Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

The Really Swell News Thread

OSJ

By OSJ
in LAND OF CONFUSION

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
Matt D

Matt D

Posted
Posted

Promoted up another notch on the bureaucratic later. The cool thing about this one isn't the addition of the word "senior" to my admittedly meager title. It's that it's two promotions, two years in a row, which is just not done in this institution. This one was a big surprise. I wasn't expecting it for another 3-4 years due to the way that Time In Grade used to work around here.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Big Fresh

Big Fresh

Posted
Posted

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gay-marriage-and-other-major-rulings-at-the-supreme-court/2015/06/25/ef75a120-1b6d-11e5-bd7f-4611a60dd8e5_story.html

This part confuses me: "Couples may now marry in 37 states and the District of Columbia."

I thought this was supposed to make it all 50?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raziel

Raziel

Posted
Posted

No, what it does is requires all 50 states to recognize the legality of a marriage that took place in one of those 37 states.  The state itself doesn't have to perform or licence the marriage, but if it took place in a state that *does* issue the licence, a state that doesn't needs to recognize it.  I forget the exact clause it sites, but its in the decision somewhere.

 

EDIT: Quick glance sites the 14th.  Also clearly states that the 1st keeps it so religious institutions don't have to officiate if they don't want to, so "Attack on Religious Liberties" can go suck an egg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dolfan in NYC

Dolfan in NYC

Posted
Posted

Moreover, they state legislatures cannot create new laws prohibiting SSM under the Equal Protection clause. 

 

Also, this will probably be the only time I link to Fox News, but the comments are literally coming so fast, they are unreadable.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/26/supreme-court-same-sex-couples-can-marry-in-all-50-states/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chaos

Chaos

Posted
Posted

No, what it does is requires all 50 states to recognize the legality of a marriage that took place in one of those 37 states.  The state itself doesn't have to perform or licence the marriage, but if it took place in a state that *does* issue the licence, a state that doesn't needs to recognize it.  I forget the exact clause it sites, but its in the decision somewhere.

 

EDIT: Quick glance sites the 14th.  Also clearly states that the 1st keeps it so religious institutions don't have to officiate if they don't want to, so "Attack on Religious Liberties" can go suck an egg.

 

I support the ruling, but I am not sure that the 14th Amendment is really something that should apply to "marriage equality." I find it odd that SCOTUS would cite it for an interpretation, but this has been an odd SCOTUS in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cristobal

Cristobal

Posted
Posted

No, what it does is requires all 50 states to recognize the legality of a marriage that took place in one of those 37 states.  The state itself doesn't have to perform or licence the marriage, but if it took place in a state that *does* issue the licence, a state that doesn't needs to recognize it.  I forget the exact clause it sites, but its in the decision somewhere.

 

EDIT: Quick glance sites the 14th.  Also clearly states that the 1st keeps it so religious institutions don't have to officiate if they don't want to, so "Attack on Religious Liberties" can go suck an egg.

 

I support the ruling, but I am not sure that the 14th Amendment is really something that should apply to "marriage equality." I find it odd that SCOTUS would cite it for an interpretation, but this has been an odd SCOTUS in general.

Here's the relevant portion from the Fourteenth:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Emphasis added. Basically, if the state and federal governments are going to have laws and regulations that relate to a person's marital status, they have to allow all citizens the right to marry.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dolfan in NYC

Dolfan in NYC

Posted
Posted

 

No, what it does is requires all 50 states to recognize the legality of a marriage that took place in one of those 37 states.  The state itself doesn't have to perform or licence the marriage, but if it took place in a state that *does* issue the licence, a state that doesn't needs to recognize it.  I forget the exact clause it sites, but its in the decision somewhere.

 

EDIT: Quick glance sites the 14th.  Also clearly states that the 1st keeps it so religious institutions don't have to officiate if they don't want to, so "Attack on Religious Liberties" can go suck an egg.

 

I support the ruling, but I am not sure that the 14th Amendment is really something that should apply to "marriage equality." I find it odd that SCOTUS would cite it for an interpretation, but this has been an odd SCOTUS in general.

 

From the opinion: 

It is now clear that the challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and it must be further acknowledged that they abridge central precepts of equality . . . Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry works a grave and continuing harm. The imposition of this disability on gays and lesbians serves to disrespect and subordinate them. And the Equal Protection Clause, like the Due Process Clause, prohibits this unjustified infringement of the fundamental right to marry.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raziel

Raziel

Posted
Posted

Yeah, Equal Protection clause, which is what they used to uphold The California Supreme Court's Overturning of Prop 8 and Overturn DOMA Federally, so Presidence was already there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Technico Support

Technico Support

Posted
Posted

Moreover, they state legislatures cannot create new laws prohibiting SSM under the Equal Protection clause. 

 

Also, this will probably be the only time I link to Fox News, but the comments are literally coming so fast, they are unreadable.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/26/supreme-court-same-sex-couples-can-marry-in-all-50-states/

 

The tears are fucking delicious.

 

"next up,,, pedophiles will be allowed to adopt children thanks to Obama"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Casey

Casey

Posted
Posted

My favorite part of all of this has been the massive butthurt from all the conservatives on my FB and Twitter feeds.

Yeah, definitely. Living in the heart of the Bible Belt does my feed no favors, either. I just saw a picture re-posted by a high school "friend" that was the Confederate and LBGT flags side-by-side, and the text reading: "If you have a problem with this flag (Confederate) and not this one (LBGT), your apart of the problem."

 

I'm just going to let this one go, and just enjoy one of the rare times when my government actually does something I agree with, believe in and can put my full support behind.

 

Now, let's get started on decriminalizing marijuana.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pete

Pete

Posted
Posted

My favorite part of all of this has been the massive butthurt from all the conservatives on my FB and Twitter feeds.

 

If nothing else, this and the whole Confederate flag kerfuffle has made it a whole lot easier for folks to do a spring cleaning on their FB feeds and the like.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...