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

June 28, 2013
18:56 // 10 months ago
June 26, 2013
They are all watching a network not to be named, George, and for whatever reason there is a delay, and so when they hear it they are going to, trust me, erupt and you and I won’t be able to hear each other.
California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom • Offering a comment to ABC News regarding the Prop 8 Supreme Court decision, which he learned about from the reporter who contacted him. Why’s that? Well, here’s the thing: CNN, which famously got burned by a Supreme Court ruling last year, has been playing it extra cautious this time around, so much so that all of the other networks had the decision long before CNN did. And Newsom’s staff was watching CNN for the news. Hear that? That’s what overcompensation sounds like. Classic Zucker.
21:50 // 10 months ago
evanfleischer:

Well played, Google.

Clever.

evanfleischer:

Well played, Google.

Clever.

10:43 // 10 months ago
10:42 // 10 months ago
The Ninth Circuit was without jurisdiciton to consider the appeal. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

SCOTUSblog

California gays can get their marriage on again. 

(via waitingonoblivion)

It’s not everything that same-sex marriage proponents wanted—it avoids a ruling on the larger issue, for one thing—but it’s a victory nonetheless.

(via waitingonoblivion)

10:32 // 10 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 // 10 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 // 10 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 // 10 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 // 10 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