Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

logic that someone doesn't like

As an instructor with no formal legal training it still amazes me how often people forget that when they read The Great Gatsby or Macbeth in high school nobody agreed on interpretations.

I'm getting tired of waiting to marry Alfred in all these states

I'm claiming him in MS, bud.

Gonna marry him in WA very soon.

has polygamy been OK'd by the Supreme Court

only in OK

i've set up a bevmo gift registry

Toobin doesn't think SC will even take this up, given the ruling's California-specific nature. kinda clever of the judges to rule this way, if their intention was to avoid a SC showdown

Gonna marry him in WA very soon.

I hope so but I bet it won't be too hard to find 120,577 assholes who want put it to a vote and I'm kind of scared how that will turn out.

Eugene Volokh has some thoughts. Worth reading.

i'm gonna quote this one bit at length:

a. First, note that this debate is just about the label “marriage,” and thus about the message that the label sends. The court concluded that Prop. 8 was unconstitutional because this symbolism mattered, and mattered a lot — the message is injurious to same-sex couples’ (and individuals’) dignity, and may lead to more societal discrimination against gays and lesbians. But if this symbolism of “disapproval of … [same-sex] relationships” (Op. 77) is so significant, then it may be plausibly believed to subtly push some people away from same-sex relationships to opposite-sex relationships. To so conclude, you don’t need to believe that gays and lesbians, in the sense of people who are solely attracted to people of the same sex, can be “cured” in the sense of being turned straight. You only need to focus on the substantial number of bisexuals, and assume that their behavior can be affected, in some instances and for some people, by the message of “disapproval of …. [same-sex] relationships.”

This is relevant because it bears on how the Ninth Circuit responded to the arguments that the desire to have a greater fraction of children be raised by opposite-sex biological parent couples forms a rational basis for the law:

We need not decide whether there is any merit to the sociological premise of [the Prop. 8 backers’] first argument — that families headed by two biological parents are the best environments in which to raise children — because even if [the backers] are correct, Proposition 8 had absolutely no effect on the ability of same-sex couples to become parents or the manner in which children are raised in California” (pp. 56-57) is beside the point, when it comes to the rational basis test.

But family formation is not just driven on who has the legal “ability” to become parents. It is also driven by social attitudes. It is not irrational to conclude that, if the refusal to recognize same-sex marriage has powerful symbolic effect — which is what the Ninth Circuit argued in striking down this refusal — it may likewise have a powerful symbolic effect when it comes to people’s choices about whom to parent with. As it happens, I’m quite skeptical that this effect will be substantial enough to make a difference, and I on balance think that recognizing full same-sex marriage is good policy. But under the rational basis test that the Ninth Circuit is purporting to apply, a court must uphold a law so long as it rests on a plausible view of the facts, regardless of whether the judges agree with the lawmakers on those facts.

this is such crap!

It is not irrational to conclude that, if the refusal to recognize same-sex marriage has powerful symbolic effect — which is what the Ninth Circuit argued in striking down this refusal — it may likewise have a powerful symbolic effect when it comes to people’s choices about whom to parent with.

I don't agree. One of the comments called him out on this.

i'm not buying volokh's threading the needle here on bisexuals choices, like at all

a. gay marriage opponents say their effort is really about kids because kids turn out best when coming from a married straight couple

b. the ninth circuit says that's bogus, opposing gay marriage has no effect at all on how kids are raised or cared for, so the effect is just discrimination and animus

c. volokh says well, of (x) number of bisexuals, (x-y) number of them could opt for a straight marriage instead of a gay relationship, so the law could have the effect of making more "straight" couples. so if you buy the two straight married parents = better kids argument, then a gay marriage ban will have some (tiny) good social effect.

gaming out the behavior of bi people, i mean, this is just silly

xp

i love hearing gay people fume about bisexuals fyi, so if anyone wants to do that i'm all ears

I only fume at bi's when they're not fuming in my direction.

i'd love to have a supreme court case rest on an appraisal of LUGs and married craigslist cruisers tho

I read somewhere that this was written expressly for Kennedy

and Kennedy's response?

gaming out the behavior of bi people, i mean, this is just silly

^^^^

there's no scientific evidence for this "two straight parents are better than two gay parents" angle, it should be aggressively contested whenever anyone suggests such nonsense

Conversely, even if it could be shown, it would most likely be because of the ambient bigotry of society.

In a country where every study showing that spanking has a deleterious effect on child development is met by fundamentalist cries that they're 'anti-Christian' (arising from a misunderstanding/mistranslation of Proverbs 13:24), I think this anti-homosexual (as opposed to the total leniency for pork and shellfish eaters, etc...) political hysteria needs to be ridiculed and also shown to be the real negation of Christ.

Dying at this "substantial number of easily swayed to hetero-relationship bisexuals" concept.

Because I didn't go to law school I usually strain to figure out how "compelling interest" and "strict scrutiny" are relevant in cases like this.

pork-eaters make horrible parents fyi

^^^

Why I have avoided procreating, tbh

I also wear a cotton/cashmere blend sweater

infidel I cast thee out

I think scrutiny applies wrt how insane Prop 8 needs to be in order to be unconstitutional.

i.e. If something discriminates on sex, it needs to have a GOOD reason to not get struck down. If something makes some other types of distinctions, it only needs to be plausible to not get struck down?

But I'm not an American law student so :/

long, interesting salon article on maggie gallagher

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/08/the_making_of_gay_marriages_top_foe/singleton/

this particular detail popped out at me:

Her husband is a “lapsed Hindu,” she says, and she makes it sound as if her two sons do not think of themselves as Catholic. Patrick, now 31, a New York University graduate and aspiring musical-theater librettist, would not be interviewed.

that's a rough read

He occasionally baby-sat for Patrick, until one day, after staying with his son while she attended a conference, he decided he wanted out. “He called me up the next day, or the next, and said that he couldn’t do it anymore, and that he didn’t really want to have anything to do with either of us,” Gallagher says. “And that was it.”

The father remembers it differently. When I ask if he and the woman he got pregnant in college were indeed a couple, he thinks for a moment, then says, “Sort of.”

make way for alfred, WA!

http://www.towleroad.com/2012/02/breaking-washington-state-passes-marriage-equality-after-55-43-house-vote.html

Interesting piece of politicking to have had the bill introduced by the Gov in the first place.

Gregoire's a lame duck and there aren't really any political ramifications at this point for pushing this, since this is her last session in office.

I hope so but I bet it won't be too hard to find 120,577 assholes who want put it to a vote and I'm kind of scared how that will turn out.

― joygoat, Tuesday, February 7, 2012 8:09 PM Bookmark Flag

Just because there are 120,577 assholes out there doesn't mean it'll go down in referendum. I'm feeling pretty positive this can pass a vote of the people.

I read in some MSM story in the wake of the Prop 8 ruling a quote of a lesbian with a long-term partner who said "It validates our relationship."

I can understand that sociologically, financially, etc. Not emotionally or intellectually. It VALIDATES you?

Many couples are afraid of admitting to what they consider mercenary motives when interviewed (happened to friends who spoke to a reporter in 2008 about marriage).

http://nplusonemag.com/california-love-story

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTJuoM_1OLY

one of my college buddies is a WA state senator; this is his speech about why he, as a Christian, felt so strongly about supporting the bill

(also he's the person who first played Bikini Kill for me, lol)

one of my college buddies is a WA state senator

Christ, Harvard really does run everything.

he wrote our a capella group a fun arrangement of "Bear Necessities"!

Mareen Walsh (R-Walla Walla)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UiGmgqW6ES8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiGmgqW6ES8

wow that was moving, you have very cool friends

just watched the walsh and hansen youtubes from the WA debate. overcome, and so proud of my state.

christie vetoed the NJ bill but MD house just passed theirs:

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/02/17/428460/maryland-house-of-delegates-passes-marriage-equality-bill/

And Maryland's senate follows suit!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/maryland-politics/post/same-sex-marriage-bill-approved-by-maryland-senate/2012/02/23/gIQAupqSWR_blog.html?hpid=z1

The story of Lawrence v Texas.

The legal opportunity depended, however, upon persuading the defendants to go along with an unusual strategy. High-powered lawyers would represent Lawrence and Garner, as long as they agreed to stop saying they weren’t guilty and instead entered a “no contest” plea. By doing so, the two were promised relative personal privacy, and given a chance to become a part of gay-civil-rights history. The cause was greater than the facts themselves. Lawrence and Garner understood that they were being asked to keep the dirty secret that there was no dirty secret.

That’s the punch line: the case that affirmed the right of gay couples to have consensual sex in private spaces seems to have involved two men who were neither a couple nor having sex. In order to appeal to the conservative Justices on the high court, the story of a booze-soaked quarrel was repackaged as a love story. Nobody had to know that the gay-rights case of the century was actually about three or four men getting drunk in front of a television in a Harris County apartment decorated with bad James Dean erotica.

wow