Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

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.

There is some reason to wonder whether the Chief might be angling for a compromise in which the states win the first question (i.e., they do not have to permit same-sex marriages to be performed in their states) but lose the second (i.e., they would have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states). It's very hard to read the Chief, but he did ask questions in the second argument expressing some skepticism over the fact that states don't, in fact, deny recognition to any marriage that does not conform with state law, except same-sex marriages. And, as I mentioned, Justice Scalia asked questions suggesting he might think there was a reason based in the text of Article 4 that would justify ruling for the couples on recognition but not the right to marry. So one could imagine a potential compromise that would effectively allow same sex couples to get married in states that allow it, have their marriages recognized elsewhere, but not have the Court issue a decision that has broad implications for other kinds of sexual orientation discrimination.

Chief Justice Roberts: "Let's keep same sex marriage safe, legal and rare!"

i'm unclear, does that mean i get to marry lindsay lohan

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

super reassuring to hear the justices asking all the same idiotic questions you get in freshman philosophy courses

then again i have heard the same ones from idiotic philosophers

its looking like a big yes in Ireland, so uh come to Ireland to get gay married if u like I guess

(Actual welcome will be less equivocal)

yeah we've only started on the tourism literature an hour ago it needs work granted

@AlbertBrooks
Congratulations to Ireland. Or as I like to call it Fire Ireland.

lol

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/11/us-usa-gaymarriage-north-carolina-idUSKBN0OR1YX20150611

legislature overruled the governor to allow opt-outs for officials

Annnd that's it.

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/614433371310194688

The opinion, written by Kennedy. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

the IRONY of this coming a day after jennicet gutierrez getting shouted down

i guess that's that though, homophobia solved

Good timing. That's impressive showmanship.

xp people who attack their allies deserve to get shouted down

"allies"

i don't have time to argue but jennicet was prob the only person in that room who shouldn't have shut the fuck up