DOMA Struck Down

[kallend 1,635]

OK, so a gay couple marries in an enlightened state, but goes to live in a backwoods state that doesn't allow gay marriage.

Clearly they can now file "married filing jointly" for the IRS, but what about state taxes?

Can the backwoods state refuse to recognize their marriage? Is crossing the state line to a backwoods state tantamount to divorce?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

kallend

OK, so a gay couple marries in an enlightened state,

they were breathing oxygen on the way to altitude?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,405]

>Clearly they can now file "married filing jointly" for the IRS, but what about state taxes?

States can still require that they file separately.

[kallend 1,635]

rehmwa

***
OK, so a gay couple marries in an enlightened state,

they were breathing oxygen on the way to altitude?

Or helium.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DSE 3]

champu

Eat one what?

Whatever you want, as long as it belongs to a consenting adult. And then later you can marry its owner, regardless of what it was, without being discriminated against by the federal government.

Perhaps the best response I've seen in all the mayhem.

[billvon 2,405]

>I suppose that the President could have just proposed to repeal DOMA.

He did, about a year ago. (As you know, all he can really do is propose.)

[kallend 1,635]

"It goes down to the trial court, and that only applies to two couples. It wasn't a class-action suit. So what Governor Jerry Brown and others are doing is going to be challenged in court," said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, which fought to uphold Prop 8.

The bigots are desperate.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

"It goes down to the trial court, and that only applies to two couples. It wasn't a class-action suit. So what Governor Jerry Brown and others are doing is going to be challenged in court," said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, which fought to uphold Prop 8.

The bigots are desperate.

The form of California direct democracy has been killed. It's interesting to me - the Proposition was passed by a majority of a blue state because the state government wouldn't. And then the State government - bypassed as it was - then railroads it. And the Court said that there isn't any standing for someone else to jump in.

I am fond of the result. But I detest (and so did the Justices) the games played to do this.

Public: "Ban gay marriages."
Moonbeams: "No."
Public: "Then we'll vote to ban gay marriages."
Moonbeams: "I dare you to try."
Public: "We voted to ban gay marriages."
Moonbeams: "It's being challenged in court and I'm throwing the match to them."
Public: "Then we'll step in and play for you."
Courts: "Nope. Can't do that. Only Moonbeams can defend it."
Public: "But he won't defend it."
Courts: "Sucks, but tough shit."
Moonbeams: "I drank your milkshake."

Again - I applaud gay marriage. I despise an unfair fight.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[livendive 8]

That's a fundamental trait of civil right issues...sometimes the government has to act against the wishes of a prejudiced majority.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kallend 1,635]

lawrocket

***

"It goes down to the trial court, and that only applies to two couples. It wasn't a class-action suit. So what Governor Jerry Brown and others are doing is going to be challenged in court," said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, which fought to uphold Prop 8.

The bigots are desperate.

The form of California direct democracy has been killed. It's interesting to me - the Proposition was passed by a majority of a blue state because the state government wouldn't. And then the State government - bypassed as it was - then railroads it. And the Court said that there isn't any standing for someone else to jump in.

I am fond of the result. But I detest (and so did the Justices) the games played to do this.

Public: "Ban gay marriages."
Moonbeams: "No."
Public: "Then we'll vote to ban gay marriages."
Moonbeams: "I dare you to try."
Public: "We voted to ban gay marriages."
Moonbeams: "It's being challenged in court and I'm throwing the match to them."
Public: "Then we'll step in and play for you."
Courts: "Nope. Can't do that. Only Moonbeams can defend it."
Public: "But he won't defend it."
Courts: "Sucks, but tough shit."
Moonbeams: "I drank your milkshake."

Again - I applaud gay marriage. I despise an unfair fight.

I believe a majority of Alabamans voted for George Wallace and Bull Connor too. A majority of Arkansans voted for Orval Faubus

For the historically challenged: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_in_the_Schoolhouse_Door

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull_Connor

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

livendive

That's a fundamental trait of civil right issues...sometimes the government has to act against the wishes of a prejudiced majority.

yes, but the SC didn't do that. They just said "you don't get to speak!" The DC judge actually ruled that this was a civil rights matter, and then the two appeals just fell (extremely slowly) due to standing. Did we have to deny due diligence to the Prop8 supporters to defend civil rights? I don't see it.

If the state won't defend a enacted initiative, there needs to be an allowance for someone else to do so instead. Next time it might be to defend legislation that protects our rights, not takes it away.

Seems like we need another initiative to amend the state constitution.

Unfortunately, this would either be so dry as to bore voters to tears, or it would be co-opted by a partisan play to stick in something really shitty.

[lawrocket 3]

livendive

That's a fundamental trait of civil right issues...sometimes the government has to act against the wishes of a prejudiced majority.

Blues,
Dave

Yes. But to not give a voice to another position? Recall the original case in California Courts - where then atty-general Moonbeams sold out and still lost.

There are things that I think violate a fundamental fairness. A government working to deny the right to Petition seems to me to be fighting for rights by denying them. As much as I have a problem with direct democracy (direct democracy is the sort of thing that leads to Prop 8 - I prefer constitutional rights that are guaranteed against the "will of the people") it is still the job of the government to defend it.

And if the government will not defend it, then I don't think it should be permitted to stand in the way of others who will try to, at least, allow the other side to be heard.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,635]

lawrocket

***That's a fundamental trait of civil right issues...sometimes the government has to act against the wishes of a prejudiced majority.

Blues,
Dave

Yes. But to not give a voice to another position? Recall the original case in California Courts - where then atty-general Moonbeams sold out and still lost.

There are things that I think violate a fundamental fairness. A government working to deny the right to Petition seems to me to be fighting for rights by denying them. As much as I have a problem with direct democracy (direct democracy is the sort of thing that leads to Prop 8 - I prefer constitutional rights that are guaranteed against the "will of the people") it is still the job of the government to defend it.

And if the government will not defend it, then I don't think it should be permitted to stand in the way of others who will try to, at least, allow the other side to be heard.

Should Eisenhower have defended Orval Faubus's position? Faubus was elected by the will of the people.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Hmmm. Seems to me that the government at the time could have simply told Thurgood Marshall that he had no standing to argue Brown v. Board. It was an adversarial case. The stuff with Faubus was also adversarial in nature.

Why are you using an example of a plaintiff and a defendant - both adversarial - in a Supreme Court case to show that one of them should have been silenced?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,635]

I thought your point was that administrations should defend the will of the people.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

kallend

I thought your point was that administrations should defend the will of the people.

No, his point was that "the will" didn't get its day in court.

[kallend 1,635]

kelpdiver

***
I thought your point was that administrations should defend the will of the people.

No, his point was that "the will" didn't get its day in court.

That's because the administration wouldn't defend it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JerryBaumchen 1,050]

Hi rocket,

Quote

simply told Thurgood Marshall that he had no standing to argue Brown v. Board

It is my understand that Mr. Marshall was not a party to this matter, he was merely the attorney arguing the matter before the court(s).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education

JerryBaumchen

[stevebabin 0]

kallend

***eat one bigots

Not only DOMA, but Sen. Wendy Davis in Texas filibustered the anti-choice bill to defeat.

Great day for freedom!
+1
I wonder if any of the prominent fundie nutters on here have retreated to their bunkers yet.

"Science, logic and reason will fly you to the moon. Religion will fly you into buildings."
"Because figuring things out is always better than making shit up."

[rhaig 0]

Having not followed the whole argument, I'll drop in my $0.02

kallend

I thought your point was that administrations should defend the will of the people.

"the will of the people" implies majority rule. AKA mob rule. We have rule of law and a system put in place to keep bad laws from staying on the books. That system is being abusesd (legislative branch passing bad laws, executive branch, under more than one president, signing them) and putting the onus on the Judicial branch to clean up.

DOMA was a stupid knee-jerk reaction by a bunch of religious extremists. It was a bad law. It's gone now. NEXT!!

--
Rob

[kallend 1,635]

rhaig

DOMA was a stupid knee-jerk reaction by a bunch of religious extremists. It was a bad law. It's gone now. NEXT!!

+1

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,635]

skinnay

eat one bigots

And another.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,635]

www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-26-2013/judgment-gay

The Daily Show gets it, and really skewers Scalia.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,635]

What do you make of this statement by Scalia?

"It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions."

Surely that is EXACTLY what the Supreme Court is empowered to do.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[RonD1120 58]

stevebabin

******eat one bigots

Not only DOMA, but Sen. Wendy Davis in Texas filibustered the anti-choice bill to defeat.

Great day for freedom!
+1
I wonder if any of the prominent fundie nutters on here have retreated to their bunkers yet.

I haven't, well, to some extent I have. My wife and I moved to a Christian enclave in the mountains.

Over a year ago I stated that the cultural war is being won by the Satanic enemy. Homosexuality is still an abomination and a sin. So it goes. God's Word does not change because of majority rule. All these events both in America and the Mideast are prophecy coming true.

Eat, drink and be merry for a hard rain is gonna fall.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.