(Post a new comment)

	jennandanica 2012-05-31 06:56 pm UTC (link)
	Neither link is working for me :( (Reply to this)(Thread)

	platedlizard 2012-05-31 06:58 pm UTC (link)
	...how did i do that? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	jennandanica 2012-05-31 07:03 pm UTC (link)
	I think there's a problem with your <a href's as each link is showing an extra </a at the end - did you not close with quotation marks? or close the </a with another bracket. Not really sure. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	platedlizard 2012-05-31 07:07 pm UTC (link)
	I had an extra </a> in there. Somehow. I think I'm going to make myself a big pot of coffee. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	quantumreality 2012-05-31 07:56 pm UTC (link)
	Awesomecakes. Provisionally. :P (Reply to this)(Thread)

	platedlizard 2012-05-31 08:20 pm UTC (link)
	I hope it's a sign of how the courts in general rule, since apparently you cannot trust the voting public to do the right thing. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	pantyless_angel 2012-05-31 09:22 pm UTC (link)
	Has the voting public ever done the right thing as far as minority rights are concerned? Honest question, as far as I can remember the voting majority has always been a spoiled brat, who never wants to share its toys. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

platedlizard
2012-05-31 09:53 pm UTC (link)

I can't remember. The closest I can think of was women's and other minorities suffrage, which was put into place by the 19th amendment. The amendment had to be ratified by the states so there was some kind of vote, I think. Certainly nothing more recent. As far as I know every state that has marriage equality got it through their legislature.

aaand holy crap, N. and S. Carolina didn't ratify it until 1971 and 1969 respectively o.O

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

wonapalei
2012-05-31 10:17 pm UTC (link)

Technically, Massachusetts got same-sex marriage through a court decision (Goodridge v. Department of Public Health) that denying same-sex couples the right to marry was unconstitutional. In order to amend the state constitution, a constitutional convention (basically, the legislature) had to vote in two separate consecutive conventions (i.e., in two consecutive years) to put the measure on the ballot; then the voters would have had the final say. The measure was narrowly approved in the first session but not the second, and since then there has been ever-waning support for the amendment.

Still, the point regarding the majority of the voting public not granting minority rights stands. That's kind of the whole damn point of having the judicial branch in the first place: so that we can have cases like Brown v. Board of Education and Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

undomielregina
2012-05-31 11:17 pm UTC (link)

There's also New York, where the marriage equality act passed in the Republican-controlled state senate, which should make it pretty safe from repeal. Since that was a vote of elected representatives, I think it counts.

But yeah, in general, American legislatures are explicitly deigned to favor the interests of the majority, with the judicial branch there to chivy them on minority rights.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	miera_c 2012-06-01 03:18 am UTC (link)
	I think this decision opens the door for the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to review the law, and that's the main result? I suspect it will go that far, given that the Republicans in Congress are funneling money into defending DOMA that Obama ordered the government not to defend. sigh What SCOTUS will do or decide I have no idea. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	platedlizard 2012-06-01 04:06 am UTC (link)
	Yeah, that's how it looks like it could go. Unless SCOTUS is perfectly happy with the current ruling, but I bet they'll want to get a look at the case themselves since it's such a big one. I guess we'll see. Apparently the Prop 8 case is scheduled for later this year as well. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

mmanurere
2012-06-01 05:56 am UTC (link)

There are four SCOTUS judges who will push for "mostly equal", and there are four who will consider how severely they can limit LGBT rights in the future by making as broad a ruling as possible. These two sides will both try to offer Kennedy a "compromise" that he can support. I'm expecting a formal resurrection of "separate but equal" along the lines of what the California Supreme Court gave us in upholding Prop 8 (the details are different in that it was a constitutional amendment in CA, but the likely rationalization will be the same -- "separate status is OK as long as all of the same rights are attached", though the SCOTUS is more likely to change "all" to "a token handful" if they don't go full-on heterosexual-supremacist).

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	platedlizard 2012-06-01 06:10 am UTC (link)
	Yeah, I bet you're right. Although hasn't Kennedy ruled in favor of LBGT issues? So, who knows. The anti-Prop 8 lawyers are actually the same guys who won Citizen's United, which gives me hope that they might get a good ruling on that (even though Citizen's United sucked, UGG SUPERPACS) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	quantumreality 2012-06-01 03:11 pm UTC (link)
	What I'm wondering is how on earth DOMA was even considered constitutional, considering that states are usually required to extend 'full faith and credit' to other states' basic-life documentation i.e. birth certificates, drivers' licences, marriage certificates, and so on. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	platedlizard 2012-06-01 03:56 pm UTC (link)
	because gays are bad and furthermore There is no explanation. (Reply to this)(Parent)

varkias
2012-06-01 05:22 pm UTC (link)

Because the religious right, mainly - though it was as much political as it was ideological, Ted Kennedy apparently called it the 'Endangered Republican Candidates Act', motivated by election reasons. The sad thing it was passed by an overwhelming majority in both House and Senate, both Republican controlled at the time - unanimously by Republicans but with a very large majority of Democrats, too.

Clinton signed it and was also on the record as being in support of marriage being defined as such, despite saying that raising the issue in that way was divisive and unnecessary. Being introduced only four months before November elections, there was very little time for any kind of protest or lobbying against it to gain momentum; it was clearly designed to ignite the Republican base just in time for them. Everyone (nearly) wanted it pushed through as quickly as possible so that Republicans could run on it and Democratic candidates wouldn't have to address it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

uldihaa
2012-06-02 12:05 am UTC (link)

Because politicians convinced themselves it was constitutional. And they believed that because they wanted it to be constitutional, so they could justify their bigotry to themselves. The whole thing reeks of 'Ew Gay', but they couldn't come right out and say that.

And it took so long to challenge because no one wanted to stick their neck out (politically or professionally) and take it as far as necessary.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	twoiskewl 2012-06-03 03:11 am UTC (link)
	the actual legal argument I've heard is that being married is a status whereas full faith and credit applies to decisions. IANAL though and couldn't tell you if that argument has any actual merit. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	quantumreality 2012-06-03 03:44 am UTC (link)
	That sounds like a total weasel-wordy attempt to create legal discrimination if I ever heard one. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	twoiskewl 2012-06-03 02:36 pm UTC (link)
	the interpretation of laws is pretty much built on the idea of weasel words so that doesn't surprise me (Reply to this)(Parent)

	windex_junkie 2012-06-08 03:21 pm UTC (link)
	Don't underestimate how much anti-gay states want to fuck over the ebil, ebil queers. I'm thinking of a specific case where a Louisiana-born child was denied a new birth certificate because the adoptive parents were gay. The whole political apparatus went into hysterical shrieking BURN THE WITCHES panic mode and dug in their heels in symbolic opposition. (Reply to this)(Parent)