| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/22/2014 12:59:51 PM · #6451 |
| Hey, I bet gays breathe extra-heavily during that super-gay stuff -- I think we better cut off their air supply too. Besides, that would solve the "problem" a lot faster than starving them to death ... |
|
|
|
12/22/2014 01:15:24 PM · #6452 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Hey, I bet gays breathe extra-heavily during that super-gay stuff -- I think we better cut off their air supply too. Besides, that would solve the "problem" a lot faster than starving them to death ... |
I usually get my air from the window, do you have the scoop on some fancy branded air or something? Sounds interesting!
|
|
|
|
01/18/2015 12:07:08 PM · #6453 |
In other news "The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether all 50 states must allow gay and lesbian couples to marry, positioning it to resolve one of the great civil rights questions in a generation before its current term ends in June." NYTimes.
In our lifetime, folks, In our lifetime.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2015 04:15:36 PM · #6454 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
In our lifetime, folks, In our lifetime. |
:-) |
|
|
|
01/18/2015 04:35:34 PM · #6455 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Hey, I bet gays breathe extra-heavily during that super-gay stuff -- I think we better cut off their air supply too. Besides, that would solve the "problem" a lot faster than starving them to death ... |
I usually get my air from the window, do you have the scoop on some fancy branded air or something? Sounds interesting! |
I can't speak for  GeneralE, but at this time of year I can get my air nicely chilled. It does add a certain "je ne sais quoi" and is really invigorating. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
01/22/2015 10:14:56 PM · #6456 |
| SCOTUS finally picking up the case is very exciting, indeed. |
|
|
|
01/22/2015 10:23:19 PM · #6457 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
SCOTUS finally picking up the case is very exciting, indeed. |
Indeed. I think it would really help if they have the courage to act like the court did in Brown v. Board of Education ... |
|
|
|
03/20/2015 06:10:55 PM · #6458 |
I thought this was fascinating, and a little poignant.
//www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/20/the-improbable-story-of-one-of-americas-first-same-sex-marriages-from-over-200-years-ago/?wprss=rss_homepage
It also dismantles yet another argument against equal marriage rights.
Message edited by author 2015-03-20 18:17:29. |
|
|
|
03/21/2015 11:19:38 PM · #6459 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
I thought this was fascinating, and a little poignant. |
No kidding. Fascinating read. |
|
|
|
04/20/2015 09:18:30 PM · #6460 |
Here's another interesting article about two guys who got married in Colorado... in the 70's!
//www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/40-years-later-a-same-sex-marriage-in-colorado-remains-remarkable/2015/04/18/e65852d0-e2d4-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html?tid=hybrid_linearcol_1_na
Our government wasn't as diplomatic back then, apparently.
Message edited by author 2015-04-20 21:18:40. |
|
|
|
04/23/2015 09:59:42 PM · #6461 |
How we got where we are today, legally, step by step:
//www.towleroad.com/2015/04/marriage-at-the-supreme-court-20-windsor-perry-and-context.html
Pretty much the definitive explanation of the ongoing ratchet of justice.
Message edited by author 2015-04-23 22:00:11. |
|
|
|
04/28/2015 02:49:35 PM · #6462 |
| Today's the big day folks. SCOTUS arguments! |
|
|
|
04/28/2015 03:13:53 PM · #6463 |
| They are supposed to be posting the audio later today. |
|
|
|
04/29/2015 07:51:00 PM · #6464 |
| Looks like the equal rights side is, how did they say it on the news? Trouncing. Trouncing the opposition. |
|
|
|
04/30/2015 10:02:18 PM · #6465 |
It has been interesting to read yesterdays hearing in the media today. I find it amazing that Justice Ginsberg brought up an argument that I never heard used one in this now 7 year old thread. The best argument against a ruling forcing all states to recognize same sex marriage is the question of federal intrusion to change the definition of what marriage is, and RBG blew it out of the water in a few sentences.
Argument: The court does not have legal right to change a "millenia" of tradition.
RBG's response: "Marriage today is not what it was under the common law tradition, under the civil law tradition. Marriage was a relationship of a dominant male to a subordinate female. That ended as a result of this court's decision in 1982, when Louisiana's Head and Master Rule was struck down. Would that be a choice that state should be allowed to have? To cling to marriage the way it once was?"
Argument: The institution of marriage is inherently linked to a couple's ability to procreate.
RBG's response: "Suppose a couple, 70-year-old couple, comes in and they want to get married? You don't have to ask them any questions. You know they are not going to have any children."
Argument: Gay marriage "impinges on the state" and takes benefits away from straight couples.
RBG's response: "How could that be, because all of the incentives, all of the benefits of marriage affords would still be available. So you're not taking away anything from heterosexual couples. They would have the very same incentive to marry, all the benefits that come with marriage that they do now."
Argument: Legal gay marriage has never been a possibility for most of history. Why now?
RBG's response: "[Same-sex couples] wouldn't be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was a millennium ago. I mean, it wasn't possible. Same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a subordinate relationship. Yes, it was marriage between a man and a woman, but the man decided where the couple would be domiciled; it was her obligation to follow him.
There was a change in the institution of marriage to make it egalitarian when it wasn't egalitarian. And same-sex unions wouldn't—wouldn't fit into what marriage was once."
So there we have it. In 1981 the SCOTUS removed states rights to consider women as chattle when they entered marriage. Before that time back through history a woman's personhood was essentially suspended during her marriage; her husband took ownership of her body, her money and all of her choices. She was the property of her father as a child, and then she married and entered Coverture (sometimes spelled couverture) which was a legal doctrine whereby, upon marriage, a woman's legal rights were subsumed by those of her husband. Coverture was enshrined in the common law of England and the United States throughout most of the 19th century. The idea was described in William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England in the late 18th century. That was the law of the United States until 1982 when a Louisiana man was charged with molesting his daughter. To pay his legal expenses he morgaged the house his daughter lived in, and his wife had no legal right to object to the encumberature under Coverture since all of the family asetes were his to do with as he liked. So the Supreme Court changed the definition of marriage that had existed for millenia in 1981 to recognize married woman as humans with legal rights.
That little fact kicks the legs out from under the fight to keep marriage "as it has always been".
Message edited by author 2015-04-30 22:32:46. |
|
|
|
04/30/2015 10:46:59 PM · #6466 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
That little fact kicks the legs out from under the fight to keep marriage "as it has always been". |
That's without mentioning arranged marriages, marriages of political convenience, societies with polygamy ... "marriage" hasn't "always" been anything.
In the US, we have two kinds of marriage, civil and religious. AFAIK, [u]no[u] state currently requires religious recognition to be valid for the purpose of tax-status, adoption, inheritance, or any of the other benefits conferred on two people by entering into a state-recognized contractual relationship.
On the other hand, I don't think any state recognizes (for those purposes) a marriage involving only a religious ceremony, without also obtaining the state license. |
|
|
|
05/07/2015 04:19:25 PM · #6467 |
I've harped on the changing definition for marriage for ages. This is not even a remotely new idea. It's almost enraging to hear a supreme court justice claim that marriage has remained unchanged for millennia, when people have been arguing against this cogently for literal decades. I even dug up links to resources that describe gay marriages in numerous cultures, past and present, to share here!
People must not internalize things that conflict with their assumptions.
We've even gone over the drift from common-law to church-recorded marriages, and why the church got into the marriage business to begin with (they were literate and could write stuff down).
Just saying. |
|
|
|
05/07/2015 08:28:07 PM · #6468 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
We've even gone over the drift from common-law to church-recorded marriages, and why the church got into the marriage business to begin with (they were literate and could write stuff down). |
True and true, however the most cogent argument against a federal ruling on the legality of various state laws regarding who can and can't be married was the question of if the court had the legal authority to set a standard that all states had to follow. No matter what you think on this question, or any other matter before the SCOTUS, the first argument is to prove the court has the right to make a ruling. Various models of marriage through history and in various cultures, or the organic shifts the institution over centuries do not matter when the primary question is if the court should be involved at all.
The fact that the court has involved itself in defining marriage, and as recently as 1981, in striking down one state's definition of marriage is something I did not know, and the existence of that ruling destroys the argument for non-intervention. |
|
|
|
05/07/2015 11:45:30 PM · #6469 |
| The court has the right to "get involved" when determining whether any law violates the US Constitution. |
|
|
|
05/08/2015 12:06:46 AM · #6470 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The court has the right to "get involved" when determining whether any law violates the US Constitution. |
Not even remotely. They are the only branch of the US government that is supposed to be passive. They only rule on cases that are brought before them. Those cases have to be heard at least twice before they come before the SCOTUS, and they receive about 10,000 cases a year and they hear 70-80 a year. Of those heard, in the last few years more and more are allowed to pass without intervention in the name of "Judicial Restraint". Frankly without Baeder's argument it would have been kicked to a "Political Question Doctrine" leaving those who don't like gay marriage able to hide their personal feelings of disgust behind the mask of restraint. |
|
|
|
05/08/2015 12:18:53 AM · #6471 |
I should have said "has jurisdiction" rather than "get involved" ... however in the case of marriage equality there have been plenty of cases brought, and with conflicting results, so it seems the SCOTUS is more or less obligated to rule on the constitutionality of these statutes and state constitutional provisions.
As Justice Roberts (I think it was) pointed out, it's really a simple case of sex discrimination, denying someone the right to enter into a contract merely because of their gender. |
|
|
|
05/11/2015 10:18:12 PM · #6472 |
Unfortunately, if the case is decided on sex discrimination alone, it will not be an outcome that's particularly useful.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2015 09:03:20 PM · #6473 |
|
|
|
05/15/2015 02:08:34 PM · #6474 |
|
|
|
06/10/2015 01:22:10 PM · #6475 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/31/2025 04:24:32 PM EDT.
