Marriage is Totally Gay

[fyodor]

From a legal standpoint, is there any reason that gay marriage should be a settled legal issue but Roe not?










Didn't think so.

[Warren]

From a legal standpoint, is there any reason that gay marriage should be a settled legal issue but Roe not?










Didn't think so.

IANAL but to my mind there certainly is.
For one thing Hodges is only a year old. The SCOTUS isn't going to overturn something they just ruled on. The Court is super cereal about that. Roe OTOH is over forty years old and due to be revisited sometime in the next couple of decades.
Further, Hodges rests upon the constitutionally enumerated equal protection clause, while Roe rests upon an ethereal right to privacy detected in the aroma of the constitutional vapors. Yet still, it is in conflict with the due process clause in so far as the unborn citizen is being deprived of life.

[Rachel]

Plus Roe is just really poorly written. It's not good law. It never has been.

[Mo]

it is in conflict with the due process clause in so far as the unborn citizen is being deprived of life.

That's stealing a base

[Warren]

it is in conflict with the due process clause in so far as the unborn citizen is being deprived of life.

That's stealing a base

It is, but there are sitting lawyers and judges even that are of that mind.

[D.A. Ridgely]

it is in conflict with the due process clause in so far as the unborn citizen is being deprived of life.

That's stealing a base

It is, but there are sitting lawyers and judges even that are of that mind.

I know I'm going to regret asking this but, aside from me at the moment, what is a sitting lawyer?

[Warren]

it is in conflict with the due process clause in so far as the unborn citizen is being deprived of life.

That's stealing a base

It is, but there are sitting lawyers and judges even that are of that mind.

I know I'm going to regret asking this but, aside from me at the moment, what is a sitting lawyer?

It's a manifestation of late night editing.

[D.A. Ridgely]

it is in conflict with the due process clause in so far as the unborn citizen is being deprived of life.

That's stealing a base

It is, but there are sitting lawyers and judges even that are of that mind.

I know I'm going to regret asking this but, aside from me at the moment, what is a sitting lawyer?

It's a manifestation of late night editing.

Fair enough. Been there, done that.

[fyodor]

From a legal standpoint, is there any reason that gay marriage should be a settled legal issue but Roe not?










Didn't think so.

IANAL but to my mind there certainly is.
For one thing Hodges is only a year old. The SCOTUS isn't going to overturn something they just ruled on. The Court is super cereal about that. Roe OTOH is over forty years old and due to be revisited sometime in the next couple of decades.
Further, Hodges rests upon the constitutionally enumerated equal protection clause, while Roe rests upon an ethereal right to privacy detected in the aroma of the constitutional vapors. Yet still, it is in conflict with the due process clause in so far as the unborn citizen is being deprived of life.

Perhaps. All that seems far more nuanced than what Trump seemed to be saying, but, eh, maybe that's what he really meant.

[Jennifer]

Regarding the idea "Don't worry about the Supreme Court; it won't overturn Obergefell or Roe because the court traditionally defers to earlier versions of itself" -- what if Trumpence court appointees show the same disregard for tradition as Trump himself?

"A man who insults the patriotism of a gold star family will never get elected." "Nor would a man who insults an American POW solely for having been captured." "Or one caught on videotape bragging of being a sexual predator." "Or one who sneers that a woman who annoyed him must've been menstruating at the time." "And definitely not a man who insults a reporter for having a physical disability." "Or one who says that a federal judge's non-white ancestry makes him inherently untrustworthy." "Besides, even if such a man were somehow elected, the other members of his own party would pitch a fit if he tried naming an open white supremacist as his chief strategist."

Every sentence in that last paragraph would've been considered self-evident conventional wisdom only a year or so ago. Every one has since been proven false. I don't know how much more of the old conventional wisdom still applies.

[nicole]

Plus Roe is just really poorly written. It's not good law. It never has been.

Neither is Obergefell.

[Hugh Akston]

Regarding the idea "Don't worry about the Supreme Court; it won't overturn Obergefell or Roe because the court traditionally defers to earlier versions of itself" -- what if Trumpence court appointees show the same disregard for tradition as Trump himself?

Which of the people on Trump's shortlist of candidates do you think is likely to do that?

[Kolohe]

it is in conflict with the due process clause in so far as the unborn citizen is being deprived of life.

That's stealing a base

It is, but there are sitting lawyers and judges even that are of that mind.

I know I'm going to regret asking this but, aside from me at the moment, what is a sitting lawyer?

Those that lack standing, duh.

[Jake]

I know I'm going to regret asking this but, aside from me at the moment, what is a sitting lawyer?

Those that lack standing, duh.

[nicole]

https://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/ ... .jrzVKqj5j

tl;dr Christian legal defense firm now pursuing a preemptive strategy of helping business owners sue states before they get sued by gay couples

[Mo]

https://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/ ... .jrzVKqj5j

tl;dr Christian legal defense firm now pursuing a preemptive strategy of helping business owners sue states before they get sued by gay couples

Uh, how does this not get thrown out? There's no harm here to sue over.

[Jennifer]

A video production company is attempting a similar suit.

The husband-and-wife owners of a Christian video and film production company, whose goal is to "glorify God through top-quality media production," have filed a federal lawsuit challenging a Minnesota law requiring them to provide services for same-sex weddings.

[Aresen]

I could totally enjoy running a hoax advocacy group saying that every couple should be required to participate in a training course involving a variety of sex acts - gay, troilism, bdsm, etc - before a marriage license could be issued.

Most people would recognize it for a hoax, but I am willing to bet that at least a few Christian Conservatives would fall for it.

[Warren]

I could totally enjoy running a hoax advocacy group saying that every couple should be required to participate in a training course involving a variety of sex acts - gay, troilism, bdsm, etc - before a marriage license could be issued.

Most people would recognize it for a hoax, but I am willing to bet that at least a few Christian Conservatives would fall for it.

No you fool! You will attract "people" that want to join your group in earnest. They will mutiny against you and it will no longer be a hoax.

[Aresen]

I could totally enjoy running a hoax advocacy group saying that every couple should be required to participate in a training course involving a variety of sex acts - gay, troilism, bdsm, etc - before a marriage license could be issued.

Most people would recognize it for a hoax, but I am willing to bet that at least a few Christian Conservatives would fall for it.

No you fool! You will attract "people" that want to join your group in earnest. They will mutiny against you and it will no longer be a hoax.

I'd gerrymander the election process. (See the Electoral College thread.) Plus I'd up the ante: Put the course in schools as an option to gym class.

[the innominate one]

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/16/u ... riage.html

Maybe I'm just high on goofballs, but I have very little sympathy for the gay couple and a lot for the nutty Christian baker.

[thoreau]

The preferred libertarian approach to free association is not on the table in American law and policy. Accepting that, I still would like it if it were possible to carve out a space for his artistic expression, one that accepts current norms against discrimination but leaves room for the guy who wants to be selective about something so creative. It's one thing to say anyone can buy a cake from the display case and another thing to say anyone can get him to do a custom cake.

Thing is, I don't know if it's possible to carve out that exception while still leaving in place bars against most discrimination. So I don't have any opinion to offer on how the courts will have to rule here. But, yeah, I feel sympathy for the guy.

[Highway]

Yeah, it feels like a situation where this is not restitution, it's revenge. "He made us feel bad, so we'll show him." The law is a really heavy cudgel in this kind of situation. I'm pretty much with you, thoreau, in that it's almost like I don't want discrimination in normal service, but that it starts getting to squicky forcing when it's something that you have to commission.

Plus, then you get into a realm of what is satisfactory service. What if he takes the work, but intentionally does a shitty job on their cake? Is that unlawful discrimination? What if it's not shitty, but not as good as expected? Is there a line between where it's unlawful discrimination, and where it's 'just' "not caring"?

[Warren]

There should be an acknowledgement of imposition. What did they suffer for his refusal? Were they not able to get a cake anywhere else? Did they even try?
It should be a civil matter not a criminal one. Show damages.

[Dangerman]

Is a photographer obligated to take photos of an orgy?