LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

[Defiant]

http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2013/03 ... story.html" target="_blank

Prop 8 and DOMA cases are going to be heard today and tomorrow.

Edit: Modifying the title to reflect that the thread has become more general.

[Defiant]

Possible outcomes:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013 ... riage.html" target="_blank

[LawBeefaroni]

Possible outcomes:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013 ... riage.html" target="_blank

Strike down Proposition 8 on the grounds that ...
... California was not free to provide same-sex couples with all the benefits and burdens of marriage through civil unions but withhold the designation “marriage.”

Under this rationale, suggested in the Obama administration’s brief, bans on same-sex marriage in the eight states with everything-but-marriage civil unions are unconstitutional.

This would be terrible IMO. You are witholding the "marriage" tag unconstitutionally but conferring all other benefits. That is wrong, so now you have to withold the "marriage" tag consitutionally by whitholding all other benefits.

[Fireball]

Possible outcomes:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013 ... riage.html" target="_blank

Strike down Proposition 8 on the grounds that ...
... California was not free to provide same-sex couples with all the benefits and burdens of marriage through civil unions but withhold the designation “marriage.”

Under this rationale, suggested in the Obama administration’s brief, bans on same-sex marriage in the eight states with everything-but-marriage civil unions are unconstitutional.

This would be terrible IMO. You are witholding the "marriage" tag unconstitutionally but conferring all other benefits. That is wrong, so now you have to withold the "marriage" tag consitutionally by whitholding all other benefits.

I disagree. This would be the best decision, short of sweeping legalization across the country. This decision would literally split the nation into a situation where about half the population lived in a marriage-equality state, and half live in a state without marriage equality. The result would be an immediate series of lawsuits against Section 2 of DOMA, and, eventually, final victory.

[LawBeefaroni]

I disagree. This would be the best decision, short of sweeping legalization across the country. This decision would literally split the nation into a situation where about half the population lived in a marriage-equality state, and half live in a state without marriage equality. The result would be an immediate series of lawsuits against Section 2 of DOMA, and, eventually, final victory.

Well, in a force-the-issue non-solution kind of way sure. But lawsuits which defeat of DOMA doesn't necessarily ensure victory. States can still be states. They may have to recognize marriages in other states when Section 2 falls but they won't have to allow gay marriage themselves. That's as much a compromise as "civil unions." Moreso actually, IMO.

And you'd have 8 states with "unioned" couples losing their benefits (pending a referendum on allowing full gay "marriage" or pending a marriage vacation to another state.). You'd have the remaining states unchanged.


Hopefully sweeping legalization happens so it's all moot.

[Defiant]

In states where the state supreme courts ruled that the legal benefits of marriage had to be conferred, if not the name, that resulted in those civil unions, wouldn't that require those states to legalize marriage equality?

[Fireball]

In states where the state supreme courts ruled that the legal benefits of marriage had to be conferred, if not the name, that resulted in those civil unions, wouldn't that require those states to legalize marriage equality?

Yes, it would.

[AWS260]

SCOTUSblog's take on the Prop 8 case:

***
If those features of the oral argument hold up – and I think they will – then the Court’s ruling will take one of two forms. First, a majority (the Chief Justice plus the liberal members of the Court) could decide that the petitioners lack standing. That would vacate the Ninth Circuit’s decision but leave in place the district court decision invalidating Proposition 8. Another case with different petitioners (perhaps a government official who did not want to administer a same-sex marriage) could come to the Supreme Court within two to three years, if the Justices were willing to hear it.

Second, the Court may dismiss the case because of an inability to reach a majority. Justice Kennedy takes that view, and Justice Sotomayor indicated that she might join him. Others on the left may agree. That ruling would leave in place the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

The upshot of either scenario is a modest step forward for gay rights advocates, but not a dramatic one.

[stessier]

But Justice Kennedy seemed very unlikely to provide either side with the fifth vote needed to prevail. He was deeply concerned with the wisdom of acting now when in his view the social science of the effects of same-sex marriage is uncertain because it is so new. He also noted the doubts about the petitioners’ standing. So his suggestion was that the case should be dismissed.

Dismissal is an option? I have never heard of that before.

[El Guapo]

But Justice Kennedy seemed very unlikely to provide either side with the fifth vote needed to prevail. He was deeply concerned with the wisdom of acting now when in his view the social science of the effects of same-sex marriage is uncertain because it is so new. He also noted the doubts about the petitioners’ standing. So his suggestion was that the case should be dismissed.

Dismissal is an option? I have never heard of that before.

If the plaintiffs are deemed to lack standing to make the challenge, then the result is that the case is dismissed without reaching the substantive merits.

[stessier]

But Justice Kennedy seemed very unlikely to provide either side with the fifth vote needed to prevail. He was deeply concerned with the wisdom of acting now when in his view the social science of the effects of same-sex marriage is uncertain because it is so new. He also noted the doubts about the petitioners’ standing. So his suggestion was that the case should be dismissed.

Dismissal is an option? I have never heard of that before.

If the plaintiffs are deemed to lack standing to make the challenge, then the result is that the case is dismissed without reaching the substantive merits.

Do they have to take the case to deem that the plaintiffs lack standing? I would think that was part of the whole "deciding to take the case" thing. What fun is it to get all the way through arguments only to decide "we shouldn't even be listening to you?"

[El Guapo]

But Justice Kennedy seemed very unlikely to provide either side with the fifth vote needed to prevail. He was deeply concerned with the wisdom of acting now when in his view the social science of the effects of same-sex marriage is uncertain because it is so new. He also noted the doubts about the petitioners’ standing. So his suggestion was that the case should be dismissed.

Dismissal is an option? I have never heard of that before.

If the plaintiffs are deemed to lack standing to make the challenge, then the result is that the case is dismissed without reaching the substantive merits.

Do they have to take the case to deem that the plaintiffs lack standing? I would think that was part of the whole "deciding to take the case" thing. What fun is it to get all the way through arguments only to decide "we shouldn't even be listening to you?"

Yes. First of all, there's a whole jurisprudence around standing which also gets developed case-by-case. Sometimes the SCOTUS won't take a case that presents significant standing or other threshold issues when they want to get to the merits, but in this case they took it knowing about the standing issues.

Secondly, in this case a dismissal for lack of standing has a different effect than not taking the case at all. Here the issue is not standing to bring the case to begin with, but standing to appeal the decision of the district court (because the government, which clearly has standing, defended at the district court level but declined to appeal). Whereas the district court only invalidated Prop 8, the Ninth Circuit's ruling (as I understand it) is broader and would apply to some other states as well. So if the SCOTUS reverses the Ninth Circuit and dismisses for lack of standing, that would leave the narrower district court ruling in place that would invalidate only Prop 8. (Whereas not taking the case would've left the broader Ninth Circuit ruling in place).

[stessier]

Ah. Thanks!

[Pyperkub]

I found this section of the SCOTUSBlogwriteup interesting:

It was quite clear that the Court’s conservatives had wanted the case to be reviewed, because of their dislike for the ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court striking down Proposition 8.

Mainly because it sounds as if they went in wanting to overturn, and have found that they can't on the grounds that they wished to, and will at best have to fall back to the standing dismissal (which strikes me as ridiculous given CA's Proposition structure).

[stessier]

Tangentially related - from twitter:

Terry Moran ‏@TerryMoran
Five US senators have flipped on gay marriage in the last 48 hours: Rockefeller, Begich, McCaskill, Warner, Tester. Plus Portman last week.

Popehat ‏@Popehat
I can only assume the Senate has scheduled one hell of a party for later this week or something.

[Fireball]

The Senate count is now 46 for equality, 54 against. Democrats are 45-10, Republicans are 1-44.

[Daehawk]

People are people. For God's sake allow them the same rights as everyone else. As is even after 40 years together one does not have the right to be in their hospital room when sick, decide their burial arrangements...nothing. If they have no one then a State gov does that...when the loved one is right there helpless. It's a damn black mark on human rights. Give them what everyone else gets..fairness, compassion, and equal rights.

[YellowKing]

The Senate count is now 46 for equality, 54 against. Democrats are 45-10, Republicans are 1-44.

Stuff like this is why it's increasingly harder for me to call myself a Republican. In the past I've tended to ignore the religious right social aspects of the party, but this is just common human decency.

[noxiousdog]

The Senate count is now 46 for equality, 54 against. Democrats are 45-10, Republicans are 1-44.

Stuff like this is why it's increasingly harder for me to call myself a Republican. In the past I've tended to ignore the religious right social aspects of the party, but this is just common human decency.

Not only that, but it's clear they are far willing to compromise personal beliefs for party line.

[Fireball]

So Sen. Kay Hagan is now in favor, so we're at 47 for (46 D, 1 R) to 53 against (9 D, 44 R).

[LawBeefaroni]

The Senate count is now 46 for equality, 54 against. Democrats are 45-10, Republicans are 1-44.

Stuff like this is why it's increasingly harder for me to call myself a Republican. In the past I've tended to ignore the religious right social aspects of the party, but this is just common human decency.

Not only that, but it's clear they are far willing to compromise personal beliefs for party line.

Of course. How do you think they got the job in the first place?

[stessier]

So Sen. Kay Hagan is now in favor, so we're at 47 for (46 D, 1 R) to 53 against (9 D, 44 R).

So, why are all these people changing now? Is it just because the case is in front of the Supreme Court? I mean, yay and all, but the timing seems weird.

[LawBeefaroni]

So Sen. Kay Hagan is now in favor, so we're at 47 for (46 D, 1 R) to 53 against (9 D, 44 R).

So, why are all these people changing now? Is it just because the case is in front of the Supreme Court? I mean, yay and all, but the timing seems weird.

My layman's impression is that they want to be on the winning side. As the odds of change shift, the re-evaluate their position.

[Fireball]

So Sen. Kay Hagan is now in favor, so we're at 47 for (46 D, 1 R) to 53 against (9 D, 44 R).

So, why are all these people changing now? Is it just because the case is in front of the Supreme Court? I mean, yay and all, but the timing seems weird.

A lot of it is theater, in part designed for the benefit of the Court (to show momentum). Also, as time passes, the political "courage" of coming out for equality is rapidly diminishing. The last window for anyone to "bravely" come out for marriage equality, outside of the reddest enclaves of the GOP, will close by June. TIme to move now.

[LordMortis]

From FB: "Jesus had two dads and he turned out just fine."

[Fretmute]

From FB: "Jesus had two dads and he turned out just fine."

I love weeks like such as this. They make it so easy to decide whom to prune from the friends list.

[Fireball]

The Onion: I Feel Very Strongly About The Issue Of Same Sex Marriage Because I Have A Gay Son, by God

[Smoove_B]

From FB: "Jesus had two dads and he turned out just fine."

If you haven't seen the Best 60 signs against DOMA on Buzzfeed, it's worth a view. Possibly NSFW pictures or ads on the side of the page though.

[Fretmute]

If I didn't know better, I'd swear I was being trolled by the guy that just used the "What comes next? Women marrying animals? Men marrying boys?" argument.

Sadly, he was 100% serious. PLONK.

[Chrisoc13]

So Sen. Kay Hagan is now in favor, so we're at 47 for (46 D, 1 R) to 53 against (9 D, 44 R).

So, why are all these people changing now? Is it just because the case is in front of the Supreme Court? I mean, yay and all, but the timing seems weird.

A lot of it is theater, in part designed for the benefit of the Court (to show momentum). Also, as time passes, the political "courage" of coming out for equality is rapidly diminishing. The last window for anyone to "bravely" come out for marriage equality, outside of the reddest enclaves of the GOP, will close by June. TIme to move now.

Maybe I'm a skeptic but I think a lot of it is just politicians being politicians. I'm not sure most of them (the ones that are switching) really feel that strongly about the issue, they just want to be on the winning side and do whatever it takes to have the public behind them. Not that I mind, I think it is absurd that gay marriage is not legalized but it seems like politics as usual to me. "Whatever is most popular is what I believe."

I would predict that within the next 4 years most Republicans even will support gay marriage. Maybe 4 years is too soon, but certainly in 10 years we will be there, right? Maybe some of the deep south will hold out but the west has already started to swing. Just look at how much things have changed since prop 8 was passed in California.

[Chrisoc13]

From FB: "Jesus had two dads and he turned out just fine."

If you haven't seen the Best 60 signs against DOMA on Buzzfeed, it's worth a view. Possibly NSFW pictures or ads on the side of the page though.

Some of those sucked, but some of them were hilarious.

I particularly enjoyed the YOLO one, the aint nobody got time for that, and the all marriage is the same sex every night ones. Got a chuckle out of me.

[Fireball]

Maybe I'm a skeptic but I think a lot of it is just politicians being politicians. I'm not sure most of them (the ones that are switching) really feel that strongly about the issue, they just want to be on the winning side and do whatever it takes to have the public behind them. Not that I mind, I think it is absurd that gay marriage is not legalized but it seems like politics as usual to me. "Whatever is most popular is what I believe."

Senator Kay Hagan, who was the most recent to announce support for equality, runs for re-election next year in a state that in early 2012 voted about 70% in favor of a gay marriage ban.

I would predict that within the next 4 years most Republicans even will support gay marriage. Maybe 4 years is too soon, but certainly in 10 years we will be there, right? Maybe some of the deep south will hold out but the west has already started to swing. Just look at how much things have changed since prop 8 was passed in California.

So long as the Republican Party is rife with Evangelical Christians in the South and Mormon church members in the West, its base will be solidly anti-gay.

[Daehawk]

Republicans are anti-human? Anti-equality?

[LordMortis]

Anti-equality?

I would say the party is currently anti-egalitarian under the guise of being libertarian and that's part of a turn off that is spreading wider and wider as it should, as people break from the ranks and a generational shift is taking control of values.

The republican party view of equal treatment under the law is still the red herring that any homosexual man or woman is protected by the same laws as any heterosexual man or woman.

I won't go as far as to say its human rights issue because, again, I don't like our family laws, in general, which DOMA is just part of.

[Isgrimnur]

One of the things that I heard in the arguments yesterday is that marriage definition is more the proponent of the states, which might end up with DOMA being thrown out, federal rights being granted based on marriages that are approved by the states, and you ending up with a patchwork of marriage definitions across the country. So it would be a step forward at the federal level while not clearing anything up on the state-to-state level.

Which would, of course, likely cause some demographic shifts in mobile adults as those that want and support the rights that certain states grant move there, leaving the red states to become even redder over time.

[LordMortis]

Which would, of course, likely cause some demographic shifts in mobile adults as those that want and support the rights that certain states grant move there, leaving the red states to become even redder over time.

I think that's already been happening. I think that's why Michigan is moving from swing to Blue. It's red demographic are moving to red states.

Of course that's just a guess. Someone had a link several years ago showing state immigration and emigration rates and who is leaving where to go where. That would be interesting to see, especially for the last 22 years or so.

[Isgrimnur]

Down here in Texas, we have the (soon not to be) minotiry populations that lean left in terms of economic policies, but most of them have highly religious backgrounds that lean red in social policies.

[RLMullen]

Senator Kay Hagan, who was the most recent to announce support for equality, runs for re-election next year in a state that in early 2012 voted about 70% in favor of a gay marriage ban.

This one is going to get ugly, and I'm not looking forward to it. The republican, Renee Ellmers, who announced this week was my rep prior to the recent redistricting, and she was a tea party freshman in 2010. Unfortunately, my wife and I, both of whom fully support gay marriage will have a tough choice if Ellmers makes it to the general election. Ellmers and her staff went above and beyond in assisting us in getting VA benefits for my mother-in-law, and in getting the paper-work processed in a timely fashion.

It would come down to casting a moral vote for Hagan, on a single issue, versus voting for someone who in my mind did her job well as a representative.

So long as the Republican Party is rife with Evangelical Christians in the South and Mormon church members in the West, its base will be solidly anti-gay.

Don't ignore Catholics in this equation. Catholics aren't as vocal as the other two, but many will vote in line with the church once they are behind the curtain.

[LordMortis]

Not what I'm looking for but the description says "frost belt to sun belt"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudre ... g-in-2013/" target="_blank

[stessier]

So long as the Republican Party is rife with Evangelical Christians in the South and Mormon church members in the West, its base will be solidly anti-gay.

Don't ignore Catholics in this equation. Catholics aren't as vocal as the other two, but many will vote in line with the church once they are behind the curtain.

I'm not sure that is true. I thought i saw a poll were 60% of American Catholics were for it.