LGBT rights discussion

[Lieris]

The equal marriage bill in the UK passed its second hearing last month and the Conservative Party supporters are still having kittens over it because their leader (our PM) and nearly the entire cabinet supported it. UKIP, the far right party modeled on the American tea party, is gobbling up lots of disaffected conservative voters because they are against it (despite supposedly being a libertarian party!) which will massively split the right wing vote.

As always, populist tabloid politics and scaring the shit out of people is always a vote winner and by trying to modernise itself by moving away from some of this stuff, the Conservative Party is hemorrhaging support. Amusing but tragic.

[Fridmarr]

We may be seeing some action here by the courts soon as well. I've read a couple of recent articles speculating the results. The articles don't paint a rosey picture but I suspect they're sandbagging. They seem to be suggesting Kennedy as the swing vote (he often is), and point out that his prior comments which seem promising don't necessarily mean he'll come out in favor of gay marriage.

I guess that last point is probably accurate, but I really don't think it'll be that close. I could easily see a 2 vote margin, and more wouldn't surprise me. The only thorn I see is the "states rights" issue, but I think that's a shit copout at this point.

[Klaudandus]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/argu ... ction.html

*facedesk*

[KysenMurrin]

Sounds like they're running out of arguments to oppose it with.

[Lieris]

How do these people manage to get up in the morning without drowning themselves in the toilet. It's like they are characters in a satirical political programme written by Chris Morris.

[Zobel]

Sounds like they're running out of arguments to oppose it with.

That was the winning argument in Hernandez v. Robles, so it's no surprise that marriage opponents are rehashing it now.

It fetishizes the one biological difference between same-sex couples and other-sex couples as not only relevant but indispensible. It's a fundamentally stupid argument, but it's one with an actual judicial pedigree.

[Skye1013]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/argument-against-gay-marriage-california-hinges-accidental-pregnancies-095158941--election.html

*facedesk*

Do pro-lifers support same-sex marriage? As it's a guaranteed way to avoid abortion (short of medical complications) since same-sex couples can't accidentally get pregnant...

[Kanta]

There's a pretty big flaw in that line of logic. The same-sex couple that gets married has exactly the same chance to get accidentally pregnant as they had prior to marriage. The ability to marry doesn't change this. If I were married to another man, that wouldn't necessarily preclude me from cheating on my husband with a female. Of course, this does assume either bisexual or at least experimental willingness, but nonetheless it's not guaranteed.

[Nooska]

Well that argument goes both ways. Accidental pregnancy isn't any greater (or lesser) risk if my GF and I got married, than it is now where we are not, also neither eventuality precludes me from going out and cheating and getting some other girl (I don't feel old enough to call them women, sorry "girls") pregnant.

[Skye1013]

There's a pretty big flaw in that line of logic. The same-sex couple that gets married has exactly the same chance to get accidentally pregnant as they had prior to marriage. The ability to marry doesn't change this. If I were married to another man, that wouldn't necessarily preclude me from cheating on my husband with a female. Of course, this does assume either bisexual or at least experimental willingness, but nonetheless it's not guaranteed.

Wasn't saying it was a good argument... I was just trying to come up with something just as stupid as what anti-gay marriage people come up with.

[Koatanga]

There's a pretty big flaw in that line of logic. The same-sex couple that gets married has exactly the same chance to get accidentally pregnant as they had prior to marriage. The ability to marry doesn't change this. If I were married to another man, that wouldn't necessarily preclude me from cheating on my husband with a female. Of course, this does assume either bisexual or at least experimental willingness, but nonetheless it's not guaranteed.

A percentage of the population does wait until marriage to have sex, so the ability to marry does in fact have an impact on the chances of getting pregnant. It's probably not a big percentage, but of the people who have accidental pregnancies, I believe they would be disproportionately represented due to inexperience with birth control methods and lack of knowledge about birth control in general.

Yes, I agree that's a stupid argument.

[Fridmarr]

It seems like that court was just looking for a way to punt on that case and force the legislature to handle it.

The critical question is whether a rational legislature could decide that these benefits should be given to members of opposite-sex couples, but not same-sex couples. The question is not, we emphasize, whether the Legislature must or should continue to limit marriage in this way; of course the Legislature may (subject to the effect of the federal Defense of Marriage Act) extend marriage or some or all of its benefits to same-sex couples.

That's the one concern I have about the Supreme court too, that they may essentially punt declaring it a state's rights issue or something like that. Especially since this topic has been getting dealt with quite a bit in state legislatures lately, it's not a hard argument to make. I think it's nonsense, but the court has been taking quite a bit of heat for even looking like they may rule on a recent legislative matter lately, ironically, mostly from people who are going to want them to not punt on this issue.

[Nooska]

As to the supreme court, the way I see it, its a bit hard to make it a states right issue due to Art. 4, sec. 1, Full faith and credit. I do see how the state courts can refer it back to the legislature from that argument though.

[Fridmarr]

I don't necessarily disagree but, the court has a lot of flexibility in what it considers.  It can simply not rule on certain aspects and therefore not have to answer that question.

I can't remember off the top of my head the details of what they are going to be looking at.  One is DOMA and I think there's another case too...but it's totally slipped my mind, and I can't look it up atm.

They could rule that DOMA is unconstitutional, but that would merely make it a state issue.  Without an amendment, the fed's can't easily tell states that they have to accept same sex marriages, unless the court answers that specific challenge as part of its ruling.

It just seems to me, that marriage is a pretty fundamental recognition, both legally and socially. The idea that that status can change as you drive across states or move to a new home, seems to cut at the core of our founding principles.

I'm a bigger advocate for state's rights than most, but it just doesn't make sense for this issue to me.  Granted my ultimately desired solution is to not have a legal concept of marriage anyhow (civil unions for all, imo), but that's simply not going to happen.  So the pragmatist in me sees this as the best alternative.

[Klaudandus]

This is genius!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/0 ... 05685.html