Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

http://www.metroweekly.com/2015/01/federal-judge-strikes-down-alabama-same-sex-marriage-ban/

ALABAMA

i feel like alabama is the jenga piece that makes the whole fucker go over; like how can you argue alabama is ready for this but the rest of the country is too conservative minded to handle the transition

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) got down to the nitty-gritty in the Senate Judiciary confirmation hearings for Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch, asking Eric Holder’s potential replacement to explicate the constitutional difference between gay marriage and polygamy. “What’s the legal difference between a ban on same-sex marriage being unconstitutional but a ban on polygamy being constitutional? Could you try to articulate how one could be banned under the constitution and the other not?” “Well, senator, I have not been involved in the argument or analysis of the cases that have gone before the Supreme Court,” Lynch replied. “And I’m not comfortable undertaking legal analysis without having had the ability to undertake a review of the relevant facts and the precedent there. So I certainly would not be able to provide you with that analysis at this point in time, but I look forward to continuing the discussions with you.”

my short answer (not a legal scholar: disclaimer) has always been that polygamy requires a legal framework that does not exist in regards to spousal rights, inheritance, etc. And then I figure there would be a historical argument to be made that polygamous marriages have been to enforce unbalanced power relationships between but I dunno that seems shakier.

My answer is "any group of consenting adults should be able to do with each other what they will"; I couldn't possibly care less if polygamy was legalized.

I absolutely care from the standpoint of coercive relationships involving adults and minors but if a bunch of 30-year-olds want to start a group-spouse commune, why should I care?

DJP otm

yeah that's p much how I feel too

but from a legal standpoint it seems like polygamy requires a bunch of laws/regulations that two-person marriage does not. Changing who the two people are in a two-person marriage doesn't really impact the definition of what marriage is from a legal standpoint. But having three people in a marriage ... well who has what rights in the case of a divorce, for example? I'm not saying this is an insurmountable problem, just that the law doesn't currently deal with the question.

DJP, I need an answer soon.

Agree that polygamous unions would require a bunch of new legal framework, but it's just a matter of time. (In my own lifetime? Maybe. Maybe not.)

A sound legal framework that protects the interests of all the individuals involved (including offspring) is urgent & key for any form of marriage.

I kinda think it'll be a more uphill battle given that challenge tbh

also not a battle I particularly give a shit about

but they're an aggrieved, besieged minority

are they?

are we talking about mormons here

a subset of Mormons, plus a smattering of bigamists

I think mainstream Mormons are pretty much past this part of their history. Most polygamous relationships now are the sorts of people who think Twilight is less brilliant literature and more a life direction.

see I don't think that particular subset of Mormons and bigamists would be into the legal framework that would likely develop - ie, no child marriages, rights for divorcees, etc.

xp

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5213/5443056886_fc75eb6199_z.jpg

Well that was a lot of last minute weirdness but anyway, Alabama!

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/look_couples_line_up_to_marry_in_alabama

sup

https://twitter.com/bwdaly/status/564824998331027456

Gay Divorce from Alfred: Your Thoughts

Easier said than done.

those guys are still mad racist tho right

The Court today denied Alabama’s request to stay a federal judge’s ruling striking down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. The state had asked the Court to delay the implementation of that ruling until after the Court rules on the pending challenges to similar bans in Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and Michigan. Because the Alabama ruling is scheduled to go into effect today, the Court’s order effectively cleared the way for same-sex marriages to go forward in Alabama.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the denial of the stay, in a three-page opinion that was joined by Justice Antonin Scalia. Thomas argued that, “[w]hen courts declare state laws unconstitutional and enjoin state officials from enforcing them,” the Court’s “ordinary practice is to suspend those injunctions from taking effect pending appellate review.” Noting that the Court had “granted a stay in similar circumstances a little over a year ago,” Thomas suggested that Alabama’s request “should have been treated no differently.” Moreover, Thomas observed, the Court’s failure to grant a stay “may well be seen as a signal of the Court’s intended resolution” of the same-sex marriage question. “This,” he complained, “is not the proper way to discharge our Article III responsibilities. And, it is indecorous for this Court to pretend that it is.”

Huckabee, the once allegedly 'reasonable' evangelical dipshit

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/mike-huckabee-gay-marriage-lies-reminiscent-nazi-germany

Over the weekend, Mike Huckabee hosted an event in Little Rock called “America from Ordinary to Extraordinary”

o shit is huck denying american exceptionalism

Barack Obama was "bullshitting" his opposition to gay marriage and support for civil unions during his 2008 presidential campaign, according to a new book authored by former senior White House adviser David Axelrod.

Time magazine reported Tuesday that the longtime Obama confidant said in his new book, "Believer: My Forty Years in Politics," that he counseled then-senator Obama to soften his position on gay marriage for political reasons.

"Opposition to gay marriage was particularly strong in the black church, and as he ran for higher office, he grudgingly accepted the counsel of more pragmatic folks like me, and modified his position to support civil unions rather than marriage, which he would term a ‘sacred union,’” Axelrod wrote, as quoted by Time.

Obama had stated his support for legalizing gay marriage on a 1996 questionnaire while running for the Illinois state Senate. But he said repeatedly on the campaign trail in 2008 that he believed marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Publicly stating opposition to gay marriage took its toll on Obama, who Axelrod wrote "routinely stumbled over the question when it came up in debates or interviews."

"I’m just not very good at bullshitting," Obama told Axelrod after one of those events, as quoted by Time.

Bullshit.

"I’m just not very good at bullshitting," Obama told Axelrod

I am fairly certain that when Obama said that he truly believed it. This highlights the most U&K skill of the really good bullshitter.

Today's the day at SCOTUS. Live blog here:

http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_Obergefell_v_Hodges

I'll start choosing proposals based on responses.

I would give you the moon and the stars but that would be a lie.

I would prefer a glass of wine and Manchego cheese.

I'll give you my leftover Luna bars and a swift annulment.

My cousin just used the opportunity of today's arguments to come out as bisexual. Proud of her, especially in this family. She's going to get some friction. Not from her parents, who will both be supportive, but from others in my family, for whom the phrase "bigoted rednecks" would be far too generous.

When the petitioners (and Justice Sotomayor) pointed out that gays and lesbians had been treated quite poorly in some of those societies, Justice Alito pointed out that Plato had written approvingly of homosexual relations, even thought the Greeks limited marriage to heterosexual couples.

One seemingly striking moment came when Justice Ginsburg spoke of how it was recent changes to the institution of marriage that made it appropriate for gay and lesbian couples -- in particular, it becoming an egalitarian institution rather than one dominated by the male partners who determined where and how the couple would live

by Eric Citron 10:39 AM

After Eric left the lounge, there was one interesting exchange between Justice Scalia and two of his more liberal colleagues. Scalia asked whether, if petitioners win, a minister who objects to same sex marriages could refuse to perform a civil same-sex wedding. Bonauto answered yes. Scalia pressed the point though, arguing that he could not understand how, a state could permit somebody to hold a license to marry people if that person would not exercise the power consistently with the Constitution. After a little more back-and-forth, Justice Kagan reminded the Court that many rabbis refuse to perform weddings between Jews and gentiles, even though there has long been a prohibition against religious discrimination. Justice Breyer then chimed in and quoted the First Amendment. Ultimately, Justice Scalia seemed satisfied that a minister could refuse to perform those weddings.

was about to post that

"Justice Thomas said nothing."

Like, surely Scalia is keenly aware that there are all kinds of people Catholic churches will refuse to marry, right?

to be fair, often justices ask questions to clarify the ground on which they want to erect their opinions (and to signal to their political bases too).

yeah I mean, I'm pretty certain that the technology questions reflect honest bafflement/misunderstanding but this clearly seems like grist for either:

a) building a platform for a dissenting opinions; or
b) building a defense for a surprise concurring opinion

especially so given the near fait accompli nature of the exercise

SCOTUS shocks nation by issuing unanimous opinion written by Clarence Thomas

I would lol so hard

Verrilli began his #SCOTUS argument with a protester's shouts that #SSM supporters can "burn in hell" still echoing in the marble hallway.

Would've been better if he'd sang Twisted Sister's "Burn In Hell."

Would've been even better if it was actually Dee Snider.