IN ban on gay marriage thrown out by US fed court

[farmteam]

The social defense for anti gay marriage is a terrible one. In a party that prides itself on protecting individual freedoms, they should be looking at the fact that gay marriage hurts no one, except the people getting it. This isn't like legalizing drugs, where there can be secondary consequences for things like insurance costs or running into DWI's for those who aren't partaking.

 

It is also flat out hypocrisy. If the family institution is so important, how come these same people aren't fighting for a constitutional amendment against divorce, or against children out of wedlock? Way more families are destroyed by divorce, and single parent family parenting, than anything else in marriage. If you want to follow the bible, follow the bible. Don't just follow the parts that get you votes, hypocrite.

This reminds me of a waaaay right wing professor I had in law school. She was wildly against gay marriage, but she also went on quite a few rants about how no-fault divorce was way "worse" than gay marriage. It was one of the few times I've heard people of that ilk actually make that argument.

 

She is actually an amazing litigator and I learned more from her about how to analyze a case than from anyone else, so I appreciated her for all that. You just had to cut through all the bulls*** and Fox News talking points to get there.

Edited September 4, 2014 by farmteam

[cabiness42]

The social defense for anti gay marriage is a terrible one. In a party that prides itself on protecting individual freedoms, they should be looking at the fact that gay marriage hurts no one, except the people getting it. This isn't like legalizing drugs, where there can be secondary consequences for things like insurance costs or running into DWI's for those who aren't partaking.

 

It is also flat out hypocrisy. If the family institution is so important, how come these same people aren't fighting for a constitutional amendment against divorce, or against children out of wedlock? Way more families are destroyed by divorce, and single parent family parenting, than anything else in marriage. If you want to follow the bible, follow the bible. Don't just follow the parts that get you votes, hypocrite.

 

Not to run too far off politics into religion, but I would also point out that churches that take strong political stances against gay marriage are turning people off to religion big time when their mission is supposed to be the exact opposite. I'm not saying that churches should change their religious position on gay marriage, but changing their political position, or at the very least not taking a political position figures to benefit your church more in the long run than yelling and screaming about the issue, to the extent that you don't even care whatever terrible political positions a candidate might take so long as they are against gay marriage.

[southsider2k5]

Not to run too far off politics into religion, but I would also point out that churches that take strong political stances against gay marriage are turning people off to religion big time when their mission is supposed to be the exact opposite. I'm not saying that churches should change their religious position on gay marriage, but changing their political position, or at the very least not taking a political position figures to benefit your church more in the long run than yelling and screaming about the issue, to the extent that you don't even care whatever terrible political positions a candidate might take so long as they are against gay marriage.

 

Biblically speaking, no sin is different than another. If gay marriage is a sin, so is being divorced, having sex out of wedlock, etc. There is no "greater" sin that deserves the kind of focus that is put on this one issue, if you read the bible at all. And it isn't up to man to judge those who have sinned. That is up to God.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Not to run too far off politics into religion, but I would also point out that churches that take strong political stances against gay marriage are turning people off to religion big time when their mission is supposed to be the exact opposite. I'm not saying that churches should change their religious position on gay marriage, but changing their political position, or at the very least not taking a political position figures to benefit your church more in the long run than yelling and screaming about the issue, to the extent that you don't even care whatever terrible political positions a candidate might take so long as they are against gay marriage.

 

Not only will they change their position, but in 50 years, they'll be saying they were the ones who led the fight for gay rights.

[greg775]

Not to run too far off politics into religion, but I would also point out that churches that take strong political stances against gay marriage are turning people off to religion big time when their mission is supposed to be the exact opposite. I'm not saying that churches should change their religious position on gay marriage, but changing their political position, or at the very least not taking a political position figures to benefit your church more in the long run than yelling and screaming about the issue, to the extent that you don't even care whatever terrible political positions a candidate might take so long as they are against gay marriage.

 

Our church makes it clear (Catholic) that all people are welcome and welcome to be full members, even though being gay I think is classified as a sin in the Catholic rulebook. Of course, heterosexual sex outside of marriage is also a sin in the Catholic rulebook. So is using a condom in heterosex if u are married for gosh sakes.

I think some religions if you say you are gay you are not welcome.

I will say this, in 2014, there are things hypocritical about my place in my Catholic religion, sure there are. Let's look at sex. s***, it's a sin to masturbate and didn't some survey say 90 percent of all people do so? It's a sin to cuss and I cuss a lot (bad habit). The reason I am in a church is because I really truly enjoy the camaraderie of the people. For one hour a week I get to hear great music and visit with some very nice people and turn off my cell phone. I get to hear an interesting homily from the priest ofttimes with helpful advice for my life.

I get to praise a God I believe in and thank him for the good things in my life. I get to reflect on family members and others I know who have died. Yes I can do that at home, but how many people take time to do that?

Also, my church allows shorts and jeans and T-shirts and I don't have to get dressed up or any of that bulls***.

 

On the flip side, you can call me a hypocrite because I sin and I also do not believe in some things we Catholics are supposed to believe in.

Well ... those are the downsides. The upside is I get to be with nice people, pray to a God I believe in ... and if I ever get better hours at work I can volunteer to do some nice things for people, like visit the homebound with Communion, etc.

 

Our church, however, welcomes gays like it welcomes anybody. Now would our priests be in trouble if the Vatican found out? I guess. But they take that chance.

Edited September 5, 2014 by greg775

[StrangeSox]

Not only will they change their position, but in 50 years, they'll be saying they were the ones who led the fight for gay rights.

Some progressive Christians actually are helping lead lgbt rights

[StrangeSox]

From Posner's opinion, on Indiana scoring an own-goal here:

 

Indiana has thus invented an insidious form of discrimination: favoring first cousins, provided they are not of the same sex, over homosexuals. Elderly first cousins are permit-ted to marry because they can’t produce children; homosexuals are forbidden to marry because they can’t produce children. The state’s argument that a marriage of first cousins who are past child-bearing age provides a “model [of] family life for younger, potentially procreative men and women” is impossible to take seriously.

 

Charles Pierce has more excerpts, e.g. "go figure"

 

In other words, Indiana’s government thinks that straight couples tend to be sexually irresponsible, producing unwanted children by the carload, and so must be pressured (in the form of governmental encouragement of marriage through a combination of sticks and carrots) to marry, but that gay couples, unable as they are to produce children wanted or unwanted, are model parents—model citizens really—so have no need for marriage. Heterosexuals get drunk and pregnant, producing unwanted children; their reward is to be allowed to marry. Homosexual couples do not produce unwanted children; their reward is to be denied the right to marry. Go figure.

Edited September 5, 2014 by StrangeSox

[farmteam]

After reading through Posner's opinion, it really might be as good as everyone says. I mean, damn.

 

I saw a really good comment about how he eschewed string citations and kept the citations in general to a necessary minimum. That was perfect. By doing that he was saying "Enough -- these arguments are so ludicrous they don't require extensive legal argument in opposition."

 

Sometimes Posner takes a moral superiority stance and it falls flat. But this, this was perfect.

[Jake]

The social defense for anti gay marriage is a terrible one. In a party that prides itself on protecting individual freedoms, they should be looking at the fact that gay marriage hurts no one, except the people getting it. This isn't like legalizing drugs, where there can be secondary consequences for things like insurance costs or running into DWI's for those who aren't partaking.

 

It is also flat out hypocrisy. If the family institution is so important, how come these same people aren't fighting for a constitutional amendment against divorce, or against children out of wedlock? Way more families are destroyed by divorce, and single parent family parenting, than anything else in marriage. If you want to follow the bible, follow the bible. Don't just follow the parts that get you votes, hypocrite.

 

That really isn't what the Republican Party is about. They are party to some libertarian types, but most people are the more classic sort of conservative; that is, the type of person interested in conservation. Conservatives are interested in preserving society where possible, which is why they tend to react so strongly against major shifts in tradition like gay marriage or the influx of Latinos. It changes our culture.

[StrangeSox]

SCOTUS declined to hear several SSM appeals this morning, lifting the stay in these states and allowing gay marriage to proceed per lower court rulings.

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/10/todays-o...etitins-denied/

 

This morning the Court issued additional orders from its September 29 Conference. Most notably, the Court denied review of all seven of the petitions arising from challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage. This means that the lower-court decisions striking down bans in Indiana, Wisconsin, Utah, Oklahoma, and Virginia should go into effect shortly, clearing the way for same-sex marriages in those states and any other state with similar bans in those circuits. Indeed, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring (who had declined to defend his state’s ban on same-sex marriage) indicated this morning on Twitter that, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the mandate in the Virginia cases would issue at 1 p.m., at which point “marriages can then begin.” In a statement (h/t The Indiana Law Blog), Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller (who had defended his state’s ban) indicated that, as a result of today’s orders, “the 7th Circuit now can issue a mandate in the [indiana] case – essentially, an order that the 7th Circuit’s earlier ruling can take effect. Once a mandate is issued by the 7th Circuit – which could happen later this week – county clerk’s offices will be required by federal court order to issue marriage licenses to otherwise eligible same-sex applicants, and same-sex marriages previously granted by other states will be legally recognized in Indiana.” And just a few minutes ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued orders that lifted the stay of the mandate in the Utah and Oklahoma proceedings (h/t: Chris Geidner via Twitter).

 

That's 30 states now with marriage equality.

 

edit: well, not the full 30 yet, because only five states were specifically included in these various cases. However, the federal appeals courts whose rulings were just upheld have a net total of 11 states under their jurisdiction that do not currently have SSM. These five will be in effect shortly (hours or days, depending on the specific state), and there are or will be lawsuits in the remaining 6 states to overturn their bans based on these rulings.

Edited October 6, 2014 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

9th Circuit strikes down SSM ban in Idaho and Nevada. The 9th also covers Arizona, Alaska, and Montana. Edited October 7, 2014 by StrangeSox

[farmteam]

9th Circuit strikes down SSM ban in Idaho and Nevada. The 9th also covers Arizona, Alaska, and Montana.

Kennedy issued an emergency stay though. I think the pro-SSM parties have until tonight to file an opposition.