Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

US Appeals Court Rules Against DOMAFollow

#1 May 31 2012 at 11:16 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
NYTimes article.

It was a unanimous ruling, and 2/3 Justices were Republicans nominated by Bush Sr. or Reagan.

The ruling is only with regards to states that have legalized *** marriage, and says nothing about whether or not it is unconstitutional to ban *** marriage, but says that it's unconstitutional for the federal government to provide rights and benefits to one legally married group and not to another when they use states' definitions for marriage in the first place.

It'll almost certainly be going to the Supreme Court now. Pretty cool.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#2 May 31 2012 at 11:31 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,907 posts
Baby steps.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#3 May 31 2012 at 11:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
It'll almost certainly be going to the Supreme Court now. Pretty cool.

When people say there's no difference between presidential candidates, keep that in mind.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4 May 31 2012 at 11:39 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Jophiel wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
It'll almost certainly be going to the Supreme Court now. Pretty cool.

When people say there's no difference between presidential candidates, keep that in mind.
Romney, in a bid to one-up Barry, will announce shortly that not only does he plan to abolish DOMA when he rules the land, but he'll also reveal that Ann is secretly a man.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#5 May 31 2012 at 1:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,463 posts
Kick ***.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#6 May 31 2012 at 1:28 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,580 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
The ruling ... says that it's unconstitutional for the federal government to provide rights and benefits to one legally married group and not to another when they use states' definitions for marriage in the first place.

I don't see this so much as a "win" for *** marriage, but rather a reaffirmation that the decision is (at the moment) up to the individual states (which Obama has previously stated, I think). The scope of the decision is so narrow that it's hard to argue this as any more than a clarification of basic principles of federalism.

Hence my lack of surprise that the two GOP-appointed justices ruled this way.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#7 May 31 2012 at 1:32 PM Rating: Good
******
21,720 posts
Demea wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
The ruling ... says that it's unconstitutional for the federal government to provide rights and benefits to one legally married group and not to another when they use states' definitions for marriage in the first place.

I don't see this so much as a "win" for *** marriage, but rather a reaffirmation that the decision is (at the moment) up to the individual states (which Obama has previously stated, I think). The scope of the decision is so narrow that it's hard to argue this as any more than a clarification of basic principles of federalism.

Hence my lack of surprise that the two GOP-appointed justices ruled this way.


Unless I'm misunderstanding, the "win" here is that federal benefits should become available to *** / ******* couples in states where such marriages are permitted.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#8 May 31 2012 at 1:34 PM Rating: Decent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,580 posts
Yes, that's correct. However, given the recent trend of successful ballot initiatives which codify the traditional definition of marriage into state constitutions, one cannot help but wonder whether or not this will end up working against the *** marriage effort.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#9 May 31 2012 at 1:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I can't see how it'll hurt but maybe you're a more creative thinker than I.

It's not a universal win but it'll definitely be a quality of life improvement for same *** couples who will (assuming this plays through to the end in their favor) be able to share federal pensions, veterans benefits, social security, etc. Hard to see that as a loss even as the slow crawl towards SSM rights moves along.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#10 May 31 2012 at 1:51 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,580 posts
Jophiel wrote:
(assuming this plays through to the end in their favor)

That's where the worry stems from.

Edit: and by that, I don't mean this case specifically, but rather the fight for *** marriage in general throughout the country, state by state.

Edited, May 31st 2012 2:51pm by Demea
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#11 May 31 2012 at 2:25 PM Rating: Excellent
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
At the very least, this greatly simplifies taxes: I'd imagine filing as married for state taxes but filing as single for for federal taxes introduces many potential clusterfucks.

Next: recognition. Alabamians, New York is forced to recognize marriages to your cousin Cletus, so give it a rest.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#12 May 31 2012 at 2:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Demea wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
(assuming this plays through to the end in their favor)

That's where the worry stems from.

Edit: and by that, I don't mean this case specifically, but rather the fight for *** marriage in general throughout the country, state by state.

I think it will. I showed the aggregate polling over the last 10-15 years in a previous thread and we've just hit parity for support versus opposition whereas you don't have to go far back to find 10 or 20 point spreads against it. It will take time for state legislatures to roll over enough to overturn laws or re-amend their constitutions and some states will of course hold out much longer than others (such as the N. Carolina vote). But the trend certainly seems to be in favor of SSM and I think eventually you'll even have GOP controlled legislatures allowing it.

One thing I didn't expect is that you're seeing a lot more acceptance of SSM since Obama came out openly in favor of it. Assuming these new numbers are legitimate, that can have a real impact going forward as African-Americans were one of the bastions of support anti-SSM advocates depended on (again, see N. Carolina and California).
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#13 May 31 2012 at 3:01 PM Rating: Good
***
2,826 posts
I would wager that a lot of people who vote Republican don't personally have an issue with SSM, and would answer either in favor of or not opposed to SSM when asked for a poll. The people they elect aren't going to pass any proposals putting an SSM initiative on the ballot, though.
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


World of Warcraft
Aggramar Alliance
Allizsah: 92 Human Paladin
#14 May 31 2012 at 4:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That's because the people they elect go through a primary process that favors those who are against SSM because most Republicans (at least Republican primary voters) DO care. The fewer who care, the less often it'll matter in the primary process and the more people favorably inclined will take office.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#15 May 31 2012 at 4:41 PM Rating: Good
***
2,826 posts
The vocal minority that is strongly against SSM isn't shrinking in numbers, it's just shrinking in percentage. I would argue that the vocal minority that is strongly in favor of SSM is experiencing the same thing. (In other words, the number of people who are basically apathetic about it is growing) However, the Republicans looking to win primaries are going to have to come out against SSM if they want the vocal minority against SSM to vote for them. Otherwise the vocal minority against SSM will just find another candidate with the same fiscal views but who is against SSM and prop him up to win.

Edit: Damnit, I wrote that and even I'm mildly confused by it now.

Edited, May 31st 2012 5:43pm by Bigdaddyjug
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


World of Warcraft
Aggramar Alliance
Allizsah: 92 Human Paladin
#16 May 31 2012 at 5:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
The vocal minority that is strongly against SSM isn't shrinking in numbers, it's just shrinking in percentage

You're aware of how we determine who wins an election, right?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#17 May 31 2012 at 5:35 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,907 posts
Rock, paper, scissors.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#18 May 31 2012 at 5:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,463 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
The vocal minority that is strongly against SSM isn't shrinking in numbers, it's just shrinking in percentage

You're aware of how we determine who wins an election, right?

Duh. It's in the Bible.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#19 May 31 2012 at 5:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Heh... I actually "get" what he's trying to say but he's missing the point. The more marginalized the strident anti-SSM vote is, the less it'll matter. Eventually you'll have politicians who are pro-SSM or just don't care but who are better qualified than whatever homophobe is running on the anti-SSM ticket and they will win. Won't happen today or tomorrow but I'm sure that's the direction we're headed. How long it takes will depend on how it takes for some people to stop living in terror of teh gheyz.

Edited, May 31st 2012 6:43pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#20 May 31 2012 at 8:16 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,918 posts
Jophiel wrote:
How long it takes will depend on how it takes for some people to stop living in terror of teh gheyz.

Inversely related to the number of words used to promote SSM. That's why it should be called equal marriage, can we really afford to wait 50% longer?
#21 Jun 01 2012 at 8:04 AM Rating: Good
******
49,907 posts
Jophiel wrote:
How long it takes will depend on how it takes for some people to stop living in terror of teh gheyz.
If they weren't always lurking in the shadows, staring at my junk in the shower because it's so awesome, I wouldn't have a problem with them.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#22 Jun 01 2012 at 9:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Allegory wrote:
can we really afford to wait 50% longer?

I can. 'Cause I'm a married straight guy.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#23 Jun 01 2012 at 9:21 AM Rating: Decent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,580 posts
Allegory wrote:
can we really afford to wait 50% longer?

How much is this costing us, exactly? Would allowing ****** to get hitched close the deficit?
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#24 Jun 01 2012 at 9:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
At $20 a pop for marriage licenses, we'll be closing local budget holes in no time!

Edited, Jun 1st 2012 10:34am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#25 Jun 01 2012 at 9:52 AM Rating: Good
***
2,826 posts
Jophiel wrote:
At $20 a pop for marriage licenses, we'll be closing local budget holes in no time!

Edited, Jun 1st 2012 10:34am by Jophiel


Pfft, I wish my marriage license had only cost $20. IIRC, it was either $50 or $55.
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


World of Warcraft
Aggramar Alliance
Allizsah: 92 Human Paladin
#26 Jun 01 2012 at 10:05 AM Rating: Good
******
49,907 posts
Mine was $35.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 57 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (57)