http://www.wral.com/nc-group-files-u-s-supreme-court-brief-in-gay-marriage-case/12049802/

The anti-gay group in NC that was behind the amendment filed an amicus brief with SCOTUS for the upcoming consideration of the DOMA & Prop 8 cases in March. Their argument is literally that getting rid of DOMA would infringe on their liberty/freedom to ban other people's liberties/freedoms.

1/31/2013 5:59:29 PM

Haha. Yeah, I heard that on NPR this afternoon. Truly mind boggling. Who the fuck are these people?

1/31/2013 8:25:32 PM

"State Senate to vote on gay marriage bill on Valentine’s Day, Senate president says"
http://www.suntimes.com/news/17931585-418/state-senate-to-vote-on-gay-marriage-bill-on-valentines-day-senate-president-says.html

Quote :

"“I’d like to pass it out of committee next week and pass it on Valentine’s Day,” Cullerton told the Chicago Sun-Times in a meeting Thursday with the newspaper’s Editorial Board. Cullerton said he believes the legislation, Senate Bill 10, has the necessary 30 votes to pass and move to the House, clearing a major hurdle in making Illinois the 10th state to legalize same-sex marriages."

2/1/2013 11:46:02 AM

this issue and these arguments are some of the dumbest things I've ever seen.

Who gives a fuck about 2 consenting adults getting married. It's not your life, so fuck off. Just let people lih.

2/1/2013 12:36:31 PM

Gingrich isn't the only one seeing the writing on the wall.

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/20929701/senator-slom-same-sex-marriage-bill-will-likely-pass

Quote :

"Senator Slom: Same-sex marriage bill will likely pass According to the state's only Republican Senator, legislators likely have the votes they need to make same-sex marriage a reality here in Hawaii."

Quote :

"Senate Bill 1369 has been referred to the Committee on Judiciary and Labor. At this time no specific hearing date has been set. If it passes as written, same-sex couples could legally marry in Hawaii by January 2014"

2/1/2013 2:23:01 PM

Well good for them. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will see that writing on the wall too, destroy DOMA, and we can get the ball rolling on repealing these stupid, discriminatory amendments throughout the states.

2/1/2013 2:56:45 PM

Quote :

"Who gives a fuck about 2 consenting adults getting married. It's not your life, so fuck off. Just let people lih."

I don't particularly give a fuck what two consenting adults do, in general, nor do I care if they want to run around claiming they are "married." But when they demand that I endorse their actions, then I think that I should have a say in that. That's just my two cents.

2/4/2013 10:27:07 PM

You can keep your two cents, because no one is asking you to endorse shit.

2/4/2013 10:41:18 PM

^^ how does that not apply to literally any marriage on earth?

And what are you endorsing? Do I need to PM you before proposing to my girlfriend?

2/5/2013 12:47:51 PM

Quote :

"You can keep your two cents, because no one is asking you to endorse shit."

Actually, yes it is. When you have a government endorsement of an act, it is, in effect, an endorsement from you. That's a gross simplification of it, but that's really how it works, if we are to believe that the government is really "We the People."

Quote :

"how does that not apply to literally any marriage on earth?"

It doesn't. I am not endorsing a marriage in France because I'm not a French citizen and as such, the French gov't doesn't represent me. When a couple is given a marriage license by the gov't, it is an implicit endorsement from the population who is represented by that gov't. That's kind of why we made those marriage laws in the first place: because we wanted to promote marriage, and we wanted to promote it by giving it some benefits. (Of course, we also wanted to make some money off the racket, too, but let's ignore that little dirty laundry ) If we are going to give a gov't endorsement to homosexual unions (and I think we should), then it should be enacted by the people or their elected legislators, because that endorsement is effectively coming from the people, themselves. Nevermind the fact that to simply have courts do this would be grossly unConstitutional and obvious case of "legislating from the bench." At most, the only thing the courts could do and remain Constitutionally valid would be to strike down marriage laws completely.

2/6/2013 8:43:25 PM

That is a horrible argument. If you can't "legislate" from the bench then you should let someone know so they can go back and overturn Brown v. Board, Plessy v. Ferguson and how about Marbury v. Madison as well? The Supreme Court exists as a check and balance on the other two branches. That means they need to have coequal power. This is a civil rights issues which shouldn't need to be debated.

2/6/2013 9:52:15 PM

Quote :

"The Supreme Court exists as a check and balance on the other two branches. That means they need to have coequal power."

Yes, they have checks and balances on each others powers, but not necessarily the same powers as the other branches. Otherwise, it'd stand to reason that the SC could direct troop deployments. I'd even disagree with your claim of "coequal power"! Legislators should legislate; judges should judge.

Quote :

"This is a civil rights issues which shouldn't need to be debated."

Which is a fancy way of saying that you don't want to have to actually convince people to agree with you. You just want to impose your way of thinking on others. I think that is generally not a good way to go. You think it's a "civil rights" issue, yet you can't even explain how that is so. Since when is government approval and endorsement of your actions a "civil right"? What's next? The gov't has to pat you on the back when your son makes an A in math?
If something is actually unConstitutional, then the let the courts say so. It's then up to the legislatures to pass laws that are Constitutional while also reflecting the will of the people.

2/6/2013 10:41:34 PM

The Supreme Court exists to protect civil rights and the constitution. We can all debate on how well they're doing their jobs but this is a cut and dry civil rights case and there is roughly 200 years of precedent backing the Supreme Court on that one. Besides a majority of people think gay marriage should be legal. The only thing holding it up is conservatives in the state legislatures. Why should people be denied their civil rights because they're being oppressed by their government?

2/6/2013 10:47:58 PM

Quote :

"We can all debate on how well they're doing their jobs but this is a cut and dry civil rights case and there is roughly 200 years of precedent backing the Supreme Court on that one."

If it's so cut and dry, then SURELY you can defend your claim that it's a civil rights issue. Explain how the gov't patting you on the back is a civil right...

Quote :

"Besides a majority of people think gay marriage should be legal."

Fine. Then PASS FUCKING LAWS WITH THAT MAJORITY. That's how democracy fucking works!

Quote :

"Why should people be denied their civil rights because they're being oppressed by their government?"

Dude. If not getting a pat on the back is "oppression," then there's a lot of oppressed people out there!

2/6/2013 10:50:30 PM

They are being discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. How is that not a civil rights issue? I think the burden of proof falls on you to explain why it's not a civil rights case.

2/6/2013 10:53:32 PM

Are they being discriminated against? Can they not simply get a marriage license with someone of the opposite sex? Are they being thrown in jail for their actions? Is sexual preference a protected class?

The simple fact is that this is a benefit granted to people who qualify, and EVERYONE is capable of qualifying. Therefor, it can't possibly be discriminatory.

By and large, civil rights apply to an individual person, not to the makeup of a group of people. You've got to show that someone is being prevented from doing something or obtaining something from the gov't based solely on a protected characteristic. It is patently obvious that this situation does not fit that description.

2/6/2013 10:55:30 PM

You're right. Gay people CAN marry other people of the opposite sex. But there is no legitimate reason for their freedom to be restricted in this manner. It only happens because gay people are discriminated against based on bigotry alone. Black and white.

2/6/2013 11:01:52 PM

Much like interracial marriage bans aren't really bans, because you're still free to have homoracial marriage, just not heteroracial ones. But everyone can still theoretically get married under that circumstance.

2/6/2013 11:05:53 PM

Quote :

"But there is no legitimate reason for their freedom to be restricted in this manner."

Well, except for the definition of "marry", but I'm not gonna be a total d-bag on that Even then, their freedom IS NOT RESTRICTED. They can do whatever the fuck they want! They just don't get a pat on the back from the government for it. There's arguably little reason for them not to get the same benefits as marriage, either.

Quote :

"Much like interracial marriage bans aren't really bans, because you're still free to have homoracial marriage, just not heteroracial ones."

Completely false, Jake. Interracial marriage bans were actual bans. People were fucking thrown in JAIL for that shit. People are literally in ZERO danger of being thrown in jail for having a homosexual union, so let's not draw a false equivalence here. At the point where we are throwing homosexuals in jail or fining them or busting into their homes and separating them from their partners, then you can draw that equivalence.

2/6/2013 11:09:07 PM

I know people who have been arrested for going to city halls to get married and waiting to get married.

2/6/2013 11:12:54 PM

Were they arrested for saying they were married, or were they arrested for something else? Maybe something like protesting without a permit, impeding the conducting of gov't business? There's a difference, man.

2/6/2013 11:16:51 PM

There's not a meaningful difference.

And gays get tormented mercilessly without repercussion because of the structure of the laws. There's literally zero reasonable basis for maintaining the bigotry in law regarding gay marriage.

And the UK and various states have passed gay marriage rights, public opinion is trending one way.

You're ignorant if you don't view gays as deserving of equal treatment, and you're dumb if you can't see that this is pretty much a done deal. If not now, within 10 years. History won't care much when, but it will look back on all the people who opposed it now, and wonder why they held such idiotic beliefs.

The Supreme Court has made mistakes in the past, i'm not convinced they're above that, but if I had to bet, i'd give better than even odds they will strike down the anti-gay parts of DOMA. There's plenty of precedent for doing so.

2/6/2013 11:54:23 PM

Quote :

"Actually, yes it is. When you have a government endorsement of an act, it is, in effect, an endorsement from you. That's a gross simplification of it, but that's really how it works, if we are to believe that the government is really "We the People.""

Holy shit snacks, that's stupid.

Really, really stupid.

Like, stoopid stupid.

So grossly simplified as to be utter stupidity.

2/7/2013 1:17:58 AM

Quote :

" don't particularly give a fuck what two consenting adults do, in general, nor do I care if they want to run around claiming they are "married." But when they demand that I endorse their actions, then I think that I should have a say in that. That's just my two cents."

no one is asking you to endorse anything.

2/7/2013 9:34:21 AM

Quote :

"I don't particularly give a fuck what two consenting adults do, in general, nor do I care if they want to run around claiming they are "married." But when they demand that I endorse their actions, then I think that I should have a say in that. That's just my two cents."

Wow, I'm extremely disappointed to know that I'm implicitly endorsing the actions of dumb bigoted assholes like you getting married. I find it truly disgusting that people like you reproduce, let alone even have the opportunity to raise children. Unfortunately, banning it isn't on the table yet.

2/7/2013 11:46:31 AM

"Guys, every action that's legal is implicitly endorsed by everyone in the country!" - The biggest fucking idiot to ever learn how to type

2/7/2013 11:48:28 AM

"FL School Board: Ban All Clubs To Keep Out Gay-Straight Alliance"
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2013/02/fl-school-board-ban-all-clubs-to-keep.html#disqus_thread

Quote :

"Several members of the Lake County, Florida school board have proposed banning all extracurricular clubs in order to prevent students from forming a Gay-Straight Alliance."

2/7/2013 11:49:47 AM

Funny statement from this thread on Fark:
Don't they already have a Drama Club?



(I don't agree with the sentiment but thought it was funny.)

2/7/2013 1:00:27 PM

Not sure if this would go better in LunaK's DADT thread or this DOMA thread since it relates to both. But since DADT is gone, and DOMA is likely to be wounded or killed later this year, I figured I'd post it here.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/11/16927063-outgoing-dod-boss-panetta-extends-some-benefits-to-same-sex-spouses-partners-of-gay-troops?lite

Quote :

"Departing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta extended Monday a list of benefits — all previously denied by the Pentagon — to the same-sex spouses of service members as well as to the unmarried partners of gay troops. The perks, automatically available to heterosexual military spouses, will include hospital child care services, hospital visits, and the issuing of military ID cards, which will give same-sex spouses and partners access to on-base commissaries, movie theaters and gyms. The policy changes will go into effect once training on the new rules is completed, Panetta said. While advocates for gay and lesbian service members and their families hailed Panetta’s policy switch as “substantive” and “encouraging,” the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) still blocks the DOD from enacting more than 85 other benefits now provided to heterosexual military spouses and their children — most notably medical and dental care, housing allowances, and death benefits. Also, as NBC News reported Feb. 4, that same federal law mandates that when a gay service member is killed in combat, military officials must first notify that troop’s blood family, not their same-sex spouse or partner, as is normally the course of action. Panetta said DOMA is “now being reviewed by the United States Supreme Court — and he offered his first clear signal that the Pentagon wants that law overturned. “There are certain benefits that can only be provided to spouses as defined by that law,” Panetta said. “While it will not change during my tenure as secretary of defense, I foresee a time when the law will allow the department to grant full benefits to service members and their dependents, irrespective of sexual orientation."

2/11/2013 12:42:23 PM

On the overseas front...

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/french-assembly-passes-gay-marriage-adoption-bill-18476121

Quote :

"France's lower house of parliament on Tuesday approved a sweeping bill to legalize gay marriage and allow same-sex couples to adopt children, handing a major legislative victory to President Francois Hollande's Socialists"

Quote :

"The measure, approved in the National Assembly in a 329-to-229 vote, puts France on track to join about a dozen mostly European nations that allow gay marriage"

Quote :

"The overall bill now goes to the Senate, which is also controlled by the Socialists and their allies."

Quote :

"With the vote, France joins Britain in taking a major legislative step in recent weeks toward allowing gay marriage and adoption — making them the largest European countries to do so. The Netherlands, Belgium, Norway and Spain as well as Argentina, Canada and South Africa have authorized gay marriage, along with six states in the United States."

2/12/2013 12:48:36 PM

2/13/2013 11:33:15 PM

Monkeys also throw their feces at each other. Does that mean we should start flinging our poo at each other, too? Pointing to the animal kingdom for damned near anything seems a bit of a foolish way to argue for something, not to mention the hole in that sign's "argument" that we haven't even really looked to see if homophobia exists among other animals...

Quote :

"There's not a meaningful difference."

I'd say there's quite a meaningful difference. It's the difference between being pulled over for being black and being pulled over for going 40mph in a school zone.

Quote :

"Holy shit snacks, that's stupid. Really, really stupid. Like, stoopid stupid. So grossly simplified as to be utter stupidity."

Fantastic ad hominem.

Quote :

"no one is asking you to endorse anything."

Ummm, anything done on behalf of the public via gov't is, by definition, an implicit endorsement from the people, AKA, me.

Quote :

"Wow, I'm extremely disappointed to know that I'm implicitly endorsing the actions of dumb bigoted assholes like you getting married. I find it truly disgusting that people like you reproduce, let alone even have the opportunity to raise children. Unfortunately, banning it isn't on the table yet. ... "Guys, every action that's legal is implicitly endorsed by everyone in the country!" - The biggest fucking idiot to ever learn how to type"

More ad hominem; no actual arguments against it... Is it your contention that laws passed by the people do not represent the people and their wishes and in no way represent the wishes of the people?

2/27/2013 8:46:48 PM

Ad hominems are attempts to refute an argument you've made by calling you names. Just calling you a dumbass because you made a stupid fucking argument isn't itself an ad hom. Saying your arguments are wrong because you're a dumbass is an ad hom.

Quote :

"Monkeys also throw their feces at each other."

That sign is a response to the claim that homosexuality is not natural. It's not telling anyone about what they should or should not do. And looking to the animal kingdom for insight over human behavior and physiology is perfectly appropriate, when you're not an obstinate blowhard that can't understand that there is nuance between our animalistic heritage and our cultural advancement over other animals.

2/27/2013 8:52:14 PM

Quote :

"Ad hominems are attempts to refute an argument you've made by calling you names. Just calling you a dumbass because you made a stupid fucking argument isn't itself an ad hom. Saying your arguments are wrong because you're a dumbass is an ad hom. "

you're right. it's below an ad hominem on the scale of discourse. please, forgive me.

Quote :

"That sign is a response to the claim that homosexuality is not natural. It's not telling anyone about what they should or should not do."

But the claim that it is "natural" is damned near useless on its own. There must be something to which they are alluding or trying to suggest when they point out that it's "natural."

[Edited on February 27, 2013 at 9:09 PM. Reason : ]

2/27/2013 8:55:04 PM

I'm just glad it took aaronburro two weeks to respond to that post

2/27/2013 11:38:38 PM

I think they are alluding to it being natural

but paper towel napkin sweater vest something

2/28/2013 7:03:51 AM

"75 Prominent Republicans Say Marriage Is Constitutional Right"
http://www.advocate.com/politics/prop-8/2013/02/26/75-prominent-republicans-say-marriage-constitutional-right

"Obama administration to express support for gay marriage before Supreme Court"
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/28/17134418-obama-administration-to-express-support-for-gay-marriage-before-supreme-court?lite

"Dozens of Big U.S. Companies Come Out to Support Marriage Equality"
http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2013/02/27/dozens-big-us-companies-come-out-support-marriage-equality

And just today the GOP controlled House let a bipartisan LGBT inclusive bill dealing with violence against women pass with some Republican support.

2/28/2013 5:39:05 PM

Quote :

" There must be something to which they are alluding or trying to suggest when they point out that it's "natural." "

Seriously?

I think they're alluding to the idea that it's some kind of exclusive to humans aberration as opposed to a behavior that is as old as humanity itself and not unique to our species.

Sometimes it's hard for me to tell if you're being intentionally obtuse or if you really are as stupid as you seem to be. I used to give you the benefit of the doubt, that you were some combo of a troll and a perpetual devil's advocate. Now it's getting to the point were I'm pretty sure you're just a fucktard.

2/28/2013 5:54:50 PM

Some more organizations signing on to the briefs on the side of equality:

Quote :

"National Women's Law Center Williams Institute Gay & Lesbian Medical Association Lambda Legal National Center for Lesbian Rights California Medical Association American Medical Association American Sociological Association American Psychiatric Association American Academy of Pediatrics Equality California Anti-Defamation League American Jewish Committee United Church of Christ Metropolitan Community Church Survivors of Sexual Orientation Change Therapies Family Equality Council GLSEN GLAD"

3/1/2013 9:38:46 PM

Quote :

"Seriously? I think they're alluding to the idea that it's some kind of exclusive to humans aberration as opposed to a behavior that is as old as humanity itself and not unique to our species."

What do you not understand? I was asking what meaning "homosexual is natural" has. As in, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? disco_stu specifically said that no moral statement was being made, rather that they were just saying that "homosexuality is natural". My response was that such an argument is pure foolishness, as "being natural" is a worthless statement by itself. make sense now?

3/4/2013 10:30:45 PM

Duh, paper towels sweater vest

3/4/2013 11:20:55 PM

Besides the fact that gay activities haven't been illegal since Lawrence v. Texas, I know that if DOMA is killed by this court case, I don't plan to kill more than 2 to 3 times more children, and the same is true of most gays I know, so I totally object to that misleading sign.

[Edited on March 8, 2013 at 12:12 PM. Reason : .]

3/8/2013 12:12:23 PM

^ yea keep it under 4x more and I think the gays are in the clear.

[Edited on March 8, 2013 at 12:34 PM. Reason : there must be a huge boost to the economy b/c of the political sign business.]

3/8/2013 12:32:57 PM

That dude tore up his nicest KKK robe to make that sign

3/8/2013 12:57:29 PM

"WATCH: Minn. Republican Tears Up, Regrets DOMA Vote"
http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2013/03/12/watch-minn-republican-tears-over-regret-doma-vote

Quote :

""It was incredibly counter-intuitive for me to tell citizens how the government wanted them to live their lives," former Rep. Lynne Osterman said. "I didn't come to St. Paul to single out same-sex families, but in my only term as a member...I cast a politically expedient vote in favor of DOMA, and I have regretted that ever since.""

Also, this:

3/12/2013 9:22:49 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/13/gay-marriage-new-zealand/1983839/

Quote :

"New Zealand gay marriage bill passes critical test WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AP) — New Zealand lawmakers voted overwhelmingly in favor of a bill allowing same-sex marriage Wednesday, all but assuring that it will soon become law. Lawmakers supported the bill 77 to 44 in the second of three votes needed for a bill to be approved. The second vote is typically the most crucial one. The third and final vote is likely to be little more than a formality and could be taken as early as next month."

3/13/2013 12:22:17 PM

Only the federal recognition part of DOMA is being challenged, and not the other state recognition, right?

3/14/2013 9:21:50 AM

Looks like Republican Senator Rob Portman, who was on the VP shortlist during the last election cycle, now supports the freedom to marry.

http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2013/03/15/op-ed-what-all-us-should-learn-rob-portmans-son

^I believe that's correct. I believe DOMA is more of a federal ban, and that state bans look more like amendment 1 type laws and constitutional amendments.

3/15/2013 5:52:26 PM

part of DOMA is about states recognizing other states. its my understanding that this part is not being challenged and is not part of the supreme court case.

but i keep seeing articles about how people are hoping this case decides against DOMA so NC has to recognize their marriage... but that wouldn't happen unless they find that DOMA is not separable and i see no reason to assume that.

3/15/2013 6:51:32 PM

The Prop 8 part of the case opens the court to do whatever the f they want with marriage bans in the US. But yeah, that sounds right, the part about carving out an exception to the full faith and credit clause of the constitution without amending the constitution isn't the part of DOMA I've heard talked about with the Windsor case either.

[Edited on March 15, 2013 at 7:19 PM. Reason : .]

3/15/2013 7:18:58 PM