Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

The Supreme Court is apparently waiting until the very last second to announce the two decisions related to gay marriage..

...isn't it nice to know our civil rights, or denial thereof are fodder for these cunts' drama and famewhoring?

Unfortunately, I've never been an activist on anything, but this decision could be life changing for me. If they deny the basic human rights of gays and lesbians next week, it's time for rocks and pitch forks and turning cars.

I personally can't let my life stand by while such an obvious, obnoxious double standard is allowed to stand.

by Anonymousreply 43006/26/2013

It's so they can get out of town as soon as possible.

by Anonymousreply 106/19/2013

They'll say that the Prop 8 proponents had no standing to file suit, thus restoring marriage equality to California (but not establishing it in other states) and DOMA section 3 will be struck down. Mark my words.

by Anonymousreply 206/19/2013

They tend to do this with high profile decisions, you shouldn't be surprised.

by Anonymousreply 306/19/2013

I would not be surprised if conservatives have threatened their lives.

by Anonymousreply 506/19/2013

[quote]Unfortunately, I've never been an activist on anything

Sorry, OP, but you sound like you manufactured drama out of your kindergarten lunchbox. Did it occur to you that highly sensitive decisions require special time and care? They're probably all writing individual opinions on this one.

by Anonymousreply 606/19/2013

They're waiting to see if they get an invite to Souter's gay wedding.

by Anonymousreply 706/19/2013

R8, NSA on line three. NSA on line three.

by Anonymousreply 1006/19/2013

Elizabeth Warren Warns That The Supreme Court Is Becoming ‘A Subsidiary’ Of The Chamber Of Commerce

by Anonymousreply 1106/19/2013

I hate to be this way, but don't expect much support for a big rally in NYC. We're very busy and we can already get married.

by Anonymousreply 1206/19/2013

Just chill out and listen to some good music. I'm listening to the Spinners' "Could It Be I'm Falling Love" right now and don't have a care in the world.

by Anonymousreply 1306/19/2013

[quote]No more "let's try harder next time".. No more.

But that's exactly what WILL happen, OP, and should happen, if SCOTUS doesn't go our way this time.

Have you any idea how long it was between Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka? And on a related front, for all the people who fought, bled, marched, sued, appealed, wrote, and died for voting rights for blacks and women, Scalia fully intends to vote us back into the 19th century. God help us all if he has help aside from the Thomas lackey. Don't be fooled by the Arizona ruling.

And though I shudder to think what could happen if voting rights legislation/protections are rent asunder at the highest level, I will say it is the kick in the pants ALL Americans should heed. No rights are permanent if we don't keep up the fight. So all the whites and some blacks who spit on the NAACP, NAN, and other organizations for "race hucksterism," see why we *must* stay vigilant, even a bit untrusting ?

SCOTUS screws us again on Prop 8 and DOMA, we just keep coming back and fighting on *all* fronts. Sin falta.

by Anonymousreply 1406/19/2013

Everyone hates New York anyways, R12.

by Anonymousreply 1506/19/2013

If you analyze what decisions have already been released and who authored the opinions, it appears that the most conservative justices have a lot of opinions coming out in the next two weeks.

Uh oh...

by Anonymousreply 1606/19/2013

This is what happens with closely divided big cases - they always are announced in the last week. Nothing special about that.

by Anonymousreply 1706/19/2013

New York is full of fat leather queens, House of Hoboken hookers and rail thin club Tweens. Who needs that kind of support?

by Anonymousreply 1806/19/2013

Why are R7 and R6 reversed?

by Anonymousreply 1906/19/2013

The tough cases are always last. The also have the Voting Rights Act case and (I think) an affirmative action case.

by Anonymousreply 2006/19/2013

This will only end in tears.

by Anonymousreply 2106/19/2013

Mondays and Thursdays are decision days at the Court, I believe. So one or more of the remaining cases could come down today.

by Anonymousreply 2206/20/2013

There is rumor the gay rights cases will be carried over to the next term, which would be a first for the court.

by Anonymousreply 2306/20/2013

Just a hypothetical question, if Section 3 of DOMA is struck down, does that mean it is struck down with immediate effect or will it take months, maybe years for benefits, immigration and so on to change?

by Anonymousreply 2406/20/2013

Link to said rumor, r23?

by Anonymousreply 2506/20/2013

R25. Which part of rumor was confusing?

by Anonymousreply 2606/20/2013

R23, The rumor isn't confusing. People just want to know its origin. Is this a rumor you are propagating or is it stated somewhere?

by Anonymousreply 2706/20/2013

There is a rumor r23 is talking out of his butt.

by Anonymousreply 2806/20/2013

Well, no decision today. We did hear opinions from Kagan, Scalia, and Roberts.

Between the Voting Rights Act, Affirmative Action, and the marriage cases, next week is either going to be one of the best civil rights have had in a long time, or one of the worst.

by Anonymousreply 2906/20/2013

I've an out gay activist since 1975. The OP must be young- sure is an angry and foul mouthed bloke.

Chill out OP. Those of us who have been at these issues for decades have a stake in the outcome as well- particularly guys my age who have sizable estates etc that get taxed when partners/spouses die and a slew of other legal protections granted by marriage.

If things do not go our way I will do a lot more than holler and break windows and call people names. I hope you will too.

What's with this stupid new putdown "famewhore". Do you equate the Justices with the Kardasians sp?

by Anonymousreply 3006/20/2013

[quote]Especially when so many people on both sides are desperate for the outcome?

Remind me again of why the 'other side' has any stake in this? It concerns them ... HOW?

by Anonymousreply 3106/20/2013

R29, I believe Kagan issued one of the opinions today. Check out

by Anonymousreply 3306/20/2013

They will preserve states' rights while doing what R2 said. And we shall see that a core civil rights issue (marriage is not a privilege and its denial is not supportable) is left to the states, despite there being no constitutional basis (as there was with heinous slavery) to do so.

Equal protection and the assurance of equal treatment under the law is hardly a states' rights issue. We are free or not. We are equal or not.

And of course the fight will continue. We just need one of the assholes on the court to drop dead and be replaced. And for a Democrat in 2016 to be elected and prepare us for a clean sweep as Stevens and Ginsburg retire.

by Anonymousreply 3406/20/2013

R23 / R25 - Yes, the court has indeed held decisions over for following terms. It's uncommon but would not be "a first".

Generally it happens when the Court realizes there is an issue that needs to be briefed that was not originally included in the questions presented. The Kiobel case from earlier this year is an example of that.

by Anonymousreply 3506/20/2013

r24, My understanding:

if section 3 is struck down, bi-national same-sex married couples could apply for immigration rights. Some are even preparing green card applications now in case there is a favorable decision, so that they'll be ready to submit applications right away.

It would be up to the Obama administration how to interpret the Supremes' decision and to treat such applications, but since he and his admin have been favorable to equal treatment to gays, it seems likely that gay spouses would receive equal treatment when it comes to immigration.

by Anonymousreply 3606/20/2013

Does anyone know if we'd be able to file amended tax returns?

by Anonymousreply 3706/20/2013

r37, for what it's worth, what I heard: For the past 3 years.

by Anonymousreply 3806/20/2013

Jesus, R35, others on here read ScotusBlog too, ya know. If you're going to just copy and paste something from them you should give them credit.

by Anonymousreply 3906/20/2013

I am sitting on pins and needles about this decision. In my case it will be life changing. I have spent the last 8 years living in the third world to be with Mr. Him and it is getting tiring. I am ready for paved roads and clean bathrooms.

by Anonymousreply 4006/20/2013

Pins and needles for many of us, r40. You're not alone so hang in there!

Best to you and yours.

by Anonymousreply 4106/20/2013

All we got today is this:

Groups receiving federal money to combat AIDS abroad may not be required to adopt policies opposing prostitution, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.

Scalia and Me-too Thomas in dissent.

by Anonymousreply 4206/20/2013

[quote]if Section 3 of DOMA is struck down, does that mean it is struck down with immediate effect or will it take months, maybe years for benefits, immigration and so on to change?

In many instances, it will take years to get all the needed changes through Congress that can result in legal equality for gays. There's no doubt that the Fundies will continue to fight against equality for gays.

by Anonymousreply 4306/21/2013

I'm just curious, what exactly do you think Congress needs to do?

by Anonymousreply 4406/21/2013

Whenever DOMA goes away - next week, next month, or next year - there will still be much to do. Changing laws, as difficult as it seems, is probably the easy part; changing culture takes much longer.

by Anonymousreply 4506/21/2013

VOTN, I'm not r43, but if Section 3 is struck down, and Prop 8 is dismissed for lack of standing or upheld, it's unclear if married gays in anti-equality states will be able to get federal benefits. This may require an act of congress (don't hold your breath) to clarify.

by Anonymousreply 4606/21/2013

Whether or not that's the case will probably be addressed in the decision, though. Because that's only going to kick the can down the road, because the first thing that will happen if they don't make it explicit that a valid marriage license is a valid marriage license is a valid marriage license no matter where one lives, the first thing a couple from a non-marriage state is going to do is file a federal suit that will end up in front of them in two or three years.

Since they're unlikely to make a sweeping ruling that will overturn the state-level bans/amendments, that kind of suit is unavoidable, but they can spare themselves the additional headache by being clear in the ruling.

by Anonymousreply 4706/21/2013

I don't understand what is happening with Prop 8 and the Supreme Court. Is there an actual deadline?

by Anonymousreply 4806/21/2013

The court's session runs from October to June. They'll have to announce a decision before the end of the month.

Decisions are typically announced on Mondays and Thursdays. We have two Mondays and one Thursday left in June.

by Anonymousreply 4906/21/2013

Nope VOTN- one Thursday, one Monday.

by Anonymousreply 5006/21/2013

Their calendar says they're in session on the 30th. I though the 27th was the last day too, but...

by Anonymousreply 5106/21/2013

[quote]they can spare themselves the additional headache

Not really an additional headache for them imho: Just another case in 2-3 years time. Although your reasoning is just, I don't think the psychopaths on the Supreme Court reason quite that way.

They rule according to their understanding of the constitution (read: do as they please) and imho they aren't terribly bothered by the occasional lopsided consequences of decisions.

The scenario I describe (pass on Prop 8, strike down section 3) would create terrible headaches, yes, but only for gay people, not Supreme Court justices imho. I doubt they're terribly bothered by such a prospect, but I suppose we'll see.

by Anonymousreply 5206/21/2013

I might even have agreed with you, until the Affordable Care Act decision came out. At that point, it seemed like on at least certain issues, Roberts was more interested in putting the law ahead of ideology. Even Scalia, who's a walking dog turd, does get the Constitution right about 5% of the time.

We'll ultimately have to see where this goes. But I don't think Roberts or Kennedy have agendas like Alito, Scalia, and Thomas do.

by Anonymousreply 5306/21/2013

If memory serves (and it rarely does these days), they delayed both Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas until the last moment. Lawrence, at least, I'm pretty sure of.

by Anonymousreply 5406/21/2013

Yes, the Lawrence decision was announced on June 26th of 2003.

by Anonymousreply 5506/21/2013

Surprise! Romer v. Evans was announced on May 20, 1996, well before the end of Term.

by Anonymousreply 5606/21/2013

They could even go to Monday July 1; while it's true the schedule has always been for them to issue decisions through the end of June, Nina Totenberg on NPR said there was year within her tenure covering the Court where they carried over into the first week in July.

[quote]In many instances, it will take years to get all the needed changes through Congress that can result in legal equality for gays.

If the federal part of DOMA is declared unconstitutional, meaning the federal government can no longer draw distinctions among valid marriages, many important changes will happen regardless of whether Congress acts to change or repeal discriminatory statutes. When the Supremes say a law is unconstitutional, it is unenforceable even if it remains unchanged on the books.

If, as is likely, they don't go so far as to declare that all states must allow or even recognize same-sex marriages, it wil take awhile to achieve parity among all the states. A good "full faith and credit" case in a few years may do that, or public opinion may just turn on its own.

by Anonymousreply 5706/21/2013

Do you really think that after gay marriage had been made legal in many states and the court has two lesbian justices they would rule against it?

by Anonymousreply 5806/21/2013

[quote]Nina Totenberg on NPR said there was year within her tenure covering the Court where they carried over into the first week in July.

That lady knows the Court inside out, up and down. She can take the most complicated SC items and make them clear to NPR listeners.

by Anonymousreply 5906/21/2013

The Supreme Court of the United States is not your bitch, OP.

by Anonymousreply 6006/21/2013

Will this be the week that will lead to positive moves toward equal rights for gays?

by Anonymousreply 6106/23/2013

Not based on Justice Scalia's comments this weekend, R61. He said the Court shouldn't be deciding on "moral" issues like these.

by Anonymousreply 6206/23/2013

If we pushed for civil unions to carry the same weight as "marriage" this would go through. Federal same sex marriage isn't going to happen. So glad everyone is hung up on one word - marriage.

by Anonymousreply 6306/23/2013

R62, Scalia could also be bitter that he was on the losing side of a case he considered to be a moral issue.

by Anonymousreply 6406/23/2013

r63, a deep-thinker you're not.

by Anonymousreply 6506/23/2013

HRC on possible outcomes.

by Anonymousreply 6606/23/2013

I'm on pins and needles.

Think about this all the time.


by Anonymousreply 6706/23/2013

R65. You know I'm right. Marriage = God for most of America. If you change the benefits of civil unions o one would give a shit. Sorry you can't think for yourself,

by Anonymousreply 6806/23/2013

R68, that line is tired and has been trod out and smacked down many times on these pages. I guarantee you, if gays received your holy "civil union" grail , it would not have same rights and privileges as marriage, particularly in Southern states. But your argument has been proven wrong - most Americans now support full marriage equality, not the back seat of the bus that you propose.

by Anonymousreply 6906/23/2013

Methinks, r70 needs to think outside of their box.

by Anonymousreply 7106/23/2013

r70 is so busy actively rejecting "heteronormativity" that he/she is always the most annoying person in the room. and foolish to boot.

by Anonymousreply 7206/23/2013

R63 needs to grow a pair!

Are you always this much of a coward?

by Anonymousreply 7306/23/2013

...there's a cocktail hosting queen in minneapolis who's mighty relieved r70 declined his invitation!

by Anonymousreply 7406/23/2013

Wow, I am a bad gay man then r67. I admit though I of course remain interested in the outcome, I never gave this much thought at all.

by Anonymousreply 7506/23/2013

[quote] If you change the benefits of civil unions no one would give a shit.

Not true. In many states and at the federal level, conservatives banned civil unions as being tantamount to marriage. (And the only reason civil unions exist at all is because gay people came to the table demanding marriage, and the scared-shitless str8s finally conceded civil unions).

Always bring your highest demand to the table. Always. This is thee first and most basic lesson of all negotiation. Ask for second-class scraps and you will assuredly get nothing. Proven by history many, many, many times in too many instances to mention.

And btw: Here is a great article outlining the terrible problems and inequalities inherent in the separate and unequal institution of civil unions.

Moreover: The whole reason separate institutions exist is to perpetuate and give credence to discrimination. Equality really is the only way.

r63, You can sit on the sidelines and carp and whine about how no one is listening to you and that it would all be so much better if only we did it your way, but in the end it doesn't make you right. it just makes you sound like a whiny ineffectual bitch. For reals.

It's time to stand up for full equality. Everyone with any sense can see this.

by Anonymousreply 7606/23/2013

[quote}If we pushed for civil unions to carry the same weight as "marriage" this would go through

In my state, the bigots who pushed the anti-gay marriage amendment on the ballot said the same thing -- until the law actually passed and they used it to outlaw civil marriage as well.

by Anonymousreply 7706/23/2013

[quote]Marriage = God for most of America.

True! But your forgetting one part of this. Most of America is wrong.

Marriage has been around longer than any of the KKKristian groups that got involved.

As soon as we get settled with marriage equality, we need to push for marriage to be removed from religion. Do you go to church to have your marriage dissolved? Hell, no! That's because marriage is the job of the state not some hocus-pucus clergy person. Let churches continue with their money-making weddings but they should have no legal standing.

by Anonymousreply 7806/23/2013

Romer v Evans was argued in October 10. A May 20 decision date is a much worse than this, as the case was argued in the Spring.

Even Ginsberg is probably not ready to say marriage for all and will vote on narrow grounds. Kennedy is probably writing a decision (or Roberts) that will either get a majority or will fracture the court so that the 9th circuit decision stands and California has same-sex marriage, at least so that people who have no injury are denied standing to pull licenses out of gay couples' hands.

OP's bullying and his "I'm not an activist" bullshit is a disgrace to all the people who fought this fight. It means a lot to all of us.

by Anonymousreply 7906/23/2013

Oops! That should be: But you're forgetting one part of this. you're, not your. Duh!

by Anonymousreply 8006/23/2013

I will be hanging off the live feed from SCOTUSblog tomorrow at 10 am. I think we're going to win at least a partial victory, but the suspense is killing me.

by Anonymousreply 8106/23/2013

OP's "bullying"? r79?


by Anonymousreply 8206/23/2013

Yes r82, the OP is an ill-mannered ruffian and I won't tolerate his bullying behavior any longer!

by Anonymousreply 8306/23/2013

Prop 8 is going to be defeated, gay marriage will be too. The mainstream media isn't going to pay any more attention to the issue after this. Somehow they're going to find a way to twist language to make it look like DOMA is somehow defeated but it wont really be.

by Anonymousreply 8406/23/2013

r82 / r83, see OP's rage at R9.

by Anonymousreply 8506/23/2013

Your post is odd for its total lack of factual understanding about the cases, as well as for its Negative Nancy predictions, r84.

At least Debbie Downer was actually informed about her depressing scenarios and predictions. Do a bit more reading and then come back to spread some gloom and doom. Thanks in advance.

There are plenty of doomsday scenarios possible, but the idea that the media is done reporting on the issue is totally laughable. And if "Prop 8 is going to be defeated," as you say, that actually means marriage equality wins. Duh. That's not what you meant to say at all.

Kind of a dipshit post imho, but whatev's.

by Anonymousreply 8606/23/2013

Actually R86 Prop 8 could be defeated and marriage equality only win in California. That's what the 9th Circuit did. The Court is very likely to say they're not going to rule on anything the case doesn't require.

Even if Prop 8 is not defeated, I believe California will fix this. And it will be very clear why we need a Democrat in the White House in 2016.

Fingers crossed that at least prop 8 goes down with DOMA.

by Anonymousreply 8706/23/2013

I agree with your predictions and description of possible outcomes, r87.

But the statement "Prop 8 is going to be defeated, gay marriage will be too" is just plainly retarded.

by Anonymousreply 8806/23/2013

r88 No, it's not. These state gay marriages are worthless in the grand scheme of things.

by Anonymousreply 8906/23/2013

Who are you railing at R90?

A defeat for Prop 8 could be huge or affirmation that this has to go state by state, and the only reason Prop 8 is struck down was that it was a brazen take away of rights given for no reason.

yes r84 is silly but a lot of work is likely...

by Anonymousreply 9106/23/2013

I'm annoyed with all the uninformed opinions and predictions on this issue, r92. It's especially annoying when people try to sound defeatist or discouraging to my community, my gay peeps who have fought so hard, and it's even more annoying when they're ignorant of the facts at hand.

And, no. If Prop 8 goes down, there is little reason that such a decision could be seen as "affirmation that this has to go state by state." Whatever reasoning that the court uses to strike down Prop 8 in a limited decision (say, standing, which is seen as the most likely), another federal challenge to a state marriage amendment asking the big questions will likely come before them in a few years. And it will keep coming before them until they examine and answer the 14th amendment questions. Until they do, this will keep coming back to them.

This certainly may not be the gay-friendliest court of all time, but few court watchers, even conservative ones, deem it likely that the court will find a majority of justices to say it's fine for a minority to have its fundamental rights voted away and that there is no federal question in marriage bans for all time.

Wait and see, I guess, but the comments above are just uninformed (and annoying) nay-saying imho. Nay-saying is annoying enough, but when it doesn't get the facts right, it's super-irksome. When you do something irksome, you have to deal with irked people. Fact.

by Anonymousreply 9206/23/2013

R92, now who doesn't know what he's talking about?

DOMA will turn EXACTLY on respect for state's rights, which is why most people think Kennedy is the wild card. If you're pro-states rights, as Kennedy likely is, you box yourself into a corner on California.

A narrow ruling in Prop 8, say on standing grounds or a highly qualified Romer argument, is exactly the message it will send in connection with the pro-states ruling in DOMA.

And finally there is no mandatory jurisdiction. The Court chooses to take cases. It doesn't have to take cases.

If this Court isn't ready now, the next couple of years won't change it. As has been said above, Ginsberg has repeatedly said that they went too fast with Roe. And her comments at oral argument suggested most of the compromise rulings made no sense to her. That leaves something narrow.

We can all hope Kennedy is ready to see the light, but if not, it's up to Roberts.

You're not doing the right math.

by Anonymousreply 9306/23/2013

R93: It is the court of original jurisdiction in cases between states.

If the Court narrowly strikes Prop 8 on standing and throws out DOMA on states' rights, it will have avoided the big Equal Protection issue.

But the reality is that without DOMA, the federal government will have to recognize gay marriages from the states. That will create new, federal, equal protection issues, which will place further pressure on the Court, which is only going to become more gay marriage friendly with time.

by Anonymousreply 9406/23/2013

[quote]you box yourself into a corner on California

No, you don't. It's possible that DOMA violates the tenth, and that state bans violate the 14th. Some uninformed pundits (religious conservatives are very fond of this one) like to argue that striking down DOMA on a state's rights argument would prevent the court from ever striking down state marriage bans. Simply not true. A tenth amendment takedown of DOMA would still leave entirely unanswered the question of whether state bans violate the 14th amendment. Fact.

[quote]the message it will send

Decisions don't have "messages." They set precedent or they don't. They settle the issues at question or they don't, leaving it for later cases.

[quote]the next couple of years won't change it.

It's impossible that the court WON'T change at some point. Think about it, dear. No one lives forever. A future federal challenge to state marriage bans may be--in fact, will likely be--in front of a very different court.

(btw: The court only took 13 years to entirely reverse itself on Bowers for goodness sake, so that's an example of the court changing IN OUR LIFETIME and on a gay rights case, no less, so the idea that the court doesn't change is obviously fallacious).

Again they can dodge the 14th amendment issue this time and perhaps a few more times. BUT AT SOME POINT they will have to examine the 14th amendment questions at issue in state marriage bans and determine whether they are in violation. The likelihood that they will determine there's no equal protection problem here is very low, and it is not getting higher with time.

You want to be a negative nelly about all this? Fine. Knock yourself out. There are PLENTY of things to fret over in these cases, but you should first be informed about what the facts are. Thnks.

by Anonymousreply 9506/23/2013

R95, you really need a few history lessons, not to mention legal ones.

The 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the federal government. It applies to the states. It will be a Fifth Amendment decision, as it was in Bolling v. Sharpe.

Second, the state powers clauses are not at issue in this case. It's only Section 3, the definition within federal statutes. There is no question on federal-state power here. They have the power to define terms for federal statutes. The decision below came up on Equal Protection, that's the issue before the Court.

The rest of your DOMA theory is not going to pan out. The Justices who favor striking it down don't take a broad reading of the 10th Amendment. Why do you think conservatives love it?

As for cases sending messages....

Bowers v. Hardwick did just that. It wasn't precedent, but it was cited constantly to justify anti-gay rhetoric in policy. And ALL of the major gay rights groups shifted strategy to avoid federal court decisions BECAUSE they got the message that the Court is dangerous on gay issues. Why do you think they worked so hard to go state by state to get the majority of state laws reversed on sodomy before they went BACK to the Court ... 17 years later.

As for the Court changing in a couple of years, no, it was 10 for Romer, 17 for Lawrence.

And in Loving and Lawrence the Court waited until the majority of states had gone for equality. They followed the trend.

So while you're calling people names, how about stop being such a bitch?

This is a discussion board. We're discussing it. And I'm not nervous, just expressing how it might come out.

And correcting people who think the 14th Amendment applies to the federal government.

by Anonymousreply 9606/23/2013

**And that should read 17 years on Bowers, but the point remains the same.

r94 has it right. State bans plainly violate the 14th Amendment, so this will keep ending up in federal court, as gay married couples seek equal protection of the laws. As with Prop 8, the decision will, at least occasionally (but more likely: with increasing frequency) go our way. If SCOTUS doesn't want to take such a case, fine. That still means we win at the lower level.

However, I doubt SCOTUS would decline to take it and leave a crazy patchwork of federal courts coming to different determinations about the 14th amendment claims. At some point, they will have to pick it up and examine the 14th amendment claims about state bans. If they won't rule this time that gay people are citizens who are not at all protected by the constitution, then a future court imho seems unlikely to rule that way. But, meh, wait and see.

by Anonymousreply 9706/23/2013

So is Kennedy writing the majority opinion?

I'm with the Prop 8 no standing and DOMA Section 3 is struck down crowd.

So there.

by Anonymousreply 9806/23/2013

[quote]The Justices who favor striking it down don't take a broad reading of the 10th Amendment.

Justices don't have to agree on the reasons that a law violates the Constitution, dear. A majority just has to agree that it's in violation. Kennedy objecting to DOMA's violation of the tenth plus the liberal justices objecting to its violation of equal protection still spells the death of DOMA.

[quote] They have the power to define terms for federal statutes.

Their terms can't violate the constitution.

Married gays whose marriages are recognized by the feds, but unrecognized by the states will, in fact, create a nightmare of litigation scenarios. You live in a dreamworld if you don't think "narrow Prop 8, Doma Section 3 Takedown" will end up in court again, cunt.

by Anonymousreply 9906/23/2013

If they re-instate Marriage in Ca, can the couples who had theirs annulled by the state sue?

by Anonymousreply 10006/23/2013

Does anyone else think a "narrow" ruling on standing in the prop 8 case is actually a huge precedent. The history of anti-gay law is built on supposed harm to straight bigots. The supreme court stating that straight bigots have no legal standing to claim harm from gay equality seems breathtaking to me.

by Anonymousreply 10106/23/2013

r100, I don't believe the state annulled any marriages, did it? The marriages that happened before Prop 8 were allowed to stand.

by Anonymousreply 10206/23/2013

[quote]So is Kennedy writing the majority opinion?

It depends. Whichever justice in the majority has the most seniority assigns the opinion.

by Anonymousreply 10306/23/2013

[quote]If they re-instate Marriage in Ca, can the couples who had theirs annulled by the state sue?


by Anonymousreply 10406/23/2013

[quote]the 14th Amendment applies to the federal government.

I'm speaking of 14th amendment in the context of STATE BANS, dipshit.

by Anonymousreply 10506/23/2013

I don't think they'd hold the Prop 8 case until the end of the term if they are going to bypass the merits and dismiss the case on the grounds of standing.

by Anonymousreply 10606/23/2013

[quote] The supreme court stating that straight bigots have no legal standing to claim harm from gay equality seems breathtaking to me.

That's a great way to put it.

And yes, deciding on standing would seem to mean that states where the Attorney General was unwilling to defend the state ban--I imagine there would be several--would be vulnerable to these sorts of challenges, with no one qualified or willing to defend them.

by Anonymousreply 10706/23/2013

R99, you're talking around the issues -- AGAIN -- and conveniently fail to acknowledge that you're wrong about the 5th Amendment issue.

So let's do this again...

You're confused on the federal power issue. I said that in response to you trying to make this a 10th Amendment issue, which it is not. It defined federal a term for federal statutes only in section 3. Only for federal purposes

Again, only Section 3 is at issue.

Second, I didn't say there were NO limits on federal power. I said the FIFTH Amendment is such a limit. You seem to have missed that.

Finally, I have ALWAYS predicted that DOMA will fail. If a plurality goes equal protection, and Kennedy goes the other way, the plurality opinion will be precedent, not Kennedy's outlier.

But if Kennedy stays true to who he is, he'll go equal protection. He wrote the Romer and Lawrence majorities, and even tried to squeeze Romer into Lawrence.

If he does write the majority means he HAS to get the progessives on board, and it will not be a 10th Amendment issue. He did that twice before. See the above.

by Anonymousreply 10806/23/2013

[quote]to bypass the merits and dismiss the case on the grounds of standing.

I've thought the same thing, r106.

by Anonymousreply 10906/23/2013

[quote]to bypass the merits and dismiss the case on the grounds of standing.

No, the Prop 8 and DOMA issues are too aligned.

They will issue both at the same time.

by Anonymousreply 11006/23/2013

r108, your train has jumped the tracks. None of that has ANYTHING to do with what the earlier poster or I were saying.

[quote]Again, only Section 3 is at issue.

Who said otherwise? Really, it just seems like you're not even talking with me or responding to what I'm saying. It's odd. I don't believe I ever said the 14th Amendment would apply to DOMA, but if I did, you're right: that's the fifth...

The 14th Amendment comes up in issues of STATE BANS on marriage, which is what I said. I think you misunderstood and imagined I was talking about DOMA. It is at issue in the Prop 8 case. If the court avoids 14th amendment questions on Prop 8 this time around, they will have to deal with such questions at SOME POINT. A Section 3 Takedown plus intact state bans leaves a legal situation so lopsided that there will be another 14th amendment challenge to state bans at some point in the future UNTIL THEY EXAMINE THE ISSUES. They can't dodge those questions forever. Lower courts will be asked to rule, and they will.

You're actually not arguing a point. You're just spewing a bunch of stuff about the DOMA case that doesn't actually form a response to what I'm saying. Again. it's gone from irksome to just very odd.

by Anonymousreply 11106/23/2013

r109, troll dar shows you to be a real piece of work. Going after gay people with "cunt" and "nancy". Such a friend to gay people.

The arguments people are laying out for you are pretty reasonable.

DOMA will go down, probably on Equal Protection grounds, Kennedy writing it.

We'll see if he does the same in Prop 8 or goes off on his own on standing. It's going to be narrow.

And yes, R109 et. al, it will end up back in court, but not necessarily the Supreme Court at least for a decade. O'Connor changed, but usually the Court changes after the country changes, and after judges leave the court or die, after a decade at least.

All reasonable arguments.

by Anonymousreply 11206/23/2013

R110 is correct. Those two cases are like interlocking pieces in a puzzle. The court was always going to release them together.

by Anonymousreply 11306/23/2013

Oddly, r112, you have repeated there exactly what I have been arguing. Talk about a piece of work.

[quote]The arguments people are laying out for you are pretty reasonable.

The argument of the poster who started this shit was in no way "reasonable." It was like a Cassandra from outer space: no realistic relation to the reality or possible outcomes of the case.

And I call people whatever I damn well please, especially if they're being irksome. Deal.

by Anonymousreply 11406/23/2013

[quote]The court was always going to release them together

No one said otherwise, as far as I know. The cases will likely be released together, or at least at the same time, but this fact offers little insight on its own into the outcome imho.

by Anonymousreply 11506/23/2013

R111, I'm sorry but you're the one who's not engaging.

Section 3 is important because of your TENTH AMENDMENT argument. Section 3 cannot trigger a tenth amendment violation, that's all. That's why it was brought up, because it makes equal protection the only way to go.

And we agree, the Fifth Amendment is the likely limit on Section 3, it's what was argued below, and if the Court doesn't want to be fractured into 4-1-4, Kennedy has every reason to make a Romer analysis under the Fifth. It's his legacy, why wouldn't he?

And finally, again I never said the cases would not go back to COURT. I said that they would not necessarily go back to the SUPREME COURT. We have to wait and see how these cases go in federal court, and if the appeals courts are split, and if the Court chooses to grant cert.

I certainly AM responding to you, point by point. If you go back and read that I hope you will see it.

by Anonymousreply 11606/23/2013

No, R114, you started off on some 10th amendment stuff. No one is buying it.

I believe most people said the original poster was silly. You called other people cunt.

Maybe if you lost the rage, your posts would be much clearer. Or if you agree with the people you keep raging at, why are you arguing?

Good luck to your husband.

by Anonymousreply 11706/23/2013


They're called fright attendants now.

by Anonymousreply 11806/23/2013

[quote] your TENTH AMENDMENT argument.

For some reason, you glommed on to the weird idea that I was making the argument that DOMA would be struck down via the tenth. I was responding to someone else who was Cassandraing that a states' right argument to strike down DOMA Sec 3 would mean that arguments against state level bans would be doomed. It would not.

One can object to DOMA Sec 3 for violating state's rights and to state bans for violating the right to equal protection. You were not responding to me at all.

by Anonymousreply 11906/23/2013

[quote]I certainly AM responding to you, point by point. If you go back and read that I hope you will see it.

No. Going back it looks like there were several posters here, and you were responding to someone else's tenth amendment argument as if it were mine. Your mistake.

by Anonymousreply 12006/23/2013

Oh come on, R119, now who's being "irksome"?

You said at R95 it's possible it violates the 10th amendment. You said it again at R99 saying Kennedy would go that way. I lit up your posts, and it's clear you said them to me.

So yes, I was responding to you, to make it clear after you said it twice, that the federal power that's at issue in Tenth Amendment cases is not at issue here.

Just let it go.

by Anonymousreply 12106/23/2013

R120, are you seriously saying someone hijacked your computer and typed R95 and R99 where you talk about the possibilities of a tenth amendment violation and Kennedy using it?

Troll-dar says those are you.

You only attributed that theory to other people once.

by Anonymousreply 12206/23/2013

r121, My response at r95 was to this poster:

[quote]DOMA will turn EXACTLY on respect for state's rights,

Presumably this person is speculating that DOMA Sec 3 will be overturned for violating state's rights, as some have speculated. I don't know how DOMA will be overturned, nor does anyone at this point, so I wouldn't presume to predict with the sort of certainty you're oddly attributing to me.

However, once someone sets it up as a hypothetical, it's fair to respond and speculate about the consequences. You're obviously misreading me if you thought that's what I was doing because I don't make such predictions. I was responding to a hypothetical within the terms of the hypothetical "IF DOMA Sec 3 is overturned on a state's right argument, then...." I would never say "Doma Sec 3 WILL be overturned on a states' rights argument." Who the fuck knows what will happen?

by Anonymousreply 12306/23/2013

Again, you seem to have glommed onto this idea that I said with certainty that DOMA would be overturned for violating the tenth.

I'm not Madame Cleo. I don't make such predictions. I wouldn't even say with certainty that DOMA Sec 3 will be struck down. Who the fuck knows? I was speculating within the parameters of someone else's hypothetical.

by Anonymousreply 12406/23/2013

R123, do you know how to use troll-dar?

That was me. I didn't say it was a tenth amendment issue. You said that to me twice.

The states rights issue that appeals to Kennedy is simply a tradition, not a Tenth Amendment issue (which comes up under things like the RFRA). The tradition is simply that states define marriage law, and that there's no rational basis for the federal government to do it.

Why people worried about Kennedy as a wild card on the same question on Prop 8 is whether he would see it as a Romer issue -- a constitutional amendment that goes too far -- or deference to state process.

That's the only reason I brought it up.

But let's be clear, after saying you didn't make the tenth Amendment argument, you now concede you did twice -- to me -- at R95 and R99.

Look, we seem to AGREE on the big points now that the concessions are out of the way.

Can't you just not argue about arguing?

by Anonymousreply 12506/23/2013


by Anonymousreply 12606/23/2013

No, R124, I did not say you said it would be with certainty. Where do you get this stuff?

You made the argument it was possible. POSSIBLE. I said it isn't. That is all.

Why you are going off like this is hard to understand.

by Anonymousreply 12706/23/2013

If we don't get the ruling we want this week, what should we do during Gay Pride festivities to protest? I think Pride organizers in NYC and SF need to have plans ready for a major protest event at Sunday's parades. Perhaps invite every gay person and supporter in the city to march in protest at the end of the parade.

by Anonymousreply 12806/23/2013

Do you think there are lawyers in here?

by Anonymousreply 12906/23/2013

[quote] Can't you just not argue about arguing?

Right back at you.

And your original point is STILL bunk. A state's rights decision in DOMA Sec 3--whether decided on tenth amendment grounds or tradition reasoning about state powers as you argue--is still in no way determinative of whether or not state bans violate equal protection, which is one of the central questions of Prop 8.

The issue of equal protection will return to the court if they don't decide it this round. That's all I was saying. You got all excited and sore about this whole tenth amendment thing for some odd reason. When people refer to the "tenth amendment" and DOMA as I did, they're referring to a state's rights argument: Tauro's argument was a tenth amendment one. Making the distinction that Kennedy is more likely to argue for a more general deference to tradition is just minutiae which had nothing to do with the argument at hand about how a DOMA state's rights decision and a narrow Prop 8 might interact.

by Anonymousreply 13006/23/2013

[quote]I said it isn't possible.

Well then you're wrong. Any sort of decision is possible. You might argue that a certain type of decision is unlikely. Fine. But impossible? Nope. It's entirely POSSIBLE. And since the original case was ruled on the basis of the tenth amendment, this hardly seems like some crazy, out-of-nowhere possible outcome to speculate about. Again, no predictions here. YOU'RE the only one making predictions.

by Anonymousreply 13106/23/2013

So R107 what states with bans do you think have sympathetic AGs?

I would think this would be the weak point in the armor of the inequality crowd in the unfair states rather than trying to get the bans repealed or waiting years for full faith and credit litigation both of which are slow, expensive and uncertain.

by Anonymousreply 13206/23/2013

I love the way you put it, r132, and I think that the number of sympathetic AG's would actually be pretty high, though honestly I have no way of knowing. Most educated people imho agree these bans are wrong, and the number is only increasing. In a few years, I'd imagine that there will be very few educated legal experts outside the South who would want their name to go down in history as the "vs" in a case against equal rights.

It's ALREADY a problem in both the cases before the court now btw: No one wanted to defend those POS discriminatory laws!

I'm probably just doing some wishful thinking, but well, why not? If someone knows more about this, hopefully they'll weigh in.

by Anonymousreply 13306/23/2013

Rosie married longtime partner Kelli Carpenter in San Francisco. Their marriage was later annulled by the State of California. Maybe because they were CA citizens?

by Anonymousreply 13406/23/2013

I think most of those people whose SF marriages were declared null an void remarried in the CA marriage equality window before prop 8, though honestly I don't know the answer to that, r134.

If there were any real justice IMHO there'd be repatriations made to gay people for the terrible human rights violations that these votes represented, but that's anothe story entirely.

by Anonymousreply 13506/23/2013

[quote]WHY wait other than either out of cowardess

Oh, [italic]dear.[/italic]

by Anonymousreply 13606/23/2013

In 2004, the city and county of San Francisco issued marriage licenses to same sex couples. Those marriages were later ruled invalid by the California Supreme Court. This same court, in 2008, ruled that gays should be allowed to marry and, for almost 5 months, until the passage of Prop 8, California same sex couples were allowed to marry legally.

The 2004 marriages, which Rosie had, were invalidated. The 2008 marriages have never been invalidated.

by Anonymousreply 13706/23/2013

Gentlemen, gentlemen, please... Let's just all agree that straight men are evil.

by Anonymousreply 13806/23/2013

R128, A celebration (or rally) is already planned for tomorrow at Castro and Market if a ruling is announced tomorrow. They've been advertising it at the film festival. Don't know what NY or L.A. is doing.

by Anonymousreply 13906/23/2013

There are many such rallies/celebrations planned across the nation on ruling day, r139. i wish I could provide a link, but I l can't find it.

by Anonymousreply 14006/23/2013

There are dozens planned.

by Anonymousreply 14106/23/2013

Thank you, votn.

by Anonymousreply 14206/23/2013

They'll drag it to Thursday. It's a powerplay.

by Anonymousreply 14306/23/2013

SCOTUSBLOG is running, although the decisions don't come down until 10AM.

by Anonymousreply 14406/24/2013

Thanks, votn. The SCOTUSblog folks often answer questions during the build-up to the announcement, which can be helpful and informative.

by Anonymousreply 14506/24/2013

Even though I don't actually expect the rulings until Thursday, I'm still nervous as hell.

by Anonymousreply 14606/24/2013

Likewise, votn.

Hold me.


(And it makes it all the more agonizing that many of my straight friends and family seem to have no idea what this is like for us. I mentioned these cases to a str8 progressive friend a couple weeks ago, and she was all, "Oh? Prop 8? Whatever happened with that?" I have a No H8 sign in my living room and another straight friend a year or so ago, was all "What does that mean?")

by Anonymousreply 14706/24/2013


by Anonymousreply 14806/24/2013

I'm getting the feeling that they'll wait to the very last day, later this week.

We'll know soon, I suppose.

by Anonymousreply 14906/24/2013

SCOTUSblog predicting 3-5 decisions this morning...

by Anonymousreply 15006/24/2013

SCOTUSBlog just predicted:

"it’s unlikely that we will get Prop 8 or DOMA. It’s likely those will both come down on the last day of the Term (because they were argued late and are so controversial); and again, we are not exactly sure when that will be but based on tradition, probably before the end of the week."

We'll see in a few minutes.

by Anonymousreply 15106/24/2013

They're also saying they don't expect Perry or Windsor today.

by Anonymousreply 15206/24/2013 thursday...

(what were those rumors about the following monday?)

by Anonymousreply 15306/24/2013

Two so far: Vance v Ball State and Mutual Pharmaceuticals v Bartlett. Alito writing both majorities, both pure ideological splits.

by Anonymousreply 15406/24/2013

In the past couple years, I have learned more about the Supreme Court than I ever wanted to know.

by Anonymousreply 15506/24/2013

The Affirmative Action case got vacated and remanded for re-trial.

by Anonymousreply 15606/24/2013

what does that mean in English, votn? was it a progressive move for SCOTUS to make or not?

by Anonymousreply 15706/24/2013

From the comments on the SCOTUSBlog, it looks like the majority of the court still believes diversity is a compelling reason for admissions standards. They felt that the lower courts didn't apply strict scrutiny and that it should be retried.

Thomas, of course, having benefited from Affirmative Action now believes that no one else should be allowed, so he concurred.

The only dissent was Ginsburg, who was fine with the appellate ruling.

by Anonymousreply 15806/24/2013

And we're done. See everyone on Thursday.

by Anonymousreply 15906/24/2013

.....and, no decision on DOMA or Prop 8 today...

by Anonymousreply 16006/24/2013

SCOTUSBlog says they've reached the final opinion, and there's no DOMA or Prop 8 so it looks like we have to wait for another decision day.

by Anonymousreply 16106/24/2013

SCOTUS Blog just tweeted "No voting rights or same-sex marriage today. Waiting on word on next day".

by Anonymousreply 16206/24/2013

They will be sitting tomorrow, and at least one more day after that.

by Anonymousreply 16306/24/2013

Apparently they just gutted protections for workers who experience sexual or racial discrimination.

by Anonymousreply 16406/24/2013

Sorry, that should be sexual or racial harassment, not discrimination.

by Anonymousreply 16506/24/2013

A narrow decision based on standing would seemingly not take a long time to write. The delay seems to suggest a big decision imho.

But really: who knows? Certainly not me.

by Anonymousreply 16606/24/2013

The Court is in the mood to punt. Unless, it's a case that might benefit corporations and wealthy people.

by Anonymousreply 16706/24/2013

So tired of this bullshit that this is about power. These opinions and every word in them will be scrutinized for precedent, and here, whether a huge win for us, or a huge stepping stone toward ultimate equality, has to be written just right.

Romer v. Evans took more than SEVEN MONTHS to get the decision written, and even then it was a mess.

Lawrence v. Texas took THREE MONTHS to the day (Mar 26-Jun 26) for it to go from oral argument to decision, and was much better written.

Perry and Windsor were argued on March 26 and March 27. If they come out Wednesday or Thursday it will be three months.

Fisher v. Univ. of Texas was argued back in October and just came out today -- EIGHT MONTHS and Kennedy wrote it and is probably writing one if not both of the same-sex marriage case majority opinions.

Some of you are taking jabs at the people who hold our rights in their hands over three months to do it carefully?

Grow up.

by Anonymousreply 16806/24/2013

[quote] A narrow decision based on standing would seemingly not take a long time to write. The delay seems to suggest a big decision imho.

They heard the Fischer v UT Austin arguments in October, and that just got remanded back down today.

by Anonymousreply 16906/24/2013

They really are shaving down Title VII and the Age Discrimination Employment Act.

by Anonymousreply 17006/24/2013

Ha. Good point, votn.

As I said: "who knows? Certainly not me."

by Anonymousreply 17106/24/2013

[quote]Gentlemen, gentlemen, please... Let's just all agree that straight men are evil.

Not nearly as evil as closeted gay men in positions of power who vote against gay rights.

by Anonymousreply 17206/24/2013

[quote]Grow up.

Right back at you, r168. You'd have to be inhuman, infantile, or ignorant not to be able to understand the growing sense of anxiety and impatience about waiting to hear what the psychopaths and partisans on the supreme court will make of our fundamental rights.

Sure, everyone should try to chill out as we wait. But that includes you.

by Anonymousreply 17306/24/2013

[quote]No more. Time for hundreds of thousands on the mall, charging police lines. Time for thousands in the streets of New York and Los Angeles and even brave people to masse in places like New Orleans and Chicago and Detroit and Atalanta and Jackson Mississippi. Time for a major, articulate, non politically partisan national voice on this issue.. Time for gays and lesbians and blacks and latinos and white and gay/lesbian republicans and gay/lesbian Democrats to come together on this one issue.

Honey, it was near impossible to get people worked up about AIDS when it looked likely to kill almost everyone you knew. I think you overestimate the American willingness to become directly involved in politics, though I salute you're own commitment.

by Anonymousreply 17406/24/2013

* you're = your, naturally.

by Anonymousreply 17506/24/2013

It's one thing to be anxious, but the attitude (shown by OP and all over my Facebook feed) that none of the other decisions matter is, at best, shockingly bad form. Other important decisions, many argued much earlier than Prop 8 and DOMA, are being issued, but these dramatic types can't be bothered except to wail out their impatience.

by Anonymousreply 17606/24/2013

[quote]none of the other decisions matter

To take an interest in one own's fundamental rights is not to say that nothing else matters, dear. If straight people's right to marry were being debated by Scalia et al, do you think they'd all take a moment on Facebook to discuss the nuances of the Mutual Pharmaceutical ruling about state laws regulating drug warnings out of politeness' sake and to show their concern?

You just want to mother-hen and scold gay people. It's irksome.

Anxiety, concern, and preoccupation are all perfectly understandable at this juncture. No one ever said that nothing else matters, you half-wit. If you have other concerns, go discuss them. No one's chaining you down.

Again, grow up.

by Anonymousreply 17706/24/2013

[quote]It's one thing to be anxious, but the attitude (shown by OP and all over my Facebook feed) that none of the other decisions matter is, at best, shockingly bad form.

r176 This is rubbing me the wrong way also. I'm anxious to see what the decision is on gay marriage. I understand everyone's nervousness because I share it, and I often have to make a concerted effort to not be cranky when the topic comes up.

But our other rights are being gutted as well during this session and all people seem to care about is that there's been no word on Prop 8 and DOMA, two cases that we knew from the beginning probably wouldn't be handed down until the last day. Of course, let's be worried about it -- I am, too -- but the lack of concern over the other decisions that are coming out is appalling.

by Anonymousreply 17806/24/2013

Well, at least we get to do this again tomorrow.

Hopefully, the weather will be a bit better for the celebration/protest.

by Anonymousreply 17906/24/2013

they're giving more opinions tomorrow

by Anonymousreply 18006/24/2013

r177, I think what bothers me is that your right to vote, your right to not be harassed in the workplace, etc., are also your (general "you") fundamental rights, but I really haven't seen any consternation over those rights being denied beyond a few posts here and there. I'd hope that if straight marriages were at issue, straight people would still take a minute to do what they could to make sure they didn't lose the ability to vote.

I don't buy into the ridiculous argument that we shouldn't deal with gay marriage until more "important" issues have been addressed first. 1. Marriage is pretty damn important. 2. It's a wrong that's so easy to right that we should absolutely take care of it before moving on to other issues. I just wish that people in general would be more aware of how much exactly we're losing at the same time that we (hopefully) gain the right to marry.

by Anonymousreply 18106/24/2013

Oh boy, my anxiety level is high. This ruling will be life changing for me and it will determine if I will live back in the USA or in Asia. Now I find I get to wait some more. For what?

by Anonymousreply 18206/24/2013

[quote]But our other rights are being gutted as well during this session and all people seem to care about is that there's been no word on Prop 8 and DOMA

I totally agree. It just doesn't make sense that a thread about gay marriage doesn't also cover how our other rights are being gutted. And why no mention of starving orphans in Dafur, global warming, Matt Bomer and Ann Curry! I just don't understand how we can only focus on gay marriage in a thread about gay marriage.

by Anonymousreply 18306/24/2013

I have a feeling that he marriage equality decisions will come out tomorrow. I think the voting rights decision will be the big shocker and it will be among the last decision released. It won't be a good decision.

by Anonymousreply 18406/24/2013

Well done r183.

You are ridiculous r178.

by Anonymousreply 18506/24/2013

The thread is actually about the Supreme Court supposedly holding back it's decision, just to torment American gays. The other decisions, and the implication that gay rights should come first, are highly relevant.

This reminds me of the political newbies in the '08 primaries and election, who acted as though the political process was born with Barack Obama's declaration of candidacy. The Supreme Court traditionally holds back important and controversial decisions until the end of the term. Take a breath and hold the histrionics.

by Anonymousreply 18606/24/2013

I'm sorry, r183, did I miss the other hot thread with hundreds of posts full of people worrying about our other rights? You're right, this thread is about gay marriage (and I haven't taken issue with any post in this thread except r177, who somehow seems to think that there are no other issues of import or rights at stake here except gay marriage), but surely you have to concede that the larger conversation in the gay community hasn't focused even a little bit on all the other rights we will shortly lose.

I wasn't saying that we shouldn't worry about gay marriage or that we shouldn't worry about it in this thread. I'm worried about it also. I was just agreeing with r176 that it's concerning to me that we're not just as concerned with other decisions. I didn't mean we have to be concerned with it in this thread, but it's worrying that the Court is pushing all these other decisions through.

Whatever, I'm not going to derail this thread further. You don't think those other issues are just as important at the moment, and I do.

by Anonymousreply 18706/24/2013

The area around the Supreme Court building is filled with gay rights activists today, as can be expected. At the same time, you can bet that John Boehner and his ilk are overly anxious to hear the decision on DOMA. After all, it was Boehner who took action to keep DOMA active when the Obama administration pulled the rug out from DOMA. Boehner and the hatemongering Pubbies in the House will have egg on their face if DOMA goes down in flames.

The Supreme's non-action on affirmative action today was cause for some disappointment today but it is sure to work its way back to them in the next term.

by Anonymousreply 18806/24/2013

[quote]The Supreme's non-action on affirmative action today was cause for some disappointment today but it is sure to work its way back to them in the next term.

Not in the next term. It will have to be retried in district court at the bare minimum.

by Anonymousreply 18906/24/2013

Told ya, they are doing it on their time, not the world's. It's a powerplay. All judges have attitudes of power. "I can put you in jail, just because I don't like your attitude" and we'll release stuff when WE want to, not you.

by Anonymousreply 19006/24/2013

I have a question about affirmative action.

If Paris Jackson applied to Yale, would she get a bump for being African-American?

by Anonymousreply 19106/24/2013

Did it ever occur to you dimwits that it takes a LONG TIME to write an opinion?

It needs to be well-reasoned and clear to act as guidance for lower courts.

It's not "famewhoring."

by Anonymousreply 19206/24/2013

[quote]Told ya, they are doing it on their time, not the world's. It's a powerplay. All judges have attitudes of power. "I can put you in jail, just because I don't like your attitude" and we'll release stuff when WE want to, not you.

Every jot and tittle of the decisions will be picked over by legal scholars and other courts for the rest of time. I would rather we have a good ruling rather than a fast one.

This is doubly true if Kennedy is the one writing it. He moreso than any of the other justices wants to make sure that the decision is explicit.

Although I suspect if Roberts is in the majority (and I would think there's a decent chance that he is), he might be the one writing the opinion. This is legacy-making stuff, and given the way the Affordable Care Act decision went, he's clearly concerned about his legacy.

by Anonymousreply 19306/24/2013

[quote]Not in the next term. It will have to be retried in district court at the bare minimum.

You're right about that specific case but there's another affirmative action case coming up. Not sure, but I think it's coming from Michigan. Today's case came from Texas.

by Anonymousreply 19406/24/2013

R190, you're a troll and a moron.

Even if they wait till the last day, the case is still faster than most of the big ones this term.

If anyone deserves a power play, it's you. The rest of us will appreciate it even if it comes out on the last day.

by Anonymousreply 19506/24/2013

[quote] your right to vote, your right to not be harassed in the workplace, etc., are also your (general "you") fundamental rights, but I really haven't seen any consternation over those rights being denied

Er, probably because those other rights aren't being denied, dear. The court is actually determining whether the legislation around them corresponds with the mandates of the constitution. No one is saying that certain people shouldn't have the right to vote or that only certain people should have the right to take recourse if they're being harassed at work. Those rights may be affected... but denied? Hogwash.

And this will really blow your mind and send you over the edge: I actually think the right to vote and the right to take recourse against harassment at work are quite minor, secondary rights when compared to the right to marry. The right to marry has been repeatedly identified as one of the most crucial, almost definingly human, of rights. No one ever thinks of it this way in the context of "the gay," but so it is. If it were any other minority being denied the right to marry, say some Native American tribe weren't allowed to marry, i think people would be horrified. They'd get it. Again, if straight people were being denied the right to marry, no one would think twice about the fact that they're not up in arms about the rest of the shit at the court.

But whatev's. Clearly, we all deserve the fiercest of cluckings from a mother-hen such as yourself for not being "the good gays" to our straight masters and putting aside our own concerns to discuss the other decisions.


[quote] it's concerning to me that we're not just as concerned with other decisions.

What a lot of concerns you have.

by Anonymousreply 19606/24/2013

How amusing it will be to watch that fat MSNBC queen Pete Williams report on DOMA and Prop 8. He was lutes when he was Cheney's secretary.

by Anonymousreply 19706/24/2013


by Anonymousreply 19806/24/2013

R197, if your post could reasonably be found at FreeRepublic, maybe you should rephrase it, yes?

by Anonymousreply 19906/24/2013

R196, you are so right. I'm sure gays are the first group to ever be denied the right to marriage, and this trumps all. Oh, wait - you seem to have forgotten the entire civil rights movement, the foundations if this country, and just about anything that doesn't affect you directly. History did not begin with your birth.

by Anonymousreply 20006/24/2013

Yes, because that was obviously my point, r200. No one should ever discuss any other aspect of life or history ever again.

Discussing gay rights means that you think there has never been another civil rights struggle ever anywhere in the world at anytime. If you discuss gay rights, the next time you try to discuss anything else, your head explodes. It is quite literally impossible to hold two concerns in your head at once. And if, God forbid, marriage rights become your primary concern, it's clearly an indication that nothing and no one else in the world matters to you or ever will.


by Anonymousreply 20106/24/2013

Sorry you're single, r200, but this mother-henning concern troll act is just too much. People are quite right to be focused on this with anxiety and anticipation.

And again, no one would dare call a straight person who was being denied the right to marry "selfish" because they're anxious and focused on the outcome.

by Anonymousreply 20206/24/2013

[quote]I actually think the right to vote and the right to take recourse against harassment at work are quite minor, secondary rights when compared to the right to marry.

I find that appalling. Really. To follow it up with

[quote]The right to marry has been repeatedly identified as one of the most crucial, almost definingly human, of rights

makes me think you really have given no thought in your brief life to the idea that marriage is not "definingly" human, but something socially defined, and controlled by government for its own purposes. You are one of the stupidest trolls in DL history, and should shut your mouth.

by Anonymousreply 20306/24/2013

...and once again r201 absolutely PWNS r200.


by Anonymousreply 20406/24/2013

We agree, r196.

by Anonymousreply 20506/24/2013

[quote]I find that appalling. Really

Fine. Be appalled then. I actually think most people--if given the choice--would give up their vote if the only other option was giving up their right to marry. Given a choice they would choose the more meaningful right. I know I would.

As Hannah Arendt put it:

"The right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to which ‘the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of one’s skin or color or race’ are minor indeed. Even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence; and to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionably belongs."

I suppose you're appalled by Hannah Arendt now, too? Is she--who is widely considered one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century--also one of the stupidest trolls in DL history, as well? You want to tell her to shut her stupid mouth?

by Anonymousreply 20606/24/2013

[quote]you're a troll and a moron.Even if they wait till the last day, the case is still faster than most of the big ones this term. If anyone deserves a power play, it's you. The rest of us will appreciate it even if it comes out on the last day.

I'm not a troll you fuckhead. You must be a lawyer. They heard this MONTHS ago. They aren't some thirteen year old rushing to get their homework on a Sunday night. They know the world is waiting.

by Anonymousreply 20706/24/2013

[quote] I actually think most people--if given the choice--would give up their vote if the only other option was giving up their right to marry. Given a choice they would choose the more meaningful right.

Speak for yourself Mary. I would take voting over marriage any day of the week. Your vote can affect a country, your marriage....not so much.

by Anonymousreply 20806/24/2013

[quote]I suppose you're appalled by Hannah Arendt now, too? Is she--who is widely considered one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century

I am not the person you were addressing, but Hannah Arendt sounds like a dolt too.

I've been with my partner for over 25 years and we have some how managed with out the benefit of marriage. Losing the right to vote would suck much more than not having the right to marry my partner.

The right to vote gives me a lot more influence than the right to marry.

However, I do want the right to marry.

by Anonymousreply 20906/24/2013

[quote]Your vote can affect a country

Snicker. The system is so fucking broken that this is decidedly not the case, but even if the government weren't fucked up, voting is a right that to me, and to most, seems quite secondary when placed alongside marriage. That's not to say voting doesn't matter, but it's plainly secondary, as Arendt argues so eloquently.

[quote]marriage....not so much.

Marriage is a fundamental right, and has been determined in court many, many times to touch nearly every aspect of life: personal, political, public, private. But suddenly when gays stand up for the right, they're "selfish and narcissistic". (You're really sick for saying that sort of thing btw. It's my turn to be appalled. Again, no one would ever say that a straight person fighting for their right to marry the person they love was selfish and narcissistic).

[quote]Speak for yourself Mary

Your name-calling (and homophobic name-calling to boot) shows your desperation. Pathetic.

Moreover, if you read the quote I WAS plainly speaking for myself: "I know I would." and speculating about others: " I actually think most people..."

'Most people' may not include you, but you're also a spiteful individual who thinks gay people standing up for their fundamental rights is indicative of self-absorption. Disgusting.

by Anonymousreply 21006/24/2013

I don't see how the SC can come out today and say that colleges can not allow preferential treatment towards one group of people, and then come out and say that heterosexuals deserve preferential treatment over homosexuals when it comes to marriage.

by Anonymousreply 21106/24/2013

[quote]Hannah Arendt sounds like a dolt too.

Yeah, one of those dolts who lectures at Princeton and Yale and is elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Letters and publishes philosophical works that are still cited and studied today and introduced phrases describing her moral take on a situation like "the banality of evil" that were so influential and insightful they've become part of the common parlance. One of those dolts.

by Anonymousreply 21206/24/2013

r211, they can do that by saying that race is not only a protected class that requires strict scrutiny, but racial discrimination is explicitly and directly banned by the US Constitution, whereas sexual orientation is not and is subject to the lowest level of judicial scrutiny. They might say that since sexual orientation is not a protected class, government can disfavor homosexuality as long as it has a mere rational basis for doing so.

by Anonymousreply 21306/24/2013

And we're back. I'm delaying errands because I want to know if I'm celebrating, protesting, or doing neither this evening.

by Anonymousreply 21406/25/2013

Judges are no different than the lawyers they were earlier in their career. They have probably been haggling over language last minute on some of these decisions, which is why they have not been released yet. Everything is always last minute in law and courts. If it weren't for the robes, you'd see that they barely got on their socks and clean undies.

by Anonymousreply 21506/25/2013

Looks like we won't find out today.

by Anonymousreply 21606/25/2013

If we're playing the odds, it looks like of the three outstanding cases and the number of decisions that the justices have rendered, Kennedy and Roberts haven't written any for cases argued in March, which is when Windsor and Perry were heard.

My optimistic prediction: Roberts writes Perry and dismisses it on the standing issue. Kennedy writers Windsor and throws out Section 3 on the narrowest possible grounds.

by Anonymousreply 21706/25/2013

SCOTUSblog has Kennedy for Windsor and Chief for Perry.

No date set yet.

by Anonymousreply 21806/25/2013

[quote]Hannah Arendt sounds like a dolt.

R209 sounds banal.

by Anonymousreply 21906/25/2013

VotN -- today's gutting of the civil rights act is making me more worried than ever about tomorrow. Do you see any correlation? If they are willing to do this, how will they ever do the right thing regarding gay issues??

by Anonymousreply 22006/25/2013

It's really a different issue. There are powerful conservative players who want states to be able to change their voting laws to keep the GOP more competitive. There was a real incentive to gut the Voting Rights Act.

The truth is most of the powerful players in the GOP don't actually give a fuck about gay marriage. It is only their social conservative base that cares that they have to pander to. But in terms of the court justices I wouldn't expect one decision to sway another.

Kennedy is writing Windsor which will certainly go our way. I wish Kennedy was writing Perry, that would be a good sign. But Roberts is writing it, interesting. Not necessarily a bad sign, but interesting.

by Anonymousreply 22106/25/2013

thanks for that r221.

by Anonymousreply 22206/25/2013

[quote]VotN -- today's gutting of the civil rights act is making me more worried than ever about tomorrow

I'm still betting Perry gets dismissed 6-3 on standing, which is why I think Roberts is writing it. The liberals will probably have a concurrence stating equal protection that Ginsberg will write.

I'm not sure if Windsor is 5-4 or 6-3, but Kennedy will write it as narrowly as possible, and then Sotomayor will write an equal protection concurrence that the other liberals will join.

by Anonymousreply 22306/25/2013

Besides, it's the tenth anniversary of Lawrence v Texas tomorrow. Like I've said, this will either be the best Pride ever or the worst.

by Anonymousreply 22406/25/2013

GOD i hope you're right.

by Anonymousreply 22506/25/2013

I think it's odd and unlikely that Roberts would author an opinion that dismisses the Perry case on standing. That type of ruling seems so inconsequential and lacks the gravitas of most opinions authored by a Chief Justice, especially in controversial and anticipated decisions. Rather, I think Roberts spent some time with his lesbian cousin and he is joining the four liberals and possibly even Kennedy to author a much a broader ruling that goes beyond California. I'm not sure if that broad ruling would encompass all of the Ninth Circuit or all of the civil union states or all of America. After today's VRA ruling, I am keen on believing Roberts doesn't want another anti-civil rights decision on his record which bodes well for us.

As for Windsor, the only mystery is if it reaches 7 or more votes to throw out Section 3 of DOMA. It has always been a pretty cut and dried case constitutionally.

by Anonymousreply 22606/25/2013


by Anonymousreply 22706/25/2013

I'm with r226. Roberts is too concerned with his legacy to put his name on anything that could be considered a wussy or tone deaf decision. I think he's going for a big, broad ruling.

by Anonymousreply 22806/25/2013

[quote]I'm with [R226]. Roberts is too concerned with his legacy to put his name on anything that could be considered a wussy or tone deaf decision.

And yet he was perfectly willing to gut the Voting Rights Act.

I mean, he may yet prove a reluctant ally to us, and I give him all the credit in the world for understanding that the Affordable Care Act had to stand for a lot of reasons, but after today's ruling, plus the punting on affirmative action, I dunno.

by Anonymousreply 22906/25/2013

Jeffrey Toobin (or some other Court watcher) argued last year that Roberts' voting to uphold the ACA was smoke and mirrors, essentially giving himself cover to lay day more sweeping, conservative decisions in the future.

by Anonymousreply 23006/25/2013

What do we do if they uphold DOMA?

by Anonymousreply 23106/25/2013

Make a frowny face.

by Anonymousreply 23206/25/2013

At what time are the rulings usually announced?

by Anonymousreply 23306/26/2013

10 am, R33.

by Anonymousreply 23406/26/2013

Sorry, R233. Not R33.

by Anonymousreply 23506/26/2013

Thanks R235. I plan to wake up early since that's 7:00a Pacific time.

by Anonymousreply 23606/26/2013

Can you not sleep? I cannot sleep.

by Anonymousreply 23706/26/2013

I'm going to party in the Castro and will be performing ceremonies at City Hall. I hope all goes well at 7am!

by Anonymousreply 23806/26/2013

Isn't Thursday more likely than this morning?

by Anonymousreply 23906/26/2013

No, the Supreme Court said the decision would be released Wednesday, not Thursday.

by Anonymousreply 24006/26/2013

They said this morning. All remaining decisions at 10am/7am.

We're hours away.

by Anonymousreply 24106/26/2013

[quote]What do we do if they uphold DOMA?

Not likely imho, but it would be an effin' mess. The Obama administration has said that they believe it's unconstitutionl and Roberts himself asked: if that's the case, why the heck they were still enforcing it. I think it would basically stay in effect, but as much could be dismantled by presidential order, might be? Yeesh, who knows...

It would be a mess, but it's important to remember: we are winning. We'd mourn for a bit, dust off, and then pick up and keep fighting. It's just who we are. Totally. It has always defined us. Think about it. Our community has dealt with a fuckload more than just a bad decision at the Supreme Court.

by Anonymousreply 24206/26/2013

Important to note: the decisions are announced in the order of increasing seniority of the author. That means Kennedy is going to speak first. If he reads a decision for Sekhar v. United States, start drinking, because that means Scalia wrote one of our opinions.

It's possible that they might break precedent and announce Perry and Windsor together regardless of seniority since they were heard together and linked, but I just think we should gird ourselves and clutch our collective pearls as appropriate.

by Anonymousreply 24306/26/2013

VOTN, I thought Scotusblog already said they knew with some degree of certainty who wrote which opinion: Kennedy for Windsor and Roberts for Perry?

Well, I guess we'll all know for sure soon enough. And yeah. if it's friggin' Scalia, reach for the booze. And something stronger if you've got it. Ugh.

by Anonymousreply 24406/26/2013

Well, that's what they're predicting, but there's really no way to know with absolute certainty. So, I will continue sitting on these pins and needles.

I mean, I have a good feeling about this, but I'm a notoriously bad soothsayer.

by Anonymousreply 24506/26/2013



by Anonymousreply 24606/26/2013

I am biting my nails. I have been forced to live out of the USA because I have a SE Asian partner. Maybe I can get engaged tonight.

by Anonymousreply 24706/26/2013

1 hr left.

Live feed.

by Anonymousreply 24806/26/2013

10am EST = 11am CST, it's still quite a long wait, 5 hrs.

by Anonymousreply 24906/26/2013

No it's 3, I hate converting time zones, always get it wrong.

by Anonymousreply 25006/26/2013

What will the live feed show, r248?

[quote] there's really no way to know with absolute certainty

Thanks, VOTN. Now I have a little something else to worry about, though I didn't think it was possible to be more anxious than I already was.


Nevermind. I'm hopeful. And I know no matter what the court decides, we as gay and lesbian people will get through this and win our equality eventually.

Sprry to hear about that r247. I'm hoping that at the very least that sort of ridculously and blatantly dsicriminatory situation comes to an end with the fall of DOMA Sec 3.

by Anonymousreply 25106/26/2013

Will we get the final decision today? How does this work? They all read their shit, and then we find out, or do we here the result first, then their individual opinions?

by Anonymousreply 25206/26/2013

Ultimately, the worst that can happen is that things stay exactly the way they are. I know that intellectually, but a defeat will still set us back a few years, at least on the federal level.

It will also take some (although not all) of the wind from our sails on the state level.

by Anonymousreply 25306/26/2013

[quote]Will we get the final decision today?

Almost certainly, yes.

[quote]How does this work?

They start announcing the decisions at 10 am.

[quote]They all read their shit, and then we find out, or do we here the result first, then their individual opinions?

We hear results and they summarize their decisions from the bench. The press and others of those present in the court are then handed copies of the full decision and the decision will also be up online soon after. By about 10:30 we should know all.

by Anonymousreply 25406/26/2013

[quote]They all read their shit, and then we find out, or do we here the result first, then their individual opinions?

The author of the majority opinion summarizes it. Justices with dissenting opinions may also speak, although they don't always.

Then the texts of the decisions are sped-read by the TV people (sometimes with funny results, as with the Affordable Care Act), and they try and translate it into plain English for the rest of us.

I mean, they get the texts pretty much as soon as the justices start to speak. They don't allow any electronic devices into the Courtroom, so the information comes out via the speed-readers in the press room.

If you're going to watch it on TV, wait until AFTER they've moved on to the next case. They'll need time to fine-tune the way the decision is presented, and you're likely to get misinformation in the first few minutes.

by Anonymousreply 25506/26/2013

That sounds confusing, VOTN.

Following the live blog feed from Scotusblog seemed pretty clear to me the past few decision days.

It was clear what had been decided as it was announced, without all that speed reading or confusion etc. I didn't even know about that.

It seems a good place to watch for the decision for people who want to follow live.

by Anonymousreply 25606/26/2013

If Scalia reads the DOMA opinion I am going to faint.

by Anonymousreply 25706/26/2013

We should all chip in and buy Scalia more cigarettes.

by Anonymousreply 25806/26/2013

[quote]I mean, I have a good feeling about this, but I'm a notoriously bad soothsayer.

You speak good sooth, VOTN.

by Anonymousreply 25906/26/2013

[quote]It was clear what had been decided as it was announced, without all that speed reading or confusion etc. I didn't even know about that.

No, I think SCOTUSBlog is a better source too, but there are people who might be nearer to a TV than a computer when Zero Hour comes.

And last year, we saw that in their race to be first, they can get things wrong, like when they said that the ACA mandate had been overruled, despite the fact that the official decision said that it was just invalid under the Commerce Clause, not the Taxing and Spending Clause.

by Anonymousreply 26006/26/2013

Forsooth, r259.

by Anonymousreply 26106/26/2013

Is anyone else making plans to riot? Is there anywhere one can check the schedule and locations for rioting?

by Anonymousreply 26206/26/2013

No r258, buy him a butt-plug, he's been passive/agressively begging for one his entire life. That's why he's such a prick, he's sitting on the angriest, most unfulfilled mussy in existence.

by Anonymousreply 26306/26/2013

Yes, your house, r262. Address please?

by Anonymousreply 26406/26/2013

262 = NSA

by Anonymousreply 26506/26/2013

I don't know about riots, but decision day rallies are planned around the country, r262. I know where the one is in my town, and someone may be able to provide the link to the online rally locator. I can never seem to find it again.

by Anonymousreply 26606/26/2013

What do you wear to a riot? Is it a good place to meet hot guys?

by Anonymousreply 26706/26/2013

You can find the location of the nearest riot here:

by Anonymousreply 26806/26/2013

You tell us, r267.

by Anonymousreply 26906/26/2013

[quote]What do you wear to a riot?

They're encouraging people to wear red.

Which only makes me think of the people encouraged to wear red to show their support for the WBW policy at MichFest.

Which only reminds me of an awful poem one of the sisterwomyn posted that had the refrain "I'll wear red/Red you'll see/Because I support/The Policy."

I hate the way my mind works sometimes.

by Anonymousreply 27006/26/2013

Well, VOTN. For once, MichFesters will beat gay men in being ready with the proper attire for a social occasion. Who'd've thunk?

by Anonymousreply 27106/26/2013

Just a shit-stirring freeper troll, r272. Ignore.

by Anonymousreply 27306/26/2013

I am so stressed out right now. Come on!!

by Anonymousreply 27406/26/2013

My anxiety level is so high I am eating compulsively.

by Anonymousreply 27506/26/2013

Stressed beyond belief.

by Anonymousreply 27606/26/2013

I hope Datalounge keeps primetime off. There are broke queers like me out there too! Primetime seems to bring out the Republican shills.

by Anonymousreply 27706/26/2013

Come on!

by Anonymousreply 27806/26/2013

[quote] 10am EST = 11am CST

Um, No. 10AM EST would be 9AM CST.

Except that we're in EDT and CDT now. But the hours are still the same. Unless you're in parts of Indiana.

by Anonymousreply 27906/26/2013

If it's repealed, how long will it take before I'm able to add my spouse to my health insurance? We are married and live in NYC, I work for the federal government.

by Anonymousreply 28006/26/2013

I believe I've heard 25 days, r280, but I imagine you could start getting the paperwork ready in preparation right away if things go our way.

Just my best two cents, for what it's worth. (Probably less than two cents actually, but I do want to help).

by Anonymousreply 28106/26/2013

For those who may need it, here is a link to the liveblog of SCOTUSblog, which will be among the first to announce the decision. I believe live feed starts at 9 am EST leading up to the 10 am announcement,

by Anonymousreply 28206/26/2013

I mentioned the upcoming ruling to THREE gay coworkers, and none of them even knew this was going on. One of them even said she thought she could put her partner on her health insurance if they got married. WTF?

by Anonymousreply 28306/26/2013

R272 actually if we don't win this why shouldn't we riot? I am sick of playing nice. Time may be upon us for some good old fashioned civil disobedience.

by Anonymousreply 28406/26/2013

Playing nice got us nowhere.

by Anonymousreply 28506/26/2013

Yep, it started with a riot and it might have to end with more.

by Anonymousreply 28606/26/2013

r283. Terrible.

But in their defense, these cases have been extremely complicated, long and drawn out over several years. I could almost understand why someone without a head for politics or legal issues might lose interest, and just be heartened by the more general news of progress in this arena. No excuse, but whatev's.

Those of us who understand what this is are in heart attack city. Honestly, I can't say which route is the better way at the moment. Wouldn't it be fine to be blissfully unaware? It certainly seems so.

by Anonymousreply 28706/26/2013

287, I should have mentioned that two of these people are lawyers! Frightening.

by Anonymousreply 28806/26/2013

Sweet Moses, r288.

Well, the truth is: I'm experiencing enough anxiety to cover for all three of them, so it evens out.

by Anonymousreply 28906/26/2013

Thanks, R282.

by Anonymousreply 29006/26/2013

Massaging the worry beads here, every time the SCOTUSBlog does its clicky noise, even though I know it's not happening yet.

by Anonymousreply 29106/26/2013

Why does SCOTUSblog think that the two opinions will be written by Kennedy and the Chief Justice? Anybody know?

by Anonymousreply 29206/26/2013

I just took half a klonopin, the anticipation is intense!!!

by Anonymousreply 29306/26/2013

SCOTUSblog has so many people following their live blog, they're hawking merchandise.

And you can tell it's people who otherwise have no interest in the Court or politics. Someone just asked: Who's the Chief Justice?

by Anonymousreply 29406/26/2013

r292, it's complicated, but it's based on a bunch of factors about how the court has worked in the past and how things typically run.

r293, I need the other half.

by Anonymousreply 29506/26/2013

[quote]Why does SCOTUSblog think that the two opinions will be written by Kennedy and the Chief Justice? Anybody know?

Of the three outstanding cases, Windsor and Perry were argued in March, and Sekhar was argued in May.

Neither Roberts nor Kennedy has written an opinion for a case heard in March. All the other justices have.

They tend to spred out the workload as evenly as possible.

by Anonymousreply 29606/26/2013

I understand that justice delayed is justice denied, but the people who actually expect justice to be accomplished in a microwave minute are either ignorant of history or arrogant enough to think that there cause will be the exception, that one time when society and the government quickly gave a group of oppressed people justice and equality. It took centuries to eradicate slavery and Jim Crow, and even today, the gains of the Civil Rights movement are being repealed. Endurance and persistence are the virtues that sustain any social justice movement.

by Anonymousreply 29706/26/2013

R292, generally the Chief formally assigns opinions so that the Court divides up the work -- some consideration is given to sharing the burden in a given year, other times it's to favor the ranking the justices.

Kennedy is probably writing DOMA because he's in the majority, possibly without Roberts there, or Roberts concurring.

If Roberts and Kennedy vote no on standing, and get one of the other progessives (say a 3-3-3 split), that'll do there as well, and Roberts can choose to write it on rank.

by Anonymousreply 29806/26/2013

Gotta admit I'm nervous - and not optimistic

by Anonymousreply 29906/26/2013

[quote]Endurance and persistence are the virtues that sustain any social justice movement.


by Anonymousreply 30006/26/2013

" in a microwave minute"

Fuck off. These cases represent years of hard work, litigation and public education. And that's not to mention the decades, nay, centuries that gay people have struggled against inequality, persecution and oppression. Hardly what I'd define as a "microwave minute." And I don't recall anyone ever suggesting we don't need endurance or persistence, but don't let me interrupt your mother-henning moment.

by Anonymousreply 30106/26/2013

R301, he's just trying to put the gays in their place, that's a very important goal for many tiresome people.

by Anonymousreply 30206/26/2013

They mentioned Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her 20 push-ups again.


by Anonymousreply 30306/26/2013

I can buy Valium over the counter where I am. Do I have time to run out for one before the decision?

by Anonymousreply 30406/26/2013

15 minutes, r304, so I doubt it.

by Anonymousreply 30506/26/2013

304, where are you??

by Anonymousreply 30606/26/2013

Laos. Do you need Valium?

by Anonymousreply 30706/26/2013

r301, you are a perfect example of the vulgar arrogance I was talking about. No wonder Black people (including Black gays/bisexuals) and other historically oppressed people roll our eyes when White gay men try to equate their struggle with the black Civil Rights movement.

by Anonymousreply 30806/26/2013

Official Supreme Court Ruling thread created. Join in!

by Anonymousreply 30906/26/2013

[quote] vulgar arrogance

Oh, the irony.

Carry on with your divisive hate, r308, and at a totally inappropriate time to boot. You don't need my approval.

by Anonymousreply 31006/26/2013

Come on, you're both right. Drop the crabs-in-the barrel routine already.

Stand united or fall apart.

by Anonymousreply 31106/26/2013

Scotusblog just announced three boxes, which means three long decisions, which means a ruling on standing is perhaps unlikely in Prop 8? It seems like that would perhaps be short?

by Anonymousreply 31206/26/2013

Going to clutch the pearls a little tighter.

Oh, Lord.

by Anonymousreply 31306/26/2013

first opinion is DOMA.

by Anonymousreply 31406/26/2013


by Anonymousreply 31506/26/2013

DOMA Sec 3 overturned as per SCOTUSblog. Equal protection 5-4.

by Anonymousreply 31606/26/2013



by Anonymousreply 31706/26/2013

Thank you, Justice Kennedy!

by Anonymousreply 31806/26/2013

OMG!!!!!!!!!!! I'm crying. I want to leave work and go to Stonewall right now!

by Anonymousreply 31906/26/2013

Praise the lord!

by Anonymousreply 32006/26/2013

Link to the opinion:

by Anonymousreply 32106/26/2013


by Anonymousreply 32206/26/2013

Edie Windsor is our Mildred Loving.

by Anonymousreply 32306/26/2013

But if Roberts voted against the majority on DOMA, that doesn't bode well for Prop 8, right?

by Anonymousreply 32406/26/2013

I am weeping with relief and anger at Roberts because he is a closet-case and voted against us, the rat bastard.

But good news. Damnit to hell.

by Anonymousreply 32506/26/2013

SCOTUSblog just posted this line from Kennedy:

"The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others."

by Anonymousreply 32606/26/2013

per SCOTUSblog about the DOMA decision: "There is language suggesting that the Court will dismiss Prop 8 on standing."

by Anonymousreply 32706/26/2013

Okay, Roberts apparently didn't vote with Scalia in his dissent. He wrote separately. From SCOTUSblog:

Amy Howe: Justice Scalia is reading from his dissent right now. The Court's opinion both in explaining its jurisdiction and its decision "both spring from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this court in American democratic society."

Fuck him.

by Anonymousreply 32806/26/2013

Another step on the journey toward equality.

Boehner and his ilk must be having hissy-fits right now!!!!!!!!!

by Anonymousreply 32906/26/2013

Looks like Prop 8 is headed towards dismissal.

by Anonymousreply 33006/26/2013

To be clear, the Court has not yet released the decision in Prop 8, but there is language in Windsor telegraphing that the Court will dismiss on standing.

by Anonymousreply 33106/26/2013

Fuck Scalia's diseased homophobia.

But woohoo for freedom to marry! :) !!!!!

by Anonymousreply 33206/26/2013

What's that mean, dismiss on standing?

by Anonymousreply 33306/26/2013

And, because it involves the gay, Scalia is going to speak at length about how awful we are.

by Anonymousreply 33406/26/2013

What does "dismissal" mean for the marriages that have already taken place? And for people who want to get married in Cali?

by Anonymousreply 33506/26/2013

I thought we were getting gay marriage today. Really, these rulings seem pointless otherwise. Yawn.

by Anonymousreply 33606/26/2013

"They both spring from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this court in American democratic society," said the Supreme Court Justice, a day after gutting the Voting Rights Act.

by Anonymousreply 33706/26/2013

Can someone explain this for a non-American?

by Anonymousreply 33806/26/2013

After reading that line from Justice Kennedy, I really am crying as I type.

by Anonymousreply 33906/26/2013

[quote]per SCOTUSblog about the DOMA decision: "There is language suggesting that the Court will dismiss Prop 8 on standing."

Dismiss is good?

by Anonymousreply 34006/26/2013

i heart edith windsor

by Anonymousreply 34106/26/2013

[quote]What does "dismissal" mean for the marriages that have already taken place? And for people who want to get married in Cali?

It means that gay couples can get married again.

The existing marriages were never in jeopardy.

by Anonymousreply 34206/26/2013

Are you crazed, R336, or just a freeper troll?

by Anonymousreply 34306/26/2013

You are an idiot R336. This is a MOMENTOUS decision for gay rights.

by Anonymousreply 34406/26/2013

Dismiss is complicated, r340, but likely goodish, meaning the end of Prop 8, but no ruling or effect on bans in other states. We have to wait and see what the ruling will be.

by Anonymousreply 34506/26/2013

Keep fuckin' that chicken, Antonin.

by Anonymousreply 34606/26/2013

And, presumably, Edie gets here $360,000 plus back from the IRS. (With interest...)

by Anonymousreply 34706/26/2013

Rachel Maddow crying.

Barney Frank saying that this case doesn't mean much for us.


by Anonymousreply 34806/26/2013

States can still define marriage.

by Anonymousreply 34906/26/2013

[quote]And, presumably, Edie gets here $360,000 plus back from the IRS. (With interest...)

Someone on Twitter says that the government should give her the money in the form of a giant lottery check.

by Anonymousreply 35006/26/2013

R338: DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) has been struck down, which means that the federal govt. has to recognize gay marriage in the states that allow it.

On Prop 8, we think the case has been struck down on standing. Meaning that the plaintiffs had no right to bring the case before the Court. Which would mean that gay marriage resumes in California. But only in California.


Scalia is still bloviating. He's pissed.

by Anonymousreply 35106/26/2013

WA-HOO - Prop 8 also down in flames

by Anonymousreply 35206/26/2013

Let's send Ms Windsor candy.

by Anonymousreply 35306/26/2013

On to Sekhar, an unrelated case. Then Prop 8 will be announced last.

by Anonymousreply 35406/26/2013

What it means is...the gays all have to get out and register voters to keep voting available for everyone eligible.

by Anonymousreply 35506/26/2013

And all of those white trash Republicans can now just kiss my fucking ass.

by Anonymousreply 35606/26/2013

I think this means that the government has to recognize the marriage of Americans who are married (same sex) to people who are citizens of other nations. Thus the non-American partner can have legal standing in the U.S.

by Anonymousreply 35706/26/2013

Prop 8 dismissed on standing, with Kennedy in dissent!

by Anonymousreply 35806/26/2013

‏@SenGillibrand: Congress must finish the job #SCOTUS started by repealing #DOMA in full. Join me & @DailyKos in urging Congress to act

by Anonymousreply 35906/26/2013

Holy shit, makes you wonder how Kennedy would have voted otherwise!

by Anonymousreply 36006/26/2013

Perry. By the Chief. The petitioners did not have standing to appeal the district court order. Remanded to the Ninth Circuit.

What this means for Prop 8 remains to be seen, but likely it's dead, or dead soon, with no immediate effect on other states.

by Anonymousreply 36106/26/2013

I'm not one for "Mary" moments, but I'm literally shaking. Finally. After all of these years.....

by Anonymousreply 36206/26/2013

Dismissed on standing. Majority vote is: Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan.

Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor in dissent.

by Anonymousreply 36306/26/2013

And I feel like laughing hysterically at all those fucking Mormons and all their fucking money they wasted in California. AHAHAHAHAHA

by Anonymousreply 36406/26/2013

Here's a blog post from a while back about what happens if the Prop 8 case were to be ruled on standing, which, we discovered today, it has been:

by Anonymousreply 36506/26/2013

Alright, now we can stop massaging the worry beads and put them back in our asses where they belong.

by Anonymousreply 36606/26/2013

Wow, what a historic day!

Thanks to an elder gay lesbian, Edith Windsor, and a group of gay Catholics, we can have equality in federal benefits.

by Anonymousreply 36706/26/2013

I'm wondering what the effect of today's decisions will be on married gays who live in or move to non-marriage states. Will they get federal benefits?

It will be a while before such analysis comes out, and it will likely be buried under tons of other coverage, but if people find such articles could you be so kind as to post links here or perhaps start another thread for them?

by Anonymousreply 36806/26/2013

R340 it is good if you didn't want the worse to happen.

Everyone said the Court wasn't ready.

Yes, I want the Court to stand up for my rights as well, but get real. They're going to let democracy work for awhile, EXACTLY like they did in Loving when only 14 states were left with interracial marriage bans.

What do you think the US is, Europe?

by Anonymousreply 36906/26/2013

lol at r368

by Anonymousreply 37006/26/2013

It won't be long now before a couple in a DOMA state sues for federal rights and a blanket federal mandate for same sex marriage is ruled for. It's inevitable. This house of cards is falling apart. I give it 2, maybe 3 years to work it's way through the courts.

by Anonymousreply 37106/26/2013

[quote] They're going to let democracy work for awhile, EXACTLY like they did in Loving

...While thousands of people suffered pointlessly and were deprived of their civil rights and dignity for no reason whatsoever for years and years. I hardly find such restraint praiseworthy. I've been shocked to read it so consistently in references to Loving in this context. I've even read people saying, without blinking, that Plessy was likewise a good decision.

Surely, a decision striking down interracial marriage bans would have been wise and correct, even if every state in the union approved of them. Judges should not base their decision on what will be popular, but what the Constitution's mandates for equal protection demand.

Besides, the unusual, non-partisan split of justices makes me think that there were actually legitimate issues about standing in the Prop 8 case. It was not simply a matter of punting because the justices had some personal opinion about "when the time is right."

by Anonymousreply 37206/26/2013

Why lol, r370? More than half the US lives in non-marriage states, as did all Californians til about 15 minutes ago. We're wondering how this will affect us. If that's funny for some reason, fuck off.

by Anonymousreply 37306/26/2013

Yep R371. David Boies just said that the language in the DOMA ruling indicates that when that case finally makes its way to the Court, marriage equality will become the law of the land.

And apparently Scalia said as much while reading his dissent.

by Anonymousreply 37406/26/2013

BIG warning for anyone who thinks Kennedy is our friend...

Read his dissent in Perry. He was clearly willing to defer to "the people" of California...

This Court was not ready.

by Anonymousreply 37506/26/2013

[quote] He was clearly willing to defer to "the people" of California...

I haven't read the decision yet, but I'm almost certain he means he was willing to defer to them in the sense that they could defend their own voter-initiatives in federal court. He certainly didn't mean imho that whatever people vote for, no matter what, it's automatically constitutional and he'll defer to it because "they're the people."

by Anonymousreply 37606/26/2013

I am hugely upset that Ginsburg and Kagan were in the MAJORITY in the Prop 8 decision -- and, even more weirdly, Thomas and Alito were in the minority! Fucking bizarre...

by Anonymousreply 37706/26/2013

Diane Rehm's next hour is going to cover this.

by Anonymousreply 37806/26/2013

imho it implies there were real legal issues about standing that went beyond partisanship or opinions on same-sex marriage, r377

by Anonymousreply 37906/26/2013

r377 Weird indeed.

by Anonymousreply 38006/26/2013

There are always calculations in the votes for these big cases. For years John Paul Stevens was a master at this game, and used his seniority to great advantage for liberal causes.

If three liberals voted to dismiss the case, it makes me wonder if they knew it would be a blow to gay rights had the Court actually decided it. It's troubling, but I'm trying to enjoy this moment.

by Anonymousreply 38106/26/2013

[quote] I am hugely upset that Ginsburg and Kagan were in the MAJORITY in the Prop 8 decision -- and, even more weirdly, Thomas and Alito were in the minority! Fucking bizarre...

Why are you upset that they voted to dismiss it on standing???

by Anonymousreply 38206/26/2013

Anyone checked in on our friends at Fox News? I'm trying not to kill my mood, but I'd love to watch them implode.

by Anonymousreply 38306/26/2013

Yes, FOX News. Someone have a look, will you?

by Anonymousreply 38406/26/2013

[quote] it makes me wonder if they knew it would be a blow to gay rights had the Court actually decided it

I don't think so. With the new standard of review used for the DOMA case, it's almost impossible for state bans to withstand judicial scrutiny imho. If they'd reached the merits of Perry, Prop 8 almost certainly would have fallen.

I believe there were genuine legal questions related to standing that the justices were ruling on. Or it's also possible they just felt they weren't ready to rule one way or the other on the merits of the Prop 8 case, I suppose.

Either way, I don't quite buy the scenario you describe, however.

But in the end: who knows?

by Anonymousreply 38506/26/2013

HOLY SHIT! President Obama just called. MSNBC is catching it live!

by Anonymousreply 38606/26/2013

[quote]Edie Windsor is our Mildred Loving.

My cousin {shout out}!!

by Anonymousreply 38706/26/2013

Where is it, R386????

by Anonymousreply 38806/26/2013

This is almost surreal. Our former president ran a reelection campaign almost completely concerned with denying gay rights. Now we have a president who calls to congratulate gay couples at the Supreme Court.

by Anonymousreply 38906/26/2013

Yet some people insist Obama has "done nothing."

That's what's surreal. Talk about irrational hatred.

by Anonymousreply 39006/26/2013

r390 That is true. But we shouldn't give cookies to people for being decent. Especially since he opportunistically pretended he was against gay marriage for political purposes initially.

by Anonymousreply 39106/26/2013

How cool, R387! Was she really? What a great woman.

by Anonymousreply 39206/26/2013

We can and do give "cookies" for people who stuck their necks out, one way or another, sooner or later. We sure as hell do.

by Anonymousreply 39306/26/2013

MSNBC is just openly celebrating lol. Not even giving voice to detractors. They've given coverage to Thomas Roberts and Rachel Maddow, who can't contain their giddiness.

by Anonymousreply 39406/26/2013

Thanks, R392. Yes she was.

by Anonymousreply 39506/26/2013

r394 lol

by Anonymousreply 39606/26/2013

Is R394 complaining?

by Anonymousreply 39706/26/2013

No, enjoying it. CNN would invite on Tony Perkins to be "fair."

by Anonymousreply 39806/26/2013

[quote] stuck their necks out, one way or another,

They can (and do) pat themselves on the back often enough.

Meanwhile, these cases are actually undoing persecutory legislation. Don't forget that fact. The constant applause for people finally waking up to the fact that they have to stop attacking gays should be enough to satisfy their need for approval. They really don't need folks like me and r391 to add to the din, if our feelings are a bit more mixed and complicated.

by Anonymousreply 39906/26/2013

[quote]Why are you upset that they voted to dismiss it on standing???

Because it's bullshit grounds for dismissing the case, as evidenced by the fact that both the majority and dissent used the *same* cases to bolster their arguments.

[quote]Our former president ran a reelection campaign almost completely concerned with denying gay rights.

You are either a persecution-complex queen or completely insane. He signed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act into law in 2010; signed an executive order demanding the repeal of DADT at the end of 2010; declared DOMA unconstitutional in February 2011; announced his support for Edith Windsor's case in August 2011; fully implemented the repeal of DADT in September; and announced his unqualified support for gay marriage in May 2012, IN THE MIDDLE OF HIS CAMPAIGN.

by Anonymousreply 40006/26/2013

FORMER President, R400. Former.

by Anonymousreply 40106/26/2013

D'oh! Sorry.

by Anonymousreply 40206/26/2013

I am in love with Edie.

by Anonymousreply 40306/26/2013

I'm not married, never have been married, will never get married, but I'm overwhelmed and relieved at today's results! Congratulations to all! Now on to the rest of the 37 states!

by Anonymousreply 40406/26/2013

Hey, Equality IL: hold their feet to the fire when Pat Quinn calls them back for a special session to deal with the pension issue.

by Anonymousreply 40506/26/2013

So basically it's still up to individual states. Like it was before the rulings. Meh.

by Anonymousreply 40606/26/2013


by Anonymousreply 40706/26/2013

[quote]So basically it's still up to individual states. Like it was before the rulings. Meh

Two things:

1. Same-sex couples in California can now marry again.

2. Legally-married same-sex couples now have access to the more than 1000 rights, privileges, and responsibilities mandated by the Federal government.

Neither of these are "meh" issues.

by Anonymousreply 40806/26/2013

Oh the irony, R407.

by Anonymousreply 40906/26/2013

[quote] So basically it's still up to individual states. Like it was before the rulings. Meh.

All it will take is one lawsuit filed using the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment and that will all change.

by Anonymousreply 41006/26/2013

Some people here aren't aware of California having long been a trendsetter for the rest of the nation.

by Anonymousreply 41106/26/2013

[quote]They really don't need folks like me and [R391] to add to the din, if our feelings are a bit more mixed and complicated.

You're right. No one needs you. You don't contribute a thing. You're not fair; you don't give credit where it is due. So right, shut up already.

by Anonymousreply 41206/26/2013

oh shut up, 412. Everyone needing to feel exactly the same as you do about the issue is middle-class bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 41306/26/2013

Well said, r413. Thank you.

Though I don't know what class has to do with it. There are pushy obnoxious dolts in every socio-economic class, I've found.

by Anonymousreply 41406/26/2013

The quote was straight from the whiner's post.


by Anonymousreply 41506/26/2013

Boehner is still pushing for marriage to be defined as being between one man and one woman.

by Anonymousreply 41606/26/2013

Glad R414 is still posting ... so I can say I was right across the board.

The standard of scrutiny used in Windsor is no different from Romer. It is the lowest level of scrutiny, not heightened scrutiny, and it is not at all unclear that the outcome would have been the same in Perry.

Kennedy did exactly what I said -- he invoked states traditional powers repeatedly and then decided the case not on those grounds but on the Fifth Amendment, and he did so because of the disadvantages applied across the board.

In Perry, Kennedy returned repeatedly to the rights of the states and the Prop 8 reps to bring the case to court. Despite the inequality of DPs, the actual benefits lost under state law were minimal -- the disparities were federal. And it's clear to me that Kennedy considered that referendum potentially the state vote that counted.

In Romer, Kennedy objected to Colorado's Amendment 2 and denied rights across the board -- that's not Prop 8. It grants almost all the rights of marriage but not under the name, and now that DOMA has dead, had its greatest weakness as to whether the federal government would consider it the equivalent of marriage (doubtful without legislation). The inequities therefore are mostly federal, still.

In short, all of this confirms that Kennedy probably did vote for cert to defend marriage on a state-by-state basis, at least until we're in a Loving like universe when the country gets it.

His rhetoric that this is a new concept to citizens is utterly offensive.

The results are worth celebrating, but they give a lot of pause for thought.

by Anonymousreply 41706/26/2013

I still don't see anything in that theory to identify as a good reason to come here and crap all over everyone on a happy, historic day, r417.

If the scenario you describe IS true, then you should be especially happy with the outcome because we dodged a bullet by having the Perry case ruled on standing. And again, even if the future scenario you describe is true, that these decisions are a ticking time bomb which make it impossible to ever challenge state bans for all time [eyeroll], we STILL won equality in California and at the federal level for equality states, which is STILL a huge victory for us to celebrate.

Yeesh, some people just ALWAYS have to be the voice of gloom and doom!

If this is what you truly believe, why not get to work and go to Lambda Legal right away and see if there's some way you can contribute or help the cause of gay rights? Would that not be a more productive way to deal with your concerns than just coming here to seethe at anonymous posters who view this outcome more hopefully?

by Anonymousreply 41806/26/2013

First of all, R418, who says I'm crapping all over "everyone".

Did you not read me write where I said this is "WORTH CELEBRATING"?

My objection is to you pouncing on people who are rightly discussing what's to come next, calling names, because you claim you are seeing things positively but actually are wrong on the law, repeatedly.

And for the record, I worked for the ACLU, fundraise for Lambda, and am more than willing to put my activism to the test.

If you read what Lambda said when the Prop 8 case started, and what Lambda has written since, you'd see that I'm right, and not out of line in calling you out.

So why don't you stop telling everyone that everything will be over in a few years "IYHO".

I am celebrating, and reminding people to keep fighting.

What else have you got?

by Anonymousreply 41906/26/2013

And I actually don't agree with your scenario at all btw, but I can't be bothered to go through it point by point.

My main point: Get happy or get thee to Lambda Legal. Cheers.

by Anonymousreply 42006/26/2013

Of course you don't agree, R420, because it's clear from your posts you'd fail law school.

I'm plenty happy, thanks, and celebrating with my friends from Lambda.

by Anonymousreply 42106/26/2013

[quote]reminding people to keep fighting.

Thanks for the mother-henning, but I think most everyone has this one down.

[quote] I worked for the ACLU, fundraise for Lambda, and am more than willing to put my activism to the test.

Yeah. Everyone's this generation's biggest activist online.

by Anonymousreply 42206/26/2013

[quote]My objection is to you pouncing on people who are rightly discussing what's to come next, calling names, because you claim you are seeing things positively but actually are wrong on the law, repeatedly.

They'll never learn. They're our very own hysterical housewives.

by Anonymousreply 42306/26/2013

Grow up R422, the only person who could think anything I wrote was "mother henning" was someone with the brain of a child.

All I did was discuss the case, and because one clever DLer pulled out the cunt word because his fantasy about the law was challenged, I wrote back, and explained I believe we have a point in this discussion that the fight isn't over. I said that ONCE.

And I didn't say I was the biggest activist, just that I was one of many.

Are you?

by Anonymousreply 42406/26/2013

You brats stop bickering!

by Anonymousreply 42506/26/2013

[quote]I am hugely upset that Ginsburg and Kagan were in the MAJORITY in the Prop 8 decision

Some of you professional Casandras would find a way to shit on anything.

by Anonymousreply 42606/26/2013

Troll-dar R421 and you can see practically see the flip of the caftan and and hear the Judy Garland records playing in the background.

Now if only she'd OD, on tape, drunk and drugged and swearing like an overweight washed up film star...

by Anonymousreply 42706/26/2013

Has there been any comment from Congressional cockgobbler Aaron Schock (R-Closet) in regard to the DOMA decision?

by Anonymousreply 42806/26/2013

Speaking of Lambda, check out their FAQ for all post-DOMA(3) issues...

by Anonymousreply 42906/26/2013

Damn it, I read this post first think this morning and spent the entire day putting together my riot outfit.

by Anonymousreply 43006/26/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!