TV Tropes Org

Forums

search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [149]
1
 2  3  4  5 6

US govt. to stop defending DOMA in courts:

 1 Acebrock, Wed, 23rd Feb '11 7:15:24 PM from So-Cal Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
Linky

So, might this be the next step in nationwide approval of gay marriages?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Ooh, this is big.

DOMA is what allows the states to not recognize other states' gay marriages. If it goes down, Texas has to recognize gay marriages whether it wants to or not.

Which, since there are states that do allow gay marriage, effectively allows any gay couple in the US to get married if they're willing to cross state borders to do it.

edited 23rd Feb '11 7:29:51 PM by BlackHumor

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1
Gunpla is amazing!
Oh good. I guess it goes how much of a cynic I am when I heard the news open "in regards to gay marriage, obama has..." and I went "oh boy, here we go, him going against Gay marriage"

and then they said this instead. Good news indeed.

About time.
 
I'm pretty sure this saves government money. :)

 6 Chagen 46, Wed, 23rd Feb '11 8:10:51 PM from I don't really know
This is good, but I'd rather read the wave of RAEG that the conservatives are going to unleash.

Can't wait till Fox covers this. Lulz, here we come!
"Who wants to hear about good stuff when the bottom of the abyss of human failure that you know doesn't exist is so much greater?"-Wraith
Always Right
Does this mean we get to hear stuff like "First they'll let gays marry, then they'll let them marry our children!" again?

I enjoy listening.
"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."
 8 Drunk Girlfriend, Wed, 23rd Feb '11 9:57:49 PM from Castle Geekhaven
[up] Yeah, then they'll be able to marry their dogs, and then they'll be able to marry more than one person at once.

Seriously, effing neocons.
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
 9 Barkey, Wed, 23rd Feb '11 10:01:39 PM from Bunker 051 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
War Profiteer
Then.. -gasp- THEY'LL BE ABLE TO MARRY NEOCONS! LOOK WHAT HAS BECOME OF THIS SLIPPERY SLOPE!
The AR-15 is responsible for 95% of all deaths each year. The rest of the deaths are from obesity and drone strikes.
 10 Drunk Girlfriend, Wed, 23rd Feb '11 10:03:16 PM from Castle Geekhaven
OH LOOK! A FOX NEWS BLOG! I am completely and utterly surprised that they're interested in this. I may or may not also be lying.

Meanwhile, Republicans decried the Administration's decision. "It's increasingly obvious this President cares little about the Constitution, but cares deeply about pandering to liberal interest groups. Traditional marriage is the foundation of America's culture, and the President's refusal to defend marriage undermines our nation's strength, " said one of Obama's chief opponents, Sen. Jim De Mint.

I am completely shocked that they think like this.
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
 11 drunkscriblerian, Wed, 23rd Feb '11 10:05:34 PM from Castle Geekhaven Relationship Status: In season
Street Writing Man
Eh, it'll be a while until my lifestyle sees its day in court.

Still, I hope the government finally wises the fuck up and realizes that they're wrong. Go gay marriage! /glassraise
If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed.

~Cora M. Strayer~
Always Right
Traditional marriage is the foundation of America's culture

[lol]

The only people who talks like that are people who have no idea what actual traditional marriages were like in the past. It's been changed so much already that letting same gendered couples marry is hardly that big a difference compared to all the changes made already.
"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."
 13 Barkey, Wed, 23rd Feb '11 10:08:05 PM from Bunker 051 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
War Profiteer
-rereads the constitution-

Nope. Nothing about marriage.

Look, I'm not a god damn hardcore Obama supporter, I would have voted Mc Cain if not for Palin being his VP, but Obama is probably the most legitimately qualified president we could ever have looking at this issue as he was a constitutional lawyer before becoming a senator.

Yeah De Mint, you sure do know better than him what the constitution is all about.

edited 23rd Feb '11 10:09:12 PM by Barkey

The AR-15 is responsible for 95% of all deaths each year. The rest of the deaths are from obesity and drone strikes.
 14 Drunk Girlfriend, Wed, 23rd Feb '11 10:12:00 PM from Castle Geekhaven
Wait, here's another good one!

"That 'legal structure that promotes the raising of children by both of their biological parents' is, of course, marriage that unites a man and a woman with each other and any children born from their relationship, " May exclaimed. "That clearly is what the President is against. With over 40% of children being born to unmarried mothers today, it is critical that the law promote a clear understanding of the reality of marriage and its value to children and society."

Also, fucking Huckabee I can't believe my parents wanted him for President.

edited 23rd Feb '11 10:15:11 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
Ahem, this one fails to see the logic of the objections. Exactly what children born outside of marriage by heterosexual people have to do with homosexual marriage, of all things?! Shouldn't those who support family values be glad, because recognition of gay marriage means less sex without marriage? And, coincidentally, provide married couples willing to take care of unwanted children that resulted from heterosexual relationships.
If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common
 16 drunkscriblerian, Thu, 24th Feb '11 12:38:14 AM from Castle Geekhaven Relationship Status: In season
Street Writing Man
"If there's a difference between a gay couple and a childless heterosexual couple, I don't really see it."

-Daniel Keys Moran

Yeah, pretty much blows up their argument.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed.

~Cora M. Strayer~
 17 KCK, Thu, 24th Feb '11 12:47:41 AM from In your closet
Can I KCK it?
@Drunk Their sexuality, gender, sex, just to name a few.
There's no justice in the world and there never was~
 18 drunkscriblerian, Thu, 24th Feb '11 12:51:50 AM from Castle Geekhaven Relationship Status: In season
Street Writing Man
@KCK: so, those differences make one relationship okay and one fair game to make illegal?
If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed.

~Cora M. Strayer~
 19 Drunk Girlfriend, Thu, 24th Feb '11 12:52:20 AM from Castle Geekhaven
@KCK: There's no meaningful difference. tongue
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
By the way, an interesting similarity in in arguments this too. Couldn't link the PDF directly, but click at the link in the first post

edited 24th Feb '11 1:16:09 AM by Beholderess

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common
 21 KCK, Thu, 24th Feb '11 1:51:17 AM from In your closet
Can I KCK it?
@Drunk and Drunk G Those are meaningful differences but not the sort of differences that should affect legality.

There's no justice in the world and there never was~
Well. any children born out of wedlock are by definition Bastards! How could their parents even let that happen! Let's panic now!

own parents also have a so-called "wild marriage"

 23 Chalkos, Thu, 24th Feb '11 4:18:57 AM from The Internets
Sidequest Proliferator
This is an awesome event. DOMA is one of the major things standing in the way of full marriage rights in the US, though I don't think anyone is deluding themselves into thinking that such rights are likely to come from the legislature. Civil rights tend to be protected by the aloof courts first and the populist legislature last, which is of course why we have the courts. <3

Two caveats, though: firstly, the administration isn't exactly saying they will not defend DOMA period end to statement. There are a few 'tests' of constitutionality that can be applied to laws which infringe upon the rights of cohesive groups. The first is 'rational basis, ' which basically says 'look, if you can think of a good reason, I'm sure it's fine.' That's the easy one. The harder one in which we're interested is 'strict scrutiny, ' which asks a number of questions, including whether the group is cohesive, has immutable attributes marking members as members, and has been disenfranchised and the subject of discrimination, as well as whether the law is specifically tailored to a single, particular, extremely compelling governmental goal.

Up until now, the cases have been in court systems where precedent has held that issues of gay rights should be subject to the easy rational basis test, and the administration feels it can advance an actual argument under that test (if not a very compelling one; really, many right-wing groups accused the administration of 'throwing the trial' because there isn't a good argument even at that level). However, recently, cases were brought in court systems without such precedent, and this required the administration to perform its own analysis. This analysis seems to have reached the conclusion that issues of gay rights should be considered using the much more difficult strict scrutiny test. As such, the administration will be using that level and urging the courts to use that level wherever possible, which means that where it's not bound by precedent it won't be defending the law at all. It may still continue to defend it in the court systems where precedent binds it, but those arguments are so crappy members of Congress may just step in to defend it anyway— apparently, Congress has the right to defend a law, and members may well step in as defendants-intervenor. The Justice Department foresaw this, though, and noted that Congress's only defense is the legislative record, which is shot through with Neanderthal comments and the sort of animus that could cause most people today to cringe. Congress can defend it, but its arguments are not very compelling, and may indeed work against them.

The other caveat (yay, wall of text) is that the cases being brought aren't against Section 2 of DOMA, which is the part that overrides full faith and credit and allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages made under the authority of other states. They're being brought against Section 3, which is the part that refuses federal recognition to those marriages. It's probable that Section 3 will be deemed unconstitutional on at least the circuit and appeals levels, which will likely mean that marriages made in those districts will receive federal recognition eventually. Beyond that, a nationwide striking down would require the Supreme Court.

 24 The Gloomer, Thu, 24th Feb '11 4:58:44 AM from Northern Ireland
Inadequate law student
I was always somewhat bemused by the DOMA. On one hand, it's legislation that imposes federal restrictions on marriage (as far as I know), but at the same time, it's primary supporters are among the most stringent opponents of this type of intervention by the federal government.

Failed Comic Artist
I loved that bit about "pandering to liberal interest groups". I bet they didnt complain when Bush pandered to the conservative interest groups.
I dont know why they let me out, I guess they needed a spare bed
Total posts: 149
1
 2  3  4  5 6


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy