The Gay Thread

[PennyLanePHINS]

Same-sex couples can wed in Oregon, federal judge rules

Oregon didn't want to wait until November. Though it would've been nice for another popular vote victory, the sooner the better.

 

[Irvine511]

That's the entire West Coast. Nicely done.

 

[digitize]

This sort of patchwork of legal decisions across the country (where it's "constitutional" to have SSM banned in some areas and "unconstitutional" in others) is the sort of thing that's bound to cause the Supreme Court to get involved, right?

 

[Irvine511]

This sort of patchwork of legal decisions across the country (where it's "constitutional" to have SSM banned in some areas and "unconstitutional" in others) is the sort of thing that's bound to cause the Supreme Court to get involved, right?

My thought was that this was the SCOTUS ruling by design -- empower the states to make the changes themselves one by one so it doesn't feel like a fiat from above. Public opinion is changing rapidly, so a mild incrementalist approach like this might be best.

 

[PhilsFan]

Holy shit.

Judge Strikes Down Pennsylvania's Gay Marriage Ban | G Philly

"We are a better people than what these laws represent, and it is time to discard them into the ash heap of history."

 

[Galeongirl]

Seems like things are starting to happen fast!

 

[PhilsFan]

That's a George W. Bush appointed judge from central Pennsylvania. It doesn't get much more conservative than this dude. I'm fucking floored and giddy.

 

[Irvine511]

A friend just texted me the news. Very cool.

 

[Zoomerang96]

haven't been in FYM in a long time... saw this thread and was surprised. so there are still gays and stuff?

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Not really, no.

 

[digitize]

My thought was that this was the SCOTUS ruling by design -- empower the states to make the changes themselves one by one so it doesn't feel like a fiat from above. Public opinion is changing rapidly, so a mild incrementalist approach like this might be best.

The states are making no changes. Federal judges are. It's one thing to have federalism in the sense that different states have different laws. It's less fine to have different interpretations of the United States Constitution standing in different areas of the country, as seems to be happening now.

 

[Irvine511]

The states are making no changes. Federal judges are. It's one thing to have federalism in the sense that different states have different laws. It's less fine to have different interpretations of the United States Constitution standing in different areas of the country, as seems to be happening now.

Which may then pave the way for a broader ruling by SCOTUS because it's untenable.

Is someone actually going to discard all these marriages?

 

[PennyLanePHINS]

No, well maybe, but probably not as it becomes increasingly supported.

Apparently there could be decisions in Wisconsin and Florida soon.

From the NYT article I was reading: “It’s kind of overwhelming, and wonderful at the same time,” said James D. Esseks, director of the union’s gay rights programs, who is involved in 11 marriage cases at once. Mr. Esseks said he expected decisions within the next few weeks on similar challenges in Wisconsin and Florida.

 

[Dfit00]

haven't been in FYM in a long time... saw this thread and was surprised. so there are still gays and stuff?

There are still gays in South Beach you know.

Have you ever been there?

 

[deep]

That's a George W. Bush appointed judge from central Pennsylvania. It doesn't get much more conservative than this dude. I'm fucking floored and giddy.

Yes a Bush appointee and Rick Santorum endorsed him too.


but this conservative has a working brain, he is best known for his presiding role in the landmark Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, in which the teaching of intelligent design in public school science classes was ruled to be unconstitutional.

 

[Zoomerang96]

There are still gays in South Beach you know.

Have you ever been there?

No, I wasn't aware and no I haven't been there. Did you see this on TV or something?

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

I was in South Beach once, or no that was Va Beach actually.

Guy was running around telling everyone about "the eye of the storm"

kept saying it was coming, it was coming.

I asked him what that meant, if it had anything to do with the new U2 album. He looked thoughtful for a moment, and then went on his way kicking sand in the air and muttering to himself.

Im told that was the gay pickup area of the beach. By that i mean, not where gays go to drive pickup trucks, its where they go to, well, you know what i mean. Its possible they drove trucks but thats beside the point.

Over on the other side of that is where all the Navy guys hung out, lots of seamen, if you know what i mean. The storm eventually did come and there was a voluntary evacuation of the beach, which eventually became mandatory. The Navy Seals would ignore the warnings and go swimming in the rising tides anyway. It was strange to see them handcuffed and arrested. But then again, thats kind of the point of this thread. Let people be who they are. Just let them be....free.

 

[deep]

So in PA it's all over
No need for shouting and wringing of hands

If you let your kids play in the park unattended, you better put two pairs of pants on them

 

[Irvine511]

i miss INDY.

A federal judge ruled Wednesday that Indiana's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, immediately allowing same-sex couples across the state to receive marriage licenses.

U.S. District Judge Richard Young did not issue a stay on his ruling. However, a spokesman for Attorney General Greg Zoeller, whose office represented the state, said they "will quickly ask for a stay of today's ruling pending appeal."

Marion County Clerk Beth White said she is prepared to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in her office at the City-County Building in Downtown Indianapolis.

"Chief Judge Richard Young's decision on marriage equality sets forth a clear course of action for this office to follow regarding same-sex marriage licenses. It is my responsibility to uphold court rulings that impact this office and that is what I will do," White said in a release.

Craig Bowen and Jake Miller were the first couple to get their marriage license and be married in Indianapolis.

The ruling left other county clerks trying to figure out how to respond. The Hamilton County clerk decided not to immediately issue licenses, while the clerk in Monroe County went ahead.

The case, Baskin, et al. v. Bogan, et al., revolved around several same-sex Indiana couples who sued the state earlier this year, challenging its ban on gay marriage. One couple, Amy Sandler and Niki Quasney, also asked for immediate recognition of their marriage performed in Massachusetts last year. Quasney is terminally ill.

On May 8, Young ordered Indiana to recognize the couple's marriage indefinitely, a decision the state then asked a federal appeals court to overturn.

Both sides also asked Young to rule on the broader constitutionality of the state law that says marriage is only between a man and a woman, leading to his decision today.

"The court recognized that there was significant harm to couples when they're wrongly denied the freedom to marry the one unique person they love," said Paul Castillo, the attorney for Lambda Legal who argued the Baskin v. Bogan case.

Castillo said he expected the state to appeal the decision.

Zoeller's office previously vowed to appeal if Young ruled against the state. The office affirmed that position today. In news release, the office also said it is analyzing the court's ruling and will communicate with county clerks on proper marriage license procedures they should follow in order "to avoid chaos during the appeal."

Young's decision today also resolved three other lawsuits filed earlier this year that challenged the state's ban on gay marriage. Young combined two of those lawsuits, Fujii et al. v. Pence et al., and Lee et al. v. Pence et al., with his decision in the Baskin v. Bogan case. The last lawsuit, Love et al. v. Pence, was dismissed.

In Indianapolis, Marion County Clerk White said the office will be open until at least 4:30 p.m. today to issue licenses.

"I will also conduct short, civil ceremonies on a first-come, first-serve basis for a voluntary $50 contribution to the Indiana Youth Group," White said in a news release.

Weddings begin as judge throws out Indiana's same-sex marriage ban

 

[bono_212]

What I don't understand is how you can make the jump from last year's alarming referendum, to this. Like, I'm not saying I'm not happy, but I'm a little confused by how one judge can make a move like that. Clearly this state (I guess I shouldn't say this, since I'm not living there, now) isn't nearly as in support of this motion as others and there will be push-back, which is, whatever, at least there's movement in a right direction.

But does my confusion make sense? I've seen arguments before that judges can't make these decisions and I've shrugged that argument off before as, well, they're judges, that's what they're put into place for, is to judge laws and whatnot. This time, though, this just seems completely out of left-field and 100% opposite from what was just happening a year ago.

 

[Irvine511]

What I don't understand is how you can make the jump from last year's alarming referendum, to this. Like, I'm not saying I'm not happy, but I'm a little confused by how one judge can make a move like that. Clearly this state (I guess I shouldn't say this, since I'm not living there, now) isn't nearly as in support of this motion as others and there will be push-back, which is, whatever, at least there's movement in a right direction.

But does my confusion make sense? I've seen arguments before that judges can't make these decisions and I've shrugged that argument off before as, well, they're judges, that's what they're put into place for, is to judge laws and whatnot. This time, though, this just seems completely out of left-field and 100% opposite from what was just happening a year ago.

based on the SCOTUS ruling from last year, it's become clear that denying gay couples the right to marry is a violation of equal protection under the law. all these lawsuits were filed shortly after or have been in the works for some time -- now, there's legal precedent from SCOTUS. it doesn't matter what "the state" wants or the majority of it's citizens believe; laws must be Constitutional, and the ban on SSM, even passed by voters, is clearly not. it's been ruled unconstitutional in every single case since DOMA was struck down last year.

 

[bono_212]

got it, thank you.

Though I thought this was a States rights issue? Or are you saying once SCOTUS rules, the state's are no longer able to individually rule on a law?

/clearlyveryuponthings
/polysciwastheonlyclassi'veeverfailed

 

[Irvine511]

got it, thank you.

Though I thought this was a States rights issue? Or are you saying once SCOTUS rules, the state's are no longer able to individually rule on a law?

/clearlyveryuponthings
/polysciwastheonlyclassi'veeverfailed

There are people better versed in the law than I, but my understanding is that states can make any laws they wish, but they must be Constitutional. If the constitutionality of the law is challenged, as was the case here, it's brought to court and judges issue a ruling.




Sent from

 

[bono_212]

That sounds about how I understood it. Thanks.

 

[deep]

if states could make their own laws
then many states would still have poll taxes, that was where every voter paid a nominal fee, say about $1 to vote, I guess to help pay the costs of elections

or require a simple literacy test to make sure every voter had the most basic reading skills to know what they were voting on.

seems reasonable, Robert Bork hero of the conservatives during his nomination process said he did not believe those state laws were discriminatory

the problem was that the Supreme Court declared both laws unconstitutional
why? because the true intent was to suppress black votes in the South

Why are Protect Marriage Acts unconstitutional?

Because their true intent is not to protect traditional marriage.


If a state or the U S Congress passes an unconstitutional law judges can and should strike them down. If a lower judge gets it wrong the final say is always with the Supreme Court. Until a later court changes it mind.

 

[deep]

more good news for common decency

Appeals Court: States Can't Ban Gay Marriage - ABC News

The three-judge panel in Denver ruled 2-1 that states cannot deprive people of the fundamental right to marry simply because they want to be wedded to someone of the same sex.

The judges added they don't want to brand as intolerant those who oppose gay marriage, but they said there is no reasonable objection to the practice.

"It is wholly illogical to believe that state recognition of love and commitment of same-sex couples will alter the most intimate and personal decisions of opposite-sex couples," the judges wrote, addressing arguments that the ruling could undermine traditional marriage.

judges don't want to brand opposers as intolerant
but just people that have no reasonable argument.

 

[bono_212]

Decent way of handling that, on their part, I'd say.

 

[deep]

A good portion of my immediate family are against gay marriage based on their religious beliefs. I will say over the last 10 years or so they have been softening a bit. Of course I love them all and don't believe they are bigots. Over the years when we have had respectful conversations. They often times seem at a lost to respond to simple questions like, " Say we have two 70 year old librarians that have lived together for 35 years. They have never broken a law, always paid their taxes and been model citizens. Why should these two women be treated differently than any other couple? They are paying full taxation with less than full representation and equal rights? What harm would it do to let them get married and have the same protections and rights as all other law-abiding citizens? Where is the danger to you?" Is being unkind and hurtful to these women fair or even the morally right thing to do?"

I need to give them a frame of reference to consider instead of a bunch of mostly naked gay men in body paint and g-strings riding a float in a parade on Main Street.

 

[Irvine511]

So nearly naked men on floats one day a year do not deserve rights, but women showing their boobs in New Orleans or puking bros in Boston on St Patrick's Day do?


Sent from

 

[deep]

that is part of the conversation
plus the shitload of crappy hetero marriages that are all lawful

again if we are going to move people from unreasonable, irrational beliefs to rational ones, why not give them the biggest, widest door to walk through with a table full of free ice cream

to point is to get them to the table



also, your examples would not really have any weight, most people I know that oppose gay marriage would want women in NO or any place else that expose their tits and any man that wears a g-string exposing his ass in public to be arrested and charged with indecent exposure regardless of orientation.