Discussion: Gay Rights XIV

[spideyboy_1111]

the curve ball to me is that they're picking a former historic Gay Rights ruling to make this ruling. Especially when most thought the ruling would come on today or Thursday, not tomorrow.

I too think the supreme court will rule Doma and Prop 8 unconstitutional, but just overturn prop 8 in California, it will still be a historic step forward. but not exactly the life changing step i do think this country needs unfortunately.

 

[Matt]

I think you're overthinking the relevance of the day (which is what exactly? I didn't even realize that tomorrow is a milestone day). Tomorrow is the last day of the session. They are releasing all unreleased decisions tomorrow.

DOMA is undoubtedly gone. I see no circumstances in which DOMA is upheld. I don't see them overturning Prop. 8, because why bother writing a very narrowly tailored decision? Side stepping the issue on standing grounds effectively does the same thing because then the Court of Appeals decision is binding (which overrules Prop 8). If the Court narrowly tailors its ruling to California, it is saying it does not want to make a ruling. The easier way to not make a ruling is to say that there is no standing to appeal. That remains the front runner, IMO.

 

[Marx]

the curve ball to me is that they're picking a former historic Gay Rights ruling to make this ruling. Especially when most thought the ruling would come on today or Thursday, not tomorrow.

I too think the supreme court will rule Doma and Prop 8 unconstitutional, but just overturn prop 8 in California, it will still be a historic step forward. but not exactly the life changing step i do think this country needs unfortunately.

At this point, I think DOMA will be struck down. I'm still unsure how Prop 8 will turn out. In any case, I doubt the court has the courage to do what is truly necessary.

I do agree with those who say that public opinion is largely on the side of equality, but I still see no way the south will ever legalize it without being forced to.

 

[hippie_hunter]

HH you've said this before, and it's just not accurate. You do know that there were free blacks in the South before the Civil War, right? They were treated almost as badly as slaves. A lot of them were forced out in progroms (they were seen as a threat to the class system).

What purer form of hatred is there than what the Southerners did to the blacks before the Civil War? Pure, unapologetic exploitation. Any who resisted were beaten into submission, worked to death, or outright murdered. The vast majority of Southerners supported the institution, and viewed blacks as subhuman. They hated them before the war, and they hated them after.

And there were blacks who also owned plantations with slaves. There were plenty of people, not just African-Americans, who were treated badly in the South in that timeframe. The Southern aristocracy really didn't have anybody's interests at heart besides their own. It wasn't a pretty period. Slavery isn't excusable, but the simple fact is that if situations resolve themselves naturally, not just Civil War, but situations throughout the world, the end results almost always end up being far better. Interference just tends to mess up the natural order of things. Hatreds which aren't natural tend to linger on far longer. Outsiders who don't fully grasp the local culture impose their own which screws things up.

And again, people don't act completely irrational for absolutely no reason at all. Everything, even the irrational, has a rational reason. You can't just portray an entire culture of people like a bunch of cartoon characters who have no reason at all for their actions.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I think you're overthinking the relevance of the day (which is what exactly? I didn't even realize that tomorrow is a milestone day). Tomorrow is the last day of the session. They are releasing all unreleased decisions tomorrow.

DOMA is undoubtedly gone. I see no circumstances in which DOMA is upheld. I don't see them overturning Prop. 8, because why bother writing a very narrowly tailored decision? Side stepping the issue on standing grounds effectively does the same thing because then the Court of Appeals decision is binding (which overrules Prop 8). If the Court narrowly tailors its ruling to California, it is saying it does not want to make a ruling. The easier way to not make a ruling is to say that there is no standing to appeal. That remains the front runner, IMO.

Lower courts have already overturned it on the basis that since gay marriage was already legalized, they can't just simply take it away. The other states don't have that issue where gay marriage was just simply straight up banned. And yeah, I agree, the most likely outcome will be that the supporters of Proposition 8 have no standing for appeal. It allows the Court to stay out of the issue while not being on the wrong side of history at the same time.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I do agree with those who say that public opinion is largely on the side of equality, but I still see no way the south will ever legalize it without being forced to.

Meh, they'll eventually come around. Just at a much slower rate. These things take some time, when they see that the world hasn't come to an end because two dudes can get married, they'll come around to it as long as there are specific provisions that separate civil marriage from religious marriage.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Meh, they'll eventually come around. Just at a much slower rate. These things take some time, when they see that the world hasn't come to an end because two dudes can get married, they'll come around to it as long as there are specific provisions that separate civil marriage from religious marriage.

There's alot of people who unfortunately don't have time.

 

[BestGirl]

And there were blacks who also owned plantations with slaves. There were plenty of people, not just African-Americans, who were treated badly in the South in that timeframe. The Southern aristocracy really didn't have anybody's interests at heart besides their own. It wasn't a pretty period. Slavery isn't excusable, but the simple fact is that if situations resolve themselves naturally, not just Civil War, but situations throughout the world, the end results almost always end up being far better. Interference just tends to mess up the natural order of things. Hatreds which aren't natural tend to linger on far longer. Outsiders who don't fully grasp the local culture impose their own which screws things up.

Yes, I'm sure black people who were enslaved greatly resented being freed years earlier than they otherwise would have been. Do you have any proof Jim Crow wouldn't've occurred without the civil war or is that just speculation on your part?

And again, people don't act completely irrational for absolutely no reason at all. Everything, even the irrational, has a rational reason. You can't just portray an entire culture of people like a bunch of cartoon characters who have no reason at all for their actions.

I've never said Southerners were being irrational. They were probably afraid of being overrun by a substantial minority whom they'd treated poorly for decades.

 

[Thundercrack85]

A good chunk of a population can be irrational. I don't know how we can still debate that, given what our species has done over the course of its (rather shameful) history.

I don't think it's controversial to say that most Southerners were extremely racist. I think that could be said about Southerners in the early 20th century. Hell, Northerners weren't exactly PC either.

There are plenty of cultures that promote hatred, and irrational concepts.

Quite frankly, looking at our past (and the internet) sometimes I wonder if humans aren't naturally inclined to be *******. But I should save that for another thread.

 

[Pink Ranger]

Yes, I'm sure black people who were enslaved greatly resented being freed years earlier than they otherwise would have been. Do you have any proof Jim Crow wouldn't've occurred without the civil war or is that just speculation on your part?



I've never said Southerners were being irrational. They were probably afraid of being overrun by a substantial minority whom they'd treated poorly for decades.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Do you have any proof Jim Crow wouldn't've occurred without the civil war or is that just speculation on your part?

Well of course it's speculation. The Civil War happened, Jim Crow happened, and whatnot. It was in response to the speculation of what would have happened if the Civil War didn't happen. I am under the theory that if things resolved naturally, we would have gotten a more peaceful resolution that didn't involve the ugly outcomes that came afterwards. Mostly because I think that while most human beings are dumb, they aren't monsters who want to ruin other people.

I've never said Southerners were being irrational. They were probably afraid of being overrun by a substantial minority whom they'd treated poorly for decades.

No they were pissed off. And yeah, they were irrational. I think we can both agree that Jim Crow was completely and utterly irrational. While there most likely was a degree of fear involved for the reasons you say, most of Southern irrationality came from anger. They were angry that their homes and economy were destroyed. They were angry that they lost all their political power to their former slaves. They were angry over how horribly defeated they were. Anger is a much more motivating tool than fear.

 

[hippie_hunter]

DOMA has been ruled unconstitutional in a 5-4 decision.

 

[Pink Ranger]

DOMA has been ruled unconstitutional in a 5-4 decision.

Let guess: the swing vote was ... Alito.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Let guess: the swing vote was ... Alito.

Actually it was Clarence Thomas .

 

[Pink Ranger]

Actually it was Clarence Thomas .

He ruled against DOMA cause he wanted to watch lesbians kissing on the steps of the court building.

 

[hippie_hunter]

He ruled against DOMA cause he wanted to watch lesbians kissing on the steps of the court building.

In seriousness though, it was the liberal justices plus Kennedy that struck it down.

 

[Pink Ranger]

Yeah, I read that. Congratulations to my American cousins in overturning a horribly draconian piece of legislation.

I am still disappointed though at how predictable the vote was. A highest court that makes decision purely on political and ideological lines is no court at all.

It would have been great if at least one of the conservative judges issued a concurring decision, not to support same-sex marriage, but to argue that the legislation itself was technically unconstitutional and an overreeach of ennumerated powers. That's the kind of arguments that a court should be considering.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Kennedy is one of the conservative judges and he released the opinion.

 

[Pink Ranger]

Kennedy is one of the conservative judges and he released the opinion.

Isn't he considered the "swing judge" though? When I say "conservative" I am thinking of the other four who are stubbornly out there on the far right.

 

[Pink Ranger]

Well, that's congratulations to my American cousins on two counts today!

 

[Kelly]

Pretty interesting that Ted Olson, a Republican is one of the lawyers that is winning all of these pro-gay marriage issues with the Supreme Court. Also interesting is his now partner in all of this David Boies was against Olson when Olson was the lawyer for Bush and Boies was the lawyer for Gore in Bush v. Gore. Pretty interesting stuff.....good job.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Prop 8 is also dead, SCOTUS as predicted dissmissed it. Marriages to resume in California


this is a major step forward for gay rights, just not the giant leap we needed.

Scalia should also be removed from court... he apparently said in his dissent that DOMA "has no prejudicial basis therefore should be left to stand"

that ideology needs to go away... especially if you can't tell what's prejudice and what's not.

imo SCOTUS should be role models... and i don't believe role models should be worry about they're reputation and saving their butts from scrutiny. They should simply be worried about doing what's right. And I'm not sold that they are

 

[Pink Ranger]

Pretty interesting that Ted Olson, a Republican is one of the lawyers that is winning all of these pro-gay marriage issues with the Supreme Court. Also interesting is his now partner in all of this David Boies was against Olson when Olson was the lawyer for Bush and Boies was the lawyer for Gore in Bush v. Gore. Pretty interesting stuff.....good job.

Lawyers are mercenaries at heart: you pay their bills, and they will temporarily adopt whatever position you want them to.

I may have to eat my own words though, about the US Supreme Court being about politics rather than legal arguments, when I look at the breakdown of the Prop 8 decision.

 

[wiegeabo]

Prop 8 is also dead, SCOTUS as predicted dissmissed it. Marriages to resume in California


this is a major step forward for gay rights, just not the giant leap we needed.

Scalia should also be removed from court... he apparently said in his dissent that DOMA "has no prejudicial basis therefore should be left to stand"

that ideology needs to go away... especially if you can't tell what's prejudice and what's not.

imo SCOTUS should be role models... and i don't believe role models should be worry about they're reputation and saving their butts from scrutiny. They should simply be worried about doing what's right. And I'm not sold that they are

Well, you can't remove a Supreme Court justice, so no point in wasting energy on that.

 

[Pink Ranger]

I might take some time to read the Prop 8 opinion today; it is fascinating.