IntenseDebate - palerobber

9 years ago @ Equality on Trial - BREAKING: Supreme Cour... · 2 replies · +8 points

after hearing that Evan Wolfson is planning to wind down Freedom to Marry, it occurred to me that NOM also no longer has any reason to exist. hey Maggie, time to put the staff on notice and start returning donations, no?

9 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Both sides face skepti... · 1 reply · +17 points

i think it's telling because Kennedy is acknowledging that Supreme Court decisions sometimes factor in politics and public opinion, and because he's saying that while it feels to him like this gay marriage thing is advancing awfully fast, he reminds himself it's not moving any faster than the civil rights movement did at its height.

9 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Both sides face skepti... · 2 replies · +14 points

after reading the transcript at greater length, i think i understand now what Bursch was about.

his point -- and he obviously thinks it's a real winner because he fights across several overlapping questions to get it out -- is that Windsor definitively settled the "new fundament right / existing fundamental right" question in the anti-marriage camp's favor.

he pulls a throw-away line from Windsor intended to provide historical context on past prejudices and pretends it's an authoritative finding that the "fundamental right to marry" only applies to heteros.

9 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Both sides face skepti... · 0 replies · +11 points

from Winsdor, Section III:

The limitation of lawful marriage to heterosexual couples, which for centuries had been deemed both necessary and fundamental, came to beseen in New York and certain other States as an unjust exclusion.

this part of the opinion is just laying out the history for background. now i need to go back and see how exactly Bursch is trying to employ this. right off i see he's changed "had been" (past tense) to "has always been" (past and present).

9 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Both sides face skepti... · 8 replies · +5 points

from the transcripts:

MR. BURSCH: [...] in Windsor, this Court said that the limitation of marriage to opposite sex couples has always been thought to be fundamental.
[...]
JUSTICE BREYER: [...] I'm surprised if this Court actually wrote that, but but if it did write that and you can immediately call that page to mind, I'll doubly look at it. And I just doubt it's here, but I'll look at it.
[...]
MR. BURSCH: Yeah. You will find in Windsor that the Court majority said it's the limitation of marriage to opposite sex couples that has always been thought fundamental.

Bursch used nearly identical language both times he made this assertion about Windsor, so he clearly had careful planned what he was going to say here. how accurate and honest is his claim?

9 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Potential class-action... · 0 replies · +2 points

petitioners' lawyer on Q2 got the US age of consent range wrong (it's 16-18, not 13-18). so he's left trying to explain, pointlessly, why a state should be able to non-recogzine a 13 year old's marriage from another state.

9 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Potential class-action... · 2 replies · +5 points

all i hear in his voice is prick.

9 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Potential class-action... · 0 replies · +4 points

i notice the lawyer for Michigan enlists the speedy negative consequences of no fault divorce, yet other anti-marriage briefs claim we don't yet know the consequences of gay marriage 11 years after Goodridge.

9 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Potential class-action... · 10 replies · +8 points

SCOTUSblog live blog:
"And [Roberts] emphasized that he had looked up all the definitions he could find, and it was always a man and a woman"

very odd - as if governments take their definitions of civil marriage from dicitonaries and not the other way around.

9 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Potential class-action... · 0 replies · +5 points

also it's apples to oranges...

when Plato wrote "approvingly of homosexual relations" in Symposium he was talking about relationships between male soldiers at war, not long term domestic unions between gay or lesbian partners.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with palerobber

People I'm following

palerobber