The coolest place on the internet, according to this tagline.
AskArchiveFAQ

July 3, 2013

Poll: Early reactions to last week’s headline-grabbing SCOTUS decisions

  • 56% of those who participated in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll said they approved of the Supreme Court’s decision DOMA ruling.
  • 51% of those polled said they approved of the Court’s Prop. 8 ruling, which cleared the way for state-recognized gay marriage to return to California.
  • 33% of respondents agreed with the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Voting Rights Act, with a 51% majority expressing their opposition to the ruling that portions of the VRA were unconstitutional. source
15:59 // 9 months ago
June 28, 2013
13:27 // 9 months ago
June 26, 2013
18:00 // 9 months ago
This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation.
Antonin Scalia, in his DOMA dissent.
10:20 // 9 months ago
DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty.
The majority opinion in the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act. SCOTUS has decided DOMA is unconstitutional. Read more at NPR’s The Two-Way. (via npr)

This seems like a pretty historic one right here.
10:14 // 9 months ago
For same-sex couples who wished to be married, the State acted to give their lawful conduct a lawful status. This status is a far-reaching legal acknowledgment of the intimate relationship between two people, a relationship deemed by the State worthy of dignity in the community equal with all other marriages. It reflects both the community’s considered perspective on the historical roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning of equality.

The United States Supreme Court (via theweekmagazine)

From the DOMA decision.

10:12 // 9 months ago
nbcnightlynews:

BREAKING NEWS: Supreme Court strikes down #DOMA, the federal Defense of Marriage Act

More forthcoming, but … a fairly big start to the day.

nbcnightlynews:

BREAKING NEWS: Supreme Court strikes down , the federal Defense of Marriage Act

More forthcoming, but … a fairly big start to the day.

10:06 // 9 months ago
June 23, 2013
nbcnews:

Same-sex marriage opponents plan for DOMA ruling, weigh constitutional challenge
(Photo: Saul Loeb / AFP – Getty Images file)
Opponents of same-sex marriage prepare for their next chapter as they await highly-anticipated Supreme Court rulings on the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8. If the decisions aren’t in their favor, they say they may pursue an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
Continue reading

Anyone seeing them actually being able to pull off such an amendment? Here’s what it would take, according to Wikipedia:

Before an amendment can take effect, it must be proposed to the states by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or by a convention (known as an Article V convention) called by two-thirds of the states, and ratified by three-fourths of the states or by three-fourths of conventions thereof, the method of ratification being determined by Congress at the time of proposal. To date, no convention for proposing amendments has been called by the states, and only once—in 1933 for the ratification of the twenty-first amendment—has the convention method of ratification been employed.

The first route is unlikely considering the current makeup of the Senate in particular. The second route is unlikely because it would require a lot of movement at a grassroots level to make it happen.

nbcnews:

Same-sex marriage opponents plan for DOMA ruling, weigh constitutional challenge

(Photo: Saul Loeb / AFP – Getty Images file)

Opponents of same-sex marriage prepare for their next chapter as they await highly-anticipated Supreme Court rulings on the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8. If the decisions aren’t in their favor, they say they may pursue an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Continue reading

Anyone seeing them actually being able to pull off such an amendment? Here’s what it would take, according to Wikipedia:

Before an amendment can take effect, it must be proposed to the states by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or by a convention (known as an Article V convention) called by two-thirds of the states, and ratified by three-fourths of the states or by three-fourths of conventions thereof, the method of ratification being determined by Congress at the time of proposal. To date, no convention for proposing amendments has been called by the states, and only once—in 1933 for the ratification of the twenty-first amendment—has the convention method of ratification been employed.

The first route is unlikely considering the current makeup of the Senate in particular. The second route is unlikely because it would require a lot of movement at a grassroots level to make it happen.

22:01 // 10 months ago
February 23, 2013

obitoftheday says: I consider myself pretty up on politics, social issues, and pop culture...but for the love of all that is holy, who is that woman in the DOMA post? (I know you reblogged but you all seem like smart folks who have all the answers.)

» SFB says: Why, that’s Edith Windsor, the woman who brought the case on DOMA—the one that could see DOMA overturned for good. As it turns out, Chris Geidner, the guy I reblogged (and one of the best journalists in the country on LGBT issues), wrote a really great profile of her a while back. It’s a must-read. — Ernie @ SFB

8:03 // 1 year ago
February 22, 2013
chrisgeidner:

buzzfeedlgbt:

Obama Administration Urges Supreme Court To Strike Down DOMA
The Obama administration urged the Supreme Court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act’s prohibition on recognition of same-sex couples’ marriages in a Friday filing, arguing that laws that target gay people should face additional scrutiny by courts reviewing them.
Under such heightened scrutiny, as it is called, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli says that Section 3 of DOMA, which defines “spouse” and “marriage” under federal law as only those marriages between one man and one woman, is unconstitutional.

This paragraph in the brief is a part of history:

“BLAG makes an appeal to this Court to allow the democratic process to run its course. That approach would be very well taken in most circumstances. This is, however, the rare case in which deference to the democratic process must give way to the fundamental constitutional command of equal treatment under law. Section 3 of DOMA targets the many gay and lesbian people legally married under state law for a harsh form of discrimination that bears no relation to their ability to contribute to society. It is abundantly clear that this discrimination does not substantially advance an interest in protecting marriage, or any other important interest. The statute simply cannot be reconciled with the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Constitution therefore requires that Section 3 be invalidated.”


There you go, guys. Obama’s White House has called out DOMA and wants to see it struck down. Huge story.

chrisgeidner:

buzzfeedlgbt:

Obama Administration Urges Supreme Court To Strike Down DOMA

The Obama administration urged the Supreme Court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act’s prohibition on recognition of same-sex couples’ marriages in a Friday filing, arguing that laws that target gay people should face additional scrutiny by courts reviewing them.

Under such heightened scrutiny, as it is called, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli says that Section 3 of DOMA, which defines “spouse” and “marriage” under federal law as only those marriages between one man and one woman, is unconstitutional.

This paragraph in the brief is a part of history:

“BLAG makes an appeal to this Court to allow the democratic process to run its course. That approach would be very well taken in most circumstances. This is, however, the rare case in which deference to the democratic process must give way to the fundamental constitutional command of equal treatment under law. Section 3 of DOMA targets the many gay and lesbian people legally married under state law for a harsh form of discrimination that bears no relation to their ability to contribute to society. It is abundantly clear that this discrimination does not substantially advance an interest in protecting marriage, or any other important interest. The statute simply cannot be reconciled with the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Constitution therefore requires that Section 3 be invalidated.”

There you go, guys. Obama’s White House has called out DOMA and wants to see it struck down. Huge story.

20:05 // 1 year ago