Go Rhode Island!

"Rhode Island Becomes 10th Marriage Equality State"
http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2013/04/24/rhode-island-becomes-10th-marriage-equality-state/

Quote :

"Today the Rhode Island Senate passed the marriage equality bill (S 38 sub A), making Rhode Island the 10th state nationally and the last in New England to allow all couples the freedom to marry. For page 5: The bill was passed by a strongly bipartisan, overwhelming majority of 26-12."

And New Zealand too! Here's a speech one of their legislators made before the bill passed:



Meanwhile, another downside to DOMA being in place:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-election-commission-same-sex-donors-20130425,0,6024695.story

Quote :

"Federal Election Commission rules against married same-sex donors WASHINGTON — Married same-sex couples cannot make joint contributions to federal candidates as opposite-sex couples are permitted to do, the Federal Election Commission said Thursday, a decision that gay rights advocates said reinforced their case for overturning the Defense of Marriage Act. The five-member, bipartisan panel said the 1996 law defining marriage as between a man and woman prohibited the commission from viewing gay couples as spouses, even when they have legally wed under state law."

[Edited on April 26, 2013 at 2:40 PM. Reason : .]

4/26/2013 2:38:49 PM

Minnesota just became the 12 state to pass marriage equality. I think that's the 3rd state in less than 2 weeks. Maybe Illinois will be next?

5/13/2013 8:45:49 PM

that's fake, right? because i never felt my marriage suddenly weaken, so there is no way that is true.

5/13/2013 9:21:09 PM

^Well it doesn't take effect until August 1st which is probably what's going on there... so get in all your marital activities now, while you still can

5/13/2013 9:26:08 PM

rulings coming out later this month... interesting infographic:



http://www.lambdalegal.org/sites/default/files/infographic-prop8-doma-small.png

6/7/2013 2:34:41 PM

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2013/06/19/murkowski-backs-same-sex-marriage/

Quote :

"Murkowski backs same-sex marriage Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski on Wednesday became the third U.S. Senate Republican to endorse same-sex marriage. The Human Rights Campaign said Murkowski, who voted for the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal bill in 2010, made the endorsement during an interview with KTUU, an Anchorage television station."

Looks like the results on DOMA/Prop 8 could come out tomorrow, Monday, or Thursday the 27th based on the dates when the court is scheduled to release decisions.

6/19/2013 7:42:05 PM

not today most likely

6/20/2013 10:11:18 AM

Just under 10 hours until the decision comes out. I know this want spread the freedom to marry across all the land, but I hope DOMA and Prop 8 will be dead, that would be huge... the biggest jump forwards for LGBT equality in my life time. *Fingers crossed*

6/26/2013 12:08:30 AM

I'm already a ball of nerves. follow along at scotusblog.com. they'll start live blogging at 9am.

6/26/2013 8:38:27 AM

After the Voting Rights Act hamstringing, I am nervous about today.

6/26/2013 9:39:24 AM

They nailed it on the voting rights thing, and that decision is no indication that they'll miss on DOMA. If anything, the support for federalism and rule of law exhibited in the voting rights decision is a positive indicator.

[Edited on June 26, 2013 at 10:00 AM. Reason : Autocorrect]

6/26/2013 10:00:17 AM

Quote :

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment"

6/26/2013 10:04:05 AM

and federalism was part of the decision, theDuke866 was right

6/26/2013 10:07:03 AM

My nervousness about the Voting Rights Act is that states (see NC this very minute) are scrambling to plow through stricter voting regulations before Congress can appropriately update the data, but every one of us know that Republicans will drag their feet as long as possible.

6/26/2013 10:22:25 AM

congress couldn't get their shit together on the farm bill.

no way they'll deal with the VRA

6/26/2013 10:24:56 AM

GOLO is awesome.

declines ruling on prop 8? SCOTUS is fully of pussies; never really wanting to have constitutional impacts.

[Edited on June 26, 2013 at 10:43 AM. Reason : .]

6/26/2013 10:36:52 AM

golo reiterates the fact that we're surrounded by far more idiots than rational people. it usually makes me sad angry or sad.

6/26/2013 10:43:17 AM

the Prop 8 decision was kicked because person challenging it had no standing to do so. basically, when they ninth circuit wouldn't hear the appeal because the person challenging it had no appeal, the court upholds that they made the right decision

so the decision that its unconstitutional stands i think? although i guess it could be challenged still be someone with standing.

[Edited on June 26, 2013 at 10:44 AM. Reason : .]

6/26/2013 10:43:33 AM

Congratulation, SCOTUS, you've been right on the money with the last 3 major decisions to come down.

Now, I'm really looking forward to the gay version of Loving vs. Virginia that is coming any time now. I only hope they make the same decision in that as in Loving. Actually, I hope it doesn't come to that, I hope we have legal gay marriage in all 50 states in the next decade.

^It looks like the answer to that is... maybe. I think it's probable that someone with standing, perhaps even someone like a local magistrate, could conceivably challenge the lower court decision and go through the process, but it looks like at least for the moment CA once again has legal gay marriage.

[Edited on June 26, 2013 at 10:55 AM. Reason : sdfsdf]

6/26/2013 10:50:47 AM

i hope we have no legal marriage in all 50 states, or at least in America.

[Edited on June 26, 2013 at 10:52 AM. Reason : ]

6/26/2013 10:52:43 AM

Quote :

"so the decision that its unconstitutional stands i think? "

that's correct.

6/26/2013 10:53:10 AM

^^While that would be nice to simply be able to enter into contracts with people based on what you want to do without the government sticking its beak into it... it ain't ever going to happen. Marriage is far too entrenched in American culture and the legal system to get it out, especially as it becomes more broadly defined.

I would love to see things like marriage tax breaks eliminated, but it ain't gonna happen.

[Edited on June 26, 2013 at 11:15 AM. Reason : sdfsd]

6/26/2013 10:57:44 AM

okay, that's what i thought. wdprice3's anger with the decision was confusing me because i thought that was the decision we were expecting. and it does have constitutional impacts.

6/26/2013 10:58:34 AM

Quote :

"i hope we have no legal marriage in all 50 states, or at least in America."

that's just stupid

don't want to get married? don't get married

...but EVERYONE should have the right to do it (gay or not) if they want to

6/26/2013 11:23:58 AM

^uh, I'm pretty sure he's referring to getting government out of marriage.

6/26/2013 11:28:39 AM

that doesn't make any sense, either

if that were the case, then it might as well be a handshake and a promise for all the value that marriage would have (outside of the feelings/beliefs of those involved)...and if that's all you're looking for, you can do that already without all the paperwork

i've yet to meet a person who "hated" the idea of marriage whose parents weren't divorced or who hadn't already had a bad marriage in their past...because with the exception of the equality issue, it makes no sense whatsoever to be so disdainful of something you do not have to do

[Edited on June 26, 2013 at 11:35 AM. Reason : .]

6/26/2013 11:32:34 AM

I don't hate it, but it does seem like a really bad idea. Nothing like attaching the possibility of crippling financial penalties and more to a breakup.

Oh, and my parents are still together after 34 years and I've never been married myself.

[Edited on June 26, 2013 at 11:40 AM. Reason : sdfsd]

6/26/2013 11:39:56 AM

Quote :

"that's just stupid don't want to get married? don't get married ...but EVERYONE should have the right to do it (gay or not) if they want to"

No one has the right to have their lifestyle subsidized. A married couple is no more deserving of tax breaks than an unmarried couple.

Quote :

"i've yet to meet a person who "hated" the idea of marriage whose parents weren't divorced or who hadn't already had a bad marriage in their past...because with the exception of the equality issue, it makes no sense whatsoever to be so disdainful of something you do not have to do"

I don't hate marriage, I disagree with the institution of marriage. Lifelong monogamy was around long before the state started passing out permission slips for it.

[Edited on June 26, 2013 at 11:48 AM. Reason : ]

6/26/2013 11:47:08 AM

Marriage should be abolished. This is a manufactured distraction from the collapse of the republic.

6/26/2013 11:50:39 AM

Quote :

"I don't hate it, but it does seem like a really bad idea. Nothing like attaching the possibility of crippling financial penalties and more to a breakup."

i get that...i don't agree, because i'm happily married and trust my wife implicitly, but i understand because i've been in relationships where entering into such a binding contract would have been a REALLY bad idea, even if i didn't see it at the time

Quote :

"No one has the right to have their lifestyle subsidized. A married couple is no more deserving of tax breaks than an unmarried couple."

i LOVE it when this is brought up...you're either unmarried or have no clue whatsoever when it comes to doing taxes with your spouse

the tax "benefits" aren't quite what you think they are, and there are disadvantages, too...let me know which of these you're most jealous of: http://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/Family/7-Tax-Advantages-of-Getting-Married-/INF17870.html

Quote :

"I don't hate marriage, I disagree with the institution of marriage. Lifelong monogamy was around long before the state started passing out permission slips for it."

so you're saying that you can ONLY be in a lifelong monogamous relationship if you have government approval? because that sounds really dumb and 99% sure that folks all over the world are in lifelong monogamous relationships without a "permission slip"

6/26/2013 11:56:47 AM

Quote :

"i LOVE it when this is brought up...you're either unmarried or have no clue whatsoever when it comes to doing taxes with your spouse the tax "benefits" aren't quite what you think they are, and there are disadvantages, too...let me know which of these you're most jealous of: http://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/Family/7-Tax-Advantages-of-Getting-Married-/INF17870.html"

Every single one of those is a significant advantage except for #7, which only applies to specific cases. Did you read the article you posted?

Quote :

"so you're saying that you can ONLY be in a lifelong monogamous relationship if you have government approval? because that sounds really dumb and 99% sure that folks all over the world are in lifelong monogamous relationships without a "permission slip""

Nope. I'm saying 1) I don't like the institution of marriage (i.e. state-sanctioning, state benefits for a status) and 2) Lifelong monogamy has been around for a long time, and it wouldn't disappear if the government suddenly stopped sanctioning relationships.

6/26/2013 12:04:44 PM

Quote :

"Every single one of those is a significant advantage except for #7, which only applies to specific cases. Did you read the article you posted?"

yep, i read it...the better question is: did you actually understand what you read?

those are not your run-of-the-mill advantages...they are largely situation-specific

furthermore, many of the same benefits can be achieved in other ways, or aren't exclusive to married couples

the only one that i think gives married couples an unfair advantage is the avoidance of estate tax upon the death of a spouse...i'll give you that one as being "significant" to your average couple

something you fail to understand is that marriage, as a legal contract, helps to clarify ownership and responsibility regarding two people who have CHOSEN to tie their lives together...if they called it a "fuck buddy contract" instead of "marriage", would that make you happier?

Quote :

"Nope. I'm saying 1) I don't like the institution of marriage (i.e. state-sanctioning, state benefits for a status) and 2) Lifelong monogamy has been around for a long time, and it wouldn't disappear if the government suddenly stopped sanctioning relationships."

so for item #1, you're saying you don't like it...just because it has a legal status at all?

for item #2...all you're doing is proving my point that no one is forcing you to get married, and yet you can still have the same "lifelong monogamous relationship"

so others getting married doesn't affect you, but it leaves a bad taste in your mouth...how very enlightened of you

[Edited on June 26, 2013 at 12:17 PM. Reason : .]

6/26/2013 12:16:24 PM

Oh look, all the libertarian-minded people lining up to shit on a small improvement in civil liberties any way they can. Can't say I'm surprised.

6/26/2013 12:22:22 PM

So the decision should mean its just a matter of time till Amendment 1 is challenged, and it should be overturned when it is.

Quote :

"something you fail to understand is that marriage, as a legal contract, helps to clarify ownership and responsibility regarding two people who have CHOSEN to tie their lives together...if they called it a "fuck buddy contract" instead of "marriage", would that make you happier?"

cool, let me know when i can start taking a deduction for my private party fuck buddy contract

[Edited on June 26, 2013 at 12:33 PM. Reason : .]

6/26/2013 12:25:16 PM

Quote :

"the only one that i think gives married couples an unfair advantage is the avoidance of estate tax upon the death of a spouse...i'll give you that one as being "significant" to your average couple something you fail to understand is that marriage, as a legal contract, helps to clarify ownership and responsibility regarding two people who have CHOSEN to tie their lives together...if they called it a "fuck buddy contract" instead of "marriage", would that make you happier?"

I don't accept this function ("clarify ownership and responsibility") as something that couldn't be handled by private agreements.

Quote :

"so for item #1, you're saying you don't like it...just because it has a legal status at all?"

I didn't say why I don't like it. I don't like it because it shifts the tax-burden. There are instances where marriage is actually a tax penalty and others where it's a tax benefit, but either way some people are getting a raw deal which isn't right.

Quote :

"so others getting married doesn't affect you, but it leaves a bad taste in your mouth...how very enlightened of you"

But it may affect me. If another couple gets married and gets the same income as me and my girlfriend, we may end up having to pay more in taxes. That means they have more money in their pocket plus all the other benefits.

Quote :

"Oh look, all the libertarian-minded people lining up to shit on a small improvement in civil liberties any way they can. Can't say I'm surprised."

Sorry, I don't get giddy when the government leaves us some crumbs. Pro-marriage equality is about as much of a no-brainer as being anti-slavery, I just want to take equality one step further.

6/26/2013 12:41:52 PM

Rush, et. al. are beside themselves. I love their tears.

6/26/2013 12:42:08 PM

Quote :

"cool, let me know when i can start taking a deduction for my private party fuck buddy contract"

there's a line item deduction for being married? interesting...can you tell me where this is, and on which form?

Quote :

"the only one that i think gives married couples an unfair advantage is the avoidance of estate tax upon the death of a spouse...i'll give you that one as being "significant" to your average couple"

furthermore, i'm going to amend my response...because there's a disadvantage in this, as well, as spouses are frequently responsible for debt owed by a deceased partner

i'd really love to see some hard numbers outlining the "significant" tax savings of the average married couple in the united states

until then, i'm just going to go ahead and assume that the anti-marriage-of-any-kind-for-anyone folks are primarily the products of broken homes and/or poor life choices

Quote :

"I don't accept this function ("clarify ownership and responsibility") as something that couldn't be handled by private agreements."

i don't give a flying fuck what you accept and what you don't...you're dumber than i thought if you think a wink and handshake is worth anything, legally speaking

Quote :

"I didn't say why I don't like it. I don't like it because it shifts the tax-burden. There are instances where marriage is actually a tax penalty and others where it's a tax benefit, but either way some people are getting a raw deal which isn't right."

someone, somewhere, is always getting a "raw deal"...it is impossible for the entirety of the world to be "fair", kiddo

Quote :

"But it may affect me. If another couple gets married and gets the same income as me and my girlfriend, we may end up having to pay more in taxes. That means they have more money in their pocket plus all the other benefits."

may/might != does

flying unicorns shitting glitter may inhibit my ability to see through the windshield and i might rear-end someone and end up paying for something that wasn't my fault

Quote :

"Sorry, I don't get giddy when the government leaves us some crumbs. Pro-marriage equality is about as much of a no-brainer as being anti-slavery, I just want to take equality one step further."

this is the kind of thing i'd expect to hear from someone who has not yet lived in the real world

[Edited on June 26, 2013 at 12:54 PM. Reason : .]

6/26/2013 12:44:11 PM

^
http://www.marriageequality.org/get-the-facts

Quote :

"i don't give a flying fuck what you accept and what you don't...you're dumber than i thought if you think a wink and handshake is worth anything, legally speaking"

Why do you need the government to confirm your declaration of commitment to your partner?

[Edited on June 26, 2013 at 12:57 PM. Reason : .]

6/26/2013 12:55:11 PM

so does the dismissal of Prop 8 mean that the NC Amendment 1 or any other State amendments defining marriage as one man one woman can be appealed?

6/26/2013 12:56:05 PM

Quote :

"until then, i'm just going to go ahead and assume that the anti-marriage-of-any-kind-for-anyone folks are primarily the products of broken homes and/or poor life choices"

My parents have a wonderful marriage, and I think marriage is great and a critical component of a functioning society. I just don't want the government to have anything to do with it.

Quote :

"i don't give a flying fuck what you accept and what you don't...you're dumber than i thought if you think a wink and handshake is worth anything, legally speaking"

Nice. You really convinced me that you don't give a fuck. That's why you've resorted to insulting people on a message board, right?

Quote :

"you, sir, are laughably pathetic."

Go back to chit chat.

6/26/2013 12:58:25 PM

Quote :

"Sorry, I don't get giddy when the government leaves us some crumbs. Pro-marriage equality is about as much of a no-brainer as being anti-slavery, I just want to take equality one step further."

You're allowing perfection to be the enemy of good. Why can't you accept this as a small improvement in civil liberties, and an overall move toward good? You aren't going to achieve perfection overnight, depending on what your idea of perfection is, its likely to never be achieved.

Just take a step back and celebrate this for the small win that it is.

6/26/2013 12:58:39 PM

Quote :

"You're allowing perfection to be the enemy of good. Why can't you accept this as a small improvement in civil liberties, and an overall move toward good? You aren't going to achieve perfection overnight, depending on what your idea of perfection is, its likely to never be achieved. Just take a step back and celebrate this for the small win that it is."

No one said this was a bad decision. It's good, it's done, and we should continue to move forward.

[Edited on June 26, 2013 at 1:01 PM. Reason : .]

6/26/2013 1:00:25 PM

Quote :

"so does the dismissal of Prop 8 mean that the NC Amendment 1 or any other State amendments defining marriage as one man one woman can be appealed?"

i don't think the dismissal of hearing Prop 8 has any impact on NC or other states, but the language used in the DOMA decision certainly does. I bet briefs are already being filed and when the case is inevitably heard i don't see how Amendment 1 can stand.

6/26/2013 1:00:42 PM

It really doesn't matter what the forum topic is, d357r0y3r will spin it as the evils of the government.

And I predict a quick response about me spinning topics as the evils of religion.

[Edited on June 26, 2013 at 1:05 PM. Reason : .]

6/26/2013 1:03:48 PM

^

6/26/2013 1:04:33 PM

I mean, the government is evil, so that's fair.

6/26/2013 1:06:48 PM

Quote :

"http://www.marriageequality.org/get-the-facts"

what's your point? read up on the "benefits" and come back to tell me which are simply a "congratulations!" from the government and serve NO legal purpose whatsoever

and by legal purpose, i mean that it establishes certain responsibilities and relationships in a legal sense

Quote :

"Why do you need the government to confirm your declaration of love?"

Quote :

"My parents have a wonderful marriage, and I think marriage is great and a critical component of a functioning society. I just don't want the government to have anything to do with it."

the government doesn't have to have anything to do with your lifelong monogamous relationship it unless you want them to

you get that, right? or are you truly missing the point? it's a legally-binding contract by its very nature and as such, you need a government to enforce the terms you agree to

if you don't want the contract because you're convinced a verbal promise over a glass of wine will suffice for the rest of your life, then do that...no one is forcing you to get married, end of story

Quote :

"Nice. You really convinced me that you don't give a fuck. That's why you've resorted to insulting people on a message board, right? "

i call them as i see them, sport...gain some real-world perspective and perhaps you'll have something of value to contribute to the adult conversation

Quote :

"Go back to chit chat."

given your contributions thus far, i figured we were there already

Quote :

"I mean, the government is evil, so that's fair."

i don't venture into TSB very often, but i suspect you truly believe this

the reasons for your responses make more sense, now

[Edited on June 26, 2013 at 1:11 PM. Reason : more]

6/26/2013 1:09:53 PM

Quote :

"No one said this was a bad decision. It's good, it's done, and we should continue to move forward. "

Aren't people making the argument that the only correct SC decision in this case would be to divorce all federal rules and codes from marriage? That the federal government has no right to recognize any marriages whatsoever?

Its just the same poo-pooing you always see from libertarian-leaning people. When all of your arguments start from some ideal and you work backwards from there to come up with policy, then you can never recognize anything that doesn't implement that "perfection" immediately. Its never enough, it never goes far enough, there is no compromise, there are no baby steps in the right direction. There is only my ideal and this is the way it should be achieved.

6/26/2013 1:10:26 PM

^^
Why did you roll your eyes? It's the most important question in this discussion. Why do you need the government to recognize your marriage?

^
I think most of them would tell you if there is a government institution such as marriage, it should be equally available to all citizens.

Removing marriage from government altogether is just the preferable conclusion. It will happen eventually, maybe once we get around to recognizing polygamy as legitimate.

6/26/2013 1:15:49 PM

Quote :

"Aren't people making the argument that the only correct SC decision in this case would be to divorce all federal rules and codes from marriage? That the federal government has no right to recognize any marriages whatsoever?"

those people aren't making the case that this was a bad decision, no

6/26/2013 1:18:40 PM