Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
GOP Lawyers Withdraw Gay-marriage Defense  
User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2234 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1570 times:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...s-withdraw-from-gay-marriage-case/

A small step, for sure. But it's ultimately revealing that Republican leadership is waking up to the reality that they will not win another major election with this platform, and they know full well that most of their base will just move right along with them. The hyper-conservative, evangelical Christian movement begun in the 19th Century is fizzling out.

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7978 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1559 times:

Hmm. Not a lawyer or anything, so I may be way off the mark, but it doesn't appear to me that they're really giving up the gay marriage fight, they're just not going to fight these weaker cases


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20345 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1412 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 1):
Hmm. Not a lawyer or anything, so I may be way off the mark, but it doesn't appear to me that they're really giving up the gay marriage fight, they're just not going to fight these weaker cases

Why do you say that?

My take is this: they know that continuing the fight is going to just cause a lot of bad publicity from both sides. Pro-equality folks will not like the fact that they're fighting. Anti-equality folks will not like the fact that they keep losing.

So the best thing to do is to drop the defense quietly and hope that nobody notices. Except we noticed.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7978 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1336 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
Why do you say that?

They dropped one or two cases but they still have some cases on the books. The ones they dropped basically became unwinnable due to the recent ruling.

But again, I'm not good in the realm of law so I may be way off



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20345 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1329 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 3):
They dropped one or two cases but they still have some cases on the books. The ones they dropped basically became unwinnable due to the recent ruling.

I classify that as "quietly admitting defeat."


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7978 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1322 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 4):
I classify that as "quietly admitting defeat."

What about the other cases the GOP is involved in? I'd agree if they pulled out completely...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3377 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1320 times:

I agree with DeltaMD90 on this.

It's not that they're no longer anti-gay marriage, but they won't defend something that's pointless defending. Besides, from the looks of it, at the federal level, they've lost, but on state level they still have an upper hand in many states, and those that are still not firmly in their grasp (ie. those with only a statute banning gay marriage), if they manage to get the majority required, those states might be in their camp and there would be nothing to defend.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2234 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1290 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 6):
Besides, from the looks of it, at the federal level, they've lost, but on state level they still have an upper hand in many states, and those that are still not firmly in their grasp (ie. those with only a statute banning gay marriage), if they manage to get the majority required, those states might be in their camp and there would be nothing to defend.

Which will last a maximum of a decade. Within days of the DOMA ruling lawsuits were filed in multiple states that will ultimately lead to a legal ruling or sweeping legislation that will ultimately make it illegal to discriminate, or "abridge" the privilege of marriage to only opposite-sex couples. I'm with Doc, they've smelled the morning coffee, and they're trying to regroup and save as much face as possible.


User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 4179 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1230 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting luckyone (Reply 7):
Which will last a maximum of a decade.

That will probably be an excellent litmus test on which states place ideology over common financial sense, especially since there won't be one battle to fight, but two, because I expect states' refusal to recognize gay marriages performed in another states to come up first.

Smart states will see the writing on the wall and fold. Other states will fight tooth and nail, spend a fortune and still lose.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 6):
Besides, from the looks of it, at the federal level, they've lost, but on state level they still have an upper hand in many states

The will lose out in the courts. You can use the current DOMA decision as a prediction of how the Supreme Court expects similar cases to be judged and they set the bar very high for opponents of gay marriages.

Not only is banning socially acceptable behavior simply because it is socially unacceptable not an option (animus), but there must be a very clear, overbearing state interest in maintaining the ban so as to leave no doubt the social element played no role. Basically, states must come up with a compelling argument that is not based on religion, ideology or their distate for gays to justify their ban. The usual "better for children" argument will not do because they won't find a study saying gay parents are worse for children than single parents or children in foster care.

[Edited 2013-07-20 11:00:35]


I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2552 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1207 times:

Just a proposition...

The GOP is in favor of states' rights. They do not want the evil D.C. government to take away powers from the states.

Now, my humble proposal is that every state should define what a marriage is. There will be a Californian definition of marriage. One from Alabama. One from Georgia, one from Texas, one from Mass and one from Vermont.

Give the states the powers.

But then, a marriage formed in one state will only be valid in said state. If you are married in Alabama, you can marry another wife in Georgia, have a gay hubby in Florida and have a mistress in Mississippi.

This will also solve the problem of some states not respecting a homosexual marriage formed in another state.


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7978 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1200 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 9):
Just a proposition...

The GOP is in favor of states' rights. They do not want the evil D.C. government to take away powers from the states.

I'd agree, and you'd think that would make sense, but the GOP often tries and pass widespread, federal laws while complaining about states' rights. There are some instances where I can see them wanting federal laws (just because you're pro-states' rights doesn't mean you have to be that way 100% of the time) but they seem to go a little too far with it and enter hypocritical territory, IMO.



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5738 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1192 times:

Quoting luckyone (Reply 7):
the privilege of marriage

"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival"

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 4179 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1179 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 9):
my humble proposal is that every state should define what a marriage is.

Well, the marriage industry would love you, but I think pretty much everyone else wouldn't, not even the GOP, and frankly your proposal is inconvenient at best! Do you mean to say that if a husband and wife travel together out-of-state for whatever reason and one of them has a serious accident that renders them incapable of making their own decisions, the other has no right, not even visitation?

Furthermore, your proposal opens the door to a myriad of similar incongruities. Am I going to need a driver's license for every state I want to drive in? Will each state require their professional license (like CPA)? And the best reason yet why the GOP will never agree to your proposal: a gun permit for every state in which you intent to carry your gun!



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2234 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1168 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 9):

Now, my humble proposal is that every state should define what a marriage is.

Except the constitution of the United States in the 14th Amendment specifically prohibits a state from "abridging" said contracts, or denying equal protection and treatment to citizens. By defining marriage as anything other than the legal union of two legal adults, that is unconstitutional. In addition, not requiring a state to recognize another state's law is also an Article 4, Full Faith and Credit clause issue.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 11):
"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival"

Excellent point.

[Edited 2013-07-20 13:41:15]

User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7978 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1167 times:

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 12):
And the best reason yet why the GOP will never agree to your proposal: a gun permit for every state in which you intent to carry your gun!

That already kinda is the case, though many states recognize other state's carry permits. You can carry in FL with a GA permit but you can't carry in CA with a GA permit

But yeah, the whole separate marriage license thing would be an unnecessary pain. I mean if countries (for the most part) recognize foreign marriage licenses, why would we have states not recognize each other's?



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2552 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1161 times:

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 12):
Do you mean to say that if a husband and wife travel together out-of-state for whatever reason and one of them has a serious accident that renders them incapable of making their own decisions, the other has no right, not even visitation?

EXACTLY.

So they should marry a second time if they travel out of state. It is the same with homosexuals whose marriages aren't recognized out of state. There are already countries that do not reciprocally respect the marriages of their citizen.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 12):
Furthermore, your proposal opens the door to a myriad of similar incongruities.

Yes, that's a huge friggin' ginormous problem. But saying that some marriages are more equal than others isn't a great thing, too.

In theory, the church and the state are separated, but religious affections permeate every corner of lawmaking. If there is a case against abortion, then it should be secularly motivated, but in this discourse, sanctity of life is almost always founded upon Christian values. And likewise, any opposition to same-sex marriages should be reasoned using secular motivations.

Somehow I think that the USA still are in labor, trying to give birth to a truly free nation.



David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20345 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1125 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 15):
So they should marry a second time if they travel out of state. It is the same with homosexuals whose marriages aren't recognized out of state. There are already countries that do not reciprocally respect the marriages of their citizen.

I know of no place in the world where "I am her husband" won't get you immediate spousal rights. Maybe not in a legal dispute, but in an injury or hospital case, yes.

Your proposal puts a legal barrier to travel between the states and I'm pretty sure that's unconstitutional. Not only that, but your proposal is impractical.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Gay Marriage, The GOP And Dircksen's Speech On CR. posted Wed Jul 19 2006 08:20:13 by SFOMEX
France And Gay Marriage: Why Such A Big Reaction? posted Thu May 30 2013 10:00:01 by kaitak
France Enacts Law Allowing Gay Marriage & Adoption posted Sat May 18 2013 08:04:49 by OzGlobal
Why The American Right Should Support Gay Marriage posted Mon May 6 2013 09:33:22 by PHX787
New Zealand Passes Gay Marriage Bill posted Wed Apr 17 2013 04:43:53 by TheCommodore
Invent New Words For Gay Marriage And Spouses posted Wed Mar 27 2013 18:03:02 by Airstud
UK Passes Gay Marriage 400 To 175 In Vote posted Tue Feb 5 2013 11:25:10 by OA260
Spain´s Supreme Tribunal Ratifies Gay Marriage posted Tue Nov 6 2012 11:03:26 by AR385
Obama Openly Backs Gay Marriage posted Wed May 9 2012 12:30:59 by akiss20
Argentina Legalizes Gay Marriage! posted Thu Jul 15 2010 05:45:14 by Doona