Doma Struck Down

[MrRealDeal]

Fed appleal court of Boston has ruled it unconstitutional ........ The Supreme court will rule next year on the overall issue so as a side note I would add that any new supreme court picks that people might hope for is unlikely this time around on this issue. While it leaves the option to the states is recognises that legally married people can not be the subject of discrimination , the issue at hand was in this case was benefits.

[MrRealDeal]

I guess I should be more accurate instead of exagurate a little ... A key part of it was struck down not the whole thing .......

The case is Massachusetts v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services (10-2204).

[Jingthing]

An important case, and I assume a win in the supreme court as well. However, this case in itself does not mandate that all 50 states allow same sex marriages. It is basically about the few states that DO have same sex marriage being recognized at the federal level for federal benefits. A big step, but only another step.

http://www.washingto...xO4U_story.html

If this case is lost in the supreme court, that would indeed be bad news, but we'd need a supreme court expert to say how that might impact a potential later case (and the timing, years or decades) until a real victory.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Jingthing

[MrRealDeal]

Thats what I said in a different way ... but yeah ..... I am pretty sure the Supreme Court will make a fairly broad and sweeping ruling on the entire issue. While most of the time they prefer to rule on small parts of big issues I think this time they will not. My reasoning is that without ruling on the overall issue ..... Can you discriminate against same sex couples anyplace ..... the other somewhat sideline but important of course, issues, can end up being decided incorectly and need to be reversed if they decide the obvious. NUMEROUS issues become irelevant like does Maine have to recognise California ..... This issue decided as you said about fed benefits inside the actuall state you were married in .....it didnt say if you moved to another state outside of the 1st district, that also has legal marrage you are entitled to the same , because it doesnt have that authority, as obvious as that would seem doing it has not been deemed illegal or legal. Questions like is Calif required to have divorce procedings for people from other states ect ect ect.

The 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, based in Boston, did not rule on the federal law's other key provision: that states that do not allow same-sex marriages cannot be forced to recognize such unions performed in other states.

The Supreme Court recognises the almost infinite number of cases it can render irelevant by making a ruling on the overall issue. This is because a Federal Appeals court would really be Overstepping it's authority to make a ruling on what all states need to do on an issue brought before it about a legal question pertaining to a state within it's juristiction, which is why we have different district courts in the first place. It could make a ruling enforcable within it's own area of authority but it has no weight in another district only the weight of case law that the other district could use to argue it's case.

So basicly to avoid a 50 state cluster fuc_k of confusion and an endless number of new cases it's the only sensible solution in the first place and equally important they will simply desire to settle such a widesweeping and important case since thats what they live for.

They will say states are required to make equal same sex couples by allowing them the same rights and responsibilitys as everyone else, however they won't care if they call it civil union or marrage and just like marrage or abortion will allow states to make their own regulations within the guidelines they give. hetros have different laws by state now , ages , some allow cousin marrage ect. Same as abortion. This will make pretty much everyone happy anyhow because the states that feel like they "lost" can at least be happy and call it civil unions, and same sex couples, just like cousin marrying hetro's, can go to a state with the program they prefer and marry there.

In the end the argument that same sex couples are being denied equal rights because it can be called a civil union will lose because we have an abundant number of different words for describing the same basic acts in numerous other areas ..... it's not an ifringment of your rights to be called a watriess a waiter or a server it's just politically correct to use the latter. The argument that it's in the public intrest to allow the most descriptive words possible rather than mandating the same word for slightly different things would win out in the end. It would take a pretty smart Lawyer to convience the Supreme Court that requiring the same word for 2 slightly different things was not an infingment of the 1st amendment as politically incorect as it might be. In the end even people who have a civil union will use the generic term we are married anyhow, and people who pipe up and say ... no you don't you have a civil union will look like homophobic dopes.

[LeCharivari]

An important case, and I assume a win in the supreme court as well. However, this case in itself does not mandate that all 50 states allow same sex marriages. It is basically about the few states that DO have same sex marriage being recognized at the federal level for federal benefits. A big step, but only another step.

http://www.washingto...xO4U_story.html

If this case is lost in the supreme court, that would indeed be bad news, but we'd need a supreme court expert to say how that might impact a potential later case (and the timing, years or decades) until a real victory.

Rather misleading.

The case had nothing whatsoever to do with allowing same sex marriages in all 50 states, etc., either directly or indirectly.

What the court ruled was that it was unconstitutional for the federal government to interfere with a state's right to define marriage, which "in itself" could be good or bad news for "gay marriage" in the US; it only ruled on Section 3 of DOMA, and the judgement has been stayed pending an appeal in any case:

Many Americans believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and most Americans live in states where that is the law today. One virtue of federalism is that it permits this diversity of governance based on local choice, but this applies as well to the states that have chosen to legalize same-sex marriage. Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress' denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest.

In terms of "big steps", while its good news for the couples concerned (as long as they remain in the 8 states concerned) its about as "big" as the difference between stepping in something left behind by a Great Dane and something left by a Mastiff.

[Jingthing]

Well as is typical on American matters, you're wrong.

Also about your "instructing" me how this case doesn't directly address the 50 states over gay marriage when I EXPLICITLY said the same thing in my post. Is this like, a SPORT for you to deliberately annoy me, because it is working?

Yes, this IS a big deal, especially if we get a favorable decision in the SUPREME COURT. Each INCREMENTAL step towards the ultimate goal is yes to people like me who have been following this for decades, yes, a big deal. Your fantasy for INSTANT RELIEF was NEVER going to happen in the US. Actual Americans are well beyond such unrealistic fantasies, we are playing LONG BALL. I know you are obsessed with some fantasy that national civil unions will happen in the US as in Britain, but the actual truth is things are going along pretty much on plan to move the issue of MARRIAGE equality along through INCREMENTAL supreme court steps. We aren't yet at the point of bringing the big case, but this would be a really good precedent and hopefully if Obama wins and gets some picks, we can win the big case sooner or later. If Obama loses, and Romney gets picks, its a big step back, but again that is the system the US has. It's not like someone has offered us any other realistic alternative but to KEEP FIGHTING.

I know, I know, you think the US should go the UK route. Civil unions/50 states/equal to marriage/recognized federally. I've asked this a number of times from outsiders. HOW? They never have an adequate answer. This is such a non-issue in the US that I reckon it's talked about more here on thaivisa than in 10 years on American forums. If you've got the magic bullet and yes considering POLITICS and the way this would have to happen in the US where only a few of the 50 STATES even have civil unions (yet ALL have marriage) let us know. Maybe you will change history. Of course I know you have no such brilliant idea. You're likely to say start a constitutional amendment for civil unions. Easy to say but anyone with an ounce of knowledge on American politics knows it is beyond the realm of imagination for that to actually happen. The steps being taken towards the supreme court are not only easy to imagine ... they are starting to HAPPEN.

Some gay rights activists have said that the limited question in the DOMA case made it a more attractive and incremental issue for an increasingly conservative Supreme Court than asking the justices to recognize a fundamental right of gays to marry.

http://www.washingto...xO4U_story.html Edited June 1, 2012 by Jingthing

[MrRealDeal]

Your posts seem to be more argumentative than attempts to contribute anything meaningfull .... IMHO

[MrRealDeal]

My post went out of order but it should be obvious enough to whom I was reffering to.

[Jingthing]

My post went out of order but it should be obvious enough to whom I was reffering to.

Indeed!

[Jingthing]

As I said, this case is a big deal. It's an American case and somehow I trust the opinion of The New Yorker over a Britisher who harbors a surreal fantasy based on no substance that American gay people "chose" to not have federal civil unions so they could have the masochistic pleasure of torturing themselves to fight for gay marriage equality instead. I wonder who offered these American federal civil unions and when. Maybe it was Queene Elizabeth? Tell her thank you, we never heard about it.

This is a blockbuster ruling, to be sure.

...

But whatever happens next, there is no question that this decision is another big step in the march toward full equality for gay and lesbian Americans.

Read more http://www.newyorker...l#ixzz1wa1xoDPg

Edited June 1, 2012 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

.... I know you are obsessed with some fantasy that national civil unions will happen in the US as in Britain, .... I know, I know, you think the US should go the UK route.

As usual, JT, you DON'T "know". I have never said that "the US should go the UK route" or that "national civil unions will happen in the US as in Britain". What I have said is that instead of sticking your head in the sand and saying that there's only one way to go ("the American way") that there are other options that may improve the situation for many gays in the US sooner rather than later.

If you think, as you have opined before, that only you and your fellow countrymen are entitled to an informed opinion about the situation in your country that is a little sad coming from anyone, but particularly coming from someone who continually exercises his right to comment on other countries. Maybe you'll remember that the next time you comment on Iran and approve of things being done "the Iranian way" ... maybe not.

You also appear to have missed a key part of the New Yorker article whose opinion you trust so much:

It’s a bit of inside baseball, but this is the result favored by the old guard of gay-rights litigators who prefer a more incremental strategy of Supreme Court review. (Although they will not like the language in today’s decision that suggests that states can decide on a case-by-case basis who can get married; but this is the risk of incrementalism.) In this case, a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would not require any kind of finding that there exists a hitherto-unrecognized constitutional right to same-sex marriage—only that the federal government must recognize marriages validly preformed in states that choose to do so.

OOOPS!

Amusing that Mr RD has a rather different view to yours of which "way" the gay marriage/civil union issue will go: "They will say states are required to make equal same sex couples by allowing them the same rights and responsibilitys as everyone else, however they won't care if they call it civil union or marrage and just like marrage or abortion will allow states to make their own regulations within the guidelines they give ...... In the end even people who have a civil union will use the generic term we are married anyhow, and people who pipe up and say ... no you don't you have a civil union will look like homophobic dopes." I tend to agree with him that his would be the best way, but that would make somebody a "dope".

OOOPS!

[MrRealDeal]

That's because the generic term married means joining together it's used in cooking as well , and what I stated was anyone who thinks a civil union does not meet the generic term of married is a dope ..... and incorrect ...... so telling someone who was joined in a civil union, they were not married in the generic term sense, which is what I said, would be factually incorrect and a dope for trying to argue it or even mention it. My reasoning for that is if you don't know the term "marry" means to join together you are probabbly a dope. And certianly not a very good cook !

btw I like to hear what you and jing have to say so I hope none of this leads to some crazy personality conflict as opposed to conversations about differing opinions.

Edited June 1, 2012 by MrRealDeal

[Jingthing]

OMG. This is INCREMENTAL. I never said any differently. I never said this is the endgame, just a big step moving things along towards the goal. It's all about MARRIAGE equality in the U.S. There is NO national movement for national civil unions, nor is it practical. The LANGUAGE does matter as has been discussed ad nauseum because this is a SUPREME COURT strategy (LONG TERM) and the equality issue is about marriage, as all 50 states ALREADY have marriage laws and only a few have civil union ones and there is no issue with gay equality in those civil unions states. At this point in the amazing progress towards MARRIAGE equality in the U.S.., now having MAJORITY support according to polling, a number of court cases in recent years (including this one) going in the gay equality direction, a president openly support legal gay marriage, a president who even before now has declared his opinion that DOMA is unconstitutional, even talking about an alternative national civil union strategy is a total waste of time. How many times do I have to tell you there in supreme court tactic to win national civil unions, only marriage. I'll ask again, how do we get these national civil unions that you keep pushing. How? These other options? Again. What? How?

L.C, it's not that you aren't American, it's that about the gay marriage issue in the USA, you are totally off base. The stuff you seem obsessed about is OFF THE RADAR in the US. So again if by some miracle you're some kind of outsider genius. Not marriage? What? How? Don't just say civil unions. I've explained numerous times already how there is no practical strategy for that. What is YOUR practical strategy considering the ACTUAL U.S. legal structure and political situation? Please don't mention Australia. NOT relevant.

As far as American gays in civil union states not being married. No, they are not legally married under their state laws. They are in civil unions. In gay marriage states, they are married under state law, but not married under federal law. If you're talking common law, vernacular, say what you want, but I'm interested in actual laws and actual RIGHTS.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Jingthing

[MrRealDeal]

Like I said jing if you think the Supreme Court will rule that the term "marrage" is a requirement as opposed to civil union you are mistaken. Blacks Law dictionary has different terms for hetrosexual people who are married and some Lawyer would point that out. Common Law marrage is a legal term so their is already precedent for this, and a Civil Union marrage is on it's way if not included already. I know you think it's the exact same thing but it's not, t'is different enough to deserve a different word so people know the difference they are talking about. And not in the least bit discriminatory to do that. ..... But I suppose the term Civil Union marrage would be more politicly correct than just Civil Union.

I have an open mind and while I am pretty sure on the Legal aspect , it's certianly possible you can convience me otherwise on the social aspect.

[Jingthing]

Like I said jing if you think the Supreme Court will rule that the term "marrage" is a requirement as opposed to civil union you are mistaken. Blacks Law dictionary has different terms for hetrosexual people who are married and some Lawyer would point that out. Common Law marrage is a legal term so their is already precedent for this, and a Civil Union marrage is on it's way if not included already. I know you think it's the exact same thing but it's not, t'is different enough to deserve a different word so people know the difference they are talking about. And not in the least bit discriminatory to do that. ..... But I suppose the term Civil Union marrage would be more politicly correct than just Civil Union.

I have an open mind and while I am pretty sure on the Legal aspect , it's certianly possible you can convience me otherwise on the social aspect.

You've lost me. You can't argue in the supreme court against discrimination in MARRIAGE when you aren't talking about MARRIAGE. All 50 states have MARRIAGE laws. Show me one link about a supreme court strategy for gay civil union rights. I am really curious. I don't think such exists. Maybe we are talking about different things. I'm talking about the long term strategy for a global gay marriage equality win. A case that instantly forces all US states with marriage laws (all of them) to not discriminate against same sex couples. Maybe you're talking about something else. In the few US states with civil unions laws, these were created for gay people! There is no discrimination case to argue for gays with those! Edited June 1, 2012 by Jingthing

[MrRealDeal]

Actually you can, because Blacks Law dictionary defines marriage as "the legal joining of 2 people" so Civil Union are under legal defentions already marriage. I am not saying their is a strategy for civil unions I am saying that apparently unbenonced to a number of people Civil Unions are as defined under the law as marrages in the first place. So the argument that Civil Unions are not marriage's under the law is actually incorect and since the Supreme Court already knows that it's not an issue they would even consider. Like I have stated the legal argument is do same sex people have the right to join together, the word used in the lawsuit of Civil Union or Marriage makes no difference to the Court because the both have the same Legal meaning.

What you are trying to argue is that it's discrimination to call same sex maraiges something different then hetrosexual marriages and unfortunatly for you it's not. It's simply descriptive not discriminatory.

[Jingthing]

That isn't what I'm arguing at all! My argument is all 50 states ALREADY have marriage laws so the only logical tactic to get same sex rights in this regard at the supreme court level is to pursue MARRIAGE equality. Only a FEW states have civil union laws. If a globally important supreme court case wins, those states with civil union laws ALSO have marriage laws. What happens in those few states with both may be interesting legal geek question, but as far as the big picture, it is trivial.

This is getting silly again. The people working on this issue are working on marriage equality and the supreme court strategy is the clear consensus for the path. Why waste time on "civil union" equality when only a few states have both marriage and civil union laws? The answer is don't waste that time as this is a non-issue with people actually working on these matters.

If you're talking about the SMALLER issue of winning federal benefits for BOTH same sex marriages (which are under the same law as all state marriages in their states) AND same sex civil union states, OF COURSE, that can be won! But that isn't the larger battle! If people think that magically all 50 states are going to have civil union laws catering to gays separate but equal, you're dreaming.

Edited June 2, 2012 by Jingthing

[MrRealDeal]

Ok I understand you now ......

[LeCharivari]

What is YOUR practical strategy considering the ACTUAL U.S. legal structure and political situation? Please don't mention Australia. NOT relevant.

I think I've answered this before, at considerable length, with many examples. If you don't like the answers, or think that they aren't relevant but can't say why, that's your problem but there's no point in playing a cracked record for ever.

How about answering the point raised by the New Yorker in your link instead, which says that the "old guard of gay-rights litigators" master plan could backfire, putting you back to square one?

(In this case, a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would not require any kind of finding that there exists a hitherto-unrecognized constitutional right to same-sex marriage—only that the federal government must recognize marriages validly preformed in states that choose to do so in case you've forgotten it)

[LeCharivari]

I'm talking about the long term strategy for a global gay marriage equality win.

" If a globally important supreme court case wins, those states with civil union laws ALSO have marriage laws."

OMG. Now the Supreme Court of the USA controls the world. Maybe its time to move to a different planet .... but no .... wait .... its all OK: JT's already there.

JT, if you seriously think that any American Supreme Court Case will have any effect globally on gay marriage/gay equality then you really are so out of touch with reality that you've lost it completely (if you ever had it). The US is so far behind the rest of the Western world (as well as some developing countries) in terms of human rights and gay rights that your views would be amusing if they weren't frightening because so many Americans, of all political persuasions, believe them.

[Jingthing]

What is YOUR practical strategy considering the ACTUAL U.S. legal structure and political situation? Please don't mention Australia. NOT relevant.

I think I've answered this before, at considerable length, with many examples. If you don't like the answers, or think that they aren't relevant but can't say why, that's your problem but there's no point in playing a cracked record for ever.

How about answering the point raised by the New Yorker in your link instead, which says that the "old guard of gay-rights litigators" master plan could backfire, putting you back to square one?

(In this case, a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would not require any kind of finding that there exists a hitherto-unrecognized constitutional right to same-sex marriage—only that the federal government must recognize marriages validly preformed in states that choose to do so in case you've forgotten it)

No, you have NOT ever explained how the USA wins civil unions/50 states/with federal powers. Looking for a specific, realistic strategy with some detail. Not a platitude like: go for a constitutional amendment which will actually NEVER realistically happen. Edited June 2, 2012 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

I'm talking about the long term strategy for a global gay marriage equality win.

" If a globally important supreme court case wins, those states with civil union laws ALSO have marriage laws."

OMG. Now the Supreme Court of the USA controls the world. Maybe its time to move to a different planet .... but no .... wait .... its all OK: JT's already there.

JT, if you seriously think that any American Supreme Court Case will have any effect globally on gay marriage/gay equality then you really are so out of touch with reality that you've lost it completely (if you ever had it). The US is so far behind the rest of the Western world (as well as some developing countries) in terms of human rights and gay rights that your views would be amusing if they weren't frightening because so many Americans, of all political persuasions, believe them.

You're getting very ridiculous now. Seriously, dude, did you REALLY think I meant worldwide with the use of the word globally? OBVIOUSLY I did not. Please don't be so pedantic, it is so very tedious. In this context, globally meant such a major decision that it will effect the marriage laws of ALL 50 states. It is a proper use of the world globally in the CONTEXT I place it. Are you a non-native English speaker? I didn't think so. Also READ THE ENTIRE SENTENCE. The word STATES follows in the SAME sentence.

Again, this is a sport for you now, isn't it? It isn't about debate at all for you, is it? You never actually believed I thought or meant that a US supreme court decision rules over any country but the USA, did you? Why are you playing this game?

Edited June 2, 2012 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

No, you have NOT ever explained how the USA wins civil unions/50 states/with federal powers. Looking for a specific, realistic strategy with some detail. Not a platitude like: go for a constitutional amendment which will actually NEVER realistically happen.

I think you have a serious problem with comprehension and the English language, JT (and its not just about "globally").

I "have NOT ever explained how the USA wins civil unions/50 states/with federal powers .... with some detail" because I have never said that is the only option available or even that it is the best option so other options should be ruled out.

WHAT PART OF "I have never said that "the US should go the UK route" or that "national civil unions will happen in the US as in Britain". What I have said is that instead of sticking your head in the sand and saying that there's only one way to go ("the American way") that there are other options that may improve the situation for many gays in the US sooner rather than later" CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

You keep on saying that I am "obsessed" about this, so you should have no problems giving links to where I have said civil unions at federal level are the only/best option. Please do so or STOP LYING. If you are unable to tell the truth about what has been said here, there is little chance of your telling the truth about anything else.

(Hint: try any of the following:

http://www.thaivisa....nstitutionally/

http://www.thaivisa....omens-suffrage/

http://www.thaivisa....watch-the-play/ )

Edited June 2, 2012 by LeCharivari

[Jingthing]

You aren't fooling anyone. You have been posting for months about this topic. There is a clear theme running through your comments:

Gay civil unions are superior to gay marriages

American gays "chose" to go for gay marriage and chose not to go for gay civil unions, punishing themselves, with the assumption that getting civil unions was faster and easier than gay marriages

Consistent comparison to the UK and Australia about what the US doesn't have, but could have if the "men in dresses" unreasonable gay activists weren't "insisting" on marriage

I have argued these assumptions are WRONG on all points.

BTW, there was nothing wrong with the way I used to word global and I don't believe anyone (except non-native speakers) INCLUDING you really believes I was saying a USA supreme court ruling has any impact outside USA borders. I guess when people working in software talk about globally changing things with a macro you think they mean their program is going to change the entire world.

Edited June 2, 2012 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

You aren't fooling anyone. You have been posting for months about this topic. ....

..... you should have no problems giving links ...... Please do so or STOP LYING.

[Jingthing]

You aren't fooling anyone. You have been posting for months about this topic. ....

..... you should have no problems giving links ...... Please do so or STOP LYING.

I am posting my general impression of the gist of your agenda here. I have every right to post my opinion and it is not in your power to order me not to continue to post my opinions. Others can judge whether they agree or disagree with me by reading the totality of your posting history on this subject, which I am sad to admit, I have done so, in small doses. Also, I suggest that you read the forum rules on the subject of calling other posters liars. Edited June 2, 2012 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

You have every right to post your opinion, your impressions and anything else you want to (within Forum Rules, obviously).

I have never "ordered" you not to post anything, but I have asked you to back up your claims of what I have posted - something you have chosen not to do.

I am well aware of Forum Rules, and I believe all moderators here have the intelligence to realise how offensive and insulting it is for you to repeatedly say that I have written something I have not while refusing to back up your claim with anything so simple as a link.

I can see no point in continuing this debate (if it can be called that) when it has nothing to do with the original topic and has become nothing more than unsubstantiated nonsense.

[Jingthing]

...

That works for me. King Solomon couldn't have done better. Shalom.

(click it to open, it's cool!)

Edited June 2, 2012 by Jingthing

[MrRealDeal]

I posted this in the obama topic room but the reality is that gay marriage might be a more important topic than I realized and thats because traditionally and historicly the word gay marriage has been applied to axcient chineese , greeks and romans , in all older before the usa gay marriage topic became a topic , all texts refer to same sex unions as marriage .

So what's pissing me off that I simply never really noticed before is that it's not JUST that gay people are not allowed to marry but some wacky contingent of people want to actually change the defenition of a word and apparently re write all the history books ... Just to EXCLUDE gay people from using it. Not having something is one thing activly trying to change things to exclude people is quite another.

I used to think it's just a word and only an ignorant person doesn't know that marriage means to join together anyhow so who cares , and I still think it's the rights that matter , but I do have a new outlook on people who argue that it souldn't be called marriage.

I guess what I never noticed was that people like that have no problem as long as the married gays were so far back in time they might never meet them, but using the same term on people you might meet is somehow offensive to them.

Sorry for the ran.............t but my new thing is pointing out that the word marriage in fact traditionally HAS been used to decribe gay unions unlike what most everyone will tell you. They would be wrong and confusing tradition with perhaps the probable fact that the word is used more often to describe one rather than the other.

[Jingthing]

I see your point of course but frankly it wouldn't play well in the American heartland. I'm about the politics and getting the job done.