The Glade 4.0

I'll hold off on a further substantive reply until I have a chance to give the opinion and dissents a more careful read. A question to you guys in the meantime though:

Do you agree that under Scalia's approach to jurisdiction here:

• (i) the appeal would have been dismissed at both the Supreme Court and Circuit Court levels;
• (ii) the existing ruling from the District Court for the Southern District of New York would then control, but only with respect to that District;
• (iii) the government would be free to continue enforcing DOMA in each of the other 93 Federal Districts;
• (iv) as long as the government continued to concede the Constitutional point in any future cases brought in those other Districts, it would again be able to prevent appeals to the Circuit Courts (and thence to the Supreme Court), so separate cases would have to be brought in each of the 93 other Districts; and
• (v) as a result, there would likely end up being significant differences among the Districts - some upholding DOMA entirely, some limiting it in certain contexts, some striking it down entirely, and some, pace Scalia, declaring that the government's concession as to its Constitutionality renders the issue beyond the federal courts' jurisdiction to even consider - with no way to establish uniformity by appealing the matter to higher courts.

Yes, without question. I don't know that I'd make polygamists completely ineligible for aid, but I'd definitely cap the amount that they could receive. They always seem to think that vaginas are clown cars and the costs on a per-child basis could skyrocket quickly.

i) Yes
ii) Sort of
iii) No
iv) No
v) No


Again, get the Court out of your mind. Scalia is saying the Executive has the obligation, if it believes something is unconstitutional, to not enforce. If that were the case here, which he's saying it is, they should have simply stopped enforcing DOMA.

They didn't, for politically specific reasons that the liberals on the court then went for.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I think (iii), (iv), and (v) would be circumvented by the fact the resulting decrees or enjoining orders would bind the Federal Executive, since it was the Federal Executive who was enforcing the law in the first place.

_________________

I think that's being short sighted. The baker, the photographer, and even the church camp who don't want to be part of gay marriage are already being oppressed into doing so, and it ought not to be. The church building has a bit more protection, especially those, like mine, who are very limited on whose ceremonies they preform.

I don't think it's around the corner though

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

This is more of a problem of a general deterioration fo the right to refuse service than it is of anything specific to gay marriage.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Exactly. I mean, if you don't want the business, that's fine. I'd just go elsewhere to buy my cake and flowers. I don't want to give my money to an intolerant prick anyway.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Unfortunately Mus, not everyone is as reasonable as you. As I've said before, if homosexuals want to have a ceremony and bond to another homosexual, not even in Ohio can anyone stop them, nor is anyone wanting too. If a church (congregational or denominational) wants to bless it, that's between them and God. I'm supporter of the Doctrine of Individual Soul Liberty. If any company wants to offer domestic partner benefits, then likewise. However don't force the people who don't want to be a part of that to do so. I admit the hospital visitation situation is sticky, but fixable without expense to those who disagree. A few paragraph amendment to HIPPA could make "Power of Care Assistance and Consultancy" (a term I just made up PoCCAaC?) as easy to get as society feels like.

A government gets to decide what behaviors (behaviors, not people) it wants to promote or not promote, and so should individuals. As a fair tax proponent I'm perfectly happy with the notion of doing away with the marriage deduction as part of a larger tax reform (like the fair tax), and I'd even be okay with government benefits having to be for a "domestic partner" (or better yet, just for the employee).

At the end of the day words are supposed to mean things though. If I want to call the Amazon Basin a wet desert, and you don't, does that make you bigoted? Well I suppose it does by the definition of the word bigoted, but does it mean you hate the Rain Forest?

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

Dear Lord, I weep for our society.

_________________
"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

While ideal, government cannot reasonably get "out of the marriage business". There's too many legal issues. But, it should be focused as civil contracts. That said, anyone wishing to engage in the contract should be allowed - but, if someone could make the case that the parties should be limited, I'd be willing to listen.

In other words, I'd have to hear educated arguments on both sides, when framed as a contract issue, to make up my mind.

I am with Arathain. My primary questions would be about probate rights etc.

_________________

The answer is you'd have a ton more probate lawsuits and a whole new jurisprudence would appear.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I know rig... hey wait a minute....

Wait... are you being mean to me?

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

I'm just saying, you don't get "Moose" as a nickname for being reasonable and accommodating.

_________________
"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

Actually, I got it for being overly aggressive, competitive and enthusiastic whilst playing friendly games of beach volleyball.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

You know, that's a turn of phrase I've never liked.

Just because it's on sand doesn't make it "beach volleyball." Las Vegas is in the desert, not many beaches there. Plenty of sand though. So really, shouldn't it be "desert volleyball?"

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I think "beach volleyball" refers to the fact that the game is most properly played by tall athletic women in bikinis.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Na, cuz then that's just called "awesome."

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

There's a couple of courts at a park here that are on beach sand. Its just a descriptor to separate it from indoor volleyball.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

SAND BIGOT! Why can't you just support Sand Equality?

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

The solution is less government not more. You would only increase the regulations.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I don't think people should get anything for being married anyway, but they wanted to encourage people to get married. People at the time believed it was better for the common good if people got married.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

I'd be alright with a fair tax where you don't have any kind of deduction for anything. However if you are going to have a tax code that promotes certain behaviors, it's probably good to promote relationships that produce stable family environments for children.

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

I still think the biggest benefit of getting married is probate simplification, not income tax credits.

_________________

Probate simplification is an issue, but there are ways around that. Anyone with anything worth giving away (or anyone with minor children) should have a will.

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