General Gay Marriage Issues Thread

[Borgholio]

And...looks like marriage licenses ARE being issued despite the State Judge's illegal order.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /23107997/

[Borgholio]

Kansas governor revokes discrimination protection for LGBT state employees.

http://www.kwch.com/news/local-news/kan ... s/31198596

Oh Kansas...trying to race Alabama to the bottom of the septic tank, I see.

[FaxModem1]

Statesman

Chuck LindellChuck Lindell
American-Statesman Staff
Travis County clerk issues first legal gay marriage license in Texas
10:44 a.m. Thursday, Feb. 19, 2015 | Filed in: News
COMMENTS 26


MyStatesman

Get complete, in-depth analysis and more with our interactives
Access to MyStatesman included for Statesman subscribers.
EXPLORE

Two Austin women were legally married Thursday morning after a Travis County judge ordered the county clerk to issue a marriage license.

Sarah Goodfriend and Suzanne Bryant, together almost 31 years, said their vows before Rabbi Kerry Baker while standing in front of the Travis County Clerk’s Office sign on Airport Boulevard.

The couple was denied a license in the same office building eight years ago.

But on Thursday morning, state District Judge David Wahlberg, petitioned by a lawyer for Goodfriend and Bryant, ordered Travis County Clerk Dana DeBeauvoir to grant the couple a marriage license.

The ceremony was a mix of personal – with friends and their teenage daughters, Dawn and Ting, standing nearby – and public statement, with photos of their vows in front of the county sign.

“It’s very exciting,” Bryant said before the wedding. “My little one was worried about missing her history class. I said we’ll be making history.”

After the ceremony, the couple went back inside the county office to formally register their marriage.

In their petition to Wahlberg, the couple said the inability to obtain a marriage license was causing them irreparable harm, particularly because Goodfriend has been diagnosed and treated for ovarian cancer.

Saying they had no adequate legal remedy to enforce their right to marry, the couple asked Wahlberg to issue a restraining order directing DeBeauvoir to issue a marriage license and waive the 72-hour waiting period.

At 9:25 a.m., Wahlberg’s order arrived at the county clerk’s office. Bryant and Goodfriend immediately filled out the paperwork and quickly walked to the site of their vows.

“Given the urgency and other circumstances in this case,” Wahlberg’s order said, “and the ongoing violation of plaintiffs’ rights, the court has concluded that good cause exists” to move forward with the marriage.

The county clerk’s office emphasizes that it is not issuing additional marriage licenses to same-sex couples but was only complying with the court order.

Shellie Shores and Rosemary Wages arrived at the county offices Thursday morning hoping to get their own marriage license after seeing the news of the wedding on social media, only to be denied.

“We were like, this may be it,” Shores said. “We’ve been together over 20 years, and this is the state where we grew up and live, and we want to be legally married here.”

“I’m disappointed we couldn’t get it, but everyone was very nice,” Wages said.

So, everybody, add Texas to the map. It's official, the gays can marry in Texas.

[The Romulan Republic]

How many states is that?

[Elheru Aran]

How many states is that?

I want to say maybe 30-something? That's stuck in my head for some reason and could well be something else... Alyrium or Crossroads probably know better.

Mind you, there's a *big* difference between it being legal and it being socially permissible. That's why Texas basically closed the gate very quickly after this lesbian couple got married-- they played it up as a humanitarian gesture (one of the women has cancer) and indicated that they won't permit any further gay marriage, IIRC.

[The Romulan Republic]

Somehow I doubt the courts will give them any say in that.

[Alyrium Denryle]

How many states is that?

I want to say maybe 30-something? That's stuck in my head for some reason and could well be something else... Alyrium or Crossroads probably know better.

Mind you, there's a *big* difference between it being legal and it being socially permissible. That's why Texas basically closed the gate very quickly after this lesbian couple got married-- they played it up as a humanitarian gesture (one of the women has cancer) and indicated that they won't permit any further gay marriage, IIRC.

37, plus the District of Columbia.

[Borgholio]

Make that 38. Nebraska has gone rainbow!

http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/Judg ... =phone&c=y

[Civil War Man]

Just to show you how desperate the opponents are getting

Steve King (R-Iowa) proposes legislature that would block Federal courts (including SCOTUS) from hearing cases concerning same-sex marriage

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments next week for and against bans on same-sex marriage, and many are hopeful that it will eventually rule in favor of expanding marriage equality.

So what are social conservatives to do to stop it? According to Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), they can block the Supreme Court from considering it at all.

King unveiled a bill on Wednesday that would bar federal courts from hearing any cases related to the definition of marriage.

"We could pass this bill before the Supreme Court could even hear the oral arguments, let alone bring a decision down in June," he said at a press conference. "That would stop it right then, there would be no decision coming out of the Supreme Court. This is a brake, and whether we can get the brake on or not between now and June, that we don't know."

The bill doesn't stand much of a chance -- even if it got through the House and Senate, it would almost certainly be vetoed by President Barack Obama. Still, it indicates the degree to which social conservatives are willing to go to maintain bans on same-sex marriage even if the nation's highest court rules they are unconstitutional.

King and other conservatives are outraged that federal courts have ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in states with laws against them, arguing that judges are usurping the will of the people. Courts have ruled that those states are violating the Constitution in denying same-sex couples the right to marry. King's home state of Iowa was the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage after an Iowa Supreme Court decision in 2009.

King said his bill would be constitutional because Congress has the ability to tell courts what they can consider, even if it can't dictate how they rule.

"This Congress can tell the courts not what to decide, but we can tell them what they can't consider and what they can't decide and what money can't be spent," he said.

Other conservatives are urging their colleagues to keep up the fight on the issue. Earlier in the day, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), another opponent of same-sex marriage, said conservatives need to keep speaking out in support of marriage between a man and a woman, and to consult with legal scholars on next steps if the Supreme Court rules against them.

"We should be in the business of saying marriage should be what it's always been," Jordan told The Huffington Post. "Just continue to make the argument."

Conservatives should push harder for a federal amendment banning same-sex marriage, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) said separately. He predicted that a Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage would outrage Americans who believe such decisions should be made by voters.

"The issue won't go away," he told HuffPost. "In 1973 they thought the Roe v. Wade decision would be all over. It's not going to happen. It's going to continue."

Huelskamp said he has one frustration with some of his fellow Republicans.

"What I see far too often up here now is just this fear to even talk about it," he said.

On the campaign trail for the 2016 Republican nomination, candidates have been forced to talk about the issue, and most have attempted to affirm their opposition to same-sex marriage to the GOP base without harming their reputations with a general public that is increasingly supportive of it.

Many interviewers have made the question personal, asking candidates whether they would go to a same-sex wedding. King told reporters wouldn't rule out supporting any of the GOP candidates, regardless of their answer to that question.

He didn't rule out attending a same-sex wedding personally, either, although he said he's never been asked.

"I've never been confronted with that question in real life, and that would be a bridge to cross if I got to it," King said.

[The Romulan Republic]

Does Congress have the authority under the Constitution to tell the Supreme Court they can't hear a case?

[Elheru Aran]

Does Congress have the authority under the Constitution to tell the Supreme Court they can't hear a case?

I don't believe so, no. Congress *could* pass amendments to the Constitution that could make it so, but under the present circumstances I think the Supreme Court largely gets to do what it wants when it comes to deciding jurisdictional questions. IANAL, though...

[Civil War Man]

Does Congress have the authority under the Constitution to tell the Supreme Court they can't hear a case?

According to what I've read, they can in theory. It's called jurisdiction stripping. Though it's apparently usually not done to prevent a case from being heard at all, but to change the court that gets to review it. Also, in the case of SCOTUS, they cannot be prevented from reviewing any case that falls under their original jurisdiction*, which apparently is any case that involves ambassadors, public officials, and conflicts between two states, a state and citizens of another state, a state and non-Americans, or a state and the federal government.

In practice, it's been done before (back during Reconstruction), and has apparently been attempted numerous other times, but it is pretty rare. Though, depending on how one interprets SCOTUS's original jurisdiction, it's possible that if, hypothetically, King's bill were to pass, it'd only be a matter of time before we had a constitutional crisis over it, since it would block all federal courts from hearing cases involving same-sex marriage, and those cases always involve a state as one of the parties.

* Original jurisdiction being the ability to be the first court to hear a case, as opposed to appellate jurisdiction, which is the ability to review another court's decision.

[Borgholio]

Well, looks like opening arguments in the Supreme Court begin tomorrow.

http://news.yahoo.com/top-u-court-appea ... 53580.html

[Aasharu]

The right wing is finally starting to see the writing on the wall.

A conservative case for gay marriage.

It is generally assumed that the U.S. Supreme Court is but several weeks away from mandating state recognition of same-sex marriage nationwide. The Supreme Court’s more liberal justices are expected to vote in favor of same-sex marriage, and the Court’s more conservative justices are expected to vote against.

Conservatives may have good reasons to reject the conclusion that the Constitution requires state recognition of same-sex marriage (and I share some of them), but should conservatives oppose state recognition of same-sex marriage as a policy matter? I think not.

National Review managing editor Jason Lee Steorts makes a conservative case for recognizing gay marriage (and against the various natural law arguments popular with many conservatives) on NRO. Steorts rejects the argument that only a bigot could oppose gay marriage, and does not call for the imposition of same-sex marriage through judicial fiat, but argues that conservatives should support the recognition of same-sex marriage as a matter of policy. Here’s how his argument begins:

Civil marriage was instituted, let us concede, to safeguard the interests of children by endorsing and protecting the kind of stable, committed relationships that produce them and are suited to their upbringing. But there is no way to know in advance which couples can or will have children; we would hardly want county clerks to administer fertility tests or ask intrusive questions about people’s ability or intention to reproduce. So we made civil marriage generally available to sexually complementary couples. We did this without apparently taking notice of same-sex couples, let alone aiming to discriminate against them. Since traditional marriage laws had a legitimate purpose and were tailored to that purpose, there is no obvious reason for courts to invalidate them.

But equal treatment is both a legislative and a judicial concern. We can realize that a law that once seemed well designed could, in fact, be fairer. Reexamining marriage laws with this possibility in mind, we should register the following facts. First, civil marriage already includes a group of people — married, childless men and women — who are irrelevant to its child-centric purpose. Second, there is another group of people — committed same-sex couples who wish to marry — who have just as much reason to want the law’s recognition and protection of their relationships as married, childless men and women do. (Some same-sex couples are also raising children, much to traditionalists’ horror, but we leave this aside.) Third, couples belonging to either of these two groups have the same reasons and motivations, rooted in their love for each other, to abide by the standards of conduct that we traditionally associate with marriage, namely exclusivity and fidelity subsequent to a vow of permanent commitment. In light of all this, it is a matter of simple fairness to treat the two groups the same way, and legislators and voters should favor doing so.

Steorts’s essay should provide conservative opponents of gay marriage with much to chew over, even if it does lean heavily on the sorts of egalitarian “fairness” arguments that often make conservatives squirm. But, if anything, I think he understates the case. While I share many of his premises, and remain unconvinced that state recognition of SSM is constitutionally required (even if it is no business of the federal government) — I believe he ignores additional reasons conservatives should be open to the state’s recognition of same-sex marriage.

For libertarians, the policy argument is easy: The state is to serve the people, and gay relationships are a fact of contemporary life. Thus recognizing same-sex marriage is as much a reflection and recognition of what is already occurring in civil society as is the recognition of traditional marriage. In either case, the state is responding to private ordering, rather than dictating the terms or conditions upon which adults may order their own affairs. But not all conservatives are willing to adopt such a limited conception of the state. For those conservatives, I think Steorts is too willing to set aside the interests of children.

As Dale Carpenter explained on the VC 10 years ago, when one considers the facts on the ground — and, in particular, the millions of children who will be raised in households headed by a gay person throughout the nation whether or not gay marriage is recognized — the prudential case for gay marriage is strengthened remarkably.

Children raised by married couples do better in school, are less apt to commit crime, less likely to use and abuse drugs, and so on, than children raised by single people or by unmarried couples. Right now children being raised by gay parents have no access to these advantages. Part of the case for gay marriage rests on protecting these children’s families in marriage, thereby benefitting the children themselves. . . .

Even if we conceded what most people assume – that opposite-sex married households are the best environment for raising children, and in particular would be better than married same-sex households — that’s no argument against gay marriage. Gay marriage won’t take children away from mothers and fathers who want to raise their children together.

No responsible opponent of gay marriage advocates removing all children from the care of gay parents. I suppose that could be proposed and we could debate it, but such an unimaginably cruel and destabilizing policy is not even on the table. So whether or not gay marriage is allowed, children will continue to be raised by gay parents in very large absolute numbers.

The only real question is, will these 1-2 million children be raised in homes that are eligible for the protections and benefits of marriage or will they not be? If it’s better for children to be raised by married opposite-sex couples than by unmarried opposite-sex couples (as the evidence shows it is), it would surely be better for children to be raised by married same-sex couples than by unmarried same-sex couples. The marriage of their parents will have some effect and it won’t be to make them worse off. For purposes of the gay-marriage debate, that’s the relevant comparison, not the comparison between existing married opposite-sex couples and hypothetical married same-sex couples. . . .

Traditionalists are rightly concerned about the stability of home life for children. Gay marriage, in many conceivable ways, should lead to greater stability in hundreds of thousands of homes raising children in this country. The result should be that, to some extent, these children will do better in school, be less likely to commit crime, be less likely to use and abuse drugs, and so on, than they would be if we continue to keep their parents from marrying. If it’s really a concern for children that’s motivating opponents of gay marriage, they should be pounding the table for gay marriage as a way to protect millions of children.

A focus on the interests of children — the actual children who are alive today and who will be born in the years to come — supports a profoundly conservative, and quite Burkean, argument for gay marriage.

Set aside some utopian conception of what marriage is or should be about in the ideal, and instead recognize the way we live now — how and why we marry and how children are brought into this world and the homes in which they are raised. There are hundreds of thousands of children alive today who stand to benefit from being raised in more-stable, two-parent households. Every state allows gay people to raise children — and nearly all allow homosexuals to adopt or serve as foster parents. If this is acceptable (and few would argue that it’s worse for a child to be raised by gay parents than no parents at all) how can it be in the interests of these same children to ensure that they are raised in less optimal conditions? So even if one accepts the premise that protecting children could be a legitimate basis for refusing to recognize same-sex marriage, it is hard to make the practical case — at least if one is genuinely motivated by the interests of children.

Does any of this matter? As a legal matter, perhaps not. If the Supreme Court acts as expected, these issues will be moot. But perhaps if conservatives think more about the children, they will feel a little better about the practical implications of such a result.

At least the cry of "Think of the children!" is finally being used in support of gay marriage.

[Borgholio]

At least the cry of "Think of the children!" is finally being used in support of gay marriage.

Hey, whatever works. I mean if it allows for a good number of conservatives to support gay marriage, that can only be a good thing.

[Borgholio]

North Carolina governor vetos bill that would allow state magistrates to refuse to issue marriage licenses to gays.

http://www.wncn.com/story/29171909/bill ... ies-passes

A bill that would allow magistrates and some other court officials to opt out of performing all marriage ceremonies passed the House by a 67-43 vote Thursday, but Gov. Pat McCrory vetoed the bill.

"I recognize that for many North Carolinians, including myself, opinions on same-sex marriage come from sincerely held religious beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman," McCrory said. "However, we are a nation and a state of laws.

The Associated Press reported McCrory vetoed the bill just hours after the bill received its final approval from lawmakers.

"Whether it is the president, governor, mayor, a law enforcement officer, or magistrate, no public official who voluntarily swears to support and defend the Constitution and to discharge all duties of their office should be exempt from upholding that oath; therefore, I will veto Senate Bill 2."

The controversial bill that has been debated for months.

“This discriminatory bill treats gay and lesbian couples as second-class citizens and distorts the true meaning of religious freedom," said Rev. Jasmine Beach-Ferrara, executive director of the Campaign for Southern Equality. "We have the freedom to practice religion in our place of worship and to hold private beliefs. But as Americans, we've agreed that we will be governed by the principles of equality and fairness in our public and civic life."

The openly gay mayors of four North Carolina towns have also asked the governor to veto the bill. The mayors of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Franklinton and Webster wrote, "The Governor has the opportunity to demonstrate strong leadership in defense of law, good government and fundamental constitutional principles that guarantee equal treatment under the law for all citizens."

McCrory previously said that he would refuse to sign any bill that allows state magistrates to opt out of same sex marriages on religious grounds, "because I don't think you should have an exception or a carve out when you swore an oath to the constitution of North Carolina or to the constitution of the United States of America."

But this bill allows state magistrates to opt out of all marriages.

The House would need 72 votes to override the veto while the Senate would need 30. While there were only 67 supporters in Thursday's vote, 10 legislators did not vote.

The bill, which had already passed the Senate 32-16, came about after several magistrates resigned once same-sex marriage became the law in North Carolina in October.

There was much debate in the House Judiciary Committee before it was passed on to the full House Wednesday.

While it was one of the first bills introduced in the legislature this year, Senate Bill 2 is likely to be one of the most controversial even though it doesn't directly address same-sex marriage.

"There's no doubt about what the intent of this bill is and that's to discriminate against same-sex couples," said Chris Sgro of Equality NC. "Unfortunately, it has wide impact on all couples because we end up with diminished services across the board."

Rep. Dean Arp, a Republican from Union County, disagrees. "This is not discrimination," Rep. Arp said. "What this does is provide an explicit way to ensure non-discrimination."

Proponents say the bill deals with religious liberty.

"The real issue here is whether magistrates should have the freedom to exercise their religious beliefs and still keep their jobs," said Tami Fitzgerald of the NC Values Coalition. "They shouldn't have to choose between their religious beliefs and their jobs."

The committee vote on Wednesday went by party lines with the Democrats saying the bill contradicts the oath of office that magistrates take.

"I think the idea that government officials or government employees can pick and choose which job duties they want to perform is actually a really dangerous precedent for this legislature to establish," said Sarah Preston of the ACLU of North Carolina.

Good for him.

[Borgholio]

Oh and the NC state senate just over-rode the governor's veto. *sigh*

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, the Supreme Court should settle it soon enough.

[TimothyC]

OBERGEFELL v. HODGES

Held
The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.

[Borgholio]

Victory for equality, time to sit back and watch the right-wing implode.

Edit - these paragraphs goes a long way to explain why they ruled the way they did:

The history of marriage as a union between two persons of the opposite sex marks the beginning of these cases. To the respond ents, it would demean a timeless institution if marriage were extended to same-sex couples. But the petitioners, far from seeking to devalue marriage, seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities, as
illustrated by the petitioners’ own experiences.

The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change. Changes, such as the decline of arranged marriages and the abandonment of the law of coverture, have worked deep transformations
in the structure of marriage, affecting aspects of marriage once viewed as essential. These new insights have strengthened, not weakened, the institution. Changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations

Holy shit. To paraphrase - gays don't want to destroy marriage, they want to be allowed to enjoy it the way heteros already do. Marriage has changed drastically in the past and only become stronger, so why should this change be any different?

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh fuck yes!

Sad its 5/4. I was hoping for 6/3. But a win is a win.

I feel like this should be a happy, occasion, not a vindictive one, but I can't help but feel a bit of glee at seeing the far Right take a crushing defeat on one of their biggest issues.

[Alferd Packer]

Simply beautiful.

[Edi]

Oh fuck yes!

Sad its 5/4. I was hoping for 6/3. But a win is a win.

I feel like this should be a happy, occasion, not a vindictive one, but I can't help but feel a bit of glee at seeing the far Right take a crushing defeat on one of their biggest issues.

It's the old farts on the far right that are taking this in the shorts. In the age groups below 50, gay marriage is less and less an issue. In another 20 years, most of the country will look back on this and go "What was the big deal? Were they really fucking serious?"

[Broomstick]

It's a crossover with recent events in North Carolina, but I think it sums up much of the week in the US:

[Elheru Aran]

*South Carolina. Unless there's a Charleston in North Carolina that I haven't heard of.