POZ Community Forums
Off Topic Forums => Off Topic Forum => Topic started by: mitch777 on November 21, 2013, 06:20:43 pm
-
So, now that Hawaii and Illinois have joined the ranks accepting gay marriage who's next?
Ultimately I think the house of cards will fall with a Supreme Court ruling but wondered what you all thought about which states might come next in the mean time.
-
Its a related issue . The sates that are making it hard for the military same sex couples to get their benefits by requiring them to go to a federal facility are unwittingly making the case for the courts to make same sex marriage a federal issue or remedy instead of the sates rights argument .
If the states keep skirting federal law and not recognizing all legal marriages across state lines then there is no other way other than the supreme court to do what the sates refuse and that's rule in favor for full civil rights for gays , lesbians and transgendered citizens .
-
Agreed.^ So no guess on state #17 in the mean time?
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2013/11/which_states_allow_gay_marriage_mapped.html
My guess would be Oregon or New Mexico?
-
Agreed.^ So no guess on state #17 in the mean time?
It wont be Alabama . What state do you think is next ?
-
It wont be Alabama . What state do you think is next ?
see edit of last post. :) Or maybe Saskatchewan. That's a state right? :)
-
Pennsylvania is the on state in the northeast that hasn't passed marriage equality -- mostly because only half of the state is culturally "northeast" -- the central and western parts are more Mid-West culturally. But we also have the most at-risk governor for 2014 elections and his approval numbed are the lowest of any governor, so he will definitely lose to a Democrat. Then the problem is that the PA legislature (General Assembly) has 253 members making it the largest state legislature other than New Hampshire (which doesn't really count because the state's population is smaller than the city I live in). So our legislature is automatically slanted towards rural districts, hence why we're behind our neighbors.
My guess would be for Oregon to be next, maybe Nevada. Pennsylvania's will happen due to some court decision so it's just a matter of having a strong case brought at some point.
-
I also vote for Oregon next.
What do you vote for to be the first red state to swing?
-
I also vote for Oregon next.
What do you vote for to be the first red state to swing?
*court ordered*
-
Pennsylvania is the on state in the northeast that hasn't passed marriage equality -- mostly because only half of the state is culturally "northeast" -- the central and western parts are more Mid-West culturally. But we also have the most at-risk governor for 2014 elections and his approval numbed are the lowest of any governor, so he will definitely lose to a Democrat. Then the problem is that the PA legislature (General Assembly) has 253 members making it the largest state legislature other than New Hampshire (which doesn't really count because the state's population is smaller than the city I live in). So our legislature is automatically slanted towards rural districts, hence why we're behind our neighbors.
My guess would be for Oregon to be next, maybe Nevada. Pennsylvania's will happen due to some court decision so it's just a matter of having a strong case brought at some point.
That's my take on PA. I get the feeling several states are in a similar boat.
-
Oregon is a good bet. But, we are running out of more progressive states. So, that means a SCOTUS decision. I just can't imagine having some states with it and others not doing it for 20, 30, 50, and never years.
I am saddened Indiana repubs are trying to get the anti-gay wagon started again. They are again proposing a ban. The city council of New Albany, IN (across the river from us) passed a resolution tonight, calling for the ban to be stopped. Purdue University has also called for it to be stopped. I hope more cities let their voices be known. They know they need a more progressive state (at least on this issue) to attract top people. If you're married in CA or NY, who would want to move to Indiana or other states where their marriage wouldn't mean anything. More and more gay couples have kids. They would fear moving there would leave their kids unprotected.
-
I read an article this week that used statistics to show left leaning ares where attracting like minded newcomers from right wing states and savers. The author saw this as further polarization off the USA . I will continue to search for it , if you know such an article please post it .
-
Oregon is probably a good choice BUT
I think New Mexico will be next with the courts stepping in due to six counties issuing marriage license to same sex couples.
I predict 25 states will have legalized same sex marriage either through the courts or through state legislature by 2018
Or much sooner if the 2014 midterm elections help better people get in.
Favoriting this thread so I can either come back and stick my foot in my mouth 4 years from now or be so happy because everyone can experience the freedom of equality.
EDITED: Spelling
-
It won't be Texas. I'd have to research to find links, but they're defying federal law regarding the entire issue. Ohio, being a bluish/red state will probably be soon,
-
What do you vote for to be the first red state to swing?
All of them -- due to a SCOTUS ruling.
None of them will rescind their Constitutional Amendments because those folks in favor (or more likely for many, don't care) about same-sex marriage don't have the numbers of passionate folks to come out and vote. Those against it are more likely to vote.
M
-
fyi, Pennsylvania was never one of those states that past an anti-equality constitutional amendment years ago. However they did legislate against it. Also, this just happened this past Monday (http://equalityontrial.com/2013/11/18/pennsylvania-judge-rules-marriage-equality-trial-can-proceed/). And remember, PA was one of the few states with a Republican senator (Toomey) that actually supported EDNA several weeks ago.
So it will either be a court case, or passage of House bill 1647 to repeal PA's defense of marriage act (again, it was not an amendment). You have to remember how many years it took for any bipartisan action on this issue in New York state. The only reason it eventually passed was due to business leaders pressuring a small amount of Republican lawmakers in Albany, threatening not to fund their reelections and asserting that it was bad for business not to pass it (which is true).
So what is needed is similar corporate (local) business pressure in PA, from the likes of (liberal) Comcast CEO Brian Roberts and others in the Philadelphia region, as well as Pittsburgh. Roberts just held a huge fundraiser at his home in Philly just a couple of weeks ago, hosted him over the summer on Martha's Vineyard, and frequently golfs with him. Realistically I can see PA acting on this by 2016.
-
All of them -- due to a SCOTUS ruling.
None of them will rescind their Constitutional Amendments because those folks in favor (or more likely for many, don't care) about same-sex marriage don't have the numbers of passionate folks to come out and vote. Those against it are more likely to vote.
M
Maybe, Probably, but I think one or two will do it before hand (I hope). I think Arizona or Colorado or Nevada has it in them. They are western red and not southern red and there is a libertarian slant there.
When marriage equality passed here in Washington, many of the pro gay marriage commercials on tv were from republicans speaking how it's actually a Republican issue to support it. Granted that may not fly in a lot of places.
My partner and I got married this year. While we don't have any plans on moving I would like to be able to have the option odd livingin more than just 16 states.
-
I am surprised Nevada has not passed the bill yet . But they did get their
Pot legalized :)
I think a state like Oregon will be next .
Weasel
-
I am surprised Nevada has not passed the bill yet . But they did get their
Pot legalized :)
I think a state like Oregon will be next .
Weasel
Pot is still illegal in Nevada ( Colorado and Washington legalized it).
I'm surprised Nevada hasn't legalized marriage considering how much of their economy is based on tourism and people going to Vegas to get married. You would think the economics of it would have persuaded then by now. Especially considering how much$ you spend having a wedding.
-
Speaking of Republican states. Six states have refused to follow federal law and provide benefits to same sex spouses in the National Guard
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/us/texas-and-5-other-states-resist-processing-benefits-for-gay-couples.html?_r=0
One state, Oklahoma has gone so far as dropping ALL benefits for National Guard spouses (straight or gay) so they don't have to provide benefits for the gays.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/11/19/2970531/oklahoma-national-guard/
F'ing Bigots
-
Texas=LOL
-
Its a related issue . The sates that are making it hard for the military same sex couples to get their benefits by requiring them to go to a federal facility are unwittingly making the case for the courts to make same sex marriage a federal issue or remedy instead of the sates rights argument .
If the states keep skirting federal law and not recognizing all legal marriages across state lines then there is no other way other than the supreme court to do what the sates refuse and that's rule in favor for full civil rights for gays , lesbians and transgendered citizens .
You are of course referring to Oklahoma where our horrid governor eliminated ALL military spouse benefits just so she could discriminate against same-sex spouses. (Oh, just noticed that Bug mentioned Oklahoma as well.)
I hope you're right, and a federal remedy becomes law because in this ass-backward, bigoted part of the country a federal ruling is absolutely necessary for same-sex marriage to be recognized (I still hear the N-word regularly).
-
While Texas and Oklahoma and the remain states of the 34 continue to allow their prejudice to run the show, the states that do allow marriage equality are seeing dollar signs.
http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2022357105_gaymarriagebusinessxml.html
-
Oregon teen uses Bar Mitzvah speech to support marriage equality, by discussing what "traditional marriage" meant in the Torah.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4363083
-
Oregon teen uses Bar Mitzvah speech to support marriage equality, by discussing what "traditional marriage" meant in the Torah.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4363083
Great kid! C'mon Oregon, you can do it!
-
Number 17 is New Mexico. Today's ruling by the NM Supreme Court! :)
-
Oregon is probably a good choice BUT
I think New Mexico will be next with the courts stepping in due to six counties issuing marriage license to same sex couples.
I predict 25 states will have legalized same sex marriage either through the courts or through state legislature by 2018
Or much sooner if the 2014 midterm elections help better people get in.
Favoriting this thread so I can either come back and stick my foot in my mouth 4 years from now or be so happy because everyone can experience the freedom of equality.
EDITED: Spelling
Macmoral16 wins the pool.
Ok who's next? Ohio? Oregon? Arizona? Colorado? Florida? Mississippi!
-
Macmoral16 wins the pool.
Ok who's next? Ohio? Oregon? Arizona? Colorado? Florida? Mississippi!
LOL! I say Mississippi.
The only other likely state is Oregon, right? I'm trying to think in my head which states could do this soon. I could possibly see Michigan. I only say that due to Facebook data of the greatest number of profile changes to the red equality logo. Michigan was pretty hot. I realize that doesn't necessarily equate to getting marriage equality. But, I could see Michigan making a change maybe in 5 years. Those younger folks will be voting. I think most (if not all) state supreme courts are posts for life, no? Well, that will take longer to get governors to appoint judges, who do view this as the equal rights issue it is.
So, I am left wondering when and if the U.S. Supreme Court will go broad. We know many states would take another generation-- even 3 or 4 more generations in some.
-
Macmoral16 wins the pool.
Ok who's next? Ohio? Oregon? Arizona? Colorado? Florida? Mississippi!
Oregon.
btw bugs, I think I deserve at least an honorable mention. lol.
-
Oregon.
btw bugs, I think I deserve at least an honorable mention. lol.
I'm sorry, I should have scrolled up more.
If we look at the 2012 electoral map. The blue's left would be:Nevada, Oregon, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Florida (did I miss any?).
It's really a toss up as to who's next with Oregon maybe with the advantage.
(http://freedomslighthouse.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/2012electoralmapresultsfinal110812.jpg)
See the comparison between the electoral map and the states that permit the gays to get hitched? Quite striking really. I think it speaks volumes as to the social divide in this country. Really, two countries.
-
Well, the successful lawyers from the Prop 8 case have joined a challenge here in Virginia.... Would be very fitting if a VA case was the one the SCOTUS used to overturn all the same-sex marriage bans -- just like VA vs. Loving case did for the interracial bans.
However -- that would likely take a couple years, so let's hope something quicker happens.
Mike
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/19/us-usa-gaymarriage-newmexico-idUSBRE9BI11E20131219
YAY!!!
now if i can get my VA ebenefits, and bob married me, he be set for life even after I was long DEAD :D
EDITED TO ADD: 17 down & 34 to go......get me to the church on time 8)
DEN
HUGS
-
That's ok bugs. Just kidding.
I hardly consider some of those states "blue", more purple, so I would be quick to eliminate Florida, Virginia, and Ohio. Not really knowing the inner politics of the remainder too well I would still go with Oregon.
After Oregon and maybe a few more, my guess is that a case will be brought up to the Supreme Court to bring marriage equality to all. (in 2015 or the first half of 2016)
I'd much rather get this obvious conclusion over with so that the gay people in our country can focus more on HIV and how it affects our community and those elected officials that stand in the way.
PS- Mike, I hope you are right although I really don't care what state it stems from as long as it gets done. :)
-
That's ok bugs. Just kidding.
I hardly consider some of those states "blue", more purple, so I would be quick to eliminate Florida, Virginia, and Ohio. Not really knowing the inner politics of the remainder too well I would still go with Oregon.
After Oregon and maybe a few more, my guess is that a case will be brought up to the Supreme Court to bring marriage equality to all. (in 2015 or the first half of 2016)
I'd much rather get this obvious conclusion over with so that the gay people in our country can focus more on HIV and how it affects our community and those elected officials that stand in the way.
PS- Mike, I hope you are right although I really don't care what state it stems from as long as it gets done. :)
Virginia is more blue than people think. All 5 statewide elective offices (Governor, Lt. gov, Attorney General & both US Senate seats will be Democrats in Jan). Without gerrymandering, the Repubs would not have a majority in the House of Delegates or an 8-3 margin in the US House
Mitch - I am with you too, any case that does it. The sooner the better
M
-
Virginia is more blue than people think. All 5 statewide elective offices (Governor, Lt. gov, Attorney General & both US Senate seats will be Democrats in Jan). Without gerrymandering, the Repubs would not have a majority in the House of Delegates or an 8-3 margin in the US House
Mitch - I am with you too, any case that does it. The sooner the better
M
I think there are more states that are more blue than we think. It's up to those who live in them to make a difference when causes are just.
The victory of which you speak was won by a thin margin due to the ludicrous Republican opponents. I'm glad that common sense prevailed in any case, whatever the reason.
I still think Virginia is a purple state. Maybe one of the purplest (yes, that's a word I think. :).) states in the country.
Time to mix the paint a bit more. You may or may not agree but I believe a heavy dose of cobalt blue is needed. :)
-
Virginia is more blue than people think. All 5 statewide elective offices (Governor, Lt. gov, Attorney General & both US Senate seats will be Democrats in Jan). Without gerrymandering, the Repubs would not have a majority in the House of Delegates or an 8-3 margin in the US House
Mitch - I am with you too, any case that does it. The sooner the better
M
I forgot Virginia. Yes! Virginia has really changed. And, I totally forgot Colorado. Those two are more likely than say Pennsylvania.
-
Unfortunately, Virginia will only join by order of the SCOTUS.
To undo our Constitutional Amendment a bill would have to pass two legislative sessions before going to a referendum. With the horrific gerrymandering in place, The republicans will continue to run the House of Delegates for years and years. The Dems win the statewide "popular vote", but gerrymandering has concentrated them into just a few districts.
So, unless we change how we draw districts, it ain't changing here except by the SCOTUS -- because we certainly aren't going to get the legislative branch to give up their power to keep power by picking voters.
M
-
How is the Virginia Supreme Court stacked? Do they seem to rule along political lines? I actually would have to research how our Supreme Court rules. There haven't been many big cases here that got much news. I really should know more about ours-- whether they are considered politically divided or not. It will give me some reading homework.
It does make me wonder why no one has challenged our ban to our high court. I think there are a couple suits in the works now, though.
-
Do your states have initiatives? You don't need to wait for SCOTUS if you pass an initiative. That's how we got pot legalized. The people wanted it so we voted on it.
-
Do your states have initiatives? You don't need to wait for SCOTUS if you pass an initiative. That's how we got pot legalized. The people wanted it so we voted on it.
We need an Amendment referendum - and, like I said above, that can't happen until 2 votes by the State Legislature to put an amendment to a vote. Not happening.......
-
Do your states have initiatives? You don't need to wait for SCOTUS if you pass an initiative. That's how we got pot legalized. The people wanted it so we voted on it.
I believe that marriage is a right. An equal right. Rights should not be voted on by an initiative or it becomes a matter of popularity.
-
I believe that marriage is a right. An equal right. Rights should not be voted on by an initiative or it becomes a matter of popularity.
I agree but those initiatives may be the key to unlock the door for those of us that are in states that will still deny us our rights 100 years from now given the choice . The supreme court will eventually rule in our favor and the states that's used initiatives and won are making it a bit easier for them to get to the conclusion whats good for same is good for all of us . I think .
-
Wow! So much going on lately. Federal judge strikes down Utah ban.
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=28099570&nid=148&title=utah-judge-rules-same-sex-marriage-law-unconstitutional&fm=home_page&s_cid=queue-1
-
I agree but those initiatives may be the key to unlock the door for those of us that are in states that will still deny us our rights 100 years from now given the choice . The supreme court will eventually rule in our favor and the states that's used initiatives and won are making it a bit easier for them to get to the conclusion whats good for same is good for all of us . I think .
I hear you but I don't believe the Supreme Court should not even be paying attention to initiatives in regards to rights. The two just don't mix IMHO. Rights are rights. Not something we as a country should ever put up for a vote. Lawsuits that have merit on the other hand... that is what just happened this summer and seems to be working pretty well. Major progress has been happening since. Another properly presented case will suddenly put an end to this discrimination and I think it will happen within a few short years.
-
I believe that marriage is a right. An equal right. Rights should not be voted on by an initiative or it becomes a matter of popularity.
I don't believe that the majority should vote on the rights of a minority either. However, I was asking because of the statement that Virginia would have to wait until the courts forced the state to change their law. I was curious if the people could force an initiative.
I did some research and from what I found on Wikipedia, the initiative process is mostly a west coast thing. Most of the east coast states do not allow citizen driven initiatives.
Wow! So much going on lately. Federal judge strikes down Utah ban.
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=28099570&nid=148&title=utah-judge-rules-same-sex-marriage-law-unconstitutional&fm=home_page&s_cid=queue-1
Just a matter of time
-
Wow! So much going on lately. Federal judge strikes down Utah ban.
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=28099570&nid=148&title=utah-judge-rules-same-sex-marriage-law-unconstitutional&fm=home_page&s_cid=queue-1
This is the way progress should happen. Glad to see Utah has judges that can think.
edited to add:
Btw- I do feel for those living in states with horrible chances of this becoming the law of the land. Unfortunately the path will eventually come down to a SCOTUS decision.
-
Can't the Virginia courts do the same thing, and not have to wait on the legislature or SCOTUS?
I need to go back and review the California case. Didn't prop 8 end up trumping the California Supreme Court? If so, how does that happen? I can see challenging a state court decision, but not an initiative ballot trumping it. I need to go back and review that, because I could be wrong how things went down.
-
I need to go back and review the California case. Didn't prop 8 end up trumping the California Supreme Court? If so, how does that happen? I can see challenging a state court decision, but not an initiative ballot trumping it. I need to go back and review that, because I could be wrong how things went down.
Prop 8 was ruled as unconstitutional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
-
I don't believe that the majority should vote on the rights of a minority either. However, I was asking because of the statement that Virginia would have to wait until the courts forced the state to change their law. I was curious if the people could force an initiative.
I did some research and from what I found on Wikipedia, the initiative process is mostly a west coast thing. Most of the east coast states do not allow citizen driven initiatives.
Your first statement contradicts everything that followed unless I am somehow reading this wrong.
-
Your first statement contradicts everything that followed unless I am somehow reading this wrong.
They are not mutually exclusive
-
They are not mutually exclusive
Ok, help me understand. I'm not following.
-
Ok, help me understand. I'm not following.
I share the opinion that having a majority of people vote on a minority groups rights is inherently wrong.
The reason I inquired if virginia had the initiative process was because bocker mentioned that the only way virginia would legalize marriage would be from a court decision. I wasn't advocating that they should vote on it, just curious if they had that option (which they don't, from what I found on Wikipedia).
Which leaves a question...if your state can do a citizen driven initiative to put on the ballot a choice to legalize marriage should u do it? What if your states legislature isn't moving fast enough to legalize or what if your courts are not taking up the issue? Do you sit back and wait or do you do it yourself with an initiative?
-
There is something so satisfying about that ruling in Utah . It was the Mormon's and the wealthy empowered people of Utah that flooded California with money for the Prop 8 initiative . I bet they never thought this could happen on their own doorstep .
-
Do you sit back and wait or do you do it yourself with an initiative?
You sit back and wait. You seem to state your belief that it is inherently wrong to have a majority vote on the rights of the minority and then you pose this question.
They ARE mutually exclusive concepts.
Thrilled about Utah for the same reasons Jeff.
-
I, too, agree that rights should not be voted on, but seeing as there is no federal right to marriage at this time - I would explore if, it was the fastest avenue.
I get that we shouldn't, but we DO - which is why my marriage is not recognized in VA.
I mean should Maryland and Maine negate their marriage equality because it was done by popular vote??
If only we could live in a world where this issue didn't exist, but alas, we do not (at this point, anyway).
Me
-
Here is what confuses me and yet another reason I need to educate myself on how the federal justice system works.
If a federal judge says their ban is unconstitutional, then why is Kentucky's still considered constitutional? How can a federal judge decide one state's ban is unconstitutional, but that only applies to that state? Does a federal judge have to rule separately on each state ban? Would a judge need a case from each state? One would think if one ban is unconstitutional, then they all are. Is it left up to SCOTUS to rule on all states? Is this just how it works and SCOTUS would have to make the broad ruling?
Utah has appealed, but not before some already got their marriage licenses.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home3/57291925-200/ban-judge-sex-court.html.csp
-
My law classes were a long time ago but here goes:
In each of these cases it is not the Supreme Court making the rulings but the Federal Circuit Court. Each of the Federal Circuit Courts can handle a few states. This is two steps below SCOTUS.
Someone with standing (two gay people who wanted to be married) had to bring suit that their rights were being violated at the local level and it moved through the state court to this level. Few cases ever get to the Supreme court level. Roe vs Wade is an obvious suggestion and that suit had to involve a pregnant women.
I would anticipate the states falling like cards after today's news....
Anyone who has can correct my murky thinking or has citations please do so.
-
I, too, agree that rights should not be voted on, but seeing as there is no federal right to marriage at this time - I would explore if, it was the fastest avenue.
I get that we shouldn't, but we DO - which is why my marriage is not recognized in VA.
I mean should Maryland and Maine negate their marriage equality because it was done by popular vote??
If only we could live in a world where this issue didn't exist, but alas, we do not (at this point, anyway).
Me
I don't want to belabor my point any further other than to say that I understand that in some states initiatives (popular vote) can be used to vote on giving or taking away peoples rights. I do not believe that it is a wise way under any circumstances to create law in that regard. I wonder if eventually someone will challenge this concept and bring a case to the SCOTUS?
I'm no constitutional scholar but it seems rights can be impinged upon much too easily by going down that road.
What's done is done in Maine and Maryland. I don't agree at all on how they got where they got. The idea of getting there by "any means" can come back to haunt us as a society down the road.
Initiatives are not always a bad idea but I think the line should be drawn when they pertain to an equal rights issue. There are better avenues to take.
I'm not looking for others to agree. Just my thoughts. :)
-
Initiatives are not always a bad idea but I think the line should be drawn when they pertain to an equal rights issue. There are better avenues to take.
I thought about this a little more and the problem is, IMO, not that folks are voting on rights, but whether or not they are considered rights. That is really the crux of the issue. Too many people do not believe that marriage is a right -- just like too many do not believe that healthcare is a right.
I suspect just about anyone would agree that "rights" shouldn't be put to a vote -- the problem is agree on what are "rights" and what are something else........
So -- while the definition of something as a "right" or not goes on - initiatives are something that can be used -- just like a legislative vote (which shouldn't be needed for a "right" either).
M
-
I thought about this a little more and the problem is, IMO, not that folks are voting on rights, but whether or not they are considered rights. That is really the crux of the issue. Too many people do not believe that marriage is a right -- just like too many do not believe that healthcare is a right.
I suspect just about anyone would agree that "rights" shouldn't be put to a vote -- the problem is agree on what are "rights" and what are something else........
So -- while the definition of something as a "right" or not goes on - initiatives are something that can be used -- just like a legislative vote (which shouldn't be needed for a "right" either).
M
Mike,
I agree. Rights are difficult to define. I guess I feel that initiatives are not being used as intended much of the time.
I found this that explains my position better.
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/A-long-way-from-the-grassroots-3190565.php
And this from Wikipedia was interesting as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiatives_and_referendums_in_the_United_States
(funny, I live in a red state. lol) :)
-
Mike,
I agree.
We agree --- It's a Christmas Miracle........ ;D just kidding.
Enjoy your nice warm weather -- I hear the cold comes back for Christmas.
Hugs to you and Keneisha......
M
-
We agree --- It's a Christmas Miracle........ ;D just kidding.
Enjoy your nice warm weather -- I hear the cold comes back for Christmas.
Hugs to you and Keneisha......
M
LOL. ;D
Hugs back to the both of you too!
m.
-
Here is what confuses me and yet another reason I need to educate myself on how the federal justice system works.
If a federal judge says their ban is unconstitutional, then why is Kentucky's still considered constitutional? How can a federal judge decide one state's ban is unconstitutional, but that only applies to that state? Does a federal judge have to rule separately on each state ban? Would a judge need a case from each state? One would think if one ban is unconstitutional, then they all are. Is it left up to SCOTUS to rule on all states? Is this just how it works and SCOTUS would have to make the broad ruling?
The federal judiciary has 3 levels: federal district courts, federal circuit courts of appeals, and the SCOTUS. Each state has at least one district, some have as many as four. The states are then grouped into "circuits" for the circuit courts of appeals. There are currently 11 of them (First Circuit, Second Circuit, etc.), plus the DC Circuit (covering the District of Columbia) and the Federal Circuit (which mainly does things like patent law).
A federal case starts in one of the district courts. A district court's opinion is never a "binding" precedent, i.e., no one else is bound to follow it. It affects the parties to the case only. However, it can be "persuasive" authority that other judges at both the state and federal level can cite to in support of their opinions (or to distinguish the case in front of them, etc.). So, right now, the Utah decision is binding on...Utah. Despite the fact that it makes findings based on constitutional principles.
When the State of Utah appeals the decision, it will go to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. That circuit covers Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. If the 10th Circuit upholds the decision of the judge from the District of Utah, and does so on the same/similar reasoning (i.e., constitutional basis), then the decision becomes binding on the entire 10th Circuit and any other bans in any of those other states would pretty much be history.
From the circuit courts of appeals, the next step is the Supreme Court. A party has to file what's called a petition for certiorari. If "cert" is granted, it means the Supreme Court will hear the case. If it is denied, then the decision from the court below stands, but still only covers that circuit. But it then becomes persuasive authority for other circuits. If another circuit (or circuits) has a conflicting ruling, it makes it more likely that SCOTUS will take one or the other of the cases so it can give a definitive ruling one way or the other with nationwide applicability.
The bottom line is that the district courts have somewhat more limited authority, because if every ruling applied nationwide there would be a whole lot of conflicting law; for example, you might have a judge like the one in Utah say that a ban is unconstitutional, while another judge in, say, Alabama, would be of the Antonin Scalia mindset and say there's absolutely nothing wrong with a marriage equality ban. If they both applied nationwide, which one do you follow? And then it would all just end up in SCOTUS's lap anyhow.
To really answer some of your other questions, then, it's going to have to be a piecemeal approach, unless/until SCOTUS finally rules on the merits. By which time hopefully one of Scalia/Thomas/Roberts/Alito has been replaced by a less ass-backwards justice...Justice Kennedy, while having written Romer, Lawrence, and Windsor, is just a bit too flaky to make him a sure vote for the LGBT equivalent of Loving v. Virginia. In the mean time, though, each one that goes down builds a stronger and stronger case that the remaining ones will go down, too. Here in Michigan, we have a challenge to ours that is going to trial early in the new year. The Utah decision is undoubtedly going to be prominently argued by the plaintiffs.
And, of course, this is all in contrast to the decision in New Mexico, which was from the New Mexico Supreme Court. They decided based on the New Mexico state constitution that marriage should be extended to all couples. And they could do so since they didn't have a ban in their constitution. So, unless there's an initiative to amend the New Mexico Constitution to put a ban in (and it passes), the federal courts won't be getting involved at all.
Hope that helps explain it a bit! Kind of a trip down memory lane to my first year of law school. lol
-
(http://i39.tinypic.com/2v277na.jpg)
-
The week began with hateful remarks toward gays and so much insensitivity toward black Americans. I can't believe all the positive news since. Judge rules on Ohio death certificate case.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/23/22023189-ohio-must-recognize-gay-marriages-on-death-certificates-judge?lite
-
Breaking tonight on Christmas Eve--- Federal Appeals court denies state's request to stop marriages. Merry Christmas Utah!
-
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGyHCymzs0w
Now this is just plain nasty openly bigotry behavior.
It amazes me why anyone cares who gets married, when getting marriage is such a private personal decision.
It doesn't involve society, the town, the neighborhood, and especially strangers.
Like someone or some group telling you what color of car you can or can not buy.
Who really cares, really? What does it matter to them?
Bottom line... it doesn't.
This attitude of superiority over another, you can't have this because we own it, or you must have our permission and blessing before preceding, is plain ridiculous.
In this youtube from Utah (above), the clerk doesn't even know these women.
Never has known them before, and never will.
What the two women decided to do and when they decide is completely of no personal business to this clerk.
They get the license, they marry, they go about their private life. The end.
This clerk doesn't have to attend the wedding, nor would he be invited.
Other than maybe reading these two women's names in the news papers under "WEDDINGS MARRIAGES", this clerk will never again have any contact what so ever with the two women.
So it amazes me, and I have to ask this clerk, what is this to you?
Who made you the self proclaimed grantor of equality?
And why are you such a dick in the first place, fella?
-
And leave it to Joe Jervis on his blog to find some levity and humor in the recent events! Sums it up perfectly!!
(http://i42.tinypic.com/2vt8osm.jpg)
-
This is funny picture. Thanks for sharing.
What an amazing ride in terms of marriage equality in USA. I am glad that I lived to see these days! May be one of these days, we can say 50 down, yes including Utah!!
-
I never thought we would see Marriage Equality coming to fruition so soon. I read an article where the author talked about the supreme court thought they might be buying some time with their first decision, but it looks like it might be back on the docket sooner than they thought.
-
I'm sure many have already heard the news, that a federal judge ruled today that Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. This does make me think it may not take another decade to have marriage equality the law of the land everywhere. I may be too optimistic and naive, but this gives me hope things may change much sooner.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/14/oklahoma-gay-marriage_n_4598228.html
-
The key to a happy relationship? Be gay. Or childless. Or make tea. (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/the-key-to-a-happy-relationship-be-gay-or-childless-or-make-tea-9057349.html)
Gay couples are likely to be happier and more positive about their relationships than heterosexuals, according to a major study by the Open University published today.
However, they are less likely to be openly affectionate towards each other – holding hands in public, for instance – because they still fear attracting disapproval.
The study of 5,000 people – 50 of whom were later followed up with in-depth interviews – aimed at finding out how modern couples keep their relationships on track through life’s difficulties. read more... (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/the-key-to-a-happy-relationship-be-gay-or-childless-or-make-tea-9057349.html)
One comment on the article (from a gay man in a relationship) that I thought made sense was this: "Honestly, it seems to me that one of the more obvious factors is that men have more in common with men, and women with women. Why wouldn't it (generally, all things being equal) be more challenging to live with someone of the opposite sex?"
I'm reminded of being at my brother's home years ago when his wife did something particularly inexplicable (at least from a man's point of view). When I asked him about it, his memorable reply was “You have no idea how lucky you are; Sometimes, it's like living with a different species.”
Meanwhile, my partner and I are both marginal housekeepers with similar interests. We can even share ties and socks. And no kids*(!), which by any measure are a source of stress day-to-day, even if they are a blessing in the big picture.
I'm certainly not saying that there aren't millions of happy hetero couples. But it does seem to me that they have some inherent disadvantages right from the start that same-sex couples do not.
I think he may be onto something. What do you folks think?
-
I'm sure many have already heard the news, that a federal judge ruled today that Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. This does make me think it may not take another decade to have marriage equality the law of the land everywhere. I may be too optimistic and naive, but this gives me hope things may change much sooner.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/14/oklahoma-gay-marriage_n_4598228.html
The judge cited in his ruling that OK had one of the highest divorce rates in the country, so as much as that smug-faced Governor - Mary Falling - wants to cheerlead for family values, the data certainly doesn't support her claims. Hysterical.
-
(http://i43.tinypic.com/33lfaki.jpg)
-
I'm sure many have already heard the news, that a federal judge ruled today that Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. This does make me think it may not take another decade to have marriage equality the law of the land everywhere. I may be too optimistic and naive, but this gives me hope things may change much sooner.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/14/oklahoma-gay-marriage_n_4598228.html
It certainly says something that this is happening in two of the three highest-percentage Romney-voting states.
-
If you take Nevada off the "divorce rates by state" list (for obvious "quickie-divorce" reasons) the top ten states are all conservative states. But they also have high marriage rates so really it just kind of means people in such places marry to quickly, or too young, etc. But you can't discuss divorce rates without factoring in economic status so that's why it's lower in a place like the Northeast.
-
I think he may be onto something. What do you folks think?
Agreed. As different as my partner and I are we still share a lot of commonalities by both simply being men. It makes things much more convenient. Besides if I ever need to borrow a shirt or pair of underwear I have much to choose from!
The marriage debate is over. I just don't see how the fight can continue in these places. My partner and I got married this year. I'm just starting to get tax forms in the mail and have started about how and where we are going to get our taxes done.
If we were to move to one of these states that's holding their breath and turning blue like a child, they are still at the end of the day going to have to deal with us. What about taxes? What if we get a divorce? What if one of us gets hospitalized in Florida or Oklahoma? They are set up for lawsuit after lawsuit and there no argument to deny. It's already part of US law to recognize licenses from one state to another.
The fighting now is starting to look....sad. Like someone forgot to tell them the war is over.
-
The problem is not the next two years, but the four years after that. Eventually - I agree - that the tide will turn and this will be a simple chapter in history. Meanwhile, you can rest assured that our Red State friends are banking on this being a wedge issue for SOME in the electorate and no matter whether the platform or party line agrees, disagrees or is non-committal, they CANNOT HELP THEMSELVES BUT TO COURT THESE
crazy peopleVOTERS in 2016.
The asylum is in search of a delusional King (or Queen) now that Mr. Christie is doing his best impersonation of a fat lady singing. The visual alone is getting me through this Starbucks knock-off this afternoon. They are anxiously stacking up all the issues that whomever they choose as their candidate will be expected to battle! Obama Care, Marijuana Laws, Imaginary Voter ID, and the horrible, nasty, contagious plague of GAY MARRIAGE (*gasp*). You can bet that if my girl Hillary doesn't come through this time that their emboldened King or Queen will work feverishly to satisfy the asylum that elected them and start issuing all sorts of executive orders! They have to pay back their base - whether they agree with them or not!
It is over. The tide is turning. You can take to the bank that they are going to give it one more Hail Mary pass before they finally see the light, though. They are persistant!
Of course, the prospect of Hillary vs. Paul or Ryan is hilarious. She eats people like that for breakfast. And, hopefully, by then there will be another scandal with some closet-case Republican found looking through the louvers on their closet door.
-
Could Kentucky be next?
http://www.courier-journal.com/viewart/20140115/NEWS10/301150119/Judge-weighing-challenge-Kentucky-gay-marriage-ban
-
Many of my gays have been debating how this judge will rule on the KY case. He was recommended by Mitch McConnell and appointed by Bush. But, we've seen repub appointed judges be fair.
Anyway, I just read where this judge ruled a state agency fired an employee based solely on sexual orientation, and that was unfair and unequal treatment. So, a glimmer of hope.
http://wuky.org/post/judge-rules-state-agency-fired-employee-based-soley-sexual-orientation
-
Many of my gays
Who are you Kathy Griffin .
-
Who are you Kathy Griffin .
Ha! That's who I was thinking of.
-
Many of my gays
Who are you Kathy Griffin .
Ted, I was wondering if you kept them in a hutch.
(http://www.villagesheds.com/4x4%20Double%20Rabbit%20Hutch.jpg)
-
They have those ^^ at the clubs.
-
They have those ^^ at the clubs.
;D
-
Meanwhile today in Texas...
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2014/02/federal-judge-voids-texas-gay-marriage-ban-though-he-delays-order-from-taking-effect-immediately.html/
(have you picked out your wedding dress Wumpellina?)
-
There are a lot of soiled undies in TX right about now.
-
There are a lot of soiled undies in TX right about now.
speaking of soiled undies in Texas...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/26/dan-patrick-twitter_n_4861091.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063
-
Meanwhile today in Texas...
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2014/02/federal-judge-voids-texas-gay-marriage-ban-though-he-delays-order-from-taking-effect-immediately.html/
(have you picked out your wedding dress Wumpellina?)
Texas will secede from the union and call back the confederate army before they allow the fags to marry. Put your dress back Wilimena
-
Do they have an outlet in Texas?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/24/guns-wedding-gowns-beer_n_4849607.html
-
The judge in the Kentucky case is due to give his final ruling tomorrow. He already made the ruling a few weeks ago, which said KY must recognize marriages from other jurisdictions. I still don't understand why that was just a preliminary ruling and we've been waiting for the final. There was no stay, so that's not the issue.
The judge says he will not include a stay, when he makes his final ruling. The Attorney General is a Democrat. He has been known in the gay community as being gay himself. When he ran for Congress a few years back, against the then republican incumbent, issues of his sexuality came up. He quickly got married to a woman who was seen as his "hag." It was viewed that he did that to further his political aspirations here in KY. Many believe he wants to run for senate or governor. Whether he's secretly gay or not, I hope he does the right thing and not what seems best for his political aspirations.
And, Eric Holder just told the state Attorneys General that they do not need to defend the bans, as they are discriminatory and unconstitutional.
http://www.kentucky.com/2014/02/26/3109686/judge-final-order-requiring-ky.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/25/us-usa-gaymarriage-holder-idUSBREA1O0CG20140225
-
Texas will secede from the union and call back the confederate army before they allow the fags to marry. Put your dress back Wilimena
SCREW YALLZ ITS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME before I have the right to marry my 20y/o non-english speaking latino twink!
I'm flipping through a Modern Bride magazine right now :-*
-
I'm flipping through a Modern Bride magazine right now :-*
As he flips through your wallet .
-
As he flips through your wallet .
It happened ONCE, years ago. ::)
-
It happened ONCE, years ago. ::)
Hey if he's hot and Twinkie enuf I may hand over my car keys.
Ps. You don't marry those types Wilimena
-
I'm flipping through a Modern Bride magazine right now :-*
Make sure you skip all the white dresses dear -- you aren't allowed to wear that color, given your sordid past!! Perhaps a nice "midnight black" -- yes, that will work.
:-*
M
-
Make sure you skip all the white dresses dear -- you aren't allowed to wear that color, given your sordid past!! Perhaps a nice "midnight black" -- yes, that will work.
:-*
M
I bet he will wear daisy dukes and flip flops and they will have coca cola with peanuts as appetizers at the reception .
-
The final ruling came down here in KY. The attorney general asked for a 90 day delay either to have more time to consider an appeal or to figure out how to implement. Many think that was just cover for his future political aspirations and that he will not appeal. The state did not get involved in the initial case. However, the judge ignored that request-- so far. Many think he felt the state had a chance to do that intially and that time had passed to cause a delay.
Gay couples married in other states are now considered married here. They can have their names changed if desired. It also gives rights to property, medical decisions, taxes, and all that good stuff.
-
The recent lawsuits filed in Ohio show a turn in tide here also. Who would have ever thought KY or OH would even consider such actions. :)
I remember my hot youthful days nights spent in the Vanceburg, South Shore, Portsmouth area of the Ohio River. That was the hottest section of hot, horny, fuck anything guys that I've ever met. AAH, such memories. Probably why I'm clinging to that tall, skinny, shirtless, and dumber than rocks types of guys that still get my groin aching.
-
The state asked for 90 days; the judge gave them 20. Apparently, our attorney general is not delaying to decide to appeal, rather to figure out how to implement. I think the Bush-appointed judge felt 20 days was more than enough time for that.
The suit to get rid of our entire ban was filed on Valentine's Day. I hope that moves quickly. Oh, the tea-party guy challenging Mitch blames Mitch for this. Mitch recommended this judge and Bush appointed him. I am so glad for that. People cannot say this is some Clinton or Obama liberal, activist judge. Well, I'm sure they will and believe he must be a dem appointment judge.
-
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/viewart/20140228/GPG0101/302280198/ACLU-wants-Wisconsin-gay-marriage-ban-blocked (http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/viewart/20140228/GPG0101/302280198/ACLU-wants-Wisconsin-gay-marriage-ban-blocked)
Things are going so well around the country that the ACLU petitioned the court hearing the challenge to the Wisconsin ban to essentially LIFT the ban before the court date because of the 'likelihood they'll win their case'.
I doubt that will happen but you never know....
-
Our Attorney General, Jack Conway, followed other states and said he would not appeal the judge's ruling. He said he cannot defend a ban that is discriminatory. He also said this would waste taxpayer money, as these bans are all going down. Cheers to him for doing the right thing.
However, our democrat governor, Steve Besher, immediately announced he would obtain outside counsel to appeal. Our governor was looking so good and getting so much national attention for his implementation of ACA. He just shit on that and I cannot understand why. Many believe he did this, because he wants to run for Senate, after his term as governor ends. It would seem he would have gone against "Obamacare," if he was that calculating. Although, queers getting married is harder for folks to swallow than Obamacare. Perhaps he is calculating and knew folks would come to love the expansion of Medicaid and the benefits of the ACA, so they would not hold that against him. He is wasting taxpayer money, as these bans will all go down.
http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/Read--watch-Attorney-General-Conways-same-sex-statement-248381361.html?device=tablet
Modified: Here is a news report that gives more insight into the governor's reasoning.
http://www.wdrb.com/story/24881042/ky-attorney-general-will-not-appeal-ruling
-
Our Attorney General, Jack Conway, followed other states and said he would not appeal the judge's ruling. He said he cannot defend a ban that is discriminatory. He also said this would waste taxpayer money, as these bans are all going down. Cheers to him for doing the right thing.
However, our democrat governor, Steve Besher, immediately announced he would obtain outside counsel to appeal. Our governor was looking so good and getting so much national attention for his implementation of ACA. He just shit on that and I cannot understand why. Many believe he did this, because he wants to run for Senate, after his term as governor ends. It would seem he would have gone against "Obamacare," if he was that calculating. Although, queers getting married is harder for folks to swallow than Obamacare. Perhaps he is calculating and knew folks would come to love the expansion of Medicaid and the benefits of the ACA, so they would not hold that against him. He is wasting taxpayer money, as these bans will all go down.
http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/Read--watch-Attorney-General-Conways-same-sex-statement-248381361.html?device=tablet
Modified: Here is a news report that gives more insight into the governor's reasoning.
http://www.wdrb.com/story/24881042/ky-attorney-general-will-not-appeal-ruling
The VA Attorney General is supportive of marriage equality, but appealed the recent ruling invalidating the VA Constitutional amendment in order to ensure a quicker, final ruling.
Appealing isn't a bad thing, it helps to get a number of cases moving forward to the SCOTUS, forcing them to rule and, hopefully, striking ALL of these laws.
M
-
The VA Attorney General is supportive of marriage equality, but appealed the recent ruling invalidating the VA Constitutional amendment in order to ensure a quicker, final ruling.
Appealing isn't a bad thing, it helps to get a number of cases moving forward to the SCOTUS, forcing them to rule and, hopefully, striking ALL of these laws.
M
Brian and I were having this discussion tonight. We were trying to give our governor the benefit of the doubt, and that he may have a good motive in this-- just like you said.
-
If this is true ( big if ) then the Governors motives seem reasonable to me . Most people who lobby against equality almost always fall back on the its a states rights issue argument and resent the court system getting involved calling it activist judges and other catch phrases .
Quoted from your link .
Gov. Beshear would not comment on camera, but in a statement said gay marriage is an issue for the U.S. Supreme Court. Beshear says employers, healthcare providers, and government agencies need a clear and certain road map on change, otherwise it could create chaos.
-
This may take the wind out of their sails!
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/western-conservatives-urge-appeals-court-to-uphold-marriage (http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/western-conservatives-urge-appeals-court-to-uphold-marriage)
A group of very prominent Western State Conservatives including former Senator Alan Simpson (who has become somewhat of an elder statesman since retiring), Nancy Kassembaum (former Senator Kansas) and others have filed a brief with the 10th Circuit court asking them to stay the course on declaring the ban on marraige in OK and UT unconstitutional. Their point is that there is support for gay marraige across a wide range of political spectrums.
It will be difficult for conservatives to claim this as their own cause when significant parts of their establishment are braking with the perceived ranks!
-
Breaking tonight-- Judge strikes down Michigan ban. The plaintiffs initially were seeking to just give rights for both parents to adopt. The judge invited them to challenge the entire ban. The judge ruling in the Kentucky case basically did the same thing, saying he was just waiting for a case on that.
It does seem like these federal judges were waiting for a glimpse into what SCOTUS would do. They got that with DOMA and Prop 8, and Scalia's minority opinion that the SCOTUS ruling would legally open the door to this all over the country.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/judge-rules-michigans-ban-gay-marriage-unconstitutional-n59116
-
(http://i57.tinypic.com/x6bz9i.jpg)
Wasting no time, several county clerks opened offices on Saturday to get the ball rolling! Tipped from JoeMyGod (http://www.joemygod.com).
Wisconsin...surrounded by pro-marriage states (willingly or unwillingly) is standing out more and more like a hillbilly at a country club.
-
And, WOW, I just saw this on the same site. Must have missed it. I've realized that the Episcopalian Church is a bit more progressive but I can't recall a time when I saw a missive from any organized religion not only applauding the "judicial activism" but clearly stating their support aside from a "this is how we feel" blurb. Signd by four Bishops? Impressive.
(http://i60.tinypic.com/2ltkd1c.jpg)
-
Today it was Arkansas. The attorney general has said he supports marriage equality, but feels compelled to appeal.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/arkansas-judge-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional
Our attorney general gave a tearful press conference, saying he could not appeal Kentucky's ruling. He said it was unconstitutional. He just announced a run for governor, by the way. So, props to him for not doing the political thing. However, our governor hired outside counsel to appeal the decision. The governor's argument, which was just made public, was that it hurts procreation and will hurt the population. Our governor is a democrat and has championed Obamacare. Many speculate he may run for Senate, after his term as governor ends. His procreation argument is so flimsy, that I can't help but wonder if he appealed for political reasons, while really not wanting the state to win the appeal.
http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/ky-governor/2014/05/09/beshear-lawyers-say-gay-marriage-threatens-kentucky-birth-rates/8891661/
-
Today it was Arkansas
There are gays in Arkansas?
-
And just in over at www.joemygod.com
Via press release:
In an effort to change Alaska’s definition of marriage, five same-sex couples have filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court against Gov. Sean Parnell and other state officials. The lawsuit claims that an amendment added to the Alaska Constitution in 1998, defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, violates their due process and equal protection under the 14th.
Four of the plaintiff couples hold marriage licenses from other states that allow same-sex marriage. One couple is seeking the right to marry in Alaska. “Under current Alaska law, a couple who marries in Seattle and returns home to Alaska are married in the eyes of the law when their plane lifts off from SeaTac, but are legal strangers when the flight touches down in Alaska,” said Heather Gardner, one of three Alaska attorneys representing the plaintiffs.
“No Alaskan is a second class citizen,” she said. “We are taking a stand because marriage should be available to all loving couples,” said Matthew Hamby one of the plaintiffs who married his partner Christopher Shelden last year in Utah. “It’s important to us that our family is recognized by the State of Alaska and that we have the same rights and privileges as others."
North Dakota and Montana are now the only states without marriage equality lawsuits. (Via JMG reader Christopher)
Below are two of the plaintiffs, Hamby & Shelton
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2d9v1aw.jpg)
If you listen very carefully, you may be able to hear the screams of a well-known snow billy!
-
Idaho ban struck down. They are appealing.
Has there been a court decision that has upheld a ban recently? Seems rather procedural at this point.
What a waste of time and money and tears. The US Supreme court failed miserably by not ruling broadly.
-
Idaho ban struck down. They are appealing.
Has there been a court decision that has upheld a ban recently? Seems rather procedural at this point.
What a waste of time and money and tears. The US Supreme court failed miserably by not ruling broadly.
I just saw the Idaho news. Seems like these cases come in pairs. These are happening faster than I thought. I'm thinking we could see marriage equality the law in most, if not all states, by 2016 or 2017.
-
A federal judge has rule Kentucky must pay the plaintiffs in our recent marriage equality case $70,000 for legal expenses.
http://www.wave3.com/story/25517249/kentucky-ordered-to-pay-70k-in-gay-marriage-case
-
Arkansas Supreme Court denies stay, but there is a wrinkle.
http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2014/05/14/arkansas-supreme-court-denies-emergency-stay-of-marriage-ruling-but-says-another-statute-prohibiting-clerks-from-issuing-licenses-to-same-sex
-
I tried to find the appropriate Bianca Del Rio photo for this - but there are so many to choose from! After 95 years in business, an Idaho wedding business says they will close their doors rather than *gasp* allow same-sex couples to use their facility/services.
Basically.....'NEED HELP PACKIN'?"
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/may/15/ministers-diverge-in-opinion-on-lifting-of-idahos/
(http://i60.tinypic.com/nd65a9.jpg)
-
On Monday Oregon will become the next state to legalize
-
I tried to find the appropriate Bianca Del Rio photo for this - but there are so many to choose from! After 95 years in business, an Idaho wedding business says they will close their doors rather than *gasp* allow same-sex couples to use their facility/services.
Basically.....'NEED HELP PACKIN'?"
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/may/15/ministers-diverge-in-opinion-on-lifting-of-idahos/
(http://i60.tinypic.com/nd65a9.jpg)
This is called cutting your nose off to spite your face. Like are they seriously thinking anyone will care?
"We would have stayed in business for another 100 years but those gays ruined it for everyone!"
-
See, this is why you don't hear that much from Iowa these days other than the 'bat-shit crazy tea-partiers' about this issue. Why? Because, honestly, most people in Iowa just don't care. The ones that DID have come to the conclusion that their moral indignation could be massaged by economic benefit.
They're making a haul. Plain and simple. No one does weddings like "the gays" - you don't find decorations from Wal-Mart, bridesmade dresses from "DEB" and surely not a keg of cut-rate beer (unless its for the visiting guests who actually drink that stuff). They spend money and a hell of a lot of it. That has not gone unnoticed, particular in the border communities of the states where it is allowed next to a state that still has a ban. I know at least a dozen people who made the trek in Wisconsin over to McGregor & Marquette, IA to 'tie the knot'. Not only did they bring their friends with them but they stayed somewhere nicer than a Motel 6 and drank the living hell out of that hotel bar with conconctions that flamed, coagulated and - at the very least - took a corkscrew to open.
And, really, who knows. Perhaps a bit of style will leach its way into these towns and the next 'strawberry festival' will be a little more chic!
So, closing their doors after 95 years might be a nice mountain to die on for them, but in the end when they see opportunity knocking, I don't think they'll be able to help themselves.
-
On Monday Oregon will become the next state to legalize
About 24 hours to go. I haven't heard ONE word on this from anyone in Portland. In fact, I've been newspaper poor for the last week and working so much, that the only way I knew this was the situation and Monday was G-Day was right here and Bug posting. Either no one in this town reads the news or they just don't see end times being thrust upon us!
-
90 minutes and counting for the judges ruling.....could Oregon be next?
NOM filed for a last minute stay in the decision citing the same bile they've produced in other states....amazing that you can be 2 million in the red and still have money and resources for this attempt. We'll know soon!
(http://i59.tinypic.com/1zwjk7b.jpg)
-
(http://i62.tinypic.com/xdwllf.jpg)
And just in......one step closer!
-
Oregon ban struck down.....add one more to the list!
http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/blogs/BlogtownPDX/#a12506313
-
How many states are we at now! Welcome my Oregon brothers and sisters to marriage equality for ALL!!!
-
How many states are we at now! Welcome my Oregon brothers and sisters to marriage equality for ALL!!!
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg/320px-Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg.png)
Funny, we've seen this map before
-
Congrats to Oregon! I was just reading an article about it. Here is something I did not know. I can't believe I did not know this. Wisconsin makes it illegal for gay couples to marry elsewhere and continue to live in the state. There's a fine and jail time.
How it the world could that ever be constitutional, even if ya thought a state could decide whether to grant gay marriages or not? That is being super-duper evil. Am I the only one who missed this law?
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/gay-marriage-states-legal-map
-
That's a blue law.
It may be on the books but is completely unenforceable. I couldn't imagine a prosecutor ever trying to charge.
-
This one of these old archaic laws that WI has had on the books for decades...not even certain where or why it came about. It was long before gay marriage was even considered. In fact, it never even hit the news until someone decided to go digging and found it there, and reasoned that it was applicable with the gay marriages being allowed in the border states. It never made news until Minnesota did their vote.
There are quite a few:
http://www.bitoffun.com/stupid_laws_Wisconsin.htm (http://www.bitoffun.com/stupid_laws_Wisconsin.htm)
Thankfully, I never tried to produce nuclear weapons in the city limits of Sun Prairie but I do recall my grandparents running across the WI/IL border to purchase contraband Oleo (margarine). Of course, back then it was sickly white in color with a yellow gel capsule that you had the break and knead through the concoction so that it looked like butter.
We seem to be very good at putting stupid laws on the books but not so good at removing them.
Meanwhile in Texas......'Up to a felony charge can be levied for promoting the use of, or owning more than six dildos.' How many out there would be jailed for that??
-
***BREAKING*** U.S. judge strikes down same-sex marriage ban in Pennsylvania (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20140520_U_S__judge_strikes_down_same-sex_marriage_ban_in_Pa_.html)
Entire US Northeast now has gay marriage equality.
U.S. judge strikes down same-sex marriage ban in Pa.
HARRISBURG - A federal judge on Tuesday struck down Pennsylvania's ban on same-sex marriages, a landmark ruling that could clear the way for the Commonwealth to become the 17th state to legalize gay marriage.
The decision by U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III marked the first and most significant to date in a series of court challenges to the state's 1996 ban.
"By virtue of this, ruling, same-sex couples who seek to marry in Pennsylvania may do so, and already married same-sex couples will be recognized as such in the Commonwealth," he wrote in the 39-page opinion.
It was not immediately clear if Gov. Corbett, whose administration had defended the law, would appeal the decision.
But advocates were poised to act immediately on the ruling. In Philadelphia, Register of Wills Ron Donatucci, whose office issues marriage licenses, immediately ordered his office to stay open an extra hour Tuesday, until 5:30 p.m., for any couples hoping to take advantage of the ruling.
The lawsuit, Whitewood v. Wolf, was brought by 23 plaintiffs who said Pennsylvania's law violates the constitution by excluding same-sex couples from the same legal benefits and protections as heterosexual couples.
A trial was initially expected this summer. But lawyers on both sides of the case had told Jones the evidence and testimony wouldn't expand beyond what they had already presented in arguments and filings, and urged the judge rule based on them.
"The issue we resolve today is a divisive one," the judge wrote. "Some of our citizens are made deeply uncomfortable by the notion of same-sex marriage. However, that same-sex marriage causes discomfort in some does not make its prohibition constitutional. Nor can past tradition trump the bedrock constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection."
In the 10 months since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal defense of marriage act and the Pennsylvania law suit was filed, marriage bans have fallen in states across the nation.
Courts at the state and federal levels in 12 states have found in favor of same-sex marriage. Some courts overturned same-sex marriage bans, while others allowed recognition of marriages conducted in other states.
The case before Jones, a 58-year-old Republican appointed in 2002 by President George W. Bush, was one of seven same-sex marriage cases under consideration by courts in Pennsylvania.
The state Supreme Court is considering an appeal by Montgomery County Register of Wills L. Bruce Hanes to a Commonwealth Court decision barring him from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
In a March Quinnipiac University poll of Pennsylvania voters, 57 percent of respondents said they supported a law allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 37 percent opposed it. The poll results trended along party lines: 74 percent of Democrats supported same-sex marriage, while 59 percent of Republicans opposed it.
In the Whitewood case, lawyers for the plaintiffs alleged that Pennsylvania's Defense of Marriage Act, along with its refusal to marry same-sex couples or recognize such marriages from other states, violated a fundamental right to marry as well as the Constitution's equal-protection clause.
The state's law not only bans same-sex marriage, it specifies that the state cannot honor such marriages from other states.
The suit contended the state had no legitimate interest in banning same-sex marriage, and that the ban disparaged and injured lesbian and gay couples and their families by denying them a long list of legal and financial protections afforded to heterosexual couples.
Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane, whose office had declined to defend the law, hailed the groundbreaking decision.
"This is an historic day," she said in a statement. More importantly, today brings justice to Pennsylvanians who have suffered from unequal protection under the law because of their sexual orientation. When state-sponsored inequality exists, citizens are deprived of the full protections that the Constitution guarantees. Our Commonwealth progressed today and so have the hopes and dreams of many who suffer from inequality."
-
Miss P, are you having a big wedding or something more intimate?
When the judge here ruled KY must recognize marriages from out of state, he indicated he was waiting for a full marriage equality case to come. On Valentine's Day, the lawyers in the out of state case filed suit for full marriage equality. As fast as these are moving, we may see that ruling by fall.
-
PA, NJ, NY are both North East and Mid Atlantic, right?
Western PA seems like East North Central but I know not officially.
-
PA, NJ, NY are both North East and Mid Atlantic, right?
Western PA seems like East North Central but I know not officially.
Western PA tends to be lumped in with the midwest.
-
Philadelphia, including suburbs is exactly like NJ and the NYC metro area and DC metro, as we are right where NJ and Delaware meet and have a nominal seaport leading to the Atlantic.
Then the area stretching from York/Lancaster (Amish country) up to Allentown/Easton is post-industrial but trends left of center. Once you enter the central mountains you are in Appalachia and past that indeed Pittsburgh has always been the entrance to the Midwest -- literally so historically as it was settled from that point.
But you know, upstate New York is similar but it's become more liberal in the past decade. It used to be extremely conservative.
Otherwise remember that New England and the Mid-Atlantic are two subsets of the larger US Northeast, with a population equivalent to the UK and a larger GDP per capita. These days I would include Virginia as part of the Mid-Atlantic, but only in the past decade, and only due to the overwhelming influence financially and politically of northern Virginia. And this will become more firm 10 years further down the road.
-
After remaining completely silent for 24 hours Republican Gov. Corbett says he won't appeal decision striking PA's same-sex marriage ban (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/state/20140522_Corbett_won_t_appeal_decision_striking_Pa__same-sex_marriage_ban.html)
... it's an election year for him after all, and he's got to seem moderate even if his poll numbers are abysmal already. Must be hard for a man who once compared gay marriage to incest!
-
Young boy meets a gay couple for the first time. This just proves what we already know-- hate and intolerance is taught.
http://youtu.be/hKzSoStsQ5U
-
Young boy meets a gay couple for the first time. This just proves what we already know-- hate and intolerance is taught.
http://youtu.be/hKzSoStsQ5U
That was so cute! :)
-
This just in from the TED-TV newsroom-- Wisconsin ban ruled unconstitutional. These are going down faster than a republican congressman at a glory hole.
Modified to add link:
http://www.jrn.com/tmj4/breaking-news/Judge-overturns-Wisconsins-same-sex-marriage-ban-262161101.html?lc=Tablet
Oh, and this link about North Dakota's ban has now been challenged. I didn't know that was the last state to have its ban challenged.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/06/north-dakota-same-sex-marriage-ban/10082033/
-
(http://i61.tinypic.com/2zy95c8.jpg)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2roq35s.jpg)
The teabaggers in Northern Wisconsin are probably stocking the root cellars preparing for End Times! Scooter (Scott) Walker started about three weeks ago saying how he was 'evolving' on the issue. He's evolving because he's now neck and neck with a politcal novice for his second term election - her only claim to fame is that her family owns TREK bicycle.
-
I will be so happy when Gay marriage is legal everywhere so that my decision to never do it will have teeth .
-
Well I don't know, about all the "STAY" motions.
Seems to me that the STAY places all this into limbo.
Yes, maybe it will go to the US high court, but it doesn't need to.
Seems we are doing just fine with state courts knocking down ban after ban.
But the STAY? Limbo?
I would think the appeal process of all the decisions knocking down the ban(s) could be swifter than we are experiencing.
I am questioning, why the STAY from the justices?
For I know many of these justices are very conservative, and many appointed by republicans. So while the justices probably personally DO NOT agree, and believe marriage S/B between a man/woman, the law proves different.
And I would guess many of these justices knocking down state marriage bans have followed the law to the tee, but it has left a sour taste in their mouth.
The STAY process I do not understand because I would think appealing the ruling should and would be a swift process when you consider DUR PROCESS OF LAW and all that legal lingo. That once a STAY is in place, that the court would or should move rather rapidly to a final decision resolving the appeal challenge(s).
But that does not seem to be the case.
I see ulterior motives in following the law to knock down ban after ban, yet granting a STAY thus placing that ruling into a never ending limbo status.
A STAY is fine and dandy, BUT... then what?
Why do we have so many states in limbo with seemingly little if any movement towards resolving the appeal?
Surly UTAH could and should be settled once and for all. At least by now?
Didn't the 10th circuit court of appeal hear the UTAH state arguments months ago?
Can the court take forever to decide a final ruling?
Seems that is exactly what is now happening....
Then... if the state loses and wishes to go further to the US high court, so be it, but in the meantime let the appeal(s) be resolved and the marriages begin. Damn it!
To me, this STAY business is just a delay tactic by justices that HAD to follow the law and strike down state bans, but are doing whatever legally they can to delay a final outcome.
Maybe with hopes of a new republican congress come November 2014 might pass a US constitutional ban against SS marriage.
And if not a republican congress in 2014, then a republican congress along with a republican president come 2016.
The waiting game.
Despite what state courts rule, and despite the states that have already allowed SS marriage, and despite what the US high court might rule, a fully republican controlled government COULD EASILY impose a constitutional amendment to ban SS marriage nation wide. Period!
That COULD happen.
And if you don't think the republicans have that on their back burner, think again.
All they need is a republican controlled house, senate, AND republican president.
And bye bye marriage equality. Here, there, and everywhere.
Ps. I wouldn't put too much hope in the polling trends that marriage equality has hit mainstream and supported by a majority.
A poll is one thing. Republicans owning all branches of government quite another.
-
Stays are not all the uncommon and the appeals process is almost never speedy. things are moving -- the VA appeal has been heard and a ruling is pending. Of course, it would then be appealed to the SCOTUS by whichever side loses.
given the glacial pace of our justice system, I actually think things are moving much faster than I expected when it comes to marriage equality.
Mike
-
Well I just hope the community is up for the fight.
Look at civil rights.
We thought that was settled back in the 1960's yet today we see newly energized attacks to turn back the clock.
If and when republicans gain control of all three branches, and that day will come, expect a constitutional amendment to be their number one agenda.
Be it 2016, 2020, 2024, etc etc.
The only way we can protect marriage equality, and especially after a favorable ruling from the US high court, would be that old get out and march in the streets battle cry.
Exact as was done back in the 60's.
If the community is not up for that when the need comes, then forget about your marriage equality.
The right wing fundamentalist people do not want to lose.
As with every religious based war, they will never concede defeat.
And for them this is a religious battle. Never question that.
The battle will continue for decades to come.
We can win, unless we become complacent and expect others to wage our battle.
Then we will lose.
My point?
I really don't know if the community is capable of a 1960's type of battle.
Marching, determined, insistent on winning.
We all celebrate the victories, but too often lack the ability with protesting the losses.
I don't want to ride the wave of ups and downs.
I would hope the community would and could pave their own path.
Just because the courts are on our side is no guarantee.
We need to forge to ensure our own guarantee.
That will be our true test.
-
I'm not certain if we particularly need a sixties style agenda on this. Since the 1960's....hell, even since the 1980's...things have changed a lot. Back then, we were a curiosity to some, a vulgar reality to others, and the only face that was put out there was usually an outrageous Drag Queen. Now, the outrageous Drag Queen has a top rated show, is worth millions and is talked about at the family supper table. Things HAVE changed!
It's much more difficult to be so vehemently opposed to something that is part of your day to day life. The gays are 'everywhere!'. Ellen lead them all out of the closet and now you can't turn on TV without one of 'them' being front and center. And.....instead of marching they're now contributing to campaign war chests. This matters. Yes, some folks are going to be outraged no matter what and if it weren't the gays, it would be something else that got their lace underwear in a twist.
Justice Roberts gave his pound of flesh on the issue with the Windsor case. They have other things they are actively pursuing. While we were all rejoicing at the Windsor verdict, Robert's basking in his newfound 'less than evil' light, no one really commented on gutting the Voting Rights Act. I'm not saying that we don't have to be diligent, but there are different and more effective ways to fight now than the 60's.
-
I don't know randy -- you are hitting me as overly dramatic. Once marriage equality is reached, it isn't going to be pulled back. Not sure what battle march you want us to go on here? The fight is in the courts, it appears like victory is coming. My marriage is already "legal" in 20 states and recognized by the feds. There will be no US Constitutional Amendment -- too onerous a process and it simply isn't going to happen. In fact, within a year of a SCOTUS ruling (assuming it goes our way), there will be little more talk of this.
Vigilant? sure... Paranoid, I don't think so
Mike
-
And somewhere in Wisconsin......certainly not completely unexpected.....but real turd-ish none-the-less:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/us-appeals-court-wont-rule-on-gay-marriage-until-at-least-wednesday-b99288108z1-262532401.html (http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/us-appeals-court-wont-rule-on-gay-marriage-until-at-least-wednesday-b99288108z1-262532401.html)
Overturned by a judge, denied a stay by the courts and embraced by the county clerks and it's still not good enough for Teabagger Walker and his minions. They simply will not accept the forms! *poof* End of story.
-
harvey milk stamps?
-
Federal judge in Kentucky strikes down marriage ban; 23rd pro-marriage ruling in 1 year (http://www.freedomtomarry.org/blog/entry/federal-judge-in-kentucky-strikes-down-marriage-ban)
-
This was the case filed on Valentine's Day. This judge had already ruled couples married out of state should be allowed to marry. Brian and I got to meet the couples in the case. One is an Eagle Scout, like Brian is.
I kept saying why don't gay couples file suit. Why don't we? When I would mention that, people would say too expensive and wrong time. Of course, SCOTUS ruling on DOMA and Prop 8 had a huge impact. These federal judges saw their rulings would have a good chance of not being knock down. So, I'm glad these couples did it.
If our Dem governor appeals this, then he is just playing politics. Some have said he appealed it, in order to get it to the appeals court. That is set for August 6th, when a 3-judge panel will hear KY, OH, TN, and MI cases. Many said our governor was purposely trying to lose, as his filings were so flimsy and ridiculous. Threat to birth rate was his only argument, really. He does have a son running for office and he may want to run for Senate after his term as gov comes to end.
-
Judge rules Colorado ban unconstitutional.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26118709/adams-judge-tosses-colorado-gay-marriage-ban-but
-
Appeals court upholds decision overturning Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/appeals-court-upholds-decision-overturning-virginias-same-sex-marriage-ban/2014/07/28/02764842-167e-11e4-85b6-c1451e622637_story.html?hpid=z1)
A federal appeals court panel on Monday upheld a decision that said Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.
By a 2 to 1 vote, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond said that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed under the Constitution regardless of sexual orientation.
-
I would bet that this will all be solved through the courts before the 2016 elections. What I'm not sure about is how will the Republicans handle it.
-
I would bet that this will all be solved through the courts before the 2016 elections. What I'm not sure about is how will the Republicans handle it.
I do not think moderate Republicans will say too much at all now that they know the tide has turned and its not anything good in it for them . Ted and Michelle will keep using hate speech because that is what their base wants to hear .
-
I do not think moderate Republicans will say too much at all now that they know the tide has turned and its not anything good in it for them . Ted and Michelle will keep using hate speech because that is what their base wants to hear .
Michelle won't be around beyond this year. At least not in office anyway. I think she will try to find a way to follow Sarah's lead. Lot's of hot air to remain in the public eye hoping to cash in. I will miss her brilliant insights if she decides to retire quietly. You DO know that Ebola is coming our way from those pesky South American children pouring into our borders. Michelle knows this to be true.
-
link (http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/north-carolina-attorney-general-will-not-defend-states-marriage-ban)
Following today’s historic ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper announced that he would stop defending the state’s marriage equality ban.
Today’s ruling applies to the entire Fourth Circuit, which includes North Carolina, Maryland, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia. There are currently two cases in North Carolina challenging the state's marriage ban.
-
Ours is going before our federal appeals court next week. That court handles KY, TN, MI, and OH.
-
I don't want to say that these court issues don't matter, they do -- but on a practical level they will issues stays and couples will not be able to marry until the SC decides to take a case, and then of course it depends on the ruling.
-
I don't want to say that these court issues don't matter, they do -- but on a practical level they will issues stays and couples will not be able to marry until the SC decides to take a case, and then of course it depends on the ruling.
I'm confused once again. The link you last provided has a map to click on. The ban of gay marriage has been challenged in every state, including South Carolina. I know they will be dragging their feet as long as possible in any case.
-
What exactly are you confused about, dearie?
-
What exactly are you confused about, dearie?
Nevermind. Just a moment of airhead syndrome or maybe a touch of the HAND. :P lol.
-
This is will be playing out with our upcoming gubernatorial race in OH. Kasich adamently disagrees with same sex marriage and he's up against someone who does (albeit currently the under-dog)
-
Oral arguments were held today in the 6th Circuit, which heard cases from KY, TN, OH, and MI. It is my understanding 2 of the 3 judges are Bush appointments and one a Clinton. I've read one of the Bush judges outraged republicans, when deciding in favor of President Obama's healthcare law.
It was reported one Bush appointed judge (think a Bush judge) said, "The sky hasn't fallen, with the other pro-marriage rulings." If anyone is interested, here is a link to the audio of each state's case before the court today. Btw, we know one of the plaintiffs in the case. He and my better half have being an Eagle Scout in common. He had been very engaged in the Scout gay issues.
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/_breaking_listen_here_audio_of_all_marriage_cases_in_6th_circuit_court_released
Correction: The judge who said that was the Clinton appointee.
-
I realized I didn't discuss how I thought the KY case went. The lawyer for the state didn't seem to have her heart into it. She came off like a bored student forced to read before the class. Her whole argument was about the state has an interest in keeping marriage between heterosexuals for procreation, which she says boosts the economy. She said gay couples can have children by surrogate or artificial insemination. One judge kept interrupting, to try and ascertain how the state believes denying marriage to gay couples will help with procreation. She (the judge) repeatedly said many heterosexual couples choose or unable to have kids. She said there are many, who have children outside of marriage.
Many have speculated whether our Dem governor was playing politics-- hiring outside counsel to appeal, while not really wanting to win. The procreation argument had many talking, saying it was an absurd argument. The lawyer for the defendants did a decent job. She sounded nervous. She seemed like she was more together. I think she should have pointed out that if the state believes having children is good to "further the human race" and to boost the economy and the state acknowledges that gays can have children, then gays allowed to marry would serve the state's interest in having stable families.
Anyway, very interesting to hear the arguments. I haven't gotten to the other states yet.
-
Federal judges refuse to stay decision striking Va. same-sex marriage ban (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/federal-judges-refuse-to-stay-decision-striking-va-same-sex-marriage-ban/2014/08/13/a695193a-2303-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html?hpid=z3)
A federal appeals court panel refused to stay its decision striking Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage Wednesday, which means the unions could start next week absent further judicial action.
-
Good for those judges.
We are still waiting for the decision from the 6th Circuit. It could come at any time. That republican appointed judge has been hard to read. He made arguments that gay parents can be just as good or better. He said it doesn't seem very difficult for a state to add gays to those allowed to marry. But, he also said it seems this should be decided by the democratic process, even if attitudes change slowly.
I guess all the child/procreation arguments dominated the hearings of KY, OH, MI, and TN, as those states used procreation as their key argument. But, I kept thinking, "What does having kids have to do with having equal protection under our constitution?" What if studies showed kids of gay parents did worse? So what? Although, we know kids do just as well and even better, according to a recent study.
-
SCOTUS has stepped in and blocked marriages in Virginia. As I understand it, they have to hear the case, or their stay will expire and couples allowed to marry again. It seems they plan to take up marriage equality next year.
Justice Ginsburg recently said they would not duck this issue, like the court did civil rights. She hinted to a case before the court by 2015--2016 at the latest.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/20/gay-marriage-virginia-supreme-court/14282579/
-
Federal judge rules Louisiana ban IS constitutional. You can read his rationale here. The ol' mothers marrying sons thing. I was waiting for the humans marrying animals.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/louisiana-marriage-ban-is-constitutional-federal-judge-rules#2lywngd
-
Federal judge rules Louisiana ban IS constitutional. You can read his rationale here. The ol' mothers marrying sons thing. I was waiting for the humans marrying animals.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/louisiana-marriage-ban-is-constitutional-federal-judge-rules#2lywngd
Im truly happy my sate wasn't the first to rule this way ... sadly we will probably be number 2 though . What is it with southerners that they do not respect civil or individual rights of others . I got into a brief heated discussion last week with a guest in my home that was discussing how upset he was that someone had labeled him a racist ... when I declined to discuss it he got even madder and pressed me asking if I thought he was intolerant until I finally told him it was sad he has made the choice to walk through life willfully ignorant . I think thats whats so frustrating with all of these social issues, you can't debate with ignorant people who do not understand the constitution or try to use the bible or matters of faith as facts .
-
you can't debate with ignorant people who do not understand the constitution or try to use the bible or matters of faith as facts .
Word. Even the opinion written by this judge is ignorant and intolerant. Yet, I'm sure he has no idea.
-
7th Circuit Federal Appeals Court handed down its ruling on the Indiana and Wisconsin bans, within the last hour or so. The 3 judge panel ruled unanimously that the bans are unconstitutional. Another leap forward.
They ruled within about 2 weeks of the oral arguments. The 6th circuit, which handles KY, TN, OH, and MI heard oral arguments on August 6th. I would expect a ruling soon.
http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/seventh-circuit-rules-bans-on-marriage-equality-unconstitutional
-
SCOTUS formally added gay marriage case to the agenda for their closed door conference September 29th. First step in hearings
-
Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-bypasses-same-sex-marriage-cases-for-now/2014/10/02/1d2747b0-4a39-11e4-891d-713f052086a0_story.html?hpid=z4)
The Supreme Court took no action Thursday on requests that it decide whether there is a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry.
The court accepted 11 new cases but gave no indication about petitions from Virginia, Utah, Oklahoma, Indiana and Wisconsin, where federal appeals courts have struck down state bans on same-sex marriages. Both the winners and losers in those cases have asked the court to provide an answer to the question that would apply nationally.
There is still plenty of time for the court to act on the question and rule on the issue during the new term that begins on Monday and will end next June. Those who study the court and even the lawyers making the requests have said they expect it could be weeks or months before the justices decide whether to hear the issue, although most think it almost impossible for the court to pass up.
-
Scotus turned away appeals from five states.
Lower court rulings will stand in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
This immediately ends delay on marriage in those states.
-
per the Washington Post:
the decision will likely expand same-sex marriages to other states covered by the federal appeals courts that already have ruled that the bans are unconstitutional, including Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. That would bring to 30 the number of states where gays can marry.
I find this whole move rather... uh, curious. Basically it seems they're refusing going forward to get dragged into the matter at all. Whatever appeals courts decide will stand and it will just drag out as a somewhat slow process, though as we've seen not that slow.
ps: it's hilarious that the two deepest red/conservative states in the country, Utah and Oklahoma, now have to legalize same sex marriages. Everyone else might as well give up at this point.
-
I'm not sure how I feel about this.
On one hand, I believe all the appeals court rulings have been in favor of overturning gay marriage bans. If all the rulings have been to overturn and there haven't been any rulings to uphold a ban, there's nothing for the supreme court to decide. They can just kick it back and affirm the rulings.
On the other hand it's a constitutional issue related to discrimination and human rights. It's a pretty weak stance not to rule on it.
Regardless.
Utah Oklahoma
Also north and south Carolina (not sure if that was on this ruling or not) but has there been a southern state to have gay marriage yet? I want to see a marriage in Alabama or Mississippi.
-
ps: it's hilarious that the two deepest red/conservative states in the country, Utah and Oklahoma, now have to legalize same sex marriages. Everyone else might as well give up at this point.
I was shocked Utah had a huge pill problem-- death problem. I watched a special about it, last night on CNN. Gay marriage will be the least of their problems. But, yeah, still hilarious. The gays and not the pill problem.
-
This pretty much is the final word.
The supreme court can't affirm a case now as they just did and then hear a similar case later and rule the opposite way.
-
While the Supreme Court may move slowly, there is precedent for their approach to Gay marriage. The SC waited until 1967 to overturn bans on interracial marriage, after 34 states overturned such bans and the majority of Americans were still opposed to interracial marriage.
I don't see the Roberts court as being very progressive and I think they will simply wait this out, unless an Appellate court upholds a state ban on gay marriage. As painful as this approach may be, I think it is a wise choice in the long run. Let all the parties fight it out in court and when it's finally legal in all 50 states, nobody can say that it was decided by "activist judges", as dozens of cases will have already been decided.
The tide against gay marriage has turned decisively in favor and now, it's simply a matter of waiting... no matter how painful that wait may be for gay Americans seeking equal rights.
Joe
-
No matter how you slice it this is clearly a shot across the bow to the other states that are waffling around with the issue . I think .
-
The 6th Circuit, which covers KY, OH, TN, and MI heard oral arguments on August 6th. We are expecting their ruling any day. They are taking their time, which may be a good thing.
-
The 6th Circuit, which covers KY, OH, TN, and MI heard oral arguments on August 6th. We are expecting their ruling any day. They are taking their time, which may be a good thing.
This is the one court that could actually uphold a ban. At least they are the most likely.
However, with scotus affirming a previous ruling on the same topic it would be quite annoying.
-
Salt lake city clerk has already started issuing marriage licenses.
-
Now that the court "denied cert" in the cases from these five states, the decisions from the appeals courts will will stand and apply to every state covered by the circuit courts that rendered these decisions. So eventually it will be the law in Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Indiana, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.
This will make for a total of 30 states plus DC. I'm not sure what that comes down to in terms of population numbers but if you compare it to the fact that only 11 European countries have legalized full same sex unions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Europe) it's kind of amazing that the US is actually now further along than a place seen as more liberal on such issues.
-
This will make for a total of 30 states plus DC. I'm not sure what that comes down to in terms of population
I heard the numbers discussed on MNSBC today. 190 million.
-
While I am happy for myself and Sid -- legally married now in our home state -- I do wish that SCOTUS had taken a case. Of course, I suppose the more time goes and the more people get married, the harder it will be to rule against same-sex marriage in any sweeping way.
although, I never underestimate the ability for political minds to screw things up.
For now -- I will celebrate (and have an easier time filing taxes).
M
-
It didn't take too long for Ted Cruz, to start flapping his jowls :
The Texas Republican called the decision "tragic and indefensible" and said he would introduce a constitutional amendment that would ensure states can ban gay marriage.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ted-cruz-slams-scotus-on-gay-marriage-tragic-and-indefensible/ar-BB7TQ08
Ray >:(
-
While I am happy for myself and Sid -- legally married now in our home state -- I do wish that SCOTUS had taken a case. Of course, I suppose the more time goes and the more people get married, the harder it will be to rule against same-sex marriage in any sweeping way.
although, I never underestimate the ability for political minds to screw things up.
For now -- I will celebrate (and have an easier time filing taxes).
M
You are now going to have two anniversaries to celebrate, and I am so very happy for you both ! . Edited to add ... I guess technically you guys will have 3 anniversaries because you guys were married and soul mates way before you guys legally married .
-
It didn't take too long for Ted Cruz, to start flapping his jowls :
The Texas Republican called the decision "tragic and indefensible" and said he would introduce a constitutional amendment that would ensure states can ban gay marriage.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ted-cruz-slams-scotus-on-gay-marriage-tragic-and-indefensible/ar-BB7TQ08
Ray >:(
I guess the senator from Texas doesn't know that a constitutional amendment has a snow balls chance in hell in getting passed.
-
You are now going to have two anniversaries to celebrate, and I am so very happy for you both ! . Edited to add ... I guess technically you guys will have 3 anniversaries because you guys were married and soul mates way before you guys legally married .
Thanks Jeff -- I know I am a lucky man!!
I don't know that we will add a third anniversary -- but we do celebrate 2..... 8/2/90, when we met and 9/1/12, when we got married (in Massachusetts).
Sid is still at work now -- but I do have a bottle of champagne (alcohol-free) chilling. We will toast today's news with the Tiffany flutes we used to toast our wedding.
Mike
-
Breaking--- Appeals Court strikes down Idaho and Nevada bans, which brings it to 35 states!!
-
It was 30 states yesterday so don't you mean 32 now?
-
Ahem...
Still standing by my prediction from almost a year ago on this thread.
"After Oregon and maybe a few more, my guess is that a case will be brought up to the Supreme Court to bring marriage equality to all. (in 2015 or the first half of 2016)"
I'm happy for those who find it beneficial for whatever reason to be married but I think in my case I will stay "single". All I see are reasons NOT to get married. Neither of us are religious and getting married would just cost us more financially. Anyone else feel this way?
ps- I think Miss P. has the #'s down here. I hope that the next decision will add 4 more states. 36. The rest in mostly deep red states. Who would have guessed?
-
Ahem...
Still standing by my prediction from almost a year ago on this thread.
"After Oregon and maybe a few more, my guess is that a case will be brought up to the Supreme Court to bring marriage equality to all. (in 2015 or the first half of 2016)"
I'm happy for those who find it beneficial for whatever reason to be married but I think in my case I will stay "single". All I see are reasons NOT to get married. Neither of us are religious and getting married would just cost us more financially. Anyone else feel this way?
ps- I think Miss P. has the #'s down here. I hope that the next decision will add 4 more states. 36. The rest in mostly deep red states. Who would have guessed?
I think it's beneficial for some and not for others.
Neither myself nor my partner are religious. We are both contently atheist. Being married has been beneficial for us. We saved quite a bit of money on our taxes, inheritance should be made easier if it comes to that, especially considering life insurance etc. We are saving money on health insurance since before we were married the gov taxed me on the value of his health insurance and now since we are married they don't.
I like knowing that should either of us end up in the hospital there's no question about who he or I are. We had "paperwork" before, now it's just easier.
I do worry about what if I lose my health insurance? I don't qualify for Adap or any other public assistance now due to my income. When you include his there's no way I would qualify for anything. Should I require to be on any type of assistance I would need to get a divorce first , that's fucked up.
-
... and yet gay people most everywhere can still be fired from their jobs
SUCH PROGRESS
-
It was 30 states yesterday so don't you mean 32 now?
Hmmmm, okay, this is my fault and ABC NEWS. They've been getting their reporting wrong on the numbers. I heard 35 and wrote that. Yesterday they had Ohio, TN, and MI as states where marriage is already legal. They also said KY would soon be legal. Since our ruling hasn't come down, they have no way of knowing that. And, OH, TN, and MI is in our case, so not legal there. Things have gone downhill, since Louisville's Diane left.
-
The ruling today covered Nevada and I think Idaho. However that circuit also includes Arizona and Montana and someone else,I forget. Nevada and Idaho had cases that were being ruled on. The other states didn't have cases that far along. I think the news media was including them for a total of 35.
The court that covers Kentucky is actually the court many believe will hold up a marriage ban since two of the judges are Bush appointees. But who knows.
-
The ruling today covered Nevada and I think Idaho. However that circuit also includes Arizona and Montana and someone else,I forget. Nevada and Idaho had cases that were being ruled on. The other states didn't have cases that far along. I think the news media was including them for a total of 35.
The court that covers Kentucky is actually the court many believe will hold up a marriage ban since two of the judges are Bush appointees. But who knows.
Ah, that explains things. This has so moved so pleasantly fast, that it has been hard keeping up.
Our 6th District needs 2 votes of 3. The female judge is an obvious vote for marriage, after listening to the oral arguments. She's the Clinton appointee. There's this Bush appointee, who many think may surprise again. He voted in favor of Obamacare in some case. I am a little nervous, but I feel good about it. These seem to come in 2's or 3's, so we may have our ruling this week.
-
The ruling today covered Nevada and I think Idaho. However that circuit also includes Arizona and Montana and someone else,I forget. Nevada and Idaho had cases that were being ruled on. The other states didn't have cases that far along. I think the news media was including them for a total of 35.
The court that covers Kentucky is actually the court many believe will hold up a marriage ban since two of the judges are Bush appointees. But who knows.
Human Rights Campaign (http://www.hrc.org/press-releases/entry/unanimous-ninth-circuit-ruling-strikes-down-idaho-nevada-marriage-equality)
Montana, Alaska and Arizona – all states that fall within the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction and have marriage bans in place – are not immediately effected by today’s ruling.
-
... and yet gay people most everywhere can still be fired from their jobs
SUCH PROGRESS
Good point. From my understanding, gays can marry in these states, but still legally be fired for putting their wedding photo up in their cubicle.
-
... and yet gay people most everywhere can still be fired from their jobs
SUCH PROGRESS
It IS progress -- and astounding progress at that. Five years ago not many folks would have dreamed that we'd be where we are today. The peace of mind that this gives to many couples is enormous - the ability to adopt a child, to know that inheritance rights are there, hospital visitation is guaranteed, never mind the right to make decisions for a spouse when needed, I could go on and on. I get that marriage isn't for everyone, but it is for me and this progress is enormous and hugely impactful.
Not sure why folks must try to denigrate a win by pointing out an area where progress is still needed.
M
-
recently found i picture of myself about 20 years ago. i was wearing a ring
all i can say is congrats and good luck yall. being married is worth it
-
It IS progress -- and astounding progress at that. Five years ago not many folks would have dreamed that we'd be where we are today. The peace of mind that this gives to many couples is enormous - the ability to adopt a child, to know that inheritance rights are there, hospital visitation is guaranteed, never mind the right to make decisions for a spouse when needed, I could go on and on. I get that marriage isn't for everyone, but it is for me and this progress is enormous and hugely impactful.
Not sure why folks must try to denigrate a win by pointing out an area where progress is still needed.
M
Because all gay people need employment protection provided under EDNA legislation. Not all gay people get married. In fact, only a small percentage of them get married. You're in a relationship so naturally your view on the issue is (understandably) biased. I'm neither employed nor in a relationship so my viewpoint is neutral.
You can't deny that all the air has been sucked up in terms of political capital and funding in the past decade on marriage equality at the expense of passing EDNA. In fact public polling shows your average voter assumes gay people already have such protections.
-
Yes, I agree that ENDA is very important. Though, I don't think that not having ENDA means that marriage equality is "less important". Ending any form of discrimination is important and when it happens it IS progress.
Why did marriage move faster than ENDA? Perhaps because employment discrimination is allowed to happen, whereas marriage discrimination was mandated in dozens of states. So, while a percentage of people might lose their job for being gay, 100% of people in most states were not allowed to marry.
Again -- not saying ENDA isn't important -- but marriage equality is progress and is important too.
oh, and I'm not convinced that ENDA's languishing is due to the marriage equality fight -- it is due more, IMO, to the fact that marriage had a strong legal basis for judicial challenge, while ENDA is pretty much in the hands of Congress -- and we know how much of ANYTHING has happened in the last few years in that venerable institution.
M
-
You're in a relationship so naturally your view on the issue is (understandably) biased. I'm neither employed nor in a relationship so my viewpoint is neutral.
Wait, your neutral because your not in a relationship and you don't work? So following that logic, since I'm both married and employed my viewpoint is also neutral.
You don't give up progress on one issue because you haven't made progress on a different issue. There's a saying for that, isn't it don't shoot yourself in the foot despite your face? It's also what children do when they don't get their way.
-
Not all gay people get married. In fact, only a small percentage of them get married
there's a terrible argument. ??? So because gay people haven't been able to get married in most states, then marriage rights are less important because gay people aren't getting married??
I'm neither employed nor in a relationship so my viewpoint is neutral.
this argument is just sad. :'( Since I've already been lucky enough to have been in 2 relationships where I wish I could have gotten married, I won't ever say that I won't get lucky again and find another man I'd want as my spouse. Are you saying you're neutral on the marriage issue because you don't think you'll find someone you love that much? Or someone won't find you?
Personally I see the same sex marriage issue as the cure to many of the ills you have complained about. Once gays are allowed to marry, young teen-aged gays will be better able to date openly and will go on to have "normal" uncloseted lives. While it won't happen overnight, it will happen and that'll be an amazing change for gay people! As gays are allowed to marry, ENDA will gain more power and many discriminatory practices will have to be stopped because other rights should flow from the marriage decision. Once marriage is legal in a state, a lawsuit to keep a home or keep a picture on a desk will be a much easier win.
You can't deny that all the air has been sucked up in terms of political capital and funding in the past decade on marriage equality at the expense of passing EDNA.
ah! the funding issue rears its ugly head once again. Funding for research, funding for treatment, and funding for political/legal outcomes all come at a price because funding is finite. Some time ago, ENDA and same-sex marriage sucked up a lot of the funding and capital that used to be devoted to the HIV epidemic. I would suggest that these funding and political changes came about because many gays who were not infected by HIV decided they were "neutral" on the topic and moved on to other issues they deemed more important to their lives.
-
So, is SCOTUS going to hear appeals or not? I'm confused. A stay was issued for Idaho, which included Nevada. The article says Idaho was the only state to appeal.
Anyway, I just heard the stay has been lifted for Nevada, but still in effect for Idaho. I guess Idaho has until Thursday to present their appeal. I don't understand saying they will not hear appeals, but now are. Perhaps legal scholars would say it is appropriate what Kennedy did today.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/08/gay-marriage-supreme-court-kennedy-idaho-nevada/16907035/
-
I think it's beneficial for some and not for others.
I do worry about what if I lose my health insurance? I don't qualify for Adap or any other public assistance now due to my income. When you include his there's no way I would qualify for anything. Should I require to be on any type of assistance I would need to get a divorce first , that's fucked up.
That's what I thought. We could have benefitted being married over a decade ago IF it were legal tax wise but now am facing assistance qualifiers. It really is fucked up. Guess we missed the opportunity to get married and divorced. lol.
-
While the ability to be married or not won't affect me I do know that we need an equal footing in our society. I'm not neutral in the least and I also am amazed that anyone would suggest that getting this equality is going at a fast pace. I know it is now but I imagine a 70ish year old couple that have been together for decades would be laughing hysterically.
-
I also am amazed that anyone would suggest that getting this equality is going at a fast pace.
If you don't think that this has moved quickly then I don't know what to say. Pretty much EVERYONE is amazed at the speed of change on this topic. Marriage equality was not really anywhere in the conversation a few years ago -- now more than half the country has it.
If your starting point is the Big Bang, then yeah - a long time. My starting point is when folks truly galvanized around the issue -- rights are rarely expanded without advocates, so nothing was going to happen on it 20 years ago.
Mike
-
this argument is just sad. :'( Since I've already been lucky enough to have been in 2 relationships where I wish I could have gotten married, I won't ever say that I won't get lucky again and find another man I'd want as my spouse. Are you saying you're neutral on the marriage issue because you don't think you'll find someone you love that much? Or someone won't find you?
Look Mikie, I was in a relationship a decade ago which, if there had been marriage equality, I could have (or he could have) moved from one country to another -- marriage equality is an even more important issue for those in relationships that involve two countries. So yes, I do see the value in the issue. I still maintain that as an issue it still effects a smaller amount of people -- those are just facts. It's the same with housing discrimination for gay people. That effects every gay person.
I apologize to the forum that I don't repeatedly divulge my personal life spanning decades over and over and over ad nauseam.
-
I still maintain that as an issue it still effects a smaller amount of people -- those are just facts.
and I just disagree. I believe same-sex marriage will not only have long term effects for every gay person having any sort of relationship from high school onward; but it is a right for every gay person. Just because some/many may not use this right does not mean that it isn't as important a right to every gay person as non-discrimination in employment and housing are also important rights to every gay person.
Quite honestly, isn't that the pantheon of gay rights? the right to marry who you want; the right to work where you want and not be fired for just being gay; and the right to live where you want without being forced out onto the streets because you're gay.
-
I still maintain that as an issue it still effects a smaller amount of people -- those are just facts. It's the same with housing discrimination for gay people. That effects every gay person.
I do get the point that you are making here. Though I would add that these are potential impacts that don't actually hit the majority of gay people who are employed or need housing. However, the marriage inequality hit EVERY gay person who wished to marry. Plus, as I said earlier, the marriage question was an easy one to get to the courts, as states were enshrining this discrimination in theirs laws and constitutions. I've not yet seen a state MANDATE the firing of gays or forbidding renting an apartment to them. So, it's not too surprising that it was achieved first.
Bottomline -- all discrimination needs to end, but if all isn't solved at once, it still doesn't lessen the victory that was achieved. It simply means more needs to be done.
Mike
-
Here's a good breakdown of what happens next in marriage equality.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5946680?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular&ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000010
-
I apologize to the forum that I don't repeatedly divulge my personal life spanning decades over and over and over ad nauseam.
So when it goes beyond reasonable discussion, it's truly better to resort to attacks? And it's not just that Mikie and I are friends, we are very similar in many regards. We've both dragged corpses around a long time and it's a painful aspect of our history and probably dictates who we are today.
-
Supreme Court has denied idaho's delay. Marriage is now legal in Idaho and.....North Carolina!
North Carolina I will have a drink in your honor tonight. A southern gay wedding sounds downright charming.
-
Supreme Court has denied idaho's delay. Marriage is now legal in Idaho and.....North Carolina!
North Carolina I will have a drink in your honor tonight. A southern gay wedding sounds downright charming.
;D Here's the link for that:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/10/supreme-court-idaho-gay-marriage/17035827/
Ray
-
So, it's been a year and a half since gay marriage was passed in Socialist France and stuff like this is still going on (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/10/05/381139/french-protest-at-samesex-marriage/). Rather amazing don't you think? I can't even see things like this happening in South Carolina or Kansas once gay marriages start up. Maybe a day or two of small groupings on the steps of the state capital which will fade away quickly but that will be about it.
-
Rather amazing don't you think? I can't even see things like this happening in South Carolina or Kansas once gay marriages start up.
I agree.
Do you think it is because the French are more likely to protest (regardless the reason)? Or do you think it is because of a more intense dislike of marriage equality? It said in the article 30 percent of French dont support gay marriage. Its higher in the US, especially in Kansas and the South.
I can't picture the people in Kansas or South Carolina protesting much. I often wonder why people don't protest more in this country. Where I live, protests are quite common. Probably daily, or weekly. Its not uncommon to be stuck in traffic because of some impromptu protest blocking the streets. Just last week when I was driving to work I got stuck in a protest.
I don't get the impression that people throughout the country do the same. It seems limited to the more liberal places like SF, NYC, etc etc.
Are Americans inclined to get off their asses regardless of what its for?
-
I can't picture the people in Kansas or South Carolina protesting much.
that's cause you don't live here. Anti-abortionists, anti-gay, pro-church, anti-Obama confederate flag wavers are on the steps of the state house all the time protesting something. When pro-sex-ed, pro-gay, pro-church put-the-flag-away-people show up for their own rallies, those "other" people are always there. at the last pro-medicaid-expansion rally where there were about 500 people on one side of the capital building advocating for access to health care, there were about 300 old, white (men and women), confederate flag wavers on the other side of the capital hollering about how we should all burn in hell.
IMHO I always thought South Carolina would be the last to fall. Since our Governor and AG are still fighting to keep the state constitutional ban (78% of the votes, during the midterm election before Obama was elected POTUS, put it into place in 2006), it'll still be a while before its legal in SC.
Maybe a day or two of small groupings on the steps of the state capital which will fade away quickly but that will be about it.
what's that old saying? "from your lips to god's ear" ;) However, i think you are right and that is what will most likely to happen. Those Bible-thumpers will make some noise for a while However, I'm most worried about the noise they will make right now. This is just another issue they can fear-monger with to get a large republican/libertarian/tea party turn-out for the Nov midterms. As always, the issue of same sex marriage will bring crowds to the polls, and SC will stay just as red as ever. :(
-
#Arizona
That makes...30?
-
Barring activity by the Attorney General - which they probably will - asking for a stay of the ruling, it's DARK BLUE now!
Jan Brewer - suck it!
(http://i58.tinypic.com/vxglx.jpg)
-
You can color Wyoming in, as their ban was just knocked down. The Supreme Court rejected an appeal from Alaska. Not sure what's taking the 6th District so long.
-
Barring activity by the Attorney General - which they probably will - asking for a stay of the ruling, it's DARK BLUE now!
Jan Brewer - suck it!
(http://i58.tinypic.com/vxglx.jpg)
I saw another map earlier today that colored the gay marriage states in red. It just seemed wrong, SO wrong. lol.
-
I saw another map earlier today that colored the gay marriage states in red. It just seemed wrong, SO wrong. lol.
That's genius
Beats it being pink
-
And now Wyoming at 33....oops Ted beat me to it.
-
OH lord ... the South is rising to a new low . An Author has suggested the South succeed because of gay marriage . Im sure it will lead to a civil war ... The Rainbow War probably .
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/conservative-author-wants-states-secede-over-gay-rights
-
Thats comedic gold.
He wants to call it Reagan land and is forbidding Texas from joining because there are too many Mexicans.
You can't make that shit up.
-
the rainbow, when did that become a gay symbol?
just curious
-
the rainbow, when did that become a gay symbol?
just curious
We may never know ... if you wear special goggles you can see the rainbow coming out of homosexuals butts all over the world and ending in West Hollywood .
-
This is better than Letterman
-
the rainbow, when did that become a gay symbol?
just curious
I found this:
1978
The first Rainbow Flag was designed in 1978 by Gilbert Baker, a San Francisco artist, who created the flag in response to a local activist's call for the need of a community symbol. (This was before the pink triangle was popularly used as a symbol of pride.)
Joe
-
I found this:
1978
The first Rainbow Flag was designed in 1978 by Gilbert Baker, a San Francisco artist, who created the flag in response to a local activist's call for the need of a community symbol. (This was before the pink triangle was popularly used as a symbol of pride.)
Joe
Wasn't the pink triangle taken from how the Nazis labeled homosexuals, or those accused of being gay?
-
Yes, it was originally a Nazi identification symbol.
-
Pam Bondi ( AG of Florida), Still refuses to budge:
http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2014/10/24/pam_bondi_to_federal.html
TALLAHASSEE (AP) --
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi is asking a federal judge to keep the state's ban on gay marriage in place despite a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision.
The court's decision to turn away appeals from five states prompted the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida as well as lawyers representing same-sex couples to ask a federal judge in Tallahassee to allow same-sex marriages.
But Bondi on Friday asked that U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle keep the state's ban in place while the state pursues appeals. Hinkle ruled Florida's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional this summer, but stayed the ruling until other cases around the country were resolved.
Bondi's court filings said there is a "great public interest" in keeping the state's marriage laws stable at this point.
-
Decision in Missouri.
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=157&sid=32236355&title=judge-overturns-missouri-ban-on-gay-marriage
-
I'm losing track. Is it time to change the name of the thread to 32 down, 16 to go...?
Still waiting and waiting and waiting for the decision from District Court # whatever that covers from Kentucky to Michigan.
-
I'm losing track. Is it time to change the name of the thread to 32 down, 16 to go...?
Still waiting and waiting and waiting for the decision from District Court # whatever that covers from Kentucky to Michigan.
I am still waiting on the 6th Circuit decision, too. That covers KY, TN, OH, and MI. It has now been 3 months, since oral arguments on August 6th.
-
I think everyone is waiting for that decision. Of all the court decisions so far the most likely to hold up a marriage ban is the 6th. If they do, the supreme court is going to have its hand forced. If they overturn the bans...I think that would be the end of it.
-
source (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/06/gay-marriage-appeals-court-ohio-michigan-kentucky-tennessee/15712319/)
The same-sex marriage movement lost its first major case in a federal appeals court Thursday after a lengthy string of victories, creating a split among the nation's circuit courts that virtually guarantees Supreme Court review.
The ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit reversed district court rulings that had struck down gay marriage bans in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.
More important, it gives Supreme Court justices an appellate ruling that runs counter to four others from the 4th, 7th, 9th and 10th circuits. Those rulings struck down same-sex marriage bans in Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Utah, Idaho and Nevada and led to similar action in neighboring states.
The six cases before the three-judge panel involved not only whether gays and lesbians should be able to marry, but whether marriages performed elsewhere should be recognized, whether same-sex couples should be able to adopt children, and whether their names should be placed on partners' death certificates.
The Supreme Court refused to reconsider the Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Indiana and Wisconsin cases, at least in part because there was no conflict among the federal appeals courts. But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told a Minneapolis audience that a ruling against same-sex marriage from the 6th Circuit panel would make Supreme Court consideration more urgent.
Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex couples to marry, including the five states from which the high court turned down appeals. Since then, eight additional states have been added to the list: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, North Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming. Three more states -- Kansas, Montana and South Carolina -- also are bound by the appeals court rulings.
The justices ruled 5-4 in June 2013 that the federal government must recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in states that allow them. They also refused to overrule a California court's decision striking down that state's ban.
Those rulings have led federal and state judges to overturn state bans in more than two dozen more recent decisions. The string of federal court victories was broken in early September in Louisiana, where a federal district judge upheld that state's ban. Then in October, a federal judge in Puerto Rico upheld the territory's ban.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit upheld Nebraska's gay marriage ban in 2006, long before the Supreme Court's ruling last year. But in deciding not to consider any cases recently, the justices clearly did not give that decision equal weight in determining whether the appeals courts were divided.
-
Sad day. I still think Kennedy will be the 5th vote to overturn their decision. I hope.
-
I must have ESP. I just felt a bowel movement coming but wasn't sure where it was coming from. Now I know.
-
Sad day. I still think Kennedy will be the 5th vote to overturn their decision. I hope.
You best hope Ginsberg doesn't croak in the next 12 months because I am sure filling her position with a Republican controlled Senate would be a lot of fun.
-
I must have the ESP. I just felt a bowel movement coming but wasn't sure where it was coming from. Now I know.
HA, that made me laugh. I'm sitting in the lobby of the aids clinic giggling.
You best hope Ginsberg doesn't croak in the next 12 months because I am sure filling her position with a Republican controlled Senate would be a lot of fun.
That's a real concern, she's like 150
-
Decision in Missouri.
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=157&sid=32236355&title=judge-overturns-missouri-ban-on-gay-marriage
And today a federal Judge ruled in Missouri :
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/judge-rules-missouri-ban-on-gay-marriage-violates-us-constitution/ar-AA70OnT?ocid=mailsignout
-
The Kentucky playground that "Will & Grace" built.
http://www.upworthy.com/these-backwoods-country-folks-had-some-ideas-about-homosexuality-hollywood-noticed?c=ufb1
-
This is almost uplifting ... http://news.yahoo.com/tv-campaign-gay-equality-starting-miss-170610624.html
-
South Carolina's gay marriage ban struck down in federal court (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/12/south-carolinas-gay-marriage-ban-struck-down-in-federal-court)
Judge cites fourth circuit decision in Virginia in ruling knocking down same-sex marriage ban, but gives time for state to appeal
-
Supreme Court green lights Kansas same-sex marriages (http://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/11/12/supreme-court-green-lights-kansas-sex-marriages/)
Same-sex couples may begin to marry in Kansas despite a request from the state attorney general to halt gay nuptials there, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered on Wednesday.
In a one-page order, the court announced without explanation an earlier request to stay same-sex marriages in Kansas pending appeal was denied and the hold entered by U.S. Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor is vacated.
The order denotes that U.S. Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would have granted the application for an extended stay.
On Monday, Sotomayor, who’s responsible for stay requests in the Tenth Circuit, had placed a temporary hold on same-sex marriages in Kansas until the court reviewed the matter following the stay request from Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt.
In his injunction against the Kansas marriage ban, U.S. District Judge Daniel Crabtree had placed his own stay on the ruling, but that expired on Tuesday at 5 pm Central Time. Now that the Supreme Court has denied a further stay, same-sex couples are free to marry at any time.
But the litigation is still ongoing on the merits. Kansas has requested the full U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals consider the district court injunction in “en banc” review. That request is still pending before the appeals court.
-
A federal judge just ruled Montana's ban unconstitutional. It seems these rulings, after SCOTUS refused to take appeals, are just going through, with appeals being denied.
So, if the judge for KY didn't rule until now, would that mean KY would have marriage equality? Would the original federal judge ruling stand and it wouldn't have gone to the 6th Circuit of Appeals? This is all so confusing.
-
South Carolina's gay marriage ban struck down in federal court (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/12/south-carolinas-gay-marriage-ban-struck-down-in-federal-court)
Those who married elsewhere are now officially married in the state
marriage licenses will begin to be issued tomorrow 11/20 at noon. WooHoo!
If you married elsewhere and still need to have a name change on your SC documents, there are still delays there. :( They say within a few days the DMV and other agencies will have their act together. Hopefully it won't take another court case to bring all of SC along.
-
Florida's same-sex marriage stay declined, marriages to begin next month?
http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2014/12/3/gay_marriage_ruling.html
ATLANTA --
A federal appeals court on Wednesday gave the green light to same-sex marriages in Florida.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta declined to extend the stay on Florida's gay marriage ruling. Without any action taken by the Supreme Court of the United States, gay marriages will start in Florida in January 2015. The current stay expires at the end of the day Jan. 5, 2015.
Several judges had ruled the state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, but Attorney General Pam Bondi appealed each time.
Bondi's office said they are reviewing the order right now.
This is a developing story. Check back and refresh the page for the latest.
-
i won't pretend to understand law well enough... will that courts decision set a precedent for georgia as well? i would love to heads exploding around here. a couple guys getting married is sure to do it too
-
i won't pretend to understand law well enough... will that courts decision set a precedent for georgia as well? i would love to heads exploding around here. a couple guys getting married is sure to do it too
A circuit controls multiple states, I believe there are 13 circuits in total and they all have an appeals court that can override a ruling. If a decision goes beyond a state's supreme court and court of appeals it goes to the circuit court and their court of appeals. If it goes beyond that system the next and final court on the list is the US Supreme Court which cannot be appealed.
So if a circuit court for say Louisiana decides that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional and overturns it then each state in that circuit has their bans overturned as well.
This is my understanding of the system and could be wrong :)
-
Florida's same-sex marriage stay declined, marriages to begin next month?
http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2014/12/3/gay_marriage_ruling.html
"Even with the ruling yesterday in Atlanta ( With the 11th circuit court), Florida Attorney General Pam
Bondi could seek a stay from the U.S. Supreme Court, but the court has already denied similar requests for stay of extensions in South Carolina, Alaska, Idaho, and Kansas. "
I believe AG Pam Bondi will fight this right to the end. She refuses to believe that gay people should be allowed to be married in the State of Florida. And Pam Bondi herself, is twice divorced ! ::)
http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2014/06/01/floridas-twice-divorced-attorney-general-thinks-gays-don%E2%80%99t
Ray
-
I don't know if I heard about this fucker here, or while I was surfing around doing research after the recent decision. Anyway, google him, scorn and ridicule is all I have.
Eladio Jose Armesto of the Florida Democracy League.
Funny thing is the Democratic Party has filed a cease and desist against them to stop them from using the name.
They call themselves Florida's leading minority-led Democratic voters' civil rights and social justice advocacy organization, firmly committed to ending hatred, ignorance and intolerance.
Logic fails me here. They are nothing more than a hate group.
-
A circuit controls multiple states, I believe there are 13 circuits in total and they all have an appeals court that can override a ruling. If a decision goes beyond a state's supreme court and court of appeals it goes to the circuit court and their court of appeals. If it goes beyond that system the next and final court on the list is the US Supreme Court which cannot be appealed.
So if a circuit court for say Louisiana decides that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional and overturns it then each state in that circuit has their bans overturned as well.
This is my understanding of the system and could be wrong :)
That was my understanding as well. I really can't wait to see the buy bull thumpers melt down over this.
-
And the insanity continues,...
http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2014/12/15/bondi_files_appeal_t.html
Bondi files appeal to U.S. Supreme Court in gay marriage case
TALLAHASSEE --
Florida has filed a new appeal to keep gay marriages from happening in Florida until the state Supreme Court makes a decision. And this new appeal goes to the highest court in the country.
Attorney General Pam Bondi has filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The appeal would extend a stay to put gay marriage licenses on hold until all the consolidated cases on the issue work their way through the judicial system.
As of right now the injunction to stop gay marriages expires Jan. 5, 2015.
A federal court denied a motion to extend the stay past Jan. 5. Bondi's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court would have the justices decide whether to extend the stay or allow it to expire.
-
SCOTUS schedules conference on Louisiana marriage appeal. It was due to go before the 5th circuit next month. But, two gay rights groups asked SCOTUS to review the case, before the circuit hearing-- which is apparently unusual.
http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/12/u-s-supreme-court-schedules-conference-on-louisiana-gay-marriage-appeal/
-
http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2014/12/17/fl_gay_divorce.html
1st Florida gay divorce granted by judge
FORT LAUDERDALE (AP) --
The first formal divorce for a gay couple in Florida has been granted by the same county judge who also declared the state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.
Circuit Judge Dale Cohen on Wednesday dissolved the marriage of Heather Brassner and Megan Lade. They were united in a 2002 civil union in Vermont.
Cohen had ruled in August that Florida's gay marriage ban is unconstitutional and that out-of-state gay marriages should be recognized.
Brassner attorney Nancy Brodzki said it was Florida's first gay divorce.
Brodzki says she expects Attorney General Pam Bondi to appeal the decision, just as she has several other rulings against the gay marriage ban. There was no immediate reaction from Bondi's office.
Voters approved the ban in 2008.
-
;D ;D FINALLY !! ;D ;D
A decision from the US supreme court !!
http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2014/12/19/gay_marriage.html
Supreme Court won't stop gay marriages in Florida; licenses as soon as Jan. 6?
MIAMI (AP) --
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday refused to block gay marriages in Florida, the latest of about three dozen states allowing same-sex weddings.
In a one-paragraph order, the court decided not to step into the Florida case. A federal judge previously declared Florida's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional and said same-sex marriage licenses could start being issued in the state after Jan. 5 unless the Supreme Court intervened.
Most federal judges and appeals courts have ruled against state bans, but the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati has upheld the right of four states to decide whether to allow gay marriage.
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi has fought to uphold Florida's constitutional ban, which voters approved in 2008.
Bondi said if the ban was struck down, some, but not all, county clerks in Florida would begin issuing marriage licenses, causing confusion throughout the state. She said that would happen because the lawsuit against Florida's ban only named the clerk in tiny Washington County in the Panhandle.
The state clerks association has warned its members that they could be risking misdemeanor prosecution under state law if they issue licenses before the question is fully settled. It is unclear how many plan to take that advice.
State judges in four South Florida counties have declared the same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional, but those decisions are also being appealed by Bondi and no marriage licenses have been issued.
U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle in August declared the state's ban unconstitutional, but he put his ruling on hold until after Jan. 5 pending appeals.
Like many other judges and appellate courts, Hinkle ruled the state's gay marriage ban violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection.
Bondi's office released a statement Friday night in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision. The statement is as follows:
Tonight, the United States Supreme Court denied the state's request for a stay in the case before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Regardless of the ruling, it has always been our goal to have uniformity throughout Florida until the final resolution of the numerous challenges to the voter-approved constitutional amendment on marriage. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has now spoken, and the stay will end on January 5.
-
I will be in Florida that day. But, I still am waiting for marriage here. We cancelled plans to marry in NYC on 12-12-12. We felt we wanted to wait for marriage here. Our flight home is that day, but we may have to swing by the courthouse that day to see all the couples.
-
If you look at the current map that shows which states you can get married in we have come a long way in just one year.
There are only a handful of states left.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#mediaviewer/File:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg
-
Also, if you compare full gay marriage rights between the US and Europe (and no, Western Europe isn't "Europe") the adjust for population totals as a % of the total, you'll see that actually the US is currently more liberal on the issue by far. True, a lot of countries have civil unions but that's not equal status. It amazes me that a place like Germany only has civil unions, instituted in 2001 and hasn't moved further on the issue.
In fact, if you look at "the Americas" as a whole the entire Western Hemisphere is far ahead now on this issue.
-
Breaking News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMfrLFirGWc ;D Happy New Year !!
Judge: All Florida counties can comply with gay marriage ruling
http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2015/1/1/judge_all_florida_co.html
WASHINGTON COUNTY --
All of Florida's 67 counties can comply with a federal judge's ruling and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples starting next week.
U.S. Judge Robert Hinkle issued a ruling Thursday that clarifies his ruling on the issue.
Hinkle originally overturned Florida's same-sex marriage ban, but there were questions as to whether it affected only Washington County, or all counties.
A stay on the ruling was set to end at midnight Jan. 5, and Hinkle said he would not extend the stay. That means on Jan. 6 counties can begin issuing marriage licences to same-sex couples.
Judge Hinkle said this in his ruling:
"History records no shortage of instances when state officials defied federal
court orders on issues of federal constitutional law. Happily, there are many more
instances when responsible officials followed the law, like it or not. Reasonable
people can debate whether the ruling in this case was correct and who it binds.
"There should be no debate, however, on the question whether a clerk of court may
follow the ruling, even for marriage-license applicants who are not parties to this
case. And a clerk who chooses not to follow the ruling should take note: the
governing statutes and rules of procedure allow individuals to intervene as
plaintiffs in pending actions, allow certification of plaintiff and defendant classes,
allow issuance of successive preliminary injunctions, and allow successful
plaintiffs to recover costs and attorney’s fees."
Many counties were preparing to issue those licenses even if they did not have this clarification. A Florida circuit judge Wednesday ordered Orange and Osceola counties to issue marriage licenses on Jan. 6.
latest news: gay marriage
-
We leave florida at 2:15pm January 6th. We may just get hitched. No. I would like to swing by the courthouse and see if there are crowds. If SCOTUS doesn't take the case for KY this year, we may just come back to Florida and marry on the beach.
-
when is your birthday again ted? ::) you know what i'm talking about mmmhmmm :-*
-
when is your birthday again ted? ::) you know what i'm talking about mmmhmmm :-*
January 4th. I'm legal to marry.
-
We leave florida at 2:15pm January 6th.
Hey Ted,
Where you guys at here in Florida ? Are you close to Clearwater? Anyway, the reason I ask is because we're going to Derby lane on Saturday, But will be back in Clearwater between 2:00 and 3:00 that afternoon.
If you are in the area, and have no plans why not meet us at the Proshop Pub ( in Clearwater) around that time. I will give you more directions later, if you're in the area, and would like to get together for a few beverages !
Let me know !
Ray 8)
-
Hey Ted,
Where you guys at here in Florida ? Are you close to Clearwater? Anyway, the reason I ask is because we're going to Derby lane on Saturday, But will be back in Clearwater between 2:00 and 3:00 that afternoon.
If you are in the area, and have no plans why not meet us at the Proshop Pub ( in Clearwater) around that time. I will give you more directions later, if you're in the area, and would like to get together for a few beverages !
Let me know !
Ray 8)
Thanks for that offer. We are in Englewood, which is between Tampa and Fort Myers. We may actually be up that way Saturday. We thought about going to Anna Marie island. I will certainly let you know. It would be good to meet up. We stayed in Atlanta on the way down. I contacted Zach. I wanted to meet up with him, but wasn't sure of our schedule. We drove Brian's parent's van down and will fly home the 6th. We are flying out of Orlando. We plan to hit Disney Monday and leave Tuesday.
-
englewood!? shit man, my family has a condo in nokomis, hit the drum circle while you're there, tell my people i said hello
i'm sorry to laugh, but i see some irony, you'll probably be married before you take your damn meds
-
According to a friend who is a financial advisor my partner and I need to review our financial situations with a professional before determining whether marriage is in our best interests. Apparently marriage isn't always the smartest way to go. We don't really care about marriage but we do care about saving money.
-
How romantic.
-
Hmmm... romance or poverty. What a wonderful system.
-
Apparently marriage isn't always the smartest way to go.
wonder how come we don't hear about this issue with heterosexual marriages? It seems many straights get married for the benefits and I thought that was actually the basis of most of the legal arguments in these judicial cases for same sex marriage. I'd be curious to hear the general reasoning if your financial adviser says you'd be better off staying single. It's usually not until people are very elderly and relying on government assistance that I've heard that it could be to their benefit to not be married (ie get divorced).
-
not quite true leather, my ex and i put off marriage for years because of the tax hit we would have taken
trust me, marriage sucks, divorce sucks even worse... yall enjoy!
-
I don't know the details but I found this online:
For same-sex married couples, like all married couples, the marriage penalty could kick in.
It's especially true if both spouses work, said Barbara Weltman, a contributing editor to "J.K Lasser's Your Income Tax 2014."
That's because filers with higher incomes are now subject to new taxes to fund the health care reform law and a phaseout of personal exemptions and deductions. And if each partner in a same-sex marriage is working, the couple could find themselves over the threshold. They also could find it more difficult to deduct medical expenses based on their joint income. For most taxpayers, beginning with the 2013 tax year, medical expenses have to exceed 10 percent of adjusted gross income to be deductible.
Education credits and deductions also phase out at higher incomes.
However, if only one spouse works, there could be a bonus, Weltman said. The same applies if one spouse has a higher income than the other.
We both work and make around the same income, so the marriage penalty might affect us. We have been very happy together for 22 years and we are completely committed but registering our relationship with the government for tax breaks and inheritance benefits feels to me like the opposite of romance.
-
According to a friend who is a financial advisor my partner and I need to review our financial situations with a professional before determining whether marriage is in our best interests. Apparently marriage isn't always the smartest way to go. We don't really care about marriage but we do care about saving money.
I agree it isn't very romantic to view things that way. However, it is a good idea to look at financial issues. For example, I've talked to a few on SSDI. They get the extra help and the QMB, where their premiums, deductibles, co-pays, and the 20% Medicare doesn't pay paid by Medicaid. They said if they married, they would use their spouse's modest income. That would put them over the max, so they would have to pay their Part B and D premiums. They would lose the extra help, which makes generics $2-something and brand name like $6-something. They would lose the 20% Medicaid pays. The donut hole doesn't apply to those getting extra help. I've learned so much about how all that works, by just talking to these people.
-
It's important to look at the whole -- long range -- picture and not just the current year's tax implications.
Being married saves me the worry of who inherits my things when I die -- it's difficult to go to court and take it away from a spouse, but easier to do so with a partner.
Inheritance taxes are extremely lower (or non-existent) when it is a spouse.
If there is disparity in SS benefits, the spouse with the lower amount can opt to take their spouses benefits.
While I am NOT saying that one should ignore the potential financial impact in the near term -- and sometimes that impact is more than enough to drive a decision -- one also needs to look longer term. It's hard to put a price tag on peace of mind.
Full disclosure -- Sid and I save money on taxes as married couple because our incomes are so different, but we are only talking about a few hundred dollars a year, so no material difference really.
M
-
I agree with bocker. When you sit down with your financial advisor come up with some worse case scenarios where one of you croak next week and go through what would happen, etc. You need to look at the larger picture.
Of course, as a life-long bachelor I'm not sure why I give a shit.
-
Of course, as a life-long bachelor I'm not sure why I give a shit.
Because your a romantic.
Ya know. When I got married the tax consequences where not part of the decision making process. I just loved the guy. I'm just old-fashioned.
PS. Our taxes went down.
-
My partner just told me that he has a pension that can only be inherited by a spouse, no one else, and it is a lot of money. That will probably tip the scales in favor of marriage but we still need to see a financial advisor or estate planner to figure out how best to proceed.
-
Well this makes it a bit more difficult in Florida:
Pathetic! (http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/in-north-florida-a-views-collide-over-gay-weddings-as-many-clerks-opt-out/2212297)
Citing a litany of excuses, 14 of the County Clerks in the 'redder than red' panhandle will apparently comply with the mandate to issue licenses but will completely stop performing any and all weddings - straight, gay, fourth or fifth. I would suspect that you would also have a hard time to find but a select few churches in the panhandle, too.
-
Well this makes it a bit more difficult in Florida:
Pathetic! (http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/in-north-florida-a-views-collide-over-gay-weddings-as-many-clerks-opt-out/2212297)
I would suspect that you would also have a hard time to find but a select few churches in the panhandle, too.
Who wants to get married at the courthouse anyway? That makes for a pretty boring photo album. And,What self respecting homo gets married in a church?
Should we be expecting any other type of reaction?
-
Who wants to get married at the courthouse anyway? That makes for a pretty boring photo album. And,What self respecting homo gets married in a church?
Should we be expecting any other type of reaction?
I wasn't thinking of the Gay-folk. Lord, they can have nuptials almost anywhere and make it an event. I was more concerned for all the folks like Florida's Attorney General. She must be running out of places by now. I'm going to guess that the bride will not be wearing white the fourth time around.
(http://i60.tinypic.com/2r73reh.jpg)
-
With Florida
70 percent of Americans live in a marriage equality state. That's 216 million people.
-
:) :) 8) Couldn't have happened on a better day ! Rick Scott gets sworn in today ! I hope this wonderful and long awaited day, doesn't take away too much from his swearing in ceremonies ! 8)
http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/bn9/2015/1/5/same_sex_couple_camp.html
Issuing of same-sex marriage licenses begins in Bay area
TAMPA --
Florida's ban on same-sex marriage ended statewide at the stroke of midnight Monday, and court clerks in some Florida counties wasted no time, issuing licenses and performing weddings overnight.
In downtown Tampa,the issuing of licenses started at 8 a.m. with the opening of the Clerk of the Circuit Court offices. About two dozen licenses were issued in the first hour the clerk's office was open.
A group marriage ceremony is planned for noon at Joe Chillura Courthouse Square Park due to the high number of marriages expected.
A three-day waiting period was waived for couples in Hillsborough County.
Ceremonies are anticipated in St. Petersburg as well today. In Pasco County, the clerk's office opened early to accommodate same-sex couple applying for marriage licenses. The Pasco clerk's office, however, is not performing wedding ceremonies.
Thousands of wedding ceremonies are expected to take place statewide by the end of the week.
For Shirley Winslow and Brenda Cuevas, it just makes sense.
They’ve been together 25 years and were first in line to get their marriage license in Hillsborough County. They never thought they’d live to see the day when they could be legally married.
They were married Tuesday morning.
Meanwhile, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi is still pursuing state and federal appeals seeking to uphold the ban voters approved in 2008, but her effort to block these weddings until the courts finally rule was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Her office issued a statement Monday saying: "The judge has ruled, and we wish these couples the best."
Florida becomes the 36th U.S. state where same-sex marriages are legal statewide.
-
Anita Bryant is crying somewhere.
-
Anita Bryant is crying somewhere.
Heheh crying in her orange juice
-
The 5th Circuit heard the Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas cases today. It appears the court is likely to strike down the bans. SCOTUS did not take up the marriage cases today, which include KY, TN, OH, and MI. They have until the end of the month to decide whether they will take it this term.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/federal-appeals-courts-appears-likely-to-strike-down-louisia#.chw6aWkZL
-
SCOTUS will take up marriage equality this term. It would seem unlikely that they would rule states can ban it, after they refused to hear appeals and allowed marriage equality to go forward in several states.
If they should rule that states can ban it, that would not impact the states that already have it, right? I mean, could they take it back, after the appeals courts have knocked them down and SCOTUS refused to take the appeals?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-gay-marriage-issue/2015/01/16/865149ec-9d96-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html?wpmk=MK0000202
-
Related link:
http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2015/1/16/scotus_gay_marriage.html
Supreme Court agrees to hear gay marriage issue
WASHINGTON (AP) --
The Supreme Court says it will decide whether same-sex couples nationwide have a right to marry under the Constitution.
The justices said Friday they will review an appellate ruling that upheld bans on same-sex unions in four states.
The case will be argued in April and a decision is expected by late June.
Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee are among the 14 states where gay and lesbian couples are not allowed to marry.
The number of states that permit same-sex marriage has nearly doubled in three months as a result of federal and state court rulings. The justices' decision to turn away same-sex marriage appeals in October allowed some of those rulings to take effect. Florida last week became the 36th state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
Time is running short for the Supreme Court to get same-sex marriage on its calendar if the justices want to tackle the issue before their current term ends in late June.
They might have to decide to jump in at their closed-door conference Friday if they want to resolve the legal debate over gay marriage in the next few months.
The justices would hear the case in April, the last month for oral arguments before the next term begins in October.
Written arguments already would have to be filed on a compressed schedule, though both sides are well versed in the issues after numerous rounds in the lower courts.
Until now, the court has managed both to contribute to a dramatic increase in the number of states that allow same-sex couples to marry and avoid settling the issue for the entire nation. Last week, Florida became the 36th state to issue licenses for same-sex unions.
In October, the justices offered no explanation when they passed up appeals from both sides calling on the court to take up gay marriage. The court also subsequently refused to block court orders in favor of same-sex couples from taking effect while state officials appealed. As a result, the number of states where same-sex couples could wed nearly doubled.
The appeals before the court come from gay and lesbian plaintiffs in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. The federal appeals court that oversees those four states upheld their same-sex marriage bans in November, reversing pro-gay rights rulings of federal judges in all four states.
Ten other states also prohibit such unions. In Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, South Dakota and Texas, judges have struck down anti-gay marriage laws, but they remain in effect pending appeals. In Missouri, same-sex couples can marry in St. Louis and Kansas City only.
Louisiana is the only other state that has seen its gay marriage ban upheld by a federal judge. There have been no rulings on lawsuits in Alabama, Georgia, Nebraska and North Dakota.
-
First, I'm with you guys, really am. I think gay divorce is going to be fantastic to watch. (I'm sorry, I see a lot of humor there) ;D :-*
It amused me a couple weeks ago bringing up the marriage penalty tax, and child care credits, as reasons my ex and I put of marriage. She had a child from a previous relationship, daycare costs a damn fortune. Not only would we have paid the penalty, but with combined incomes she would have lost the credit as well.
I think this is highly unlikely, but I love seeing heads explode, and I don't think the Bible thumpers have thought of this possibility. The Court could go a direction no one has even considered.
Personally, I don't think the state has any reason to be involved in "marriage" at all. It is a license. They wouldn't deny a drivers license to a homosexual. Marriage is a social construct first.
Eliminating the legal constructs and differential penalties and benefits that go with it is the issue I see.
The court should simply argue that governmental regulation of marital status is not legally founded, and any party is socially free to marry as they wish. Once governmental recognition and endorsement is gone, so are the Equal Protection arguments that go with current considerations. "Marriage" is a religious rite... and should should fall under the "freedom of religion" granted by the constitution. The truth is that the government should not have any power over decisions about what is "marriage". They should simply grant every citizen the same civil, legal rights. Then, it should be up to the people themselves, and whatever religious connections they may or may not have, on what to call the bonding relationship.
My two cents. I want invitations to some gay weddings though, seriously.
-
Sheot, if we are allowed to marry, will our spouses' income come into play with things such as qualifying for ADAP? I have no idea what Greg makes but based on his position and tenure, I'd probably not qualify for drug assistance. But then again, I could qualify for his insurance benefits!
All too much to fathom at the moment
-
yeppers... this is what i found in one minute off google, this is for new york state, granted things vary... but my bet is... yep
Application & Instructions
for the HIV Uninsured Care Programs
AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP)
ADAP Plus (Primary Care)
HIV Home Care Program
ADAP Plus Insurance Continuation (APIC)
Financial Eligibility
Financial eligibility is based on 435% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL):
FPL varies based on household size and is updated annually. Financial
eligibility is calculated on the gross income available to the household
excluding Medicare and Social Security withholding and the cost of health
care coverage paid by the applicant.
Income Source
Check all sources of income for you and all household members. This
is income only for household members with whom you have a legally
responsible relationship (for example, spouse or child but not uncle, cousin
or roommate). For each source, indicate the gross amount, how often the
income is received, and whether it is your income or a household member’s.
Proof of income is required. Provide complete income documentation for
each source of income checked.
-
Well, of course, if you are married your spouses income gets combined with yours. It's always been so and will continue to be so whether it's a man and woman, two men or two women. Marriage isn't all about what you "get", it's a legal declaration that you will be responsible for each other. That responsibility includes financial.
I do think that one makes a mistake if they only focus on the short term financial "gains" or "losses". If you are married you get access to spouses SS benefits (survivor or retirement), you are able to inherit property, including bank and retirement accounts that might be easily fought if left in a will to a "non-related" person. Of course, there is the emotional and symbolic aspects too.
Marriage may not be the right thing to do for everyone -- one should look at the near AND the far term implications and make a decision.
However, I have to say a discussion on whether one SHOULD marry is moot if they are legally prevented from doing so. Save discussions on whether one "should" for a thread that isn't about whether we even CAN.
Mike
(who does not regret, in any way, getting married)
-
^+ ∞
bocker, i totally agree with you, i hope you didn't misunderstand my intention... i think you picked up that i was trying to show a broader view, and the many implications involved that some may be overlooking
one benefit i see that you didn't mention... the right to make medical decisions for each other in time of need.
-
I don't imagine any of us don't fully understand all the benefits and risks associated with the right to marry. ::) As someone who lost everything after the sudden death of a long term spouse, I completely understand the need. ;)
I had no legal right to make any decisions and was treated like just any other "friend" of the deceased. My mother, sister and I weren't even invited to sit with in the "family" section.
On the flip side, we must be prepared to weigh everything before making such a legal personal decision. I see nothing wrong with considering all this (even in this thread).
-
…
I think gay divorce is going to be fantastic to watch.
…
Won't it, though? I wish I had gone to law school. Also, I envision a reality TV show in the future.
...
I don't imagine any of us don't fully understand all the benefits and risks associated with the right to marry.
...
Au contraire, I think there are a lot of folks who do not understand the benefits and risks of marriage -- both gay folks and straight folks alike. I base this on conversations with both my friends and family members, and also from silly reality TV shows that over-romanticize marriage. But of course we should all be able to choose marriage if we want to.
I sure hope the SCOTUS does not take all this sizzling progress on gay marriage and turn it into a big wet fart.
-
Rachel Maddow had a great show last night on the Supreme court decision to hear the case.
Video: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show
Supreme Court agrees to rule on gay marriage
Nina Totenberg, NPR legal affairs correspondent, talks with Rachel Maddow about the implications and expectations of the Supreme Court’s announcement that it will take up the matter of marriage equality in a consolidated set of gay marriage cases.
-
I think we've been denied this equal benefit for so long that it will mean much more to us. Much in the same way that many who were granted civil rights cherished it more than someone who took it for granted.
Yes, there will always be those who don't take this right seriously, but I think many more will. I guess we'll have to see the divorce rates over the next decade to see the trends.
-
^+ ∞
one benefit i see that you didn't mention... the right to make medical decisions for each other in time of need.
A medical power of attorney solves that issue, married or not I would think.
-
A medical power of attorney solves that issue, married or not I would think.
It should and usually does, but (just like wills) they can be fought by a family member and if you don't have it in hand in an emergency, some docs/hospitals will not take your word for it. If a "real" family member is around, they will get to make the decisions.
I had a copy of my medical power of attorney in my medical file with all my doctors and any hospital that I ever went to for some much as a test, just to ensure that it be on file for Sid if he ever needed it. Marriage does it make more "sure", as I've never heard of anyone being asked to produce a marriage certificate in an emergency.
M
-
It should and usually does, but (just like wills) they can be fought by a family member and if you don't have it in hand in an emergency, some docs/hospitals will not take your word for it. If a "real" family member is around, they will get to make the decisions.
I had a copy of my medical power of attorney in my medical file with all my doctors and any hospital that I ever went to for some much as a test, just to ensure that it be on file for Sid if he ever needed it. Marriage does it make more "sure", as I've never heard of anyone being asked to produce a marriage certificate in an emergency.
M
So True . The case in Alabama that is going to federal court is about two guys married in Boston Mass. … they had power of attorneys and marriage license and living will but when one of them was dieting in the hospital it was not enough to convince the staff and the guys didn’t get the farewell or dignity they deserved . Nothing short of equality will stop things like this from happening .
-
just seen on the news tonight that the Supreme Court (USA) will be addressing this
-
Federal judge strikes down Alabama's same-sex marriage ban (http://www.al.com/news/mobile/index.ssf/2015/01/federal_judge_in_mobile_strike.html)
Clutch the pearls! NOT 'BAMA TOO! :-X
-
Jeff, let's get married.
-
Jeff, let's get married.
Do you have a dowery ?
-
Do you have a dowery ?
Rumor has it that he has a BIG one..........
-
Rumor has it that he has a BIG one..........
Dowery or kickstand ?
-
Dowery or kickstand ?
Both, I hear - but without visual proof, it's all heresey
M
-
My dowry has gone up and down, over the last decade. It is back up, with a lot of growth. I think you'll be very pleased, when you deposit it. I hope it all fits into your account, without you having to report it as in-come.
Ok, I was really stretching it-- no pun intended.
-
My dowry has gone up and down, over the last decade. It is back up, with a lot of growth. I think you'll be very pleased, when you deposit it. I hope it all fits into your account, without you having to report it as in-come.
Ok, I was really stretching it-- no pun intended.
Well that's the best offer I had in while ;)
-
I just read this reply to a right wing christian on a message board and it was so full of win I had to share it ...
The typical line from the religious side of the same sex marriage issue goes something like this: “stop shoving your gay agenda down our throats”. In the same breath, they go on to say, “You don’t see us shoving our religion down your throat”.
Well then…
Have you ever had a homosexual knock on your door (usually around dinner time) asking if you have found Elton John?
Have homosexuals ever passed laws that make the government print “In Homosexuality We Trust” on your money?
When was the last time homosexuals passed a law that rewrote the Pledge of Allegiance to say, “One Homosexual Nation”?
Have homosexuals erected a monument with Marc Jacobs’ top 10 fashion commandments at your local courthouse?
Have any homosexual groups spent millions trying to pass laws to outlaw marriage between a woman and a man?
Have homosexual activists worked to pass laws limiting birth control, abortion, etc?
Did a homosexual ever prevent you from buying liquor or a car on Sunday?
Is there a book promoting homosexuality in almost every hotel room in the country?
Have homosexuals pushed for laws to make the missionary position illegal?
Have homosexuals tried to pass a law allowing them to legally refuse service to Christians?
When was the last time you saw a group of homosexuals protest at a Marine’s funeral carrying signs that say God hates Christians?
This is what they call keeping their religion to themselves? Sheesh…
-
In Alabama, in response to some courthouse employees refusing to perform marriage ceremonies for anyone now. From what I gather, the parking lot of the courthouse hosted others like her willing to perform ceremonies for one and all.
(http://i.imgur.com/m3EMcud.jpg)
-
That sign she is holding is just to lure you close enough so she can cold cock you with her bible .
-
That sign she is holding is just to lure you close enough so she can cold cock you with her bible .
Does Roy Moore allow Alabama residents to say "cock"? Surely your constitution says you will burn in hell for thinking such things.....
-
Does Roy Moore allow Alabama residents to say "cock"? Surely your constitution says you will burn in hell for thinking such things.....
I have a moat around the house LOL .
-
Unfortunately the constitution of Alabama is chock full of embarrassing things still. I think it still states that segregated schools are A-OK.
-
This article from The Atlantic does a good job of explaining away Alabama.
Of course my inner voice dismisses it all as simple backwoods bigotry.
http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/why-alabama-trails-the-rest-of-the-country-on-gay-marriage/385349/
-
This article from The Atlantic does a good job of explaining away Alabama.
Of course my inner voice dismisses it all as simple backwoods bigotry.
http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/why-alabama-trails-the-rest-of-the-country-on-gay-marriage/385349/
I always figured you as one to hear voices in your head .
-
What a fucking embarrassment regardless of the subject matter (http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/12/politics/ray-moore-alabama-gay-marraige-supreme-court-slavery/). Only Alabama and Mississippi would try stunts like this -- even South Carolina buckled appropriately.
The chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court insisted Thursday he will continue to resist efforts to implement same-sex marriage in his state, even if the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage later this year.
Chief Justice Roy Moore likened an eventual U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage to the Dred Scott ruling and Plessy v. Ferguson, two 19th century Supreme Court rulings that upheld slavery and segregation, respectively.
"If it's an unlawful mandate you can refuse to mandate it. You can dissent to the United States Supreme Court," Moore said in a testy interview with CNN's Chris Cuomo on "New Day." "I will follow the law as I interpret it."
-
What a fucking embarrassment regardless of the subject matter (http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/12/politics/ray-moore-alabama-gay-marraige-supreme-court-slavery/). Only Alabama and Mississippi would try stunts like this -- even South Carolina buckled appropriately.
The chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court insisted Thursday he will continue to resist efforts to implement same-sex marriage in his state, even if the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage later this year.
Chief Justice Roy Moore likened an eventual U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage to the Dred Scott ruling and Plessy v. Ferguson, two 19th century Supreme Court rulings that upheld slavery and segregation, respectively.
"If it's an unlawful mandate you can refuse to mandate it. You can dissent to the United States Supreme Court," Moore said in a testy interview with CNN's Chris Cuomo on "New Day." "I will follow the law as I interpret it."
Its Alabama and Miss., would you expect anything different LOL .
For those who do not remember Judge Roy Moore was already thrown out of office for refusing to obey the federal courts and I expect he may be thrown out again… and then reelected .
I live in this god awful state and will be the first to admit that Alabama deserves every bit of crap it gets … it seems to work hard to earn it, thats for sure . I want to stay in this state to help care for my Ma who has Alzheimer’s but the sad part is I may not have it in me to move away again the way my health is going these days.
-
Roy Moore should not only be impeached, but he should also be disbarred. He is showing such a transparent disregard to the rule of law, that his standing as on officer of the court is gone.
If he gets disbarred, one must assume that, EVEN in Alabama, he would be ineligible to run for any judgeship.
Not to mention, I am sure that Moore would have gladly enforced both Dred Scott and Plessy vs. Fergusson. So an "unlawful mandate" is only seen from his POV........ ::) Virginia is not, by any stretch, the most progressive state -- but at least it ain't Alabamy
M
-
Alabama GOP chief says gay marriage will incur God's wrath, but state is already hellbound (http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/02/alabama_gop_chief_says_gay_mar.html#incart_river)
::) :-X
Roy's Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/JudgeRoyMoore) is a lot of ego-focused fun as well. Just another day doing the Lord's work.
-
My favorite part of that was …
Proverbs says "put a knife to your throat if you are given to appetite." Been to the Golden Corral lately?
It goes on to say "be not among drunkards or among gluttonous eaters of meat."
But Alabama is the second fattest state in a fat America.
-
Here's Jon Stewart
http://youtu.be/tl5QhKxUyXU
-
And now a timely commentary from The League of the South (http://leagueofthesouth.com/a-lesson-not-learned/)...
-
Alabama redneck (redundant?) news on gay marriage.
http://youtu.be/2hJQFX0Wn58
-
Justice Ginsberg admitted some wine with dinner is what caused her to nod off during the State of the Union. She had dinner with Justice Kennedy and he brought wine. She said Justice Souter use to give her a pinch, when she began to fall asleep. Of course, some in comment sections are now questioning her ability to rule on cases.
I love her honesty. Best story I read this week.
-
... another one bites the dust
U.S. judge rules Nebraska same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/02/us-usa-gaymarriage-nebraska-idUSKBN0LY1MM20150302)
-
But, the conservatives aren't going down without trying and succeeding to get discrimination into law.
Michigan's House passed a bill, which is so broad, that it could allow EMTs and ER docs to refuse to treat gay patients. Apparently, this is already legal. When a lesbian couple's doctor refused to treat their newborn, she didn't do anything illegal. The AMA doesn't have specific rules on this. They just make a recommendation to not discriminate against gays or anyone.
A pharmacist could potentially refuse to refill HIV meds, believing the virus is god's punishment. I thought this couldn't be true. I checked out Snopes and they say the bill, if it becomes law, could allow all this. Can you imagine an ER doc or EMT having the legal right to not treat someone who is gay or transgendered? I guess you'd just bleed out, while they try to get another to do it. Surely those good Christians would make changes to the bills, to make it so medical personnel cannot use the religious exemption.
I believe Arkansas' bill has become law. Indiana has a bill in the works now. The republican controlled senate here in KY passed a bill, which would force transgendered students to use the bathroom of the sex on their birth certificate.
-
But, the conservatives aren't going down without trying and succeeding to get discrimination into law.
Michigan's House passed a bill, which is so broad, that it could allow EMTs and ER docs to refuse to treat gay patients. Apparently, this is already legal. When a lesbian couple's doctor refused to treat their newborn, she didn't do anything illegal. The AMA doesn't have specific rules on this. They just make a recommendation to not discriminate against gays or anyone.
A pharmacist could potentially refuse to refill HIV meds, believing the virus is god's punishment. I thought this couldn't be true. I checked out Snopes and they say the bill, if it becomes law, could allow all this. Can you imagine an ER doc or EMT having the legal right to not treat someone who is gay or transgendered? I guess you'd just bleed out, while they try to get another to do it. Surely those good Christians would make changes to the bills, to make it so medical personnel cannot use the religious exemption.
I believe Arkansas' bill has become law. Indiana has a bill in the works now. The republican controlled senate here in KY passed a bill, which would force transgendered students to use the bathroom of the sex on their birth certificate.
I don't get too fired up any longer about most of those attempts from the republicdumbs as they will be found unconstitutional in the court system. This is the age of acceptance and the nuts writing these laws will soon find that their constituents that are now supporting them are a dying breed.
Another reason is I believe the marriage issue will be resolved this year allowing the HRC to focus more of their energy and $$ toward this type of discrimination. They have done a pretty good job along the way.
I do worry more for the transgendered community. I'm afraid it's going to be a long haul for them. :(
-
I do worry more for the transgendered community. I'm afraid it's going to be a long haul for them. :(
I could not agree with this more … Until the rights of the transgender community are realized the work is not finished and I hope people do not lose sight of this .
-
Late tonight, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered a halt to same-sex marriages.
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/03/alabama_supreme_court_orders_h.html
-
Late tonight, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered a halt to same-sex marriages.
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/03/alabama_supreme_court_orders_h.html
How can they do that after the fed court ruled and the supreme court refused to hear the appeal ?
-
How can they do that after the fed court ruled and the supreme court refused to hear the appeal ?
Well, they can't -- but since when has any law that goes contrary to Roy Moore's religious belief stopped him.
This is all about creating hurdles -- those justices know that, in the end, the Fed courts overrule state courts.
It will get really interesting once the SCOTUS make their ruling! I hope they see the anarchy going on in some places and issue their ruling as soon as they can -- vs. waiting until the end of the term.
M
-
I put my foot in my mouth the other day with my mom but she laughed it off … I told her I was out of this state when she dies … not the most sensitive thing to blurt out to your MA who is struggling with Alzheimer's but that is how frustrated I am with this state .
-
They'll get put back in their place , don't worry.
mean time you gonna register at the Cracker Barrel ,
I'm registered at the Christmas Tree Store.
-
How can they do that after the fed court ruled and the supreme court refused to hear the appeal ?
Because that's generally how the (Deep) South operates when they don't get their way.
-
Because that's generally how the (Deep) South operates when they don't get their way.
Alabama, Mississippi and Arkansas ... they all have a sad history of doing these things and lack the moral compass to know better .
-
Sounds like a repeat of the 60s .
-
everytime some rebel starts spouting off about states rights i want to bash them over the head
we lost the fucking war, and glad of it too
exactly which states right were we supposedly fighting for? that excuse is always a deflection from the obvious racism and bigotry they are really talking
a states rights to have slavery/segregation/anti gay everything... it's never a righteous cause with them
buy bull beating ignorant asses have made us the laughing stock of the country for years, i'm so damn tired of it
-
Court to release same-day audio for same-sex marriage cases (http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/03/court-to-release-same-day-audio-for-same-sex-marriage-cases/)
The audio recording of the Supreme Court’s April 28 hearing on the same-sex marriage cases will be released soon after that hearing is completed, the Court announced on Thursday. Both the audiotape and the written transcript should be available by no later than 2 p.m., the Court said.
The Court’s usual practice, changed only occasionally, is to release the audiotapes for the entire week at the end of the week.
Here is the text of the Court’s news release on its plans for the same-sex marriage cases:
“The Court will provide the audio recording and transcript of the oral argument in 14-556, Obergefell v. Hodges, and consolidated cases, on an expedited basis through the Court’s Website. The argument is scheduled to be heard on Tuesday, April 28 from 10 a.m. until 12:30 p.m.
“The Court will post the audio recording and unofficial transcript as soon as the digital files are available for uploading to the Website. The audio recording and transcript should be available no later than 2 p.m. on April 28.
“Anyone interested in the proceedings will be able to access the recording and transcript directly through links on the homepage of the Court’s Website. The Court’s Website address is www.supremecourt.gov.”
-
i don't understand why all SC proceedings aren't live simulcast on big screens from coast to coast
-
i don't understand why all SC proceedings aren't live simulcast on big screens from coast to coast
The SC has no problem with cameras in the courtroom, except in the SC. They are a little full of themselves at times .
-
Interesting to see the numbers of repubs, who identify with the teabaggers. I thought they were for getting government out of our lives-- the whole "Don't Tread On Me" thing.
"Almost six in ten Americans say they favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into same-sex marriages, the highest level of support ever recorded in a NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
In the new survey released Monday, 59 percent of Americans said that they favor same-sex marriages while just 33 percent said they oppose them.
View the full poll results here.
The numbers have shifted dramatically in the past decade. In 2004, only 30 percent of Americans said they supported same-sex marriage, while 62 percent disagreed. Half of those polled at the time said they strongly opposed allowing gays and lesbians to marry.
Democratic pollster Fred Yang noted how quickly public opinion has shifted on the issue, even compared to interracial marriage, which is now almost universally accepted.
"It took about 25 years for interracial marriage to get from 30 percent support to 60 percent," he said. "It took same-sex marriage ten years."
The share of the public backing same-sex marriage has even jumped from just two years ago, when 53 percent of Americans backed it and 42 percent did not.
That's due in part to big increases in support among Republicans (up 13 percent since 2013), seniors (up seven percent), and Hispanics (up 18 percent).
Americans who say they have gay or lesbian family members, co-workers or acquaintances are also more likely to back same-sex marriage. Seventy-seven percent of people now report that they personally know or work with someone who is gay or lesbian, up from 62 percent in 2004. Of those who know someone who is gay, 65 percent say they favor marriage rights for same-sex couples.
Most GOP primary voters are not on board with allowing same-sex marriage, with 40 percent favoring it and 53 percent opposing it. But there's a major difference between Republicans who identify with the Tea Party (24 percent favor/64 percent oppose) and those who don't (49 percent favor/47 percent oppose.)"
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/59-support-same-sex-marriage-hits-new-high-n320171
-
In the 70s you couldn't even be gay with out fear
Of being fired from your job , arrested for being in a gay bar,
beaten, or worse.
We've come a long way, this looks like an obvious slam dunk ,because these
Are are rights ! Not that easy ,until the Feds enforce all states , nation wide,
We still have a fight, the haters will not give up easily.