 2013 at 08:44 PM.
    Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

  27. #77
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,297
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    HOwever, lots of them, not just Sclerosia, took pains to say the Court can't just announce an opinion about something - even something blatantly unconstitutional - unless it comes to them via a current controversy between disputing parties.
    That reminds me of something a professor I had -- with a doctorate in law and in education, teaching a class in education and the law -- said once concerning the notion of "judicial review": that those who object to it don't understand the system, because all the judicial can do is to review.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  28. #78
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,605

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    I can account for part of that because even though they are supposed to be above the fray, they can only be accused by crazy republicans of "legislating from the bench" for so long before they have to start looking over their shoulders. So certainly the political mud-slinging will have narrowed their comfort zone as to how broadly they will rule, and perhaps some of the lengthy discussions of standing and justiciability and eligibility for review are just posturing to defend against or placate the crazies railing against "judge-made law."
    In other words, this court has no spine.


    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    lots of them, not just Sclerosia, took pains to say the Court can't just announce an opinion about something - even something blatantly unconstitutional - unless it comes to them via a current controversy between disputing parties.
    It is true that they are a court which rules upon cases brought to them. They do not observe the national discourse from the sidelines, then jump in with a judgement whenever they believe something has gone awry.


    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    I even recall discussion on here where I learned about that aspect of your court. In Canada, Parliament can deem a matter of sufficient importance to send it directly to the Supreme Court for its decision as to the constitutionality of the matter. It's called a "reference case," being that it is referred by the Government without any suit from any party. I learned that the US system does not allow for that, and even takes pains to avoid that kind of "inadvertent" ruling in issues peripheral to the cases that are brought before it.
    On the contrary, a great many of the cases brought to SCOTUS are specifically "engineered" by interested parties in order to test or possibly change the constitutionality of some issue of interest to them. These are usually referred to as "test cases" on this side of the border.

    The famous Plessy vs. Ferguson (separate but equal) of 1896, for example, was such a case. Louisiana passed a law requiring separate railroad cars for blacks and whites. That was expensive for the railroads, so they sought to get such Jim Crow laws thrown out by the Supreme Court of the United States. The railroads didn't care about civil rights - they just wanted to save money. Homer Plessy was specifically chosen for the case because he was seven-eights white and one eighth black (that, apparently, made him legally black, even though he looked like a white man). Railroad lawyers paid Plessy to travel first class in a "whites only" car from New Orleans, LA to Covington, LA. The railroad which transported him was informed of Plessy's racial background and hired a detective to travel with him. During the trip, Plessy was asked to move to a "blacks only" car and, per plan, he refused to do so. At that point the detective travelling with him arrested him for violation of LA law, and the railroads had their test case.

    Most test cases are not that blatantly engineered, of course. But it is not uncommon for interested groups to search carefully for someone who has been "wronged" in just the right way, and then get that person to sue in order to generate a test case for the Supreme Court.

    (In the Plessy case, the railroads failed in their objective, of course).


    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    I don't think it matters either way, except to note that in the US system, if no one begins by asking the court "Please strike down the whole law" then 9/10ths of the sections will remain standing even if they are blatantly treasonous, because no one asked the court to do anything about it or sued anyone to stop doing it. Axing the rest of the law requires another day in court. It doesn't mean the rest of the law is sound.
    This is simply not true. The court is free to rule broadly on the issues brought before it.

    In the DOMA case, the court was asked whether or not it was fair for Edith Windsor to have to pay inheritance tax on money left to her by her legal spouse, Thea Spyer. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional, since the state of New York had legally married Windsor and Spyer, and the federal government was obligated to honor New York state's marriage contract. That's a narrow ruling. It completely ignores the obvious problem of gay couples living in non-gay marriage states who must pay the very same inheritance taxes when a would-be spouse dies because their states discriminate against them.

    SCOTUS had the power to declare DOMA unconstitutional because all Americans have a right to access to gay marriage, regardless of state of residence. Such a broad ruling would actually have made far more sense, given the question which was brought before it. This court did not do that, because it is comprised of a bunch of spineless weasels (a few of whom happen also to be bigots).
    Last edited by T-Rexx; June 27th, 2013 at 09:54 PM.

  29. #79
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Middle of Snowwhere.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    15,944
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Well, I'm afraid you are mistaken. My observation, from all I have read, is simply true.

    The court did not "ignore" the obvious problem of gay couples living in non-equal states. It does not have a constitutional, institutional, or historical mechanism to depart from the matter before it and carry on it's judgement into areas not brought before it.
    Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

  30. #80
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    62,035

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    The Prop 8 ruling was no surprise. You weren't going to see a broad ruling on that one. More to the point,the isue of standing had been brought up the minute it hit the federal courts so it's not like the Supreme Court pulled that one out of thin air.

  31. #81
    JUB Addict Zingerific's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Portland
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    1,109

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    "What do ya do with a drunken sailor? "
    Put'm in charge of an Exxon tanker.
    "If you don't have anything nice to say... come sit next to me."
    -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth

  32. #82
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,297
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    Well, I'm afraid you are mistaken. My observation, from all I have read, is simply true.

    The court did not "ignore" the obvious problem of gay couples living in non-equal states. It does not have a constitutional, institutional, or historical mechanism to depart from the matter before it and carry on it's judgement into areas not brought before it.
    Theoretically they could have downed the whole of DOMA -- but IFF they had found a principle necessary to the part they were addressing that they deemed integral to the entire Act. Courts have been creative in doing so before, but DOMA was written in a way to keep the sections fairly stand-alone... for the very reason that the authors wanted any judicial battles to go on and on and on....

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  33. #83
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,297
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninja108 View Post
    The Prop 8 ruling was no surprise. You weren't going to see a broad ruling on that one. More to the point,the isue of standing had been brought up the minute it hit the federal courts so it's not like the Supreme Court pulled that one out of thin air.
    Yeah... and by the ruling they did, they endangered the entire initiative and referendum system in the United States, by handing state government the route of getting rid of laws by not having anyone allowed to defend them.

    What good is democracy if the federal government can just decide that the people have no standing to defend laws they themselves passed?

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  34. #84
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,605

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    Well, I'm afraid you are mistaken. My observation, from all I have read, is simply true.

    The court did not "ignore" the obvious problem of gay couples living in non-equal states. It does not have a constitutional, institutional, or historical mechanism to depart from the matter before it and carry on it's judgement into areas not brought before it.
    So, you're saying that the court has no authority to grant to a gay couple in Tennessee the same federal rights that it gives to a gay couple in New York? Why not? If state laws in Tennessee force the federal government to tax gay couples there differently from gay couples in New York, why cannot the Supreme Court rectify the inequality by ordering Tennessee to treat gay couples there in the same way that New York treats its gay couples?

    You are correct, however, that the court cannot strike down DOMA if the case brought before it is a question of the constitutionality of Obamacare. The court needs to rule on the issues brought before it - not on some random question it would prefer to address.
    Last edited by T-Rexx; June 28th, 2013 at 12:47 AM.

  35. #85

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    Yeah... and by the ruling they did, they endangered the entire initiative and referendum system in the United States, by handing state government the route of getting rid of laws by not having anyone allowed to defend them.

    What good is democracy if the federal government can just decide that the people have no standing to defend laws they themselves passed?
    That's only true if you think the initiative and referendum mechanism is a good idea. And then only partially so. The voters can still vote out the officials, who failed to defend the law concerned.

    My inclination in California at least is that the direct voter initiative process is an antiquated and dangerous way of getting laws on the books. Prop 8 itself is one example of over-reaching majority action largely financed by out-of-state money. But too many propositions in the last several elections have been heavily financed by special interests and often deceptive in their publicity and their reach. The proposition language is sometimes too simple minded and an open invitation to litigation. Plus, one can end up with grossly unfair results, such the much vaunted California property tax limitation, which, as far as I can see, grand-fathered in ludicrous tax differentials between neighbors.

    So, if the Prop 8 decision has tethered in the proposition process, so much the better. At least that's the argument that I am finding more and more persuasive.

  36. #86
    JUB Addict cm98059's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Holdenville
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Available
    Posts
    1,381

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Quote Originally Posted by Spensed View Post
    That's only true if you think the initiative and referendum mechanism is a good idea. And then only partially so. The voters can still vote out the officials, who failed to defend the law concerned.

    My inclination in California at least is that the direct voter initiative process is an antiquated and dangerous way of getting laws on the books. Prop 8 itself is one example of over-reaching majority action largely financed by out-of-state money. But too many propositions in the last several elections have been heavily financed by special interests and often deceptive in their publicity and their reach. The proposition language is sometimes too simple minded and an open invitation to litigation. Plus, one can end up with grossly unfair results, such the much vaunted California property tax limitation, which, as far as I can see, grand-fathered in ludicrous tax differentials between neighbors.

    So, if the Prop 8 decision has tethered in the proposition process, so much the better. At least that's the argument that I am finding more and more persuasive.
    We are seeing too many initiatives being funded by out of state money in the recent past. Not just in California, but in other states as well. We need some serious campaign financing reform. But our Supreme court has screwed us there as well.

  37. #87
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,297
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Quote Originally Posted by Spensed View Post
    That's only true if you think the initiative and referendum mechanism is a good idea. And then only partially so. The voters can still vote out the officials, who failed to defend the law concerned.

    My inclination in California at least is that the direct voter initiative process is an antiquated and dangerous way of getting laws on the books. Prop 8 itself is one example of over-reaching majority action largely financed by out-of-state money. But too many propositions in the last several elections have been heavily financed by special interests and often deceptive in their publicity and their reach. The proposition language is sometimes too simple minded and an open invitation to litigation. Plus, one can end up with grossly unfair results, such the much vaunted California property tax limitation, which, as far as I can see, grand-fathered in ludicrous tax differentials between neighbors.

    So, if the Prop 8 decision has tethered in the proposition process, so much the better. At least that's the argument that I am finding more and more persuasive.
    SO you don't believe in democracy -- got it.

    The Prop 8 situation could be remedied if we simply excluded all out-of-state law from state issues and elections. Does Japan allow China to spend money in its elections? No -- and nor should California allow money in from New York or Texas or anywhere else.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  38. #88
    JUB Addict chrisrobin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    7,995

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    .
    A New Yorker cover gets it right (again).


    Why should anyone have to know anything? - Sheldon Cooper

  39. #89
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Middle of Snowwhere.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    15,944
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    So, you're saying that the court has no authority to grant to a gay couple in Tennessee the same federal rights that it gives to a gay couple in New York? Why not? If state laws in Tennessee force the federal government to tax gay couples there differently from gay couples in New York, why cannot the Supreme Court rectify the inequality by ordering Tennessee to treat gay couples there in the same way that New York treats its gay couples?

    You are correct, however, that the court cannot strike down DOMA if the case brought before it is a question of the constitutionality of Obamacare. The court needs to rule on the issues brought before it - not on some random question it would prefer to address.
    Here, the case was not obamacare but federal recognition of a legitimate state-sanctioned marriage. It was not about Tennessee's recognition of a marriage from New York. The court certainly has the power to make Tennessee recognise a New York marriage, but only when someone is suing Tennessee on that point, not the federal government. And then of course when tennessee goes, all states will be bound in the same way.
    Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

  40. #90
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,605

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    Here, the case was not obamacare but federal recognition of a legitimate state-sanctioned marriage. It was not about Tennessee's recognition of a marriage from New York. The court certainly has the power to make Tennessee recognise a New York marriage, but only when someone is suing Tennessee on that point, not the federal government. And then of course when tennessee goes, all states will be bound in the same way.
    Why should all states be bound by a ruling on Tennessee?

    By your logic, SCOTUS could only rule on the case of Tennessee, since that would have been the question brought before it by a TN lawsuit. You have told us that the court is not permitted to make broad rulings outside of the confines of the case at hand.
    Last edited by T-Rexx; June 28th, 2013 at 02:46 PM.

  41. #91
    Sex God AstareGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Biloxi, MS
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    646

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    Why should all states be bound by a ruling on Tennessee?

    By your logic, SCOTUS could only rule on the case of Tennessee, since that would have been the question brought before it by a TN lawsuit. You have told us that the court is not permitted to make broad rulings outside of the confines of the case at hand.
    Well, the case that was just decided had to do with just New York, but has effect on the other states and the District of Columbia. This hypothetical case (which I hope and pray comes soon) will deal with the opposite - a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, and thusly prevents same-sex married couples from taking advantage of the rights of the federal government. Any ruling on Tennessee or on any other state which bans gay marriage should have an effect on all of them.

    My question is, what's going on in New Mexico? Would the federal government recognize a same-sex marriage there, when there is no preceding law for or against it in that state?
    Brad's Search - 70,000 words and counting!

  42. #92
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Middle of Snowwhere.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    15,944
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    Why should all states be bound by a ruling on Tennessee?

    By your logic, SCOTUS could only rule on the case of Tennessee, since that would have been the question brought before it by a TN lawsuit. You have told us that the court is not permitted to make broad rulings outside of the confines of the case at hand.
    Stare decisis. The obligation of subordinate courts to follow the Supreme Court.

    In Prop 8, the Supreme Court ruled that the sponsors of the bill have no standing to bring a suit if the State will not defend it. No local or appellate court will be permitted to rule otherwise. So that decision applies nation-wide.

    In DOMA, the behaviour under consideration was only that of the Federal Government. The behaviour of other states was not brought up by those suing. It is fairly obvious that the SC would decide to make the states play along too. And appellate courts will see suits about that before the year is out. They will be obliged to pay attention to the logic in this ruling, though strictly speaking, they will still be free to rule either way on the way different states treat each others' marriages, since the SC never said anything about that.
    Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

  43. #93
    Rambunctiously Pugnacious JayHawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    River Quay - KC
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    24,226

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    Yeah... and by the ruling they did, they endangered the entire initiative and referendum system in the United States, by handing state government the route of getting rid of laws by not having anyone allowed to defend them.

    What good is democracy if the federal government can just decide that the people have no standing to defend laws they themselves passed?
    In propr Eight the people who enacted the law did not defend it which was why there was no standing. If a state refuses to defend its laws then the state agrees it is in error.
    Everyone can be great, because everyone can serve.
    ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.


  44. #94

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    SO you don't believe in democracy -- got it.

    The Prop 8 situation could be remedied if we simply excluded all out-of-state law from state issues and elections. Does Japan allow China to spend money in its elections? No -- and nor should California allow money in from New York or Texas or anywhere else.
    It's ochlocracy that I don't believe in -- get that.

    To repeat, the voters can still vote out politicians who don't enforce laws passed by the proposition process like any other law. Once a proposition becomes law, its proponents have no more standing that anyone else to defend it; no more than they have to defend any other law, unless they can show standing. It really isn't that hard to understand and doesn't have the consequences you are seeking to import.


    Out-of-state funding is only one problem in the proposition process. What about the others, e.g. minority oppression (as in Prop 8), poorly drafted laws, the promotion of special interests, fiscal unfairness, etc? Sure direct voter "legislation" sounds good, if one gives no thought to its consequences.

  45. #95

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    The Human Rights Campaign has resources on its website that answer many of the questions related to this ruling at http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/doma-get-the-facts.
    In the case of DOMA, SCOTUS ruled narrowly only the issue brought before it. It struck down Section 3 of the law that defines marriage as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” and a spouse as “a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” Marriage is defined by state law and the Federal government does not have the authority to regulate it.

    The ruling is highly critical of the US Congress stating that “DOMA's principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities.” It is also critical of the President stating that if the executive feels a law is unconstitutional, he should initiate a process to repeal it rather than refuse to defend it in court while continuing to enforce it.
    The court did not address other sections of DOMA, thus they remain in effect. Although states generally have the obligation to recognize contracts entered into in other states, they are not expected to recognize things that would be illegal in their own state. For example, if you are a 16-year-old with a valid driver’s license, you cannot drive somewhere where the minimum age for driving is 17. That is why states have passed laws specifically outlawing same-gender marriages. The repeal of the rest of DOMA would require congressional action or favorable rulings in cases specifically challenging those sections.

    In the case of Prop 8, the ruling was as expected. According to the ruling, “any person invoking the power of a federal court must demonstrate standing to do so. In other words, the litigant must seek a remedy for a personal and tangible harm. The only individuals who sought to appeal were petitioners, who had intervened in the District Court, but they had not been ordered to do or refrain from doing anything. Their only interest was to vindicate the constitutional validity of a generally applicable California law. As this Court has repeatedly held, such a “generalized grievance”—no matter how sincere—is insufficient to confer standing.”

  46. #96
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    62,035

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Gay marriages are resuming in CA.

  47. #97
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,605

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Quote Originally Posted by megustamyn View Post
    In the case of DOMA, SCOTUS ruled narrowly only the issue brought before it. It struck down Section 3 of the law that defines marriage as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” and a spouse as “a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” Marriage is defined by state law and the Federal government does not have the authority to regulate it.
    Yes and no.

    Almost every paragraph of the court's majority decision emphasizes the right of states to define marriage for themselves. But, Page 3, Paragraph 2 notes that such state definitions are "subject to certain constitutional guarantees" and it cites Loving vs. Virginia as an example.

    Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v.
    Virginia
    , 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area
    that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the
    States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404.
    The distinction is, I think, an important one. Loving vs. Virginia, of course, struck down Virginia's anti-miscegenation law, so it was a blatant example of the federal government overruling a state's definition of marriage with its own federal definition of marriage.

    I think the court left the door open for the federal government to overrule state definitions of marriage so that a future court may impose gay marriage broadly across all states on the grounds that every American has a right to same sex marriage, regardless of state of residence. I suspect that if the court had had one more liberal justice on board, it would have done exactly that with the DOMA ruling on Wednesday. My take is that the narrow ruling was probably a compromise. The liberals could not get Kennedy to agree to a broader right of Americans to gay marriage, but he was willing to go along with the declaration of DOMA unconstitutional, partly on the grounds of the federal government usurping state authority. So, the liberals took what they could get with the narrow ruling, and left genuine reform to a future court.
    Last edited by T-Rexx; June 29th, 2013 at 12:35 AM.

  48. #98
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    62,035

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    I think you are right T-Rexx,which is why it's important to vote in 2016 as well. We don't need to see another Scalia or Alito on the Court. I will say before the end of the year that we will see gay marriage in Hawaii,New JErsey and possibly Illinois as well.

  49. #99
    Thankfully Liberal & Gay
    frankfrank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Illinois (Agent Provocateur and Refujiunderground you can do it)
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    15,197
    Blog Entries
    5

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    Somebody last night (Rachel Maddow?) brought up an interesting issue. Where does this put the Military? Of course, with DADT gone, they are observing equality. The military, of course, is often moving their personnel around. What happens if (as a result of this June 26 decision) a married couple at Fort Drumm, Groton, Camp Pendleton (now that California has been added) may end up having to move to Texas because the military "half" of the married couple is being transferred there? Are they allowed to refuse the ORDERS to transfer, because they will lose the federal tax benefits, inheritance rights, etc.? Over a military career, is it at all fair or sustainable for a couple's marriage to be "on and off" (Federally) because they're transferred in and out of all-marriage states?

    This might be where the federal lawsuit comes - unless it is quickly enacted (perhaps by Executive Order) that Federal benefits are in force, regardless of whether the couple is living in an aligned state or not.

    And, still, NONE of this would be forcing anything on the STATES, because it would affect only *federal* marriage laws, and the states would still be as free as they ever were, to discriminate. That won't stop conservatives' heads from exploding, though. (This coming Thursday night, just after sundown and if it doesn't rain, I fully intend to go out and watch conservatives' heads exploding, in full living dying colour.)
    "All legal U. S. residents who are 18 years or older, shall have an unconditional right to vote." - 28th Amendment, US Constitution?
    "But, hey, who cares about women and their rights when the religious liberty of a nationwide chain of arts and crafts stores is at stake?" - Daily Kos, 30 June 2014
    "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires" - Susan B. Anthony

  50. #100
    Oranje rareboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    32,456

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Delivers Gay Marriage Victory

    I love the sound of conservative heads exploding. I'll bet they're all prayin' hard for the End Times this Sunday.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | About JustUsBoys.com | Site Map | RSS | Webmasters | Advertise | Link to JUB | Report A Bug on this Page

Visit our sister sites: Broke Straight Boys | CollegeDudes.com | CollegeBoyPhysicals.com | RocketTube
All models appearing on JustUsBoys.com were over 18 at the time of photography. The records for sexually explicit images required by U.S. 2257 are kept by the
individual producers of the images. The location of the records is available by clicking the Custodian of Records link at the bottom of each gallery page.
© 2012 JustUsBoys.com. The JustUsBoys.com name and logo are registered trademarks. Labeled with ICRA and RTA. Member of ASACP and The Free Speech Coalition.