|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 27 2013 00:04 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 00:02 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2013 23:58 Klondikebar wrote:On June 26 2013 23:32 Derez wrote:Prop 8 is down also, but only applies to california as expected. Good news for California supporters of same-sex marriage: the supreme court won't touch a lower court finding that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
The effect of the supreme court's action – or inaction – is to restore same-sex marriage in California – without setting any precedent or making any rule that applies to marriage for other states. It ends up affecting things on a national level too because the Supreme Court basically said you aren't allowed to defend a law that doesn't affect you. It will also make other states leery of defending traditional marriage clauses. Be careful here. That's not really what the Court is saying. What the Court did was hold that individual citizens do not have standing to defend a law that has been stricken down if the law does not affect them directly; their elected officials must do it. Obviously every law affects the state and elected officials so I don't understand how you're making a distinction.
I just want to make sure that it is understood that this would not have been the result had California (as in the state officials) had chosen to pursue an appeal. The Court would have been forced to rule on the merits.
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On June 27 2013 00:02 paralleluniverse wrote:Here's an absolutely blistering attack on DOMA from Kennedy's opinion striking down DOMA: Show nested quote +DOMA writes inequality into the entire United States Code. The particular case at hand concerns the estate tax, but DOMA is more than a simple determination of what should or should not be allowed as an estate tax refund. Among the over 1,000 statutes and numerous federal regulations that DOMA controls are laws pertaining to Social Security, housing, taxes, criminal sanctions, copyright, and veterans’ benefits. DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities. By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state sanctioned and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives. Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways. By its great reach, DOMA touches many aspects of married and family life, from the mundane to the profound. Source: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf
Wow, there's no holding back there. Terminology like "humiliates", "demeans", "second-tier" is pretty strong.
|
On June 27 2013 00:09 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 00:02 paralleluniverse wrote:Here's an absolutely blistering attack on DOMA from Kennedy's opinion striking down DOMA: DOMA writes inequality into the entire United States Code. The particular case at hand concerns the estate tax, but DOMA is more than a simple determination of what should or should not be allowed as an estate tax refund. Among the over 1,000 statutes and numerous federal regulations that DOMA controls are laws pertaining to Social Security, housing, taxes, criminal sanctions, copyright, and veterans’ benefits. DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities. By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state sanctioned and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives. Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways. By its great reach, DOMA touches many aspects of married and family life, from the mundane to the profound. Source: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf Wow, there's no holding back there. Terminology like "humiliates", "demeans", "second-tier" is pretty strong.
He's correct though.
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On June 27 2013 00:10 Nymzee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 00:09 marvellosity wrote:On June 27 2013 00:02 paralleluniverse wrote:Here's an absolutely blistering attack on DOMA from Kennedy's opinion striking down DOMA: DOMA writes inequality into the entire United States Code. The particular case at hand concerns the estate tax, but DOMA is more than a simple determination of what should or should not be allowed as an estate tax refund. Among the over 1,000 statutes and numerous federal regulations that DOMA controls are laws pertaining to Social Security, housing, taxes, criminal sanctions, copyright, and veterans’ benefits. DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities. By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state sanctioned and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives. Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways. By its great reach, DOMA touches many aspects of married and family life, from the mundane to the profound. Source: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf Wow, there's no holding back there. Terminology like "humiliates", "demeans", "second-tier" is pretty strong. He's correct though.
I agree, I just didn't expect a Supreme Court judge to go at it like that. Not that I'm a great expert on how they usually go at it.
|
On June 27 2013 00:13 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 00:10 Nymzee wrote:On June 27 2013 00:09 marvellosity wrote:On June 27 2013 00:02 paralleluniverse wrote:Here's an absolutely blistering attack on DOMA from Kennedy's opinion striking down DOMA: DOMA writes inequality into the entire United States Code. The particular case at hand concerns the estate tax, but DOMA is more than a simple determination of what should or should not be allowed as an estate tax refund. Among the over 1,000 statutes and numerous federal regulations that DOMA controls are laws pertaining to Social Security, housing, taxes, criminal sanctions, copyright, and veterans’ benefits. DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities. By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state sanctioned and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives. Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways. By its great reach, DOMA touches many aspects of married and family life, from the mundane to the profound. Source: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf Wow, there's no holding back there. Terminology like "humiliates", "demeans", "second-tier" is pretty strong. He's correct though. I agree, I just didn't expect a Supreme Court judge to go at it like that. Not that I'm a great expert on how they usually go at it.
Judging by their decision today, pretty rough and dominant. ; )
|
On June 27 2013 00:13 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 00:10 Nymzee wrote:On June 27 2013 00:09 marvellosity wrote:On June 27 2013 00:02 paralleluniverse wrote:Here's an absolutely blistering attack on DOMA from Kennedy's opinion striking down DOMA: DOMA writes inequality into the entire United States Code. The particular case at hand concerns the estate tax, but DOMA is more than a simple determination of what should or should not be allowed as an estate tax refund. Among the over 1,000 statutes and numerous federal regulations that DOMA controls are laws pertaining to Social Security, housing, taxes, criminal sanctions, copyright, and veterans’ benefits. DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities. By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state sanctioned and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives. Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways. By its great reach, DOMA touches many aspects of married and family life, from the mundane to the profound. Source: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf Wow, there's no holding back there. Terminology like "humiliates", "demeans", "second-tier" is pretty strong. He's correct though. I agree, I just didn't expect a Supreme Court judge to go at it like that. Not that I'm a great expert on how they usually go at it.
Of course, to be a Supreme Court Justice (let alone a lawyer or anything in the field of law), you have to be very professional with how you word everything.
That said, if I get to see the day where one of the female justices calls Scalia an idiot on record, I will die a happy, happy man.
|
Supreme Court can do what it wants, its not like they have a problem with job security.
|
On June 26 2013 13:17 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 12:11 ziggurat wrote:On June 26 2013 06:30 mordek wrote:
Couldn't this have bigger implications for local elections? I mean "no one is doubting the legitimate victor is elected" is probably true with the large numbers for the president but I feel like local corruption and voter fraud would be the main benefactor.
You see disenfranchisement, others see improvement in legitimacy. You're both right and you should work toward a middle ground. I think with a good faith effort to get everyone who wants a voter ID a card there is no problem with checking identities. You are exactly right. There are many documented examples of the outcomes of local elections being affected by voter fraud. How many elections need to be decided by voter fraud before you would change your mind and decide voter ID is necessary?
To me, it seems pretty reasonable to require ID. Other posters have said that it should be cheap and there should be advance notice so people intending to vote have time to get it, which makes perfect sense. Whether a particular jurisdiction should actually require ID -- and what kind of ID -- is up to them I guess. I'm not saying that it should be necessary in every situation. But I think it's a reasonable step when there's a reasonable apprehension of fraud.
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 27 2013 00:52 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 13:17 coverpunch wrote:On June 26 2013 12:11 ziggurat wrote:On June 26 2013 06:30 mordek wrote:
Couldn't this have bigger implications for local elections? I mean "no one is doubting the legitimate victor is elected" is probably true with the large numbers for the president but I feel like local corruption and voter fraud would be the main benefactor.
You see disenfranchisement, others see improvement in legitimacy. You're both right and you should work toward a middle ground. I think with a good faith effort to get everyone who wants a voter ID a card there is no problem with checking identities. You are exactly right. There are many documented examples of the outcomes of local elections being affected by voter fraud. How many elections need to be decided by voter fraud before you would change your mind and decide voter ID is necessary? To me, it seems pretty reasonable to require ID. Other posters have said that it should be cheap and there should be advance notice so people intending to vote have time to get it, which makes perfect sense. Whether a particular jurisdiction should actually require ID -- and what kind of ID -- is up to them I guess. I'm not saying that it should be necessary in every situation. But I think it's a reasonable step when there's a reasonable apprehension of fraud.
There has never been a reasonable apprehension of fraud. They drummed up fear based on tiny, tiny, tiny numbers. It's just not the issue they've framed it as. And it discriminates against some elderly and the homeless, who still have a right to vote.
|
On June 27 2013 00:17 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 00:13 marvellosity wrote:On June 27 2013 00:10 Nymzee wrote:On June 27 2013 00:09 marvellosity wrote:On June 27 2013 00:02 paralleluniverse wrote:Here's an absolutely blistering attack on DOMA from Kennedy's opinion striking down DOMA: DOMA writes inequality into the entire United States Code. The particular case at hand concerns the estate tax, but DOMA is more than a simple determination of what should or should not be allowed as an estate tax refund. Among the over 1,000 statutes and numerous federal regulations that DOMA controls are laws pertaining to Social Security, housing, taxes, criminal sanctions, copyright, and veterans’ benefits. DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities. By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state sanctioned and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives. Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways. By its great reach, DOMA touches many aspects of married and family life, from the mundane to the profound. Source: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf Wow, there's no holding back there. Terminology like "humiliates", "demeans", "second-tier" is pretty strong. He's correct though. I agree, I just didn't expect a Supreme Court judge to go at it like that. Not that I'm a great expert on how they usually go at it. Of course, to be a Supreme Court Justice (let alone a lawyer or anything in the field of law), you have to be very professional with how you word everything. That said, if I get to see the day where one of the female justices calls Scalia an idiot on record, I will die a happy, happy man.
Did you know that Scalia and Ginsburg are good friends?
|
On June 27 2013 00:57 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 00:52 ziggurat wrote:On June 26 2013 13:17 coverpunch wrote:On June 26 2013 12:11 ziggurat wrote:On June 26 2013 06:30 mordek wrote:
Couldn't this have bigger implications for local elections? I mean "no one is doubting the legitimate victor is elected" is probably true with the large numbers for the president but I feel like local corruption and voter fraud would be the main benefactor.
You see disenfranchisement, others see improvement in legitimacy. You're both right and you should work toward a middle ground. I think with a good faith effort to get everyone who wants a voter ID a card there is no problem with checking identities. You are exactly right. There are many documented examples of the outcomes of local elections being affected by voter fraud. How many elections need to be decided by voter fraud before you would change your mind and decide voter ID is necessary? To me, it seems pretty reasonable to require ID. Other posters have said that it should be cheap and there should be advance notice so people intending to vote have time to get it, which makes perfect sense. Whether a particular jurisdiction should actually require ID -- and what kind of ID -- is up to them I guess. I'm not saying that it should be necessary in every situation. But I think it's a reasonable step when there's a reasonable apprehension of fraud. There has never been a reasonable apprehension of fraud. They drummed up fear based on tiny, tiny, tiny numbers. And it discriminates against some elderly and the homeless, who still have a right to vote.
As I said before, there are many documented cases of fraud affecting the outcome of elections. I don't know how you can possibly pretend that there aren't. As a starting point you could have a look at Justice Stevens' majority opinion in Crawford v Marion County.
|
On June 26 2013 23:58 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 23:32 Derez wrote:Prop 8 is down also, but only applies to california as expected. Good news for California supporters of same-sex marriage: the supreme court won't touch a lower court finding that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
The effect of the supreme court's action – or inaction – is to restore same-sex marriage in California – without setting any precedent or making any rule that applies to marriage for other states. It ends up affecting things on a national level too because the Supreme Court basically said you aren't allowed to defend a law that doesn't affect you. It will also make other states leery of defending traditional marriage clauses.
I'm curious as to what you mean by the bolded part. It seems to me like it could be misinterpreted in a really dangerous way.
|
On June 27 2013 01:04 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 23:58 Klondikebar wrote:On June 26 2013 23:32 Derez wrote:Prop 8 is down also, but only applies to california as expected. Good news for California supporters of same-sex marriage: the supreme court won't touch a lower court finding that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
The effect of the supreme court's action – or inaction – is to restore same-sex marriage in California – without setting any precedent or making any rule that applies to marriage for other states. It ends up affecting things on a national level too because the Supreme Court basically said you aren't allowed to defend a law that doesn't affect you. It will also make other states leery of defending traditional marriage clauses. I'm curious as to what you mean by the bolded part. It seems to me like it could be misinterpreted in a really dangerous way.
Ok, so Prop 8 was a thing in California and an already married couple basically sued the state to challenge the law. The state didn't want to defend it so they didn't even show up to court. Some private parties still wanted the law defended so they paid for some lawyers to defend the law in place of the state.
The Supreme Court said that those private parties had no grounds to defend the law because they had no legal stake in the enforcement of said law. Basically straight people don't get to bitch cause gay people are gettin married.
|
On June 27 2013 01:02 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 00:57 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2013 00:52 ziggurat wrote:On June 26 2013 13:17 coverpunch wrote:On June 26 2013 12:11 ziggurat wrote:On June 26 2013 06:30 mordek wrote:
Couldn't this have bigger implications for local elections? I mean "no one is doubting the legitimate victor is elected" is probably true with the large numbers for the president but I feel like local corruption and voter fraud would be the main benefactor.
You see disenfranchisement, others see improvement in legitimacy. You're both right and you should work toward a middle ground. I think with a good faith effort to get everyone who wants a voter ID a card there is no problem with checking identities. You are exactly right. There are many documented examples of the outcomes of local elections being affected by voter fraud. How many elections need to be decided by voter fraud before you would change your mind and decide voter ID is necessary? To me, it seems pretty reasonable to require ID. Other posters have said that it should be cheap and there should be advance notice so people intending to vote have time to get it, which makes perfect sense. Whether a particular jurisdiction should actually require ID -- and what kind of ID -- is up to them I guess. I'm not saying that it should be necessary in every situation. But I think it's a reasonable step when there's a reasonable apprehension of fraud. There has never been a reasonable apprehension of fraud. They drummed up fear based on tiny, tiny, tiny numbers. And it discriminates against some elderly and the homeless, who still have a right to vote. As I said before, there are many documented cases of fraud affecting the outcome of elections. I don't know how you can possibly pretend that there aren't. As a starting point you could have a look at Justice Stevens' majority opinion in Crawford v Marion County.
Voter fraud is barely notable compared with election fraud in this country at this time.
|
On June 27 2013 01:04 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 23:58 Klondikebar wrote:On June 26 2013 23:32 Derez wrote:Prop 8 is down also, but only applies to california as expected. Good news for California supporters of same-sex marriage: the supreme court won't touch a lower court finding that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
The effect of the supreme court's action – or inaction – is to restore same-sex marriage in California – without setting any precedent or making any rule that applies to marriage for other states. It ends up affecting things on a national level too because the Supreme Court basically said you aren't allowed to defend a law that doesn't affect you. It will also make other states leery of defending traditional marriage clauses. I'm curious as to what you mean by the bolded part. It seems to me like it could be misinterpreted in a really dangerous way.
Not really new. You can't sue the man across the street for stealing from your neighbor.
|
On June 27 2013 01:08 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 01:04 Shiori wrote:On June 26 2013 23:58 Klondikebar wrote:On June 26 2013 23:32 Derez wrote:Prop 8 is down also, but only applies to california as expected. Good news for California supporters of same-sex marriage: the supreme court won't touch a lower court finding that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
The effect of the supreme court's action – or inaction – is to restore same-sex marriage in California – without setting any precedent or making any rule that applies to marriage for other states. It ends up affecting things on a national level too because the Supreme Court basically said you aren't allowed to defend a law that doesn't affect you. It will also make other states leery of defending traditional marriage clauses. I'm curious as to what you mean by the bolded part. It seems to me like it could be misinterpreted in a really dangerous way. Ok, so Prop 8 was a thing in California and an already married couple basically sued the state to challenge the law. The state didn't want to defend it so they didn't even show up to court. Some private parties still wanted the law defended so they paid for some lawyers to defend the law in place of the state. The Supreme Court said that those private parties had no grounds to defend the law because they had no legal stake in the enforcement of said law. Basically straight people don't get to bitch cause gay people are gettin married.
Wouldn't it also be illegitimate for gay people to bitch about gay people getting married?
Idk, I feel like rulings based on pragmatic reasoning are kinda weak as opposed to rights-based ones.
|
On June 27 2013 01:13 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 01:04 Shiori wrote:On June 26 2013 23:58 Klondikebar wrote:On June 26 2013 23:32 Derez wrote:Prop 8 is down also, but only applies to california as expected. Good news for California supporters of same-sex marriage: the supreme court won't touch a lower court finding that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
The effect of the supreme court's action – or inaction – is to restore same-sex marriage in California – without setting any precedent or making any rule that applies to marriage for other states. It ends up affecting things on a national level too because the Supreme Court basically said you aren't allowed to defend a law that doesn't affect you. It will also make other states leery of defending traditional marriage clauses. I'm curious as to what you mean by the bolded part. It seems to me like it could be misinterpreted in a really dangerous way. Not really new. You can't sue the man across the street for stealing from your neighbor.
Yeah, but I can see people who, say, aren't parents arguing in favour of or against a new child support law.
|
On June 27 2013 01:13 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 01:08 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 01:04 Shiori wrote:On June 26 2013 23:58 Klondikebar wrote:On June 26 2013 23:32 Derez wrote:Prop 8 is down also, but only applies to california as expected. Good news for California supporters of same-sex marriage: the supreme court won't touch a lower court finding that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
The effect of the supreme court's action – or inaction – is to restore same-sex marriage in California – without setting any precedent or making any rule that applies to marriage for other states. It ends up affecting things on a national level too because the Supreme Court basically said you aren't allowed to defend a law that doesn't affect you. It will also make other states leery of defending traditional marriage clauses. I'm curious as to what you mean by the bolded part. It seems to me like it could be misinterpreted in a really dangerous way. Ok, so Prop 8 was a thing in California and an already married couple basically sued the state to challenge the law. The state didn't want to defend it so they didn't even show up to court. Some private parties still wanted the law defended so they paid for some lawyers to defend the law in place of the state. The Supreme Court said that those private parties had no grounds to defend the law because they had no legal stake in the enforcement of said law. Basically straight people don't get to bitch cause gay people are gettin married. Wouldn't it also be illegitimate for gay people to bitch about gay people getting married? Idk, I feel like rulings based on pragmatic reasoning are kinda weak as opposed to rights-based ones.
Well in this case the private parties were "traditional marriage defenders" so I assume they're all straight. But yeah, gay people bitching about gay people getting married also wouldn't fly.
|
On June 27 2013 01:15 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 01:13 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 01:04 Shiori wrote:On June 26 2013 23:58 Klondikebar wrote:On June 26 2013 23:32 Derez wrote:Prop 8 is down also, but only applies to california as expected. Good news for California supporters of same-sex marriage: the supreme court won't touch a lower court finding that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
The effect of the supreme court's action – or inaction – is to restore same-sex marriage in California – without setting any precedent or making any rule that applies to marriage for other states. It ends up affecting things on a national level too because the Supreme Court basically said you aren't allowed to defend a law that doesn't affect you. It will also make other states leery of defending traditional marriage clauses. I'm curious as to what you mean by the bolded part. It seems to me like it could be misinterpreted in a really dangerous way. Not really new. You can't sue the man across the street for stealing from your neighbor. Yeah, but I can see people who, say, aren't parents arguing in favour of or against a new child support law.
Arguing...sure. But that's different than taking civil action against or for those laws. If the parties had no children (or in no way represented people with children) then they wouldn't be able to go to court over laws that only affected people with children.
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 27 2013 01:02 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 00:57 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2013 00:52 ziggurat wrote:On June 26 2013 13:17 coverpunch wrote:On June 26 2013 12:11 ziggurat wrote:On June 26 2013 06:30 mordek wrote:
Couldn't this have bigger implications for local elections? I mean "no one is doubting the legitimate victor is elected" is probably true with the large numbers for the president but I feel like local corruption and voter fraud would be the main benefactor.
You see disenfranchisement, others see improvement in legitimacy. You're both right and you should work toward a middle ground. I think with a good faith effort to get everyone who wants a voter ID a card there is no problem with checking identities. You are exactly right. There are many documented examples of the outcomes of local elections being affected by voter fraud. How many elections need to be decided by voter fraud before you would change your mind and decide voter ID is necessary? To me, it seems pretty reasonable to require ID. Other posters have said that it should be cheap and there should be advance notice so people intending to vote have time to get it, which makes perfect sense. Whether a particular jurisdiction should actually require ID -- and what kind of ID -- is up to them I guess. I'm not saying that it should be necessary in every situation. But I think it's a reasonable step when there's a reasonable apprehension of fraud. There has never been a reasonable apprehension of fraud. They drummed up fear based on tiny, tiny, tiny numbers. And it discriminates against some elderly and the homeless, who still have a right to vote. As I said before, there are many documented cases of fraud affecting the outcome of elections. I don't know how you can possibly pretend that there aren't. As a starting point you could have a look at Justice Stevens' majority opinion in Crawford v Marion County.
The opinion that says, "The record (that the law SEA 483) contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history"? And the case he cites, where voter fraud occurred in a 2003 mayoral election, actually occurred through absentee ballots, which the law doesn't address. Voter IDs would have made zero impact on the example he used.
Plus the crux of the issue in Indiana is/was the terrible record keeping. That's on election boards more than the voters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
614
EPT
