SCOTUS, Hilary and Same Sex MarriageFollow

I meant realistically. Sure it would be nice for them to affirm it (hence the "we'd rather they were for"), but there's still far too much divide for us to seriously think that this set of justices are going to make that kind of decision.

I find it hard to believe the chances are that high. But I'm in the enviable position of being able to be smug if I'm correct and happy if I'm wrong.

I'm still waiting for Utah to introduce black people.

There's a meme going out that reminds Thomas that his own marriage was illegal in many states prior to Loving vs Virginia.

The conflicts with the meme of Uncle Thomas being BY FAR the most reliably anti-human rights justice on the court. Oh wait, that's his record. Thomas is probably in favor of repealing the 13th amendment.

I don't think Thomas will be the deciding vote on this by a long shot - in fact, I don't think he'd agree with the majority even if all 8 other justices including Scalia went ahead and said "Gay marriage! **** yeah!"

Just noting the irony of when he does come down on the wrong side of history, since his wife is a white blonde.

Rush Limbaugh agrees with me!

Granted, I don't agree with the "why" but the fact that this is going to happen just now seems to be sinking in with some people.

I'd assume so. Someone has to do the blessing.

I haven't seen any of these "attacks" - of course I stay far away from wingnut websites. Since Portman and a few others have made the "Oh, it's a personal issue now, my kid or other family member is affected so NOW I can see the other side's argument" leap, I would think the holdouts on the right would be in a target rich environment right now.

That's not agreeing with O'Reilly. O'Reilly is saying DOMA should be knocked down because it's not constitutional (he's said he's neutral on SSM itself). Limbaugh is against SSM but says they're going to lose the fight because of liberal trickery and brainwashing and language play, not due to the merits of the arguments. Here's more context on the remarks:


Edited, Mar 29th 2013 7:36am by Jophiel

So you basically want to completely change the current structure of marital unions in order to justify keeping same-sex couples from calling themselves married in the eyes of the government.[/quote]

It wouldn't completely change the structure of marital unions. It wouldn't actually change them at all. It would actually be a relatively minor administrative detail at best. Right now, when you get married, there's a set of criteria to qualify for the license. The law includes a contract that you are assumed to enter into if you sign the license, have it witnessed, filed, etc. All I'm saying is that we move that contract from something you have applied *if* you sign/file the license, to having it be one of the requirements *for* signing/filing the license.

Functionally, there's no difference. You're signing a piece of paper either way. However, conceptually, what this does is make the marriage contract a requirement (potentially one of many) for the state status (and whatever benefits are attached) instead of a consequence of that state status. By doing this you can now allow anyone to enter into the exact same marriage contract. This contract is recognized as a legitimate marriage contract by the state, and other things can be attached to it as desired. Which means that benefits we might want to apply to those in a marriage contract who have the potential to procreate can be hinged on that potential to procreate, while benefits we think should apply to any couple with that contract can apply to anyone. Adoption processes can act on the contract and not the other associated benefits when interacting with the couple. Hospitals can do so as well in terms of who gets to visit, make health decisions, etc.

Basically, this solves all the "problems" gay couples say they want solved and allow them (and anyone) to choose to marry as they wish, while still retaining the purpose of the set of state incentives for marriage as it relates to procreation. Everyone wins.



Yes. Wow. A relatively simple, nearly cosmetic change to our laws could solve the whole damn problem. Isn't that amazing?

Yep.

Kind of an economic partnership of sorts?