Marriage discrimination ruled unconstitutional. Again.

[Eulogy]

From a quick glance it seems like it might be too narrow to get too excited about.

but whatev. bad day for bigots and theocrats.

[Tchocky]

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enha...8339150-14.jpg

[Eulogy]

so they really use Romer v. Evans as an analog

theoretically this could go to the supreme court, be affirmed, and still have no effect on anything anywhere else (save for the states where it's already legal).

not sure if that's good or bad.

[Eulogy]

We therefore need not and do not consider whether same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry, or whether states that fail to afford the right to gays and lesbians must do so. Further, we express no views on those questions.

so there's that

[duovamp]

Heh, togay...

[MyOneAndOnly]

I wonder how the majority conservative Roberts court will rule on allowing two men to marry each other? Hmmmm??

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...o_portrait.jpg

[redbreegull]

on a related note, the inside word from the Maryland House is that gay marriage will pass this year

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by scottytheoneand

I wonder how the majority conservative Roberts court will rule on allowing two men to marry each other? Hmmmm??

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...o_portrait.jpg

shockingly, you don't really know what you're talking about

they gave kennedy a very easy out (by basing the entire fucking thing on an opinion that he wrote), and he'll probably take it. read the opinion.

[MyOneAndOnly]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

shockingly, you don't really know what you're talking about

they gave kennedy a very easy out (by basing the entire fucking thing on an opinion that he wrote), and he'll probably take it. read the opinion.

please take the next 8 pages to explain it to everyone

[Eulogy]

ok, or don't read it and just make inaccurate comments about something you know next to nothing about

[MyOneAndOnly]

I have read it.


SCOTUS could decline to hear the case. If it does go to SCOTUS, and if Kennedy were side with the 4 less conservative members of the court, it's likely that any ruling would only apply to California.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by scottytheoneand

I have read it.


SCOTUS could decline to hear the case. If it does go to SCOTUS, and if Kennedy were side with the 4 less conservative members of the court, it's likely that any ruling would only apply to California.

Originally Posted by Eulogy

so they really use Romer v. Evans as an analog

theoretically this could go to the supreme court, be affirmed, and still have no effect on anything anywhere else (save for the states where it's already legal).

not sure if that's good or bad.

Originally Posted by scottytheoneand

I wonder how the majority conservative Roberts court will rule on allowing two men to marry each other? Hmmmm??

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...o_portrait.jpg

*headdesk*

[MyOneAndOnly]

that's what you wanted, right?

7 more pages

[Eulogy]

is there anyone else who wants to talk about this

[MyOneAndOnly]

did you ever think that maybe people argue with you because you're so ready to argue, not because they really care very much about what you're arguing about?

[MyOneAndOnly]

Nothing is going to change for reals in this shit hole of a country until there's a solid moderate majority on SCOTUS. Not with this issue, not with campaign finance reform, etc. etc. etc.

If Kennedy gets replaced by a Republican appointee, it's all over for another decade or two.

[Future Boy]

nah

[sppunk]

This is a good thing, but I fear it'll have no long-term impact.

[vixnix]

On a related note, NPH on Conan talking about being a dad made me wonder for the first time whether two guys raising children have just as much chance as straight couples of being terrible parents who traumatize their kids. I'd had this idea previously that they might be slightly more conscious about the whole thing and then be better informed as parents or something. I don't know. Now I kind of think their kids will most likely be as messed up as anyone else's. It's depressing.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by sppunk

This is a good thing, but I fear it'll have no long-term impact.

how do you figure this?

[Mayfuck]

Originally Posted by vixnix

On a related note, NPH on Conan talking about being a dad made me wonder for the first time whether two guys raising children have just as much chance as straight couples of being terrible parents who traumatize their kids. I'd had this idea previously that they might be slightly more conscious about the whole thing and then be better informed as parents or something. I don't know. Now I kind of think their kids will most likely be as messed up as anyone else's. It's depressing.

i'm sorry if you think this is insight.

[TuralyonW3]

Just another small step out of the dark ages that is 21st century America

[TuralyonW3]

Also fuck you Monte you Mormon bigot

[vixnix]

Originally Posted by Mayfuck

i'm sorry if you think this is insight.

Oh well, it was a revelation to me at that point and this is the Internet, you know, where we share opinions. So you go ahead and be as sorry as you like.

[sppunk]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

how do you figure this?

Isn't it pretty likely it gets tied up in appeals and injunctions for quite a while? That's what I meant - I should've said impact on this specific proposition. I didn't mean it'll halt the gay marriage movement in general.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by sppunk

Isn't it pretty likely it gets tied up in appeals and injunctions for quite a while? That's what I meant - I should've said impact on this specific proposition. I didn't mean it'll halt the gay marriage movement in general.

no, it will probably be heard next term if they decide to take it. an en banc rehearing won't be that far away, and that's all that can happen before the supreme court decides to take it or not. i think prop 8 will be invalidated and CA will have gay marriage from there on out. not to mention the obvious but still important pronouncements that can now be found in a narrowly written, safely argued opinion in a federal court of appeals.

[sppunk]

Ah, good deal. I haven't followed the court process if this hardly any. The Supreme Court isn't expected - though subject to change of course - to take the case, right?

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by sppunk

Ah, good deal. I haven't followed the court process if this hardly any. The Supreme Court isn't expected - though subject to change of course - to take the case, right?

i imagine they would, actually. why wouldn't they? i mean obviously they deny most cases. but they wouldn't want to deal with the fallout if they just let the LIBRUL 9TH CIRCUIT ACTIVIST JUDGES make the final decision. even though there is nothing even remotely radical about anything in the opinion.

[Future Boy]

Originally Posted by Mayfuck

i'm sorry if you think this is insight.

besides which hasnt it been shown that those children actually do grow up to be more tolerant.

[TuralyonW3]

Fuck Christie for vetoing same sex marriage in NJ and fuck his bullshit excuses about civil union ombudsman blah blah blah