welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Homomentum: prop 8 is almost guaranteed dead now
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
stripeypants



Joined: 24 Feb 2013
Posts: 3448
Location: Land of the Grumpuses

PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My reply to the notion that marriage has always been as it is now is: Jane Austen.

Not that I need to do that, when the Bible and other Abrahamic holy books have marriages with multiple wives and dowries (And that is something many in the US look down upon.). But even in relatively modern times in Western countries, marriage has undergone changes.
_________________
[Stripeypants has enabled lurk mode.]

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Finnegan



Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 1080
Location: in that cool mountain air, on an appalachian trail

PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 8:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

all of this prop 8 and doma shit is so fucking gay.
_________________
Formerly Green_Finn

hey! rock bottom's not that bad
we've got glow-in-the-dark fish down here that's rad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Heretical Rants



Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 5344
Location: No.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

no u
_________________
butts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17600
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

no the supreme court is totally gay. i mean, men in dresses? and what is with scalia's hats?
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17600
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

'cause i just read it and had to share - the new yorker's reporter posted the best lines from the prop 8/doma arguments: (SPOILER: the thomas quote is the best!)

Quote:
John Roberts: You don’t doubt that the lobby supporting the enactment of same sex-marriage laws in different states is politically powerful, do you?… As far as I can tell, political figures are falling over themselves to endorse your side of the case. [DOMA]

Antonin Scalia: I’m curious, when—when did—when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted? [Prop 8]

Anthony Kennedy: There are some forty thousand children in California, according to the red brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don’t you think? [Prop 8]

Kennedy, swing-vote bonus: I just wonder if—if the case was properly granted.

Clarence Thomas: [Silence] [Prop 8, DOMA]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: You’re saying, no, state said two kinds of marriage; the full marriage, and then this sort of skim-milk marriage. [DOMA]

Stephen Breyer: I mean, there are lots of people who get married who can’t have children. To take a state that does allow adoption and say—there, what is the justification for saying no gay marriage? Certainly not the one you said, is it? [Prop 8]

Samuel Alito: But you want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cell phones or the Internet? I mean we—we are not—we do not have the ability to see the future. [Prop 8]

Sonia Sotomayor: So they can create a class they don’t like—here, homosexuals—or a class that they consider is suspect in the marriage category, and they can create that class and decide benefits on that basis when they themselves have no interest in the actual institution of marriage as married? [DOMA]

Sotomayor, Scalia-dig bonus: So what do you think we meant? And I know Justice Scalia doesn’t care what you think we meant.

Elena Kagan: Well, is what happened in 1996—and I’m going to quote from the House report here—is that “Congress decided to reflect an honor of collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.” [DOMA]

Bonus multi-Justice bonanza: Breyer’s question about heterosexual couples who couldn’t have children, and the Prop 8 lawyer’s continued insistence that marriage was tied to procreation, led the court into strange and slightly sordid territory. Take a look at the whole thing; read it for the Kagan retorts. (“I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of fifty-five, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.”) Read it for Scalia’s awkward Strom Thurmond joke. Read it, even, for the serious constitutional questions. It’s what we’ve got to go on until the Justices rule, most likely in June.

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/03/prop-8-doma-supreme-court-best-quotations.html#ixzz2Ot8BiHvZ


is there someplace to look up actual transcripts? now i feel i have to know exactly what scalia said about thurmond (it's not cited in the article she links, although she does observe "Scalia made a joke about Strom Thurmond—presumably referring to his marriage to a twenty-five-year-old when he was sixty-eight, and not to the daughter he fathered, at the age of twenty-two, with a woman whom it was, at the time, illegal for him to marry in his home state of South Carolina." which puts a spin on things that i suspect scalia did _not_ intend.)
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17600
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hm - found it - nytimes has a recording and transcript

Quote:
Justice Antonin Scalia

Strom Thurmond was — was not the chairman of the Senate committee when Justice Kagan was confirmed.



the transcript notes (laughter) - but the recording sounds like the laughter was a bit delayed, so i'm wondering if they laughed at someone's expression, not scalia's 'joke'.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lasairfiona



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9702
Location: I have to be somewhere? ::runs around frantically::

PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Scotusblog posts the links to them!
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-307_jnt1.pdf

_________________
Before God created Las he pondered on all the aspects a woman might have, he considered which ones would look good super-inflated and which ones to leave alone.
After much deliberation he gave her a giant comfort zone. - Michael
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mizike



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 5137
Location: Iowa City

PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, it's prediction time:

SCOTUS rules that the proponents of Prop 8 (that is, the people who want to ban gay marriage in California) have no standing. This reverts things to a lower court ruling and California gets gay marriage, but the effect does not extend beyond its borders.

DOMA is clearly an unconstitutional violation of states' rights and will be struck down as such. The gay marriages in states that allow gay marriage will be recognized by the federal government. This has huge implications for veterans, federal employees, and the immigration system (I'm very excited).

Some people will be unhappy that this does not legalize gay marriage nationwide, but I don't think you could reasonably have expected that given the composition of this court.
_________________
Scire aliquid laus est, pudor est non discere velle
"It is laudable to know something, it is disgraceful to not want to learn"
~Seneca
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10955
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think it's clear from Kennedy's questions that DOMA is toast, since he was the only one that everyone didn't know how he was going to vote before arguments were even heard. Prop 8... I think you're probably right, and they'll let it go back to the lower court ruling, but I'm not as certain as I am about DOMA.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. I’ll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ShadowCell



Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 6186
Location: California

PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i certainly hope they strike down Prop 8 in a way that legalizes same-sex marriage throughout the land. that way, as far as the law goes, the issue will be settled and we can all watch the right wing's heads collectively explode and then move on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stripeypants



Joined: 24 Feb 2013
Posts: 3448
Location: Land of the Grumpuses

PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 12:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The skim milk thing was my favorite. Although I do love the bizarreness of Kagan having to explain to grown, educated men about fertility in older women.
_________________
[Stripeypants has enabled lurk mode.]

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Mizike



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 5137
Location: Iowa City

PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Now, after the Supreme Court Rules on Prop 8, some religious country clerk or whatever is going to decide he (it's always a he, isn't it?) cannot, in good conscience, marry Adam and Steve. Three years down the road, that case will result in gay marriage being the law of the land.


But by then about half the states will have it anyway.
_________________
Scire aliquid laus est, pudor est non discere velle
"It is laudable to know something, it is disgraceful to not want to learn"
~Seneca
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
bitflipper



Joined: 09 Jul 2011
Posts: 728
Location: Here and Now

PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 2:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That will probably result in a wider-spread and more enduring acceptance of same-sex marriages, anyway. By the polls and current popular opinion in the U.S., such acceptance looks pretty much inevitable. But, social progress by fiat almost always encounters more resistance than laws made to reflect changing social attitudes slightly in delay of those changes. I think it comes down to psychology: people tend not to like being told they must do this or must abstain from that, and so will resist laws and court decisions that, in effect, say such things. However, when people are asking "Why doesn't this or that law reflect our values, choices, and ideals?" they are happy to see the law changed in order to "catch up" with their views and redress the unfairness they perceive.

We've only started asking why same-sex marriages aren't treated fairly; in another five or ten years, we'll be asking why the law doesn't match our views of fairness, and asking that question on a large enough scale to bring about that change at all levels of government in the U.S. At that point, the change will stick, and we won't have to worry about something like Proposition 8 getting back on the ballots. It may well be worth the patience, to let this scenario play itself out the long way.
_________________
I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lasairfiona



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9702
Location: I have to be somewhere? ::runs around frantically::

PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 2:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I read an opinion on some site, perhaps scotusblog?, that stated that it is possible the SCOTUS thinks it pushed abortion much too soon and that that may be the reason behind the terrible controversy or at least that it was drawn out due to the ruling. It is possible the old guard may feel the same about gay marriage.
_________________
Before God created Las he pondered on all the aspects a woman might have, he considered which ones would look good super-inflated and which ones to leave alone.
After much deliberation he gave her a giant comfort zone. - Michael
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bitflipper



Joined: 09 Jul 2011
Posts: 728
Location: Here and Now

PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 3:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd read something similar, before. IIRC, the article claimed that if Roe v. Wade had been remanded back to lower courts, then there would have come sufficient social change over the rest of the 70s that abortion would not have garnered anywhere near the same publicity had the issue been revisited in the 80s, with minor steps being made along the way to legitimize abortion in cases of incest and rape, and in cases where bearing the child presented a real and present danger to the mother's survival.
_________________
I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group