The Gay Legal Rulings Thread

[garbon]

I think you have it somewhat wrong; Christie couldn't pretend that he hadn't vetoed the legislature's law recognizing gay marriages, so he used euphamisms in his statement about  "the court substituting its judgment for the constitutional process of the elected branches."  It was really the court substituting its judgement for his judgement.

True. That's something important to not forget.

[garbon]

I think you misunderstood that post of mine and I can already get married in New York.

ah, sorry.  I'm not up to speed with US marriage laws.

I think you missed this part.

so I can finally do the whole move to the UK bit.

[merithyn]

And Illinois makes 15.

SPRINGFIELD --- The General Assembly today narrowly approved a gay marriage bill, clearing the way for Illinois to become the 15th state to legalize same-sex unions.

The bill got 61 votes in the House, one more than the bare minimum needed to send the measure back to the Senate, which quickly signed off. Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn has said he would sign the bill into law should it reach his desk.

Reaction is rolling in tonight from the White House to City Hall.

President Barack Obama issued a statement praising the General Assembly.

"As president, I have always believed that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally under the law. Over time, I also came to believe that same-sex couples should be able to get married like anyone else," he said in the statement. "So tonight, Michelle and I are overjoyed for all the committed couples in Illinois whose love will now be as legal as ours – and for their friends and family who have long wanted nothing more than to see their loved ones treated fairly and equally under the law."

Mayor Rahm Emanuel issued a statement following the House vote.

"Today is a critical moment in history for Illinois and for the entire LGBT movement. Finally, gays and lesbians across our state are guaranteed the fundamental right to marry, and countless couples with children will be acknowledged for what they are under the law – families just like everyone else," said Emanuel in the statement.

The House vote followed more than two-and-a-half hours of debate in which supporters said it's time for Illinois to make marriage equal for all and opponents raised concerns about protecting the institution of marriage and the religious beliefs of those who say marriage should be between a man and woman.

Sponsoring Rep. Greg Harris told colleagues that a series of "proud moments and difficult decisions that have brought honor upon the people and the state of Illinois, and we find ourselves at another one of those moments today."

The openly gay Democratic lawmaker from Chicago said the state's civil union law has saddled Illinois with "inequality, unfair burden and harms added layer by layer to people simply because they live in the state of Illinois."

"To treat all our citizens equally in the eyes of the law, we must change this," Harris said.

Rep. Mary Flowers, D-Chicago, pointed to a passage in the book of Genesis that a man leaves his father and mother to "cleave to his wife."

Same-sex couples will "not be truly married in God's eyes" and that neither the church nor the legislature has the ability to overturn the basic tenets of the Bible, Flowers said.

"This debate is a joke," Flowers said.

Near the end of the debate, Speaker Michael Madigan spoke in support, saying that civilization has been based on two people finding each other. "Who am I to judge that they should be illegal?" Madigan said of same-sex couples.

State Rep. Ed Sullivan of Mundelein, one of the few Republicans expected to vote in favor, said he was voting for gay marriage because of the influence in his life of his mother-in-law, who he said is a lesbian.

Opponent Rep. Tom Morrison of Palatine said he supports "natural marriage" between a man and a woman. Morrison, a Republican, said redefining marriage could have far-reaching social implications. "Why is the state concerned with personal relationships anyway?...Real marriage is the building block of human civilization," he said.

Morrison said a vote against the bill does not mean a lawmaker is a bigot.

Rep. Jeanne Ives, a Wheaton Republican, questioned whether religious beliefs would be protected. She called the bill "the worst in the U.S." for protecting such freedoms.

Rep. David Reis, a Downstate Republican, contended the bill would not protect individual religious beliefs for people like judges who might be asked to perform gay marriages in counties where churches decline to do so.

[viper37]

I think you missed this part.

so I can finally do the whole move to the UK bit.

Well, I thought that was because you desperaterely wanted to get married.  I never tought you liked England, I always figured your for the sunny californian coast type, not the wet and foggy weather of that part of Europe.  Had you said you wanted to move to Southern France, I would have understood immediatly

[garbon]

Hawaii joins the party.

[garbon]

Well, I thought that was because you desperaterely wanted to get married.

I never tought you liked England, I always figured your for the sunny californian coast type, not the wet and foggy weather of that part of Europe.

I think I've been fairly positive about England and next year I'll finally be making my long planned trip.

I like New York too and I hate both humid climates and snow.

[garbon]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/scotland-legalises-marriage-equality

Scotland's first same-sex marriages are set to take place later this year.

The Scottish parliament on Tuesday voted to pass the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill by a margin of 105-18, with the first unions set to be conducted in the autumn.

"I believe this bill will have a hugely positive impact on our society and on the health and well-being of LGBT of people in our country," MSP Jim Eadie said during the debate. "Scotland now has one of the most progressive equal marriage bills in the world. Allowing the option of gender-neutral marriage ceremonies will provide genuine equality for all, including transgender people."

"This is a profound moment in our nation's history," he added.

Politicians cheered as the parliament gave its approval to the bill. It received cross-party backing, despite opposition from both the Scottish Catholic Church and the Church of Scotland.

Religious groups and officials authorised to conduct weddings will not be required to hold same-sex ceremonies. Instead they will have the freedom to opt-in to the law and conduct such ceremonies if they so which.

Same-sex marriage legislation for England and Wales was passed by the Westminster parliament in 2013, with the first marriages in those countries set to take place next month.

The exact date for the first same-sex marriage in Scotland depends on when the Westminster parliament amends existing legislation to ensure officials who refuse to conduct same-sex marriages are protected under the law.

Following a successful campaign by transgender activists the Scottish law will also end the so-called "spousal veto", which required transgender people to receive written permission from their spouse before their gender can be recognised in law. This rule remains in place across the rest of the United Kingdom.
There was limited opposition to the motion in the chamber, with a handful of MSPs failing in their attempt to push last-minute amendments that would increase legal protections for those who oppose same-sex marriage.

Scottish National Party MSP Richard Lyle, unsuccessfully tabled an amendment that aimed to ensure that those who want to adopt children are not refused on the basis of their opposition to same-sex marriage. He told the chamber that opponents of the law had received "vitriolic abuse" in recent months.

"Marriage is on the cusp of being changed forever," he said. "It is my conviction that marriage is a unique relationship between a man and a woman."
Fellow SNP politician John Mason voted against the bill and said he feared that "we are opening the door for more discrimination against religious people".

Scotland decriminalised homosexual acts between two consenting adults in 1980, thirteen years after England and Wales. Civil partnerships have been legal in the country since 2005.

Northern Ireland is now the only part of the United Kingdom where same-sex marriage legislation has not been passed, with few signs that the devolved assembly at Stormont will debate the matter in the near future.

I'll need to use my vacation now to troll for a marriage.

[garbon]

Hey, Virginia.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/13/virginia-same-sex-marriage/5473687/

Virginia judge strikes down gay marriage ban

Ruling by U.S. District Judge Arenda Wright Allen sets the stage for a possible Supreme Court showdown, though cases from Utah and Oklahoma also are headed that way

A federal judge in Virginia has struck down the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage, joining a growing list of state and federal courts that have granted gay and lesbian couples the right to marry following two landmark Supreme Court rulings in June.

District Court Judge Arenda Wright Allen's ruling had been expected since the case was heard in her Norfolk courtroom Feb. 4. Also as expected, she blocked it from taking immediate effect until appeals are heard, meaning gay marriages in Virginia cannot begin yet.

Her decision follows similar rulings in Oklahoma and Utah, even more conservative states, where federal judges recently struck down gay marriage bans. Those cases are scheduled to be heard by a federal appeals court panel in April; the Virginia case now joins them in a race toward the Supreme Court.

And in recent days, Nevada state officials decided they could no longer defend the state's same-sex marriage ban, and a judge in Kentucky ruled that the state must recognize gay marriages from other states.

Seventeen states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage. Since the high court last June restored gay marriage rights in California and struck down a portion of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, Hawaii and Illinois joined the passed new laws, and state courts in New Jersey and New Mexico legalized the practice. Nearly four dozen lawsuits remain pending in 24 states.

Wright Allen's opinion, like others in recent months, made note of the high court's ruling last year that the federal law denying benefits to legally married same-sex couples violated the Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process.

The Court is compelled to conclude that Virginia's marriage laws unconstitutionally deny Virginia's gay and lesbian citizens the fundamental freedom to choose to marry," Wright Allen wrote. "Government interests in perpetuating traditions, shielding state matters from federal interference, and favoring one model of parenting over others must yield to this country's cherished protections that ensure the exercise of the private choices of the individual citizen regarding love and family."

The Virginia ban, passed by voters in 2006, had suffered several blows in recent months. First came the decision by Theodore Olson and David Boies, high-powered litigators who successfully challenged California's Proposition 8 ban last year, to join the legal team representing two gay and lesbian couples. Then came the announcement by newly elected state Attorney General Mark Herring, a Democrat, that Virginia would stop defending its law and join those seeking to defeat it.

Olson, Boies and state Solicitor General Stuart Raphael joined forces at the hearing in Wright Allen's court. They compared the ban on same-sex marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships to Virginia's discriminatory history of blocking school integration, interracial marriage and the right of women to attend Virginia Military Institute.

"Marriage is a fundamental right. The United States Supreme Court has said that something like 14 times, by my count," said Olson, a former U.S. solicitor general under George W. Bush. The ban "denies them equal dignity because of who they are."

Stripped of the state's backing, the ban was left to be defended by lawyers for two local circuit court clerks whose jobs include issuing marriage licenses. They raised myriad issues, ranging from Virginia's 400-year tradition of heterosexual marriage and states' jurisdiction over domestic matters to the contention that marriage should be reserved for couples that can procreate.

"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race," said Austin Nimocks of the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom. "Every child has a mother and a father."

The couples at the center of the case are Timothy Bostic and Tony London, who filed the lawsuit in Norfolk last July, and Carol Schall and Mary Townley, who joined up later. Schall and Townley, whose marriage in California isn't recognized by Virginia, have a teenage daughter.

Another lawsuit in western Virginia, filed by Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union, was certified last week as a class action by federal District Court Judge Michael Urbanski. That means all gay and lesbian couples seeking to marry or have their marriages recognized could be affected by the outcome.

[DontSayBanana]

They seriously tried the "couples that can procreate" tack?  They'd better be glad that didn't go through before somebody asked the killer question: if that's the government's interest in permitting marriages, why is fertility testing not a prerequisite for granting a marriage license?

Answer: that argument is bullshit.  The government isn't interested in denying marriage certificates to barren couples, remarried couples where one partner has already undertaken voluntary sterilization, or couples that choose to remain childless.  It's just a bullshit way of trying to define your way into the bride always having the right lady bits and the groom always having the right man bits, functional or not.

Sorry, the procreation argument is a pet peeve of mine since it's so blatantly disingenuous.

[Malthus]

Precreation test?

I say we should enforce the "Hott" test. Only couples who are certified hott by a jury of their peers can get married. 

Or maybe it should be the other way around - only couples who are not hott should be allowed to be married. 

[garbon]

http://time.com/94825/arkansas-judge-strikes-down-gay-marriage-ban/

Arkansas Judge Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

An Arkansas judge on Friday struck down the state's ban on gay marriage, opening the door for gay couples to wed.

Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza said the 2004 amendment's definition of marriage as allowable only between a man and a woman is unconstitutional and violates the rights of same-sex couples.

The ruling came nearly a week after state Attorney General Dustin McDaniel announced he personally supports gay marriage rights but that he will continue to defend the constitutional ban in court.

McDaniel's office is expected to quickly appeal Piazza's ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court.

The 2004 constitutional amendment was passed with the overwhelming support of Arkansas voters.

The U.S. Supreme Court last year ruled that a law forbidding the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages was unconstitutional. Since then, lower-court judges have repeatedly cited the Supreme Court decision when striking down some of the same-sex marriage bans that were enacted after Massachusetts started recognizing gay marriages in 2004.

Since late last year, federal judges have ruled against marriage bans in Michigan, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Texas, and ordered Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

In all, according to gay-rights groups, more than 70 lawsuits seeking marriage equality are pending in about 30 states. Democratic attorneys general in several states — including Virginia, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Oregon and Kentucky — have declined to defend same-sex marriage bans.

McDaniel, a Democrat in his final year as attorney general, is the first statewide elected official in Arkansas to support marriage equality. The state's other top Democrats, including Gov. Mike Beebe and U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor, have said they still oppose gay marriage rights.

The plaintiffs argue that their rights to due process and equal protection can't be superseded, even by a state constitutional amendment. Attorneys for the state have argued that an amendment to the state constitution can't itself be deemed unconstitutional.

A group of same-sex couples have also challenged Arkansas' ban in federal court.

[garbon]

Yahoo News had an article* about this being a bad weekend for the anti-gay crowd  between Arkansas, Conchita and Michael Sam. The yahoo commenting crowd was very angry going so far as to label Yahoo as giving up "any shred of credibility".

*article from The Wire

[sbr]

The "outrage" about Micheal Sam's kiss was amazing, if Twitter survived that I think it is unbreakable.

My favorite one was 'what if my kids were watching, what would I tell them!?!'  Any parent who can't answer that question in 2.2 seconds should have their kids impounded.

[garbon]

My favorite one was 'what if my kids were watching, what would I tell them!?!'  Any parent who can't answer that question in 2.2 seconds should have their kids impounded.

That fun Louis CK bit.

[Valmy]

The "outrage" about Micheal Sam's kiss was amazing, if Twitter survived that I think it is unbreakable.

My favorite one was 'what if my kids were watching, what would I tell them!?!'  Any parent who can't answer that question in 2.2 seconds should have their kids impounded.

I am not sure my kids could take the shock of something memorable happening in the later rounds of the NFL draft.