Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Brentai]

Pity.  She was a reminder of a much simpler time when one conservative could seem nuttier than the rest.

[Mongrel]

One of the better things to donate an old smartphone to

[McDohl]

DOMA struck down as unconstitutional, Prop 8 remanded to the circuit court with instructions to dismiss.

Today's a good day for gay rights.

[Thad]

Fantastic.  I got up to hear the rulings were forthcoming and now I'm on my way out the door for work; I expect I'll hear more on NPR on the way.

Interesting to see Kennedy as tie-breaker.  I half-expected Roberts to do it, not because he believes in gay rights but because he has the good sense to know how a ruling in favor of DOMA would have looked in the history books a couple of decades from now.

So there's a scary possibility that Roberts does not give a damn about how history remembers him.  Or it could be something more cynical -- he knew the anti-DOMA side had the votes it needed so he was comfortable voting the way he actually felt.

Neither one speaks very highly of him.

“DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others,” Kennedy wrote.

“The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.”

Wow -- go Kennedy.

Okay, I really need to go.  But that is indeed some

[Caithness]

-- he knew the anti-DOMA side had the votes it needed so he was comfortable voting the way he actually felt.

I think it's this one. From the stories I've heard about how the Supreme Court works, it's an extremely cynical institution.

[TA]

Two things stand out to me:
1) Not just Kennedy in the majority, but Kennedy opinion.
2) "Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see , e.g., Loving  v. Virginia , 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa , 419 U. S. 393, 404."  Emphasis mine.

This tells me that Kennedy is receptive to a challenge to state laws and constitutions that outlaw same-sex marriage, which means that the Court as a whole is receptive to that challenge.  Between this and the Prop 8 ruling, I think they're basically saying how they're gonna rule when the issue comes before them, and inviting it to be brought.

[Royal☭]

I do have some questions about this ruling, though. What exactly does it mean? From what I read, I got the feeling that the federal government will recognize all same-sex marriages equally, but that it does nothing to actually make it possible for same-sex couples to marry. Or is that now any judge can, and must, perform a same-sex marriage?

[McDohl]

The way my gut says is that only DOMA's provision about denying the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples was found unconstitutional.  Only the states in which same-sex marriage is legal still stands, it's just that the federal government can't prohibit a legally married couple in Washington DC or any of the states in which same-sex marriage is legal from doing things like jointly filing taxes.  This will probably pave the way for future challenges, such as recognizing out-of-state same sex marriages under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution.

Example: I get married to a boyfriend in New York, does Texas have to recognize that marriage?

One comment on the SCOTUS liveblog I saw gave me a chuckle.  "For the first time in history, people are going to be happy about filing their taxes on April 15th."

[TA]

I do have some questions about this ruling, though. What exactly does it mean? From what I read, I got the feeling that the federal government will recognize all same-sex marriages equally, but that it does nothing to actually make it possible for same-sex couples to marry. Or is that now any judge can, and must, perform a same-sex marriage?

The ruling does two things.

1) Forces the federal government to recognize marriages that are legal in the state.  So, taxes, immigration, all sorts of things - the list of laws this impacts is more than a thousand statues long.  This is a big deal for the people it impacts - couples where one partner can't enter the country, or as in the case from which this ruling arose, $360k inheritance issues - but not much so for the people it doesn't.

2) Exists as an equal protection ruling on sexual orientation from the Supreme Court.  This is New.  This establishes sexual orientation as a protected class, and forces discriminatory legislation to adhere to a higher level of scrutiny than Rational Basis.  This is the precedent from which everything else will draw.  This is the precedent you need to shut down gay marriage bans, this is the precedent you need to prohibit firing on the basis of orientation, this is the Supreme Court saying that having different rules for straight people and gay people is a fifth amendment violation.  This is the part of the ruling that is a big fuckin' deal.

The power the Constitution grants it also restrains. And though Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

What has been explained to this point should more than suffice to establish that the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

This is the moneyshot.

What the ruling does not do:

Force Texas to recognize a New York marriage.  Yet.  Because that wasn't an issue before the court here, but with this precedent, the court can't uphold that part when it comes before them either.

[Ted Belmont]

This is also going to have a big impact on same-sex couples in the military; last year, after DADT was struck down, the DoD made it clear that as long as the language in DOMA denying federal benefits to same-sex marriages was still being enforced, military spouses in same-sex couples would NOT receive benefits. Now that that’s no longer the case, all military spouses will be able to receive the same healthcare, housing, education, insurance, and other benefits, regardless of sexual orientation.

[TA]

In point of fact,

The Department of Defense welcomes the Supreme Court's decision today on the Defense of Marriage Act. The Department will immediately begin the process of implementing the Supreme Court's decision in consultation with the Department of Justice and other executive branch agencies. The Department of Defense intends to make the same benefits available to all military spouses - regardless of sexual orientation - as soon as possible. That is now the law, and it is the right thing to do.

"Every person who serves our nation in uniform stepped forward with courage and commitment. All that matters is their patriotism, their willingness to serve their country and their qualifications to do so. Today's ruling helps ensure that all men and women who serve this country can be treated fairly and equally, with the full dignity and respect they so richly deserve."

[Ted Belmont]

And then there was that time a 12 year old girl used the power of SHAME to scare away an armed pedophile who broke into her house.

[Büge]

And then there was that time a 12 year old girl used the power of SHAME to scare away an armed pedophile who broke into her house.

Wildflower said the man turned to leave and she told him he should be ashamed of himself. The man then lowered his head and left.

I didn't think people actually DID that. 

[Zaratustra]

I'm strictly theorizing here, but I wouldn't think a man that sneaks into 12-year-old girl's bedrooms at night would be the assertive type.

[Thad]

Ed Kramer ousted from Dragon*Con; Nancy Collins declares boycott over.

If the name doesn't ring any bells, here's what I had to say about it a few months back:

So, uh, anybody been keeping up with the story of Ed Kramer, the Dragon*Con co-founder who's spent the past 13 years stalling a trial on child molestation charges?

An article from last September in Atlanta Magazine has a pretty thorough breakdown of everything that's happened -- the original charges, the variety of ways Kramer managed to wear down authorities until they let him go from jail and put him under house arrest, and then let him out once a week, and eventually agreed to take off his ankle bracelet -- and how he eventually got caught violating his parole following a 16-year-old boy around in Connecticut in 2009.  He spent the ensuing three years fighting to keep from being extradited back to Georgia, but as of last week he's finally back in a Georgia jail and will hopefully actually get tried now.

As for how he's been able to play this game for so long: part of it is that he's got some legitimate and serious health problems (and possibly some less legitimate and serious ones that he's exaggerated, too), and part of it is that he's still got plenty of money coming in from Dragon*Con (he's still a 34% owner).

It looks like he's been bought out (against his wishes, of course, and he's threatening to sue).  Which means, yes, he'll get a sizable one-time payout, but he's got plenty of creditors at his door and now his income has been cut off.

So uh you might want to share that if you know anybody who wants to go to Dragon*Con.

And now you can share THIS with anyone who wanted to go to Dragon*Con but was planning on boycotting.  And thank them, because this happened because of them.

[Thad]

PA teen saves girl from kidnapping
and
Teenager jailed over ‘sarcastic’ Facebook post out on bail

[Büge]

A woman is robbed and calls the thief's mother on the cellphone he left behind

spoilers: there's a happy ending.

[Thad]

There was a story in the New Times the other week about how one of the Granite Mountain Hotshots who died in the Yarnell fire had been arrested as a teenager -- I think it was a similar story, stealing stuff out of a car.

My first thought was that this was pretty disgusting, digging up the arrest record of someone who'd just died.  But on reading it I changed my mind -- the story was about how the arrest record noted that he had been contrite, seemed to legitimately regret what he'd done, and hoped that his mistake wouldn't hurt his chances of becoming a firefighter.

People make mistakes.  Teenagers, in particular, do stupid shit.

(And sometimes, as in the case of the husband in the story, people do intelligent and responsible shit that just so happens to result in them being caught doing something illegal, and have a felony conviction chase them around for the rest of their fucking lives.)

At any rate, good on her for giving the kid an opportunity to do the right thing without getting The Man involved.

May he use this opportunity he has been given to not fuck up again.

[Brentai]

Having just watched the Lower Decks episode of TNG I find this whole conversation to be bizarrely resonant.

[Niku]

There was a story in the New Times the other week about how one of the Granite Mountain Hotshots who died in the Yarnell fire had been arrested as a teenager -- I think it was a similar story, stealing stuff out of a car.

My first thought was that this was pretty disgusting, digging up the arrest record of someone who'd just died.  But on reading it I changed my mind -- the story was about how the arrest record noted that he had been contrite, seemed to legitimately regret what he'd done, and hoped that his mistake wouldn't hurt his chances of becoming a firefighter.

People make mistakes.  Teenagers, in particular, do stupid shit.

(And sometimes, as in the case of the husband in the story, people do intelligent and responsible shit that just so happens to result in them being caught doing something illegal, and have a felony conviction chase them around for the rest of their fucking lives.)

At any rate, good on her for giving the kid an opportunity to do the right thing without getting The Man involved.

May he use this opportunity he has been given to not fuck up again.

My brother had a drug record as a teenager, so he was denied every chance to become a city firefighter.  He still works as a volunteer one, and has for over a decade.  Systems can't completely stop people from doing what they're passionate about, but it is a crock of shit that stuff that happens as a teenager essentially goes on the permanent record.