The LGBT victory lap dance thread

[archibaldcrane]

Nope, I'm sticking to my 2014 theory.

[hey]

Most of us are doing this now.

This, for a very long time.

[Qeomash]

I think the main question is how far reaching of a decision it will be. I imagine it will be 5-4 against DOMA and Prop 8. My question will be how they go about it. If they rule on the merits of the appeals claims, it would simply be upholding the lower courts decisions. Both cases have a question of if their respective defendants are actually allowed to defend the measures. DOMA, the department of justice is supposed to be defending it--but they refuse, so House Republicans are doing it. For Prop 8, California's governor or attorney general are supposed to defend--but they are refusing and NOM is doing it. Part of the appeals is weither those groups actually have the ability, legally, to defend them.

Outcome 1: The SCOTUS says no, those groups don't have the legality to defend it the measures it will only be a half victory. Marriage will be back on in California, and DOMA will be knocked down. But the gay marraige bans currently in place will remain.

Outcome 2: They could rule that the Prop 8 and DOMA bans are unconstitutional and, by extension of that, all marriage bans can be challenged and taken down.

It will be one of the two, I'm sure. I just hope for the second one but I fear the SCOTUS might be reluctant to put forth such a controversial decision.

[BaneTheBrawler]

i don't see how this could go any other way than to favor gays. the SCOTUS's main responsibility is to interpret the constitution, and i don't see how anyone could interpret "all men are created equal" as anything BUT what it says.

[Yuri-G]

I'm no political scholar but DOMA seems like a no-brainer. even if you ignore the equal protection aspect, federal law violating state rights is never popular with the Supremes.

prop 8... that's harder. I agree that they'll probably uphold the appeals court decision, but then I have to wonder why they'd take the case at all? I don't fully understand how that works so I may be ign'nt here.

[Yuri-G]

i don't see how this could go any other way than to favor gays. the SCOTUS's main responsibility is to interpret the constitution, and i don't see how anyone could interpret "all men are created equal" as anything BUT what it says.

hey, Lawrence v Texas had a 6/3 ruling. which means that 3 justices said consenting adults can't buttfuck in the privacy of their own fucking home. so anything is possible.

[Xno Kappa]

Loving v. Virginia was a unanimous decision and that's probably the closest thing to precedence regarding gay marriage.

[Ksandra]

but then I have to wonder why they'd take the case at all? I don't fully understand how that works so I may be ign'nt here.

more thank likely for two reasons.

1. the results and overall popularity of gay marriages this last election.

2, The history of gay marriage in California. Basically:

2000- prop 22 restricted marriages to man and woman

2008- california's supreme court strikes that saying it's unconstitutional according to the state constitution.
later that year: prop 8 amends the state constitution to say man and woman.

Since prop 8 was essentially saying "FU" to the state supreme court, the scotus probably wants to look into it.

[Kuya]

Qeomash pretty much summarized how it could go. The second outcome is obviously the best.

[Apelila]

Most of us here are doing this now.

Bolded a fix. Rest of the country? Damn homo's.

[ronin sparthos]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...usaolp00000009

PRINCETON, N.J. -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Monday found himself defending his legal writings that some find offensive and anti-gay.

Speaking at Princeton University, Scalia was asked by a gay student why he equates laws banning sodomy with those barring bestiality and murder.

"I don't think it's necessary, but I think it's effective," Scalia said, adding that legislative bodies can ban what they believe to be immoral.

Scalia has been giving speeches around the country to promote his new book, "Reading Law," and his lecture at Princeton comes just days after the court agreed to take on two cases that challenge the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Some in the audience who had come to hear Scalia speak about his book applauded but more of those who attended the lecture clapped at freshman Duncan Hosie's question.

"It's a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the `reduction to the absurd,'" Scalia told Hosie of San Francisco during the question-and-answer period. "If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?"

Scalia said he is not equating sodomy with murder but drawing a parallel between the bans on both.

Then he deadpanned: "I'm surprised you aren't persuaded."

Hosie said afterward that he was not persuaded by Scalia's answer. He said he believes Scalia's writings tend to "dehumanize" gays.

As Scalia often does in public speaking, he cracked wise, taking aim mostly at those who view the Constitution as a "living document" that changes with the times.

"It isn't a living document," Scalia said. "It's dead, dead, dead, dead."

He said that people who see the Constitution as changing often argue they are taking the more flexible approach. But their true goal is to set policy permanently, he said.

"My Constitution is a very flexible one," he said. "There's nothing in there about abortion. It's up to the citizens. ... The same with the death penalty."

Scalia said that interpreting laws requires adherence to the words used and to their meanings at the time they were written.

Jeez, this type of argumentation still flies as being intellectual? I know it's no surprise given the source but so much facepalm.

[Icywave]

Scalia........

[Dotsudoku]

Is there legal justification for rejecting the idea of a living constitution, or is it just the usual nonsense? Unless I'm unaware of something, it sounds absurd to make the argument that 'everything we will ever need to know about governing a nation is in this document's original text'.

[ringthree]

I think Scalia's hissy-fit parade tips his hand quite a bit. The court already has the basis for the decision, and he doesn't like it. He is making broad arguments here, not just state's rights arguments, which makes me think this is going to be a broad decision.

6-3 in both cases. Kennedy was the deciding vote and is probably the reason that they are going forward with hearing both cases so soon, and Roberts doesn't want to be on the wrong side of history.

[ringthree]

Is there legal justification for rejecting the idea of a living constitution, or is it just the usual nonsense? Unless I'm unaware of something, it sounds absurd to make the argument that 'everything we will ever need to know about governing a nation is in this document's original text'.

You are exactly correct, it's just the usual nonsense. Scalia, was, is and will always be a douche. Also, he isn't against judicial activism as he is one of the most activist judges when it comes to his decisions. He is just a conservative that falsely wraps himself in judicial restraint.

[Ragnus]

His "reduction to absurdity" is the #1 reason why I hate the guy so much. Anyone who relies on that as a means of figuring out where precedent can lead to doesn't deserve the robes he/she wears in my opinion. Yes, it's okay to hate murder. No, it's not okay to hate on homosexuality because nobody gets hurt unless Long John forgot to use enough lube when fucking Tiny Tom.

[Dotsudoku]

Admittedly I didn't read what the exert came from, but that quotation really threw me off. Was he utilizing reductio ad absurdum while.. identifying it as reductio ad absurdum? How does one do that?

[Icywave]

Leviticus 11:9-12

9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Leviticus 18:22

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.


..... As John Stewart pointed out... Obey!

[ronin sparthos]

No Lobster? You gotta be kidding me.

[archibaldcrane]

That was a very awkward circle jerk of an interview, Stewart didn't even question "so what do your superiors think of your take on this?" Dude was just given a stage to spout a bunch of nonsense shading jesus as "maybe gay" unchallenged. It was lazy.