The Glade 4.0

Crapper, meet thread. Thread, crapper.

Is there a problem I'm not aware of mathboy?

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

I asked a simple question. A few people gave simple answers. TheRiov cranked it up a notch but nothing all that big...but apparently Coro has an equation up his butt about something. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Sure, there will probably be a handful of suits filed, but they won't have any significant support and they won't stand a chance of success. Opponents of interracial marriage raised the same concern when the Supreme Court flat out ruled that state prohibition of interracial marriage was unConstitutional (a ruling that obviously went much farther than the current DOMA decision does on gay marriage). That fear has proven to be unwarranted. No church has ever been required to perform an interracial marriage, and there's no reason to suspect things will be different with gay marriage.

As for churches being punished, the main mechanism for that would be revoking the church's tax-exempt status, and again, no church has ever lost its tax-exempt status for refusing to perform interracial marriages. The closest thing to that happening was Bob Jones University (a self-described Christian school) losing its tax-exempt status for prohibiting interracial dating based on religious objections to the practice, but when the Court upheld the IRS's decision, it explicitly limited its holding to religious schools, not churches or other purely religious institutions, which are subject to a higher degree of protection under the Court's First Amendment precedents. As before, I see no reason to suspect things will be different with gay marriage.

With the Bob Jones University ruling in mind, though, I do think it's possible that church-affiliated institutions (as opposed to the churches themselves) that discriminate against gay couples could lose their tax-exempt status and/or become ineligible to participate in various government-funded programs. For example, if a Catholic university has special dorms for married students and refuses to allow a married gay couple to live there, it's certainly plausible, in the absence of DOMA, that such university could lose it's tax-exempt status and/or become ineligible to participate in federal financial aid programs.

Apparently pointing out that I'm not aware of anyone trying to force a church to marry them = 'taking it up a notch'

Dude, don't be so sensitive. I regret now saying anything.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

This is all I was saying.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

The gay community has jerks just like any other group of people and I'm sure some of them are going to try and make other people's lives hard. I'm glad that this decision has gone through but I would vehemently oppose forcing religious institutions to recognize it, the same as I would oppose laws forcing the public to recognize religious views.

Dis.

Agree with this. Not to drag this out any furture...but one reason I asked was because of the whole gov wanting/forcing the Catholic church to offer birth control. While it might not ever happen, it is a reasonable thing for one to think that marriage could be down the line.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Church funded Hospitals that become the primary community hospital (even driving out other hospitals) do create a bit of a problem when they then refuse to perform some services that the hospitals they drove out of business would have.

On the Prop 8 decision, I'm obviously happy about the substantive effect (i.e., that Prop 8 is dead), but I'm definitely troubled by the procedural aspects and the actual holding of the decision. I mean, basically, you have a duly enacted law (odious though it was) created by referendum precisely because the majority of the state population supported something that the state government opposed, then the state government refused to defend the law on appeal, and now the Supreme Court has ruled that no one but the state government has standing to defend the law. So, anytime voters enact a law by referendum that the state government doesn't like, the state government can effectively nullify that law by simply refusing to defend it in court. That....seems wrong.

To be fair, it did make it up to the 9th circuit. so the state *did* defend it, just not to the supreme, where they felt it would likely also be overturned.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

The same reason a homosexual pride group want to buy T shirts from someone who doesn't think homosexuality is something of which to be proud?

It will take time to filter down to churches, especially those ones who are rather strict on whom they marry now.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

So government is no longer "defending" marriage. Great, that's one step closer to ignoring it entirely.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Food for thought:

The DOMA decision strikes down Section 3 of DOMA but not Section 2, so if a gay couple from Kansas gets married in Massachusetts, the federal government must treat them as married for purposes of federal law and programs, but Kansas doesn't have to recognize (i.e. give full faith and credit to) the marriage for purposes of Kansas law and programs. So how will that couple be treated under federal programs that are administered by the state (e.g. Medicaid)? Will Kansas be required to administer the federal program to them as a married couple recognized under federal law or permitted to treat them as unmarried individuals under Kansas law? Follow-up litigation, here we come!

Anyway Doma being unconstitutional I can get, the Constitution says marriage is the purview of the States and States have to accept marriages from other States. So, it's a Constitutionally correct decision at least part way, if you care about such things.

The prop 8 Decision didn't thankfully contradict this. They said that organization doesn't have standing. This does beg the question: what's an electorate to do when the Government doesn't respect it's right to end run around the politicians and amend its constitution.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Yeah Dave beat me to it.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

The CA government did defend it in court. Unsuccessfully. They elected to not take it to the USSC due to the immense cost and whatnot of the litigation, only to be defeated again.

Prop 8 was declared unconstitutional by two separate appeals courts. That should have been enough.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

From Kennedy's decision, I would say that the big pickle left is that under the remaining parts of DOMA, state's do not have to recognize other states marriages.

So if you are a gay couple and married in New York, and you move to South Carolina, you are no longer married.

And the way I read his opinion, you would no longer be married from the position of the federal government, either.

That said, SC can choose to not allow marriages in SC, but honor those from other states.

I'm sure there will be another suit making its way to USSC, and I'd guess it will more than likely be a federal employee losing out on federal spousal benefits by moving from one state to another.

This will also be a nightmare in terms of income tax- if you move from one state to another midway through the year, and your marriage 'evaporates', do you file as married or not for federal taxes?

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

By what grounds should Prop 8 be Unconstitutional? Do States have the right to define marriage laws? Does the electorate have the right to change their constitution (provided it doesn't conflict with Federal Law?)

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

It denies civil rights to a subsection of the populace.

With respect to denial of marriage to a certain subsection of the populace, no. In other respects, yes.

Yes.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

At least one of the dissents mentioned that they expected to see such matters in future, as it wasn't discussed in the majority ruling.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12 ... 7_g2bh.pdf

_________________
When he's underwater does he get wet? Or does the water get him instead?

+1

On a lighter side, from the alternative to "the Onion,"

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/b ... court.html

Scalia Arrested Trying to Burn Down Supreme Court
Posted by Andy Borowitz

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In a shocking end to an illustrious legal career, police arrested Justice Antonin Scalia today as he attempted to set the Supreme Court building ablaze.

Justice Scalia, who had seemed calm and composed during the announcement of two major rulings this morning, was spotted by police minutes later outside the building, carrying a book of matches and a gallon of kerosene.

After police nabbed Justice Scalia and placed him in handcuffs, the Juror appeared “at peace and resigned to his fate,” a police spokesman said.

“He went quietly,” the spokesman said. “He just muttered something like, ‘I don’t want to live in a world like this.’ ”

Back at the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia’s colleagues said they hoped he would get the help he needed, except for Justice Clarence Thomas, who said nothing.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones