More marriage for teh ghey

[LadyShea]

Okay, thanks again. I am not trying to be stupid, really, I just seriously can't wrap my head around the RW mindset.

Again, I assume this will see a challenge and will make it to court. Is my assumption wrong in your opinion?

[ChuckF]

I have no idea. I would be a little surprised if this formed the basis of a challenge any time soon. It will turn on how (or if) the legislature will set out to enforce it. If the enforcement action creates a factual situation that gives rise to a case or conflict, then there may be a court challenge, but it's too early to know how that might look. Since it's not clear that it changed any existing substantive rights for same-sex couples, I'm not sure that it's a very good candidate for an equal protection challenge on that basis. It will be interesting to see the fallout from other areas of law, like if the amendment impedes prosecution of domestic violence where the couple is unmarried.

[LadyShea]

Well like in the case of Durham county continuing to extend benefits to domestic partners. Could the state try to prohibit them from doing so based on the amendment?

[Clutch Munny]

Yeah, I wish I knew more about the US Constitution, and Fed-State interrelations. I mean, how could the Fed govt not have an overriding interest in ensuring that an economically-fraught state-sanctioned status like being married is recognized inter-state? But maybe that's not even the question.

Anyhow, given the thin rationale for federal regulation of health insurance via PPACA, it seems bizarre by contrast that every goober, gomer and gobshite backwoods gets to have a local vote on what "married" means.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Well like in the case of Durham county continuing to extend benefits to domestic partners. Could the state try to prohibit them from doing so based on the amendment?

They might. I'm not sure that they would try, just because it might invite the challenge. The other alternative would be if someone had a cognizable injury arising from the continued provision of those benefits. I can't quite come up with what that would be right now, but it might exist.

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

Yeah, I wish I knew more about the US Constitution, and Fed-State interrelations. I mean, how could the Fed govt not have an overriding interest in ensuring that an economically-fraught state-sanctioned status like being married is recognized inter-state? But maybe that's not even the question.

The full faith and credit question is hovering out there in the DOMA decision in the First Circuit.

Anyhow, given the thin rationale for federal regulation of health insurance via PPACA, it seems bizarre by contrast that every goober, gomer and gobshite backwoods gets to have a local vote on what "married" means.

Defining marriage is one of those things traditionally left to the states, which, through operation of gooberlaw and the Tenth Amendment, comes to mean "not subject to any sort of constitutional constraint at all." Of course, non-goobers don't by that, and recognize that it's not true. Virginia Court of Appeals trotted out a similar line of thinking not so long ago, attempting to conceal its gooberness from the Warren Court:

In upholding the constitutionality of these provisions in the decision below, the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia referred to its 1955 decision in Naim v. Naim as stating the reasons supporting the validity of these laws. In Naim, the state court concluded that the State's legitimate purposes were ‘to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens,’ and to prevent ‘the corruption of blood,’ ‘a mongrel breed of citizens,’ and ‘the obliteration of racial pride,’ obviously an endorsement of the doctrine of White Supremacy. The court also reasoned that marriage has traditionally been subject to state regulation without federal intervention, and, consequently, the regulation of marriage should be left to exclusive state control by the Tenth Amendment.

[ . . . ]

While the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power, the State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor could it do so in light of Meyer v. State of Nebraska and Skinner v. State of Oklahoma. Instead, the State argues that the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as illuminated by the statements of the Framers, is only that state penal laws containing an interracial element as part of the definition of the offense must apply equally to whites and Negroes in the sense that members of each race are punished to the same degree. Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race. -Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 7-8, 87 S. Ct. 1817, 1821, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010 (1967) (internal citations omitted)

Chief Justice Warren was not convinced by Virginia's equal protection argument, and not impressed by their due process argument either.

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. - Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12, 87 S. Ct. 1817, 1824, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010 (1967).

[The Lone Ranger]

There is much rejoicing/gloating on facebook today. One guy who had been insisting that his opposition to gay marriage was entirely rational and had nothing -- nothing, I tell you -- to do with either anti-gay bigotry or religious beliefs, had this to say: "Thank God that the people of North Carolina can still tell good from evil. Maybe this means people are turning away from the evils of secularism and back to the ways of God."



But his objections to gay marriage had nothing to do with religious beliefs or anti-gay bigotry. Right.

[Watser?]

Maybe this means people are too stupid to figure out what is good and what is evil and you can get them to do evil by confusing them.

[Ari]

[Ymir's blood]

Originally Posted by Watser?

Maybe this means people are too stupid to figure out what is good and what is evil and you can get them to do evil by confusing them.

I wish to know more.

[ImGod]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Well like in the case of Durham county continuing to extend benefits to domestic partners. Could the state try to prohibit them from doing so based on the amendment?

I could see the state arguing that counties and towns can't go against the state consitution because they are bigger, more powerful, and doing the will of the majority. While missing the point that the Feds could use the same arguments in say; recognizing marriage.

From a big ass multi-state business standpoint, life would be easier without these sort of local hassles. Please conservatives, think of the corporations.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by Ymir's blood

I wish to know more.

I ain't tellin'!

[LadyShea]

kay, speaking about anti-gay stupids, these One Million Moms bitches truly suck. They are after JC Penney again for protraying a two mom family in a Mother's Day ad

Change.org|Free Online Petitions

[Ari]

I believe in Ceiling lolcats, two vocal anti-gay groups,
OMM & NOM
It must be a sign!

[erimir]

BREAKING: Obama Embraces Marriage Equality | ThinkProgress

A few days late, but then again with a 61-39 margin, it wouldn't have been enough to change the outcome anyway.

...I think I might have to donate money to his campaign this time.

[ChuckF]

Or President Romney's.

[LadyShea]

Why do they stay Republican? I do not get these guys. Look dudes, the old Republican party that was sane, before they decided that the religious fanatics were a helluva good base, isn't coming back. Just be independents or Libertarians or some shit.

The Log Cabin Republicans’ R. Clarke Cooper was quick to try to discredit Obama’s announcement, calling it “cold comfort” and “offensive and callous” in the wake of the defeat in North Carolina yesterday. “This administration has manipulated LGBT families for political gain as much as anybody, and after his campaign’s ridiculous contortions to deny support for marriage equality this week he does not deserve praise for an announcement that comes a day late and a dollar short,” Cooper said.

[ChuckF]

This administration has manipulated LGBT families for political gain as much as anybody, and after his campaign’s ridiculous contortions to deny support for marriage equality this week he does not deserve praise for an announcement that comes a day late and a dollar short

Kinda agree.

[Angakuk]

Yeah, why they stick with the Republican party is a bit of mystery. However, his criticism of Obama is pretty much right on. Politics as usual. Move along. Nothing to see here.

[LadyShea]

I think Obama mealy mouthing on this has been stupid politics that I don't really understand, but yeah, biz as usual. But, DADT is gone, and IIRC the administration will no longer defend DOMA, so that's progress.

And, I don't think voicing his opinion sooner would have changed the vote in NC yesterday.

Also, I still don't get the LCR's.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I think Obama mealy mouthing on this has been stupid politics that I don't really understand, but yeah, biz as usual. But, DADT is gone, and IIRC the administration will no longer defend DOMA, so that's progress.

That's also a reasonable point.

Also, I still don't get the LCR's.

I used to be able to resolve it on the basis that gay people are just like other people - some issues are more important than others. For Log Cabin Republicans, there are other issues more salient than the party's retrograde attitude towards homosexuality. That has gotten a lot harder since the party's retrograde attitude towards homosexuality has transformed into a more overtly explicit animus towards gay people. Now I don't get it at all. Like, do you not see that the most vocal elements of your party actively hate you for what you are? That's a line I can't really imagine crossing.

Then again, there are also Republican women.

[freemonkey]

I'm not sure about the politics on this one. He may have gained support, but surely he lost plenty, also.

And then there's this from Fox Nation

[LadyShea]

War on Marriage!! More marriage is anti-marriage! Don't you people see?

[LadyShea]

I know other old school Republicans who are for smaller government and are like fiscally conservative or whatever, and hope to get the party to focus on that kind of thing again and cool...I can respect that. But the Republican party has been overrun with the lunatic hateful bigots, so ya know, maybe a new plan is in order.

As for Republican women, they are just submitting to their husbands like good Christian wives should...my aunt calligraphied a whole big Bible verse about it for my wedding gift, so I know all about it, see.

[Watser?]

Let the bombing begin!!



..........

[erimir]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Kinda agree.

I see where that's coming from... It has been ridiculous. But this country is ridiculous. I've always assumed that that was his true position, especially since he said as much back in the 90s. It's clearly been political for him to say he's opposed to gay marriage from the beginning of his presidential campaign. But I don't exactly see it as preferable for him to come out in favor of same-sex marriage too early and get rabid homophobes in power instead of a "secret" ally. It wouldn't have been better for McCain to have gotten elected.

And I think this is still a politically risky move for Obama, although notably less so than in 2008.

He could've easily kept his mouth shut and waited until after the election, and there would've been plenty of party insiders and pundits and even some gay activists (taking the "long view") who would've seen this as the right move or the smart move. And it still could hurt him in November in some of the states like NC, Virginia, Florida and Ohio that could be very close.

So I do think it's still commendable even given his ridiculous vacillations that were for the benefit of the wingnuts out there.