Reading his obituary reminds me that without Lawrence v. Texas we probably wouldn't be talking about trying to repeal DOMA, the end of DADT, etc. Anybody else remember the whole "gay people are all just un-convicted criminals" argument?
There's still a long way to go, but damn, we've come a long way even in the past decade.
The question is since Gregoire won't be running for the next election, who will take the seat? We know that conservative and Attorney General Rob McKenna is running and I believe he's against gay marriage. It wouldn't surprise me if he ran on a platform to repeal or overturn this in someway if he was elected.
This is why I'll more than likely be supporting Jay Inslee.
True, it is also possible that an anti-gay marriage group will start up a referendum to get it removed, but hopefully it will stick. I think, based on history, we will continue to support Democrats for governor, but the last couple elections have been pretty disappointing overall.
Oh look, Prop 8 is unconstitutional based on the same points we've been making again and again. Cool, now to see if the Supreme Court takes cert. and agrees.
Oh look, Prop 8 is unconstitutional based on the same points we've been making again and again. Cool, now to see if the Supreme Court takes cert. and agrees.
If they don't take cert. doesn't that mean they agree by default? I'd rather have it that way, I think.
If they don't take cert. doesn't that mean they agree by default? I'd rather have it that way, I think.
Nope. It can mean a lot of things, but the current decision is ONLY binding on the 9th Circuit. This is very important, as it means any state outside that Circuit could also attempt a referendum on gay marriage, and they would have to go through the entire process all over again with their own Circuit.
The only way you get an opinion that is binding on the entire country is if the Supreme Court takes cert and makes a ruling.
Even if the Supreme Court decided to hear this case and upheld the decision, the ruling would probably be very narrow and specific to California where same-sex residents were granted the right to marry, and then it was taken away from them. That is a key distinction that any Supreme Court ruling would undoubtedly focus on.
You know, people keep talking about this "destroying traditional marriage." Is that such a bad thing? I have decided I want traditional marriage as a institution to be destroyed eventually. I think it is broken.
You know, people keep talking about this "destroying traditional marriage." Is that such a bad thing? I have decided I want traditional marriage as a institution to be destroyed eventually. I think it is broken.
You know, people keep talking about this "destroying traditional marriage." Is that such a bad thing? I have decided I want traditional marriage as a institution to be destroyed eventually. I think it is broken.
One short look at history will show you that there is no such thing as traditional marriage, and that there has always been a constant "destruction" of what people in any given time period considered traditional marriage to be.
You know, people keep talking about this "destroying traditional marriage." Is that such a bad thing? I have decided I want traditional marriage as a institution to be destroyed eventually. I think it is broken.
One short look at history will show you that there is no such thing as traditional marriage, and that there has always been a constant "destruction" of what people in any given time period considered traditional marriage to be.
Liberal. Jesus made the world 6,000 years ago while riding a magic dinosaur and he said ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN, and ONE WOMAN, and MAYBE ANOTHER WOMAN.
I have not read the opinion or the dissent, but if I had to guess, my feeling is that the dissent was not based on religion so much as it was based on jurisdiction. Historically, issues of family and marriage law have always rightfully been the domain of the individual states. One reason Las Vegas has long been such a popular wedding destination is that there is no waiting period between when you apply for the marriage license and when you're able to get married; and NV does not require a blood test. Other states require waiting periods or assorted medical checkups and whatnot. The rules and requirements are up to the individual state. Not only is this the way things have always been, it's the way the Constitution sets things up to be. So California had a voter initiative to legalize gay marriage, and it failed. The trump card - let the people decide - didn't go the way advocates thought it would. So they appealed to the federal courts. This is not a place the federal courts have ever had jurisdiction. This is not a federal issue, it's a state issue. So a dissent based on the fact that "this is a California problem, not a 9th Circuit problem" is 100% valid (and correct, IMNSHO.)
There is no "fraud" or "failure" there, on the contrary, I find it deeply troubling that the 9th Circuit fails to recognize that this is an internal matter to California, and that final say should rightfully rest either with the voters or with the California Supreme Court, both of whom had ruled against Prop 8.
There is no "fraud" or "failure" there, on the contrary, I find it deeply troubling that the 9th Circuit fails to recognize that this is an internal matter to California, and that final say should rightfully rest either with the voters or with the California Supreme Court, both of whom had ruled against Prop 8.
The problem with this logic is that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution states that the Constitution and Federal Laws in general take precedence over all state laws and state courts need to take that inter consideration when issuing their rulings.
The difference is that the US Appeals Court said this ballot initiative violated the 14th Amendment because it treated gay and straight couples differently, whereas the other marriage regulations you mentioned do not as they treated every one equally.
Thoughts: This is a civil rights issue. States don't get to decide whether everyone gets equal protection of the law. Our national Constitution says everyone gets it. Period.
The marriage/family law characterization is a smokescreen. That's not the real issue here. The issue here is whether we can categorically deny a group of people the same rights we grant to other people based on sex/gender.
Historically, issues of family and marriage law have always rightfully been the domain of the individual states.
Fuck that noise. I take issue with this being the "right" way to do it. Family and marriage law are one thing, and states can administer them however they like, but they cannot and should not be able to in doing so infringe upon the basic rights of people.
The details of marriage can be up to the state. But the right of any two people to enter into it willingly is a federal issue, nay a civil rights issue.
Replace all reference to marriage here with race and segregation, and replace California with "the south." The argument was a poor one in the past, and is a poor one now.
Historically, issues of family and marriage law have always rightfully been the domain of the individual states.
Fuck that noise. I take issue with this being the "right" way to do it. Family and marriage law are one thing, and states can administer them however they like, but they cannot and should not be able to in doing so infringe upon the basic rights of people.
The details of marriage can be up to the state. But the right of any two people to enter into it willingly is a federal issue, nay a civil rights issue.
Exactly -- the requirements to have a blood test, a waiting period after getting a marriage license, and so on are perfectly okay to handle at the state level because they do not treat any two arbitrary people wishing to get married differently. If both gay and straight couples require a 30 day waiting period after a marriage license is issued, for example, that's cool. However, the problem is when you deny gay couples from getting a marriage license because they are gay.
Comments
Reading his obituary reminds me that without Lawrence v. Texas we probably wouldn't be talking about trying to repeal DOMA, the end of DADT, etc. Anybody else remember the whole "gay people are all just un-convicted criminals" argument?
There's still a long way to go, but damn, we've come a long way even in the past decade.
This is why I'll more than likely be supporting Jay Inslee.
And yay for Washington!
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/02/07/146526143/prop-8?sc=fb&cc=fp
Cons of recognizing same-sex marriage: ???
The only way you get an opinion that is binding on the entire country is if the Supreme Court takes cert and makes a ruling.
The difference is that the US Appeals Court said this ballot initiative violated the 14th Amendment because it treated gay and straight couples differently, whereas the other marriage regulations you mentioned do not as they treated every one equally.
The marriage/family law characterization is a smokescreen. That's not the real issue here. The issue here is whether we can categorically deny a group of people the same rights we grant to other people based on sex/gender.
The details of marriage can be up to the state. But the right of any two people to enter into it willingly is a federal issue, nay a civil rights issue.
Replace all reference to marriage here with race and segregation, and replace California with "the south." The argument was a poor one in the past, and is a poor one now.