Skip

DOMA Unconstitutional, Yippie-Ki-Yay!
June 26, 2013 7:15 AM   Subscribe

SCOTUS declares DOMA Unconstitutional, 5 - 4. The gay rights movement saw a significant victory at the Supreme Court Wednesday, where the justices struck down part of a law barring federal benefits to married same-sex couples. In a 5-4 ruling, the court struck down a provision of the 17-year-old Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that denies federal benefits -- like Social Security benefits or the ability to file joint tax returns - to same-sex couples legally married. The impact of the DOMA case, United States v. Windsor, is clear for the nation's approximately 130,000 married same-sex couples. Section 3 of the law, the provision that was struck down, denies same-sex couples federal benefits. That provision impacts around 1,100 federal laws, including veterans' benefits, family medical leave and tax laws.
posted by theora55 (761 comments total) 105 users marked this as a favorite

 


Seriously, fuck yeah.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:16 AM on June 26, 2013 [4 favorites]


Woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
posted by Beardman at 7:16 AM on June 26, 2013 [4 favorites]


From SCOTUSblog live blog:

10:12
Amy Howe: To be clear, the Court has not yet released the decision in Prop 8, but there is language in Windsor telegraphing that the Court will dismiss on standing.
posted by Rhaomi at 7:17 AM on June 26, 2013


Huzzah!
posted by Gelatin at 7:17 AM on June 26, 2013


YAY!
posted by Capt. Renault at 7:17 AM on June 26, 2013


YEAH
posted by angrycat at 7:17 AM on June 26, 2013


I'm not sure who to hate anymore.
posted by johnpowell at 7:17 AM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


I reserve the right to not incriminate myself by getting gay married?

Interesting that we can't use the fifth to protect ourselves against incrimination but we can use it to get married (ish).
posted by tilde at 7:17 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


This is great news! I'm waiting to hear what they rule on Proposition 8.
posted by firemonkey at 7:17 AM on June 26, 2013


I both relieved and thrilled.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:17 AM on June 26, 2013


A slim margin, but we'll take it.

GODDAMN ABOUT TIME.
posted by kinnakeet at 7:18 AM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


Wow, Scalia is fucking bitter as hell.
posted by smackfu at 7:18 AM on June 26, 2013 [24 favorites]


A victory for federalism!

Wait, I'm doing it wrong, aren't I....
posted by resurrexit at 7:18 AM on June 26, 2013 [9 favorites]


YES.
posted by strixus at 7:18 AM on June 26, 2013


Woo!
posted by burnmp3s at 7:18 AM on June 26, 2013


This gives me hope.
posted by theora55 at 7:18 AM on June 26, 2013


Beyond, beyond happy!! Great day!!
posted by pearlybob at 7:18 AM on June 26, 2013


Thank God!
posted by ardgedee at 7:19 AM on June 26, 2013


Assuming the MSM got it right YESSS!

But, boy, they don't get it right right off the bat often, so we'll see.
posted by dirtdirt at 7:19 AM on June 26, 2013


I'm volunteering in London Pride this weekend. The theme of the parade is "marriage". Oh man, I can't wait to see it. :)
posted by fight or flight at 7:19 AM on June 26, 2013


Wow, Scalia is fucking bitter as hell. - smackfu

Yeah, is it just me or is he in the running for Douchebag of the Year?
posted by BrianJ at 7:19 AM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


Scalia, let me lick your delicious tears
posted by angrycat at 7:19 AM on June 26, 2013 [122 favorites]


Time to dance in the streets!
posted by prefpara at 7:19 AM on June 26, 2013


5-4 on federalism-ish equal protection grounds, and not only does dismissing Prop 8 grant no new protections, it vacates the Ninth Circuit's ruling that forbids other take-backs elsewhere. The wins don't come easy - but that doesn't mean I won't take it and celebrate.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 7:19 AM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


@BenjySarlin: Scalia suddenly thinks it's an insult to the Founders to overturn a Democratic vote in Congress
posted by zombieflanders at 7:19 AM on June 26, 2013 [8 favorites]


This has been an interesting 24 hours
posted by stuartmm at 7:19 AM on June 26, 2013 [13 favorites]


Rolling my eyes at Scalia so hard I just saw my own brain and its rolling too.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 7:19 AM on June 26, 2013 [55 favorites]


Amy Howe is going through Scalia's opinion, but I can't quite understand it. Anyone want to translate?
posted by You Guys Like 2 Party? at 7:20 AM on June 26, 2013


Breaking: Kennedy not entirely prepared to be on history books as terrible person forever
posted by shakespeherian at 7:20 AM on June 26, 2013 [20 favorites]


Scalia, let me lick your delicious tears

More of them come out when he rolls his eyes.
posted by Beardman at 7:20 AM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


Well I suppose it'll just be a matter of time before women and colored people are going to want this "equality" stuff too.
posted by Curious Artificer at 7:20 AM on June 26, 2013 [7 favorites]


Am I tripping or did the court just invent a new standard of review?
posted by angrycat at 7:21 AM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


Well, that just made my accountant's life easier.
posted by The Whelk at 7:21 AM on June 26, 2013 [102 favorites]


Scalia: "However, even setting aside traditional moral disapproval of same-sex marriage (or indeed same-sex sex), there are many perfectly valid—indeed, downright boring—justifying rationales for this legislation. Their existence ought to be the end of this case. ... Further, DOMA preserves the intended effects of prior legislation against then-unforeseen changes in circumstance. When Congress provided (for example) that a special estate-tax exemption would exist for spouses, this exemption reached only opposite-sex spouses—those being the only sort that were recognized in any State at the time of DOMA’s passage"
posted by smackfu at 7:21 AM on June 26, 2013


5-4, 5-4, Seriously? Call me naiv but I thought more like 7-2. And Roberts and Scalia bitching about having to do their job. Wow.
posted by ZeroAmbition at 7:21 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


I've got Lily Allen's perfect little anthem cranked up and am doing my happy swan dance.
posted by orange swan at 7:21 AM on June 26, 2013 [15 favorites]


Amy Howe is going through Scalia's opinion, but I can't quite understand it. Anyone want to translate?

"Hamburger hamburger resentment hamburger"
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:21 AM on June 26, 2013 [4 favorites]


Is Scalia MeFi's own? He goes all FTFY on page 23 of his dissent (page 53 of the overall opinion).
posted by BobbyVan at 7:21 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


So--this time last year, I was starting planning for a wedding this summer that will never happen (that wouldn't have been legal in my state anyway). This is the first time I've cried about that in awhile. But if getting dumped still hurts this bad, how much more losing your partner and then also whatever benefits should have been there to protect you? It's a good day for somebody--and I'd rather need tissues for this than for other reasons.
posted by Sequence at 7:21 AM on June 26, 2013 [6 favorites]


Great.

Now I have to shop for a ring.
posted by General Tonic at 7:22 AM on June 26, 2013 [19 favorites]


This court is giving me whiplash. In a non consensual way.
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:22 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


I was getting a little tired of doing weddings, anyway.
posted by MrMoonPie at 7:22 AM on June 26, 2013 [7 favorites]


FUCK YES.

Oh thank God.
posted by rmd1023 at 7:22 AM on June 26, 2013


I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING ANYMORE

IM HAPPY THEN IM SAD THEN IM HAPPY AGAIN

I AM NOT GOOD AT FEELINGS

THIS HAS BEEN THE MOST EMOTIONAL 24H OF MY LIFE
posted by elizardbits at 7:22 AM on June 26, 2013 [75 favorites]


Alright Klang, lets do this.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:22 AM on June 26, 2013 [22 favorites]


I posted this on Facebook before the decision came down, but I really should have just waited to say it here because I should have guessed, no matter what the decisions were, it would have been relevant:

I'm pretty sure if I suddenly got super powers, Antonin Scalia would end up as my arch nemesis. (We'd even have an interesting origin story about how we crossed paths when I was in college and his very being killed any part of me that was still remotely conservative.)
posted by MCMikeNamara at 7:23 AM on June 26, 2013 [11 favorites]


I'm not sure who to hate anymore.

Give it about a minute? Heads of conservative groups and churches are already shouting that bestiality and incest are just around the corner.

(Although I guess they might be updating us on their plans for the week. Who knows with those guys?)
posted by running order squabble fest at 7:23 AM on June 26, 2013 [6 favorites]


So apparently the song is right, and it is a nice time for a white wedding.
posted by The Whelk at 7:23 AM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


Is Scalia MeFi's own? He goes all FTFY on page 23 of his dissent

The SCOTUS has always been a league leader on dry-as-a-bone snark; we're all just playing AA ball out here, daydreaming about the Big Show.
posted by cortex at 7:23 AM on June 26, 2013 [37 favorites]


Is Scalia MeFi's own? He goes all FTFY on page 23 of his dissent

I still read FTFY as "f*ck that and f*ck you," which is pretty much what I hear from Scalia most of the time....
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:24 AM on June 26, 2013 [25 favorites]


I'm watching the SCOTUSblog live feed and it said "the decision is affirmed by Scalia." Then I had three or four heart attacks before realizing this was Sekhar and not the Prop 8 case.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 7:24 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


Other songs in 5/4:

Living in the Past

WTF
posted by Beardman at 7:25 AM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


I really dig this.
posted by item at 7:25 AM on June 26, 2013


THE DECISION WE'VE ALL BEEN WAITING FOR:

Attempting to compel a person to recommend that his employer approve an investment does not constitute the obtaining of property from another under the Hobbs Act!

Wooooo?
posted by Rhaomi at 7:25 AM on June 26, 2013 [10 favorites]


So, is this just about the federal benefits being denied to same-sex spouses or does it strike the entirety of DOMA down? Can people start marrying anywhere they want now? Or what? How does this work?
posted by NoMich at 7:26 AM on June 26, 2013


I am so happy right now. Just waiting on Prop. 8 to know where my heart is going to be for the rest of the day.
posted by batmonkey at 7:26 AM on June 26, 2013


Scalia is one of the most inconsistent motherfuckers I have ever heard.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 7:26 AM on June 26, 2013 [5 favorites]


I yelped and almost knocked over the coffee thing when I heard. AAAAHHHHH!!!!
posted by rtha at 7:26 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


So, I don't have to pay special taxes to cover my girlfriend on my health insurance when we eventually get married! And when I keel over and make her a widow, she won't have to pay estate taxes (if applicable)! Yay!
posted by rmd1023 at 7:26 AM on June 26, 2013 [7 favorites]


Finally, 3-somes with farm animals!
posted by uraniumwilly at 7:26 AM on June 26, 2013 [18 favorites]


I didn't think I would be this overwhelmed with emotion, but I am. Yay!
posted by spinturtle at 7:26 AM on June 26, 2013


Am I tripping or did the court just invent a new standard of review?

Seems like it's another RB+B misfit?

They should just admit it's at least intermediate scrutiny (where other gender and reproductive issues are slotted).
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:26 AM on June 26, 2013


Rainbow Scotus image
posted by theora55 at 7:26 AM on June 26, 2013


Just federal benefits to same-sex couples. That was the only part of the statute being challenged.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 7:26 AM on June 26, 2013


A victory for federalism!

Wait, I'm doing it wrong, aren't I....


Not to be a downer, but this, combined with a slim majority, is the least optimal positive outcome to most supporters of gay rights. DOMA and Prop 8 both deserve to be overturned as violations of the Equal Protection clause. Saying that it's not okay for the feds to discriminate but that it's A-OK for the states to do it is actually pretty shitty. The last 24 hours have proven that SCOTUS are explicitly joining conservatives in using this as a smokescreen for dismantling protected classes and giving a boost to discrimination. I know "states rights" advocates love this shit, but they never seem to acknowledge that that's what allowed Jim Crow to exist.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:26 AM on June 26, 2013 [78 favorites]



Scalia is one of the most inconsistent motherfuckers I have ever heard.


I can't wait to read his dissent in Prop-8. I'm concerned I might have a stroke, however.
posted by mikelieman at 7:27 AM on June 26, 2013


Great. Now I have to shop for a ring.

Don't sound too happy about it.
Make the ring large! I am sure he'll enjoy it.
posted by QueerAngel28 at 7:27 AM on June 26, 2013 [4 favorites]


5-4 on Prop 8. Roberts holds that the petitioners lacked standing. Wow. I thought for sure that the narrow rationale would get more than one swing vote.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 7:27 AM on June 26, 2013


I know "states rights" advocates love this shit, but they never seem to acknowledge that that's what allowed Jim Crow to exist.

That would be giving away the game.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:27 AM on June 26, 2013 [6 favorites]


My brother, who lives in Kuala Lumpur with his partner, sent me a joyous message on FB even before my phone sent me a Times headline alert. He has been on pins and needles about this decision for several months. They are now planning on a wedding in the U.S. later this year, and moving back here thereafter. I haven't seen him this happy in a long time.

Fuck yeah, SCOTUS. Scalia, bite me.
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 7:28 AM on June 26, 2013 [6 favorites]


Quoth @tomperriello: "when comparing doma & vra, we treat scotus as an entity. Reality is 4 justices right on both. 1 50/50. 4 will answer to history for both."
posted by evoque at 7:28 AM on June 26, 2013 [6 favorites]


At last.
posted by Myca at 7:28 AM on June 26, 2013


Well, that just made my accountant's life easier.
posted by The Whelk at 7:21 AM on June 26
[7 favorites −] Favorite added! [!]


Last night gingerbeer said that she felt weird wanting DOMA overturned in no small part so that doing our taxes would be easier.

And now I will actually start the car and drive to work. No Internet for 30ish minutes. How will I live?!
posted by rtha at 7:28 AM on June 26, 2013 [6 favorites]


What an amazing thing to wake up to. Sleepy happy crying now :)
posted by vespertine at 7:29 AM on June 26, 2013


So, is this just about the federal benefits being denied to same-sex spouses or does it strike the entirety of DOMA down? Can people start marrying anywhere they want now? Or what? How does this work?

My understanding is that the federal government will now recognize same-sex marriages in states that allow them, for the many and varied purposes that the federal government recognizes marriages (taxes, etc.). It does not establish a right for same sex couples to marry in states that do not currently permit it.
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 7:29 AM on June 26, 2013 [4 favorites]


I'm watching the TV news in a diner in downtown Appomattox, Virginia, surrounded by white-haired old people who are muttering about how "sickening" it is and that the country is "going down fast" because noone "follows the Bible" anymore. I told them that I'm glad that their generation will be gone soon, but it's pretty fucking depressing to be the only non-bigot in the room.

I'm tempted to rent a car and get the fuck out of town for a day or two to be around people who are celebrating, but my husband would kill me because we can't afford to spend money on frivolous stuff.

I don't know what I'd do without you, MetaFilter.
posted by Jacqueline at 7:29 AM on June 26, 2013 [86 favorites]


Wait, hold on, the minority is Alito, Kennedy, Thomas and Sotomayor. Scalia provides the winning vote.

SCALIA PROVIDES THE WINNING VOTE.

brb world exploding
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 7:29 AM on June 26, 2013 [11 favorites]


Shit just got weird:

‏@SCOTUSblog No precedent on gay marriage in the Prop 8 case. The S. Ct. does not decide, 5-4. Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan majority.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:29 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


The radio is like the internet except it's all pop-ups.
posted by shakespeherian at 7:29 AM on June 26, 2013 [6 favorites]


Perry punted on standing.
posted by Navelgazer at 7:30 AM on June 26, 2013


Did they rule on whether we're allowed to eat at Chik-fil-A again?
posted by Rangeboy at 7:30 AM on June 26, 2013 [22 favorites]


And now I will actually start the car and drive to work. No Internet for 30ish minutes. How will I live?

Begin the filibuster!
posted by running order squabble fest at 7:30 AM on June 26, 2013


DOMA didn't affect me personally (any more than, I guess, gay people getting married would) but what I find inspiring about this is that it was a terrible piece of legislation promoted and signed by a Democratic president and after nearly 20 years, the left is finally accepting that and pushed hard enough to get rid of it. We evolve over time and acknowledge that Democrats as well as Republicans pass stupid laws because of political expedience and moral cowardice. The left made Obama move to the left of Clinton on this. For everyone who has whined for the last few years that protest and activism doesn't change anything, this is how it does. This is how it did.

So yeah, fuck yeah. Good riddance, Bill Clinton's DOMA. I look forward to another 17 years from now, when all the "Sensible Liberals" who are mocking liberals and progressive-thinking people today about not supporting warrentless wiretapping and murdering people with flying robots admit that oh, shucks, I guess you were right after all too.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:31 AM on June 26, 2013 [20 favorites]


I can't wait to marry my hedgehog and my parakeet and then we can all go on foodstamps and welfare! I've always wanted to eat king crab legs in a cadillac!!!!!!
posted by nevercalm at 7:31 AM on June 26, 2013 [15 favorites]


No precedent on gay marriage in the Prop 8 case.

No precedent on gay marriage. Potentially huge precedent on the ability of the executive branch to pocket-veto old laws they oppose by conceding lawsuits against them. Depends on the ruling.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 7:31 AM on June 26, 2013 [5 favorites]



SCALIA PROVIDES THE WINNING VOTE.

brb world exploding


I don't think it's a risky gamble here to assume Scalia wanted to say the case had standing so he could rule in favor of keeping Prop 8 legal.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:31 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Could someone explain what just happened with Prop 8, then?
posted by jquinby at 7:31 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


SCOTUSblog ‏@SCOTUSblog 1m
Same-sex marriage will be available in CA, at least where court clerks take the position that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

posted by vacapinta at 7:32 AM on June 26, 2013


Sniffling at work here in the UK. This is huge and amazing and I am so glad, so glad.

We still have a fight ahead, but this means so many things are becoming possible - like my currently exiled fiancée not having to choose between me and her home country. Like us actually being able to live in the US together as wives, should that be where life takes us.

Wow. Not dismissing any US-related plans out of hand is going to take some getting used to. But first I think I need a tissue.
posted by harujion at 7:32 AM on June 26, 2013 [5 favorites]


What's the Latin word for "punt"?
posted by ShawnStruck at 7:32 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


I just got a little chill reading the words in the opinion: DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.

Damn straight it is.
posted by something something at 7:33 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Could someone explain what just happened with Prop 8, then?

Private citizens have no standing to challenge the constitutionality where the state chose not to. In other words, they punted on the grounds that the 9th Circuit lacked jurisdiction.
posted by Leezie at 7:33 AM on June 26, 2013


I'm doing a flippery happy dance right now. Yay!
posted by arcticseal at 7:33 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Between this and the amazing triumph of Wendy Davis in Texas last night, a molecule or two of hope is restored.
posted by dbiedny at 7:34 AM on June 26, 2013 [5 favorites]


I am happy about the decisions, but sad about the way Prop 8 is being overturned.

This is indeed the most shitty way to get a good thing.

That being said.... YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!
posted by sparklemotion at 7:34 AM on June 26, 2013


I'm getting married next year and I'm glad it will be in a country that, at least at the federal, recognizes my friends' and families' right to get hitched too. I'm so glad.
posted by jetlagaddict at 7:34 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


So, what will these two rulings change for a gay couple in California, right now?
posted by cacofonie at 7:34 AM on June 26, 2013


It's a good day. It remains offensive that the question ever had to be asked, but at least we got the right answer.
posted by ChrisR at 7:34 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


YAY HOORAY!!!!

I'm going to get legally married in California FUCK YEAH!
posted by insectosaurus at 7:35 AM on June 26, 2013 [16 favorites]


Could someone explain what just happened with Prop 8, then?

Basically, gay marriage is allowed, but the ruling only applies to California, and even then only to clerks who agree to do it. As I said before, the narrowest possible ruling that doesn't make them complete homophobes.

Also, I'm hoping Sotomayor joined the minority on that one on standing grounds, because she wanted it struck down.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:35 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Private citizens have no standing to challenge the constitutionality where the state chose not to. In other words, they punted on the grounds that the 9th Circuit lacked jurisdiction.

This means that the lower court ruling stands and same-sex marriage is once again permitted in California, right?
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 7:35 AM on June 26, 2013


From twitter: "@ACLU_NorCal Victory: #Prop8 gone - no standing!!! :D #lgbt #marriageequality #scotus #omg #winwinwin"

So good, yes?
posted by borkencode at 7:35 AM on June 26, 2013


I want to see video streams of people dancing and singing. Where are the people dancing and singing?
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:35 AM on June 26, 2013 [4 favorites]


Private citizens have no standing to challenge the constitutionality where the state chose not to. In other words, they punted on the grounds that the 9th Circuit lacked jurisdiction.

Actually, private citizens lacked standing to ASSERT Prop 8's constitutionality after a Federal court ruled it unconstitutional, notwithstanding the intervening decision on the way up. Thus Prop 8 is dead, but no new precedent regarding its substance (yea or nay) has been established at the Supreme Court level.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:35 AM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


So good, yes?

If you're not a heartless bigot.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:36 AM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


Pride this weekend is gonna be CHAINLESS, I tell you what.
posted by louche mustachio at 7:36 AM on June 26, 2013 [12 favorites]


This means that the lower court ruling stands and same-sex marriage is once again permitted in California, right?

Yes, but under the terms of the District Court's ruling, not the 9th Circuit's more expansive decision which held that once granted, same-sex marriage rights cannot be taken back without a compelling reason.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 7:37 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


If you're not a heartless bigot.

I'm not, so YAYYY.
posted by borkencode at 7:37 AM on June 26, 2013 [9 favorites]


It's times like this I wish I were better at feeling happiness.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:37 AM on June 26, 2013 [9 favorites]


Yay! I'm running in the Front Runners race this Saturday in Central Park. It's gonna be so fucking celebratory.

FUCK YEAH! AT LAST!
posted by gaspode at 7:38 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


To echo whelk and rtha, I think what a lot of people don't understand is that it's not just the general principles of these laws (although that should be enough, but I know that isn't so in the real world) but lots of picayune practical details like taxes as well.
posted by jonmc at 7:38 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


So wait, CAN I file jointly now? I got Gay Married in NY state as soon as it was possible too, does this like, at the end of Buffy, anyone who was married state-side is now married federally? Is there paperwork? Like, what does this mean in the actual " offices and lawyers I need to get in touch with" sense?
posted by The Whelk at 7:38 AM on June 26, 2013 [5 favorites]


louche mustachio: "Pride this weekend is gonna be CHAINLESS, I tell you what."

Yeah, I haven't been to Pride in 4 or 5 years probably, but I'm pretty sure I'm starting the weekend tonight. And I don't even live in state where I can get married.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 7:38 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Pride this weekend is gonna be CHAINLESS, I tell you what.

Hopefully not entirely chainless, or some floats are going to need to be redesigned post-haste.
posted by murphy slaw at 7:39 AM on June 26, 2013 [23 favorites]


The phones at the accountants' offices are going to be ringing off the hook today...
posted by mikelieman at 7:39 AM on June 26, 2013 [4 favorites]


And OMG the parade! It's gonna be crazy.
posted by gaspode at 7:39 AM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


This is too many feelings after Texas last night. It's been a monumental few hours.
posted by donnagirl at 7:39 AM on June 26, 2013


MANY HAPPY TAX RETURNS!!!!!!
posted by orange swan at 7:40 AM on June 26, 2013 [24 favorites]


ThePinkSuperhero: Line outside the court, to start with.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 7:40 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Amy Howe: Here's a Plain English take on Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage: After the two same-sex couples filed their challenge to Proposition 8 in federal court in California, the California government officials who would normally have defended the law in court, declined to do so. So the proponents of Proposition 8 stepped in to defend the law, and the California Supreme Court (in response to a request by the lower court) ruled that they could do so under state law. But today the Supreme Court held that the proponents do not have the legal right to defend the law in court. As a result, it held, the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the intermediate appellate court, has no legal force, and it sent the case back to that court with instructions for it to dismiss the case.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:41 AM on June 26, 2013 [7 favorites]


YAY! :)

Also, seventeen years. Seventeen fucking years. If there were any justice in the world, the people who were legally married but denied benefits under DOMA that were rightfully theirs should get that money retroactively from the federal government. In a lump sum. Delivered in person and with a big fucking apology by the hateful bigots who voted their rights away in the first place.
posted by zarq at 7:41 AM on June 26, 2013 [45 favorites]


what kills me is that literally no one at work is talking about this or the filibuster

why am I not home in DC
posted by jetlagaddict at 7:42 AM on June 26, 2013 [5 favorites]


"Saying that it's not okay for the feds to discriminate but that it's A-OK for the states to do it is actually pretty shitty. "

I'm sort-of curious about the practical outcome of this -- will large companies and those who require a lot of highly-educated talent (tech, banking, health care) start locating more often in gay marriage states and move out of no-gay-marriage states, because employees who have options won't want to live in a state where they won't get federal tax benefits? Will those companies stay in states like Texas where manufacturing is cheap, and pay certain employees a premium to make up for their monetary losses by living in a no-gay-marriage state? Will nothing at all happen because people and companies move a lot less often than they say they're going to?

Anyway, it would make me happy if, while this disparity exists, companies voted with their feet and moved to states with gay marriage rights so all their employees would receive those benefits. Anti-gay-marriage states are also the ones that claim to be "business friendly." You seem to risk ending up a backwater if you drive your talented citizens out of your state because you won't give them equal rights.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:42 AM on June 26, 2013 [8 favorites]


So wait, CAN I file jointly now? I got Gay Married in NY state as soon as it was possible too, does this like, at the end of Buffy, anyone who was married state-side is now married federally? Is there paperwork? Like, what does this mean in the actual " offices and lawyers I need to get in touch with" sense?

Believe me, the IRS will tell you precisely how to give them your gay married monies by the time Tax Day rolls around.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:43 AM on June 26, 2013 [12 favorites]


I have nothing to add but an utterly incohate WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
posted by Devils Rancher at 7:43 AM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]




will large companies and those who require a lot of highly-educated talent (tech, banking, health care) start locating more often in gay marriage states and move out of no-gay-marriage states, because employees who have options won't want to live in a state where they won't get federal tax benefits?

That's kind of what I was thinking last night with the filibuster in Texas. States are going to legislate themselves out of the high-paying, high-knowledge jobs that bring in tax revenue. I think we're going to see a large shift in wealth over the next couple decades where "blue states" end up funding "red states" even more than they do now.
posted by backseatpilot at 7:44 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


I hope the government gives Edie her money back now.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:44 AM on June 26, 2013 [7 favorites]


‏@BryanJFischer: The DOMA ruling has now made the normalization of polygamy, pedophilia, incest and bestiality inevitable. Matter of time.

Crazies gonna craze, which wouldn't be bad, except this guy is literally welcomed with open arms by a majority in the House and a filibuster-proof minority in the Senate.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:45 AM on June 26, 2013


Not to be a downer, but this, combined with a slim majority, is the least optimal positive outcome to most supporters of gay rights.

This is the way Courts in the US decide things. They are supposed to decide as few issues as they need to to decide the case.

In the end, today was a win. And California will gay marry a lot of people and that will be the beginning of the end, which today was.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:45 AM on June 26, 2013 [13 favorites]


Yo, Scalia is straight-up PISSED.
posted by rachaelfaith at 7:45 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


!!!!!!!!!
posted by terrapin at 7:45 AM on June 26, 2013


My uncle, an Icelandic citizen, is married to an American man. They've been married for nearly a decade now. As the US didn't recognize their marriage and therefore wouldn't grant my uncle a green card, his husband has had to choose between living in the country of his birth and living with my uncle. Not that life hasn't been good for them in Iceland, but it's just so fucking infuriating that a government would force that kind of choice on someone. I welled up a little when I saw the news. As my uncle and his husband are great guys I hope they choose to stay in Iceland, but I'm really happy they have the choice now.
posted by Kattullus at 7:45 AM on June 26, 2013 [48 favorites]


Darkly hilarious: That green-card bullshit used to be the issue that was keeping Glenn Greenwald living abroad.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 7:46 AM on June 26, 2013 [6 favorites]


will large companies and those who require a lot of highly-educated talent (tech, banking, health care) start locating more often in gay marriage states and move out of no-gay-marriage states, because employees who have options won't want to live in a state where they won't get federal tax benefits?


I feel like this has come up as a suggestion a lot in academia-- that policies excluding support for gay partners might hurt professor recruitment at certain state institutions. (I feel like Texas was one, but also Virginia?) I'd be really interested in seeing studies on it.
posted by jetlagaddict at 7:47 AM on June 26, 2013


So, to clarify:

Gay people can get married in a gay-marriage-is-ok state.

They can then move to a non-gay-marriage-is-ok state, and, as far as the feds are concerned, still be married.

But will the second state still be able to discriminate against them in some way?
posted by emjaybee at 7:47 AM on June 26, 2013 [5 favorites]


Hahahaha. Google "gay marriage" right now and see what happens.
posted by Rangeboy at 7:47 AM on June 26, 2013 [103 favorites]


will large companies and those who require a lot of highly-educated talent (tech, banking, health care) start locating more often in gay marriage states and move out of no-gay-marriage states, because employees who have options won't want to live in a state where they won't get federal tax benefits?

And less importantly, but still significant for states like Florida and Hawaii, pressure on tourism/vacation destinations to welcome the gay segment of the marriage destination market. Florida does not recognize any same sex unions, Hawaii recognizes them only as civil partnerships.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:47 AM on June 26, 2013


Rangeboy: "Hahahaha. Google "gay marriage" right now and see what happens."

YAY GOOGLE!
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:48 AM on June 26, 2013 [18 favorites]


Kennedy's dissent in Perry is really strong.
posted by prefpara at 7:48 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


But will the second state still be able to discriminate against them in some way

That's correct, unfortunately.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:48 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


This bullshit handwringing over standing ignores the fact that Americans want a court that will defend their rights as people.
posted by kiltedtaco at 7:49 AM on June 26, 2013 [4 favorites]


My uncle, an Icelandic citizen, is married to an American man. They've been married for nearly a decade now. As the US didn't recognize their marriage and therefore wouldn't grant my uncle a green card, his husband has had to choose between living in the country of his birth and living with my uncle. Not that life hasn't been good for them in Iceland, but it's just so fucking infuriating that a government would force that kind of choice on someone. I welled up a little when I saw the news. As my uncle and his husband are great guys I hope they choose to stay in Iceland, but I'm really happy they have the choice now.

FWIW, the DOMA decision now means that the protections for gay couples that were dropped from the immigration bill are unnecessary. They shouldn't have been traded for insane border security anyway, but then again gay immigrants can be legalized and the spending counts as fiscal stimulus, so...
posted by zombieflanders at 7:49 AM on June 26, 2013 [4 favorites]


What law controls if you get married in a territory? Like the US VI? (Or DC, I suppose...)
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:50 AM on June 26, 2013


George Takei
I've heard many posit that Justice Ginsberg rides a flying unicorn to the Court that leaves a trail of rainbows behind it. This is untrue. Unicorns do not fly.

posted by Drinky Die at 7:51 AM on June 26, 2013 [54 favorites]


This bullshit handwringing over standing ignores the fact that Americans want a court that will defend their rights as people.

They will, as long as you're male, white, straight, upper-class, and like to run a business where you want some employees to get away with harassing others for being minority/gay/whatever just as long as you don't call them a supervisor.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:51 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


Feelin HOT HOT HOT
posted by Potomac Avenue at 7:52 AM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


They can then move to a non-gay-marriage-is-ok state, and, as far as the feds are concerned, still be married.

Talking heads on the news mentioned something about certain federal benefits being based on state in which the marriage took place, but certain other federal benefits being based on state of current residence. So there may be a bit of difference still in federal benefits if the couple doesn't stay in a gay-ok state. Or it could be up for interpretation still yet.

Anyway, WOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
posted by zengargoyle at 7:52 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Yes, but under the terms of the District Court's ruling, not the 9th Circuit's more expansive decision

So, what are the more restrictive terms of the District Court's ruling?
posted by John Cohen at 7:52 AM on June 26, 2013


From the New Yorker's Facebook feed:

Ariel Levy was with Edith Windsor when she learned about the Court's decision to strike down DOMA this morning. "Windsor said 'I wanna go to Stonewall right now!' Then she called a friend and said, 'please get married right away!'

And now the expected tearing up finally happened.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 7:55 AM on June 26, 2013 [4 favorites]


So this is the scenario now, according to the New Yorker and some folks on twitter.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 7:55 AM on June 26, 2013 [5 favorites]


What law controls if you get married in a territory? Like the US VI? (Or DC, I suppose...)

Answering my own question, it's been possible in DC for some time. Which is thing that made me go "huh."
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:55 AM on June 26, 2013


I think the liberal justices in Perry wanted to avoid another Roe.
posted by shivohum at 7:55 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


I am not as happy about this as I should be. I mean, yes, I am happy that at least gay couples get a tiny little slice of the much larger slice of the happiness and equality pie that they deserve. But between that and last night, I can't help but feel that we are winning only the smallest battles, and it almost feels like being thrown the scraps to keep the dogs quiet. If we hadn't gotten this, or the abortion bill last night had passed, there would have been a ton of public outcry. If we had gotten all of it, or the abortion bill had really been defeated for good, it would have been a huge landmark historic victory. But everyone gets just enough to keep them quiet, while discrimination and bullshit meet up again in the back halls with no intention do anything but the absolute barest minimum that they can get away with.

Or maybe it's the last of my Xanax talking, and this really does mean a lot nationally and not just for those couples who now get benefits (I am glad about that, through, really.) Who knows.
posted by WidgetAlley at 7:56 AM on June 26, 2013




So, what are the more restrictive terms of the District Court's ruling?

It only applies to California and not the entire 9th Circuit.
posted by Talez at 7:57 AM on June 26, 2013


I think the liberal justices in Perry wanted to avoid another Roe.

I think the liberal justices in Perry were quite certain that Anthony Kennedy's sudden burst of generosity towards gay people only went so far.
posted by mightygodking at 7:57 AM on June 26, 2013 [9 favorites]


I have such conflicted feels about everything that's happened this week, but for now, let me say: FUCK YES.

Tomorrow we go back to fighting for our civil rights. But tonight I'm taking a shot.
posted by Phire at 7:57 AM on June 26, 2013


You win wars by winning one battle at a time. For issues like Gay Marriage, it's just a waiting game until the bigots die off.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 7:58 AM on June 26, 2013 [14 favorites]


I mean, yes, I am happy that at least gay couples get a tiny little slice of the much larger slice of the happiness and equality pie that they deserve. But between that and last night, I can't help but feel that we are winning only the smallest battles, and it almost feels like being thrown the scraps to keep the dogs quiet.

You're making reality sound much more conspiratorial and much less chaotic than it really is.
posted by John Cohen at 7:58 AM on June 26, 2013 [8 favorites]


FUCK

YES!
posted by Aizkolari at 7:58 AM on June 26, 2013




And California will gay marry a lot of people
posted by shakespeherian at 7:59 AM on June 26, 2013 [9 favorites]


Deeee-lighted. Our friends who got married in the pre-Prop 8 legalisation are somewhat out of limbo now. Awesome.
posted by Happy Dave at 7:59 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


I'm going to fan myself with tax return and hospital visiting rights while muttering JEALOUS?
posted by The Whelk at 8:00 AM on June 26, 2013 [27 favorites]


It only applies to California and not the entire 9th Circuit.

And it's not precedential at all; while other district courts are encouraged to follow prior rulings by their peers, nothing forces them to. And the 9th Circuit could overrule it with no trouble if a different set of judges were to hear the case.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:00 AM on June 26, 2013


So this is the scenario now, according to the New Yorker and some folks on twitter.

Wow, that map looks so much better than it did in, say, 2007.

But between that and last night, I can't help but feel that we are winning only the smallest battles

I think that conservative activists have proved over the last 10 years or so that winning the smallest battles (micro restrictions on abortion, winning tiny state contests in redistricting years, etc) can win the war. "We must take our little teaspoons and get to work. We can't wait for shovels."
posted by muddgirl at 8:00 AM on June 26, 2013 [19 favorites]


!
posted by drezdn at 8:00 AM on June 26, 2013


Answer the goddamn door klangklangston, YOU PROMISED.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:00 AM on June 26, 2013 [35 favorites]


Don't you have some traditional marriages to destroy, Whelk?
posted by Think_Long at 8:01 AM on June 26, 2013 [7 favorites]


You're making reality sound much more conspiratorial and much less chaotic than it really is.

I mean, yeah, I know that's not really how it works, and that there is no cabal (ha, that's like the only time that's ever been used in all seriousness on Mefi), I'm just saying that's what it feels like. It feels like creeping by absolute inches and that we never gain more than one at a time, regardless of how much effort we put into it.

I am really happy for people on the individual level though. A LOT of my friends are veterans who are thinking about moving to gay marriage states. So happy this means that their spouses will get the federal benefits of being a spouse to a veteran!
posted by WidgetAlley at 8:01 AM on June 26, 2013


Yes I'm sending out my marriage destroying yellow jackets and velociraptors
posted by The Whelk at 8:02 AM on June 26, 2013 [29 favorites]


I think the liberal justices in Perry wanted to avoid another Roe.

There are a lot of important reasons to not allow a bunch of dipshits to challenge laws that states find so odious they refuse to defend them.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:02 AM on June 26, 2013 [6 favorites]


So can all gay widowers and widows who were unjustly charged excessive estate taxes when their spouse died now sue the federal government? God, I hope so.

Can all gay married couples now refile their taxes jointly for the last X number of years and get money back? God, I hope so.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:02 AM on June 26, 2013 [7 favorites]


( if the yellow jacket stings you, you become married to me Bwuahahahaha)
posted by The Whelk at 8:02 AM on June 26, 2013 [7 favorites]


My wife and I are standing at the door with shotguns waiting for the homoseshuals to come attack our marriage. It's quiet so far, but we're ready.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:03 AM on June 26, 2013 [43 favorites]


"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they've tried everything else." - Winston Churchill
posted by Argyle at 8:03 AM on June 26, 2013 [59 favorites]


DirtyOldTown, I believe there is a 3 year statute of limitations, but yes.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:03 AM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


Ooh, ooh, can you send one of those yellowjackets to Wisconsin, please?
posted by Madamina at 8:03 AM on June 26, 2013


OH SHIT AND I SMELL LIKE FLOWERS
posted by shakespeherian at 8:03 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


Hopefully not entirely chainless, or some floats are going to need to be redesigned post-haste.

Naw, I have been on a lost Pride Float before, and it was super fun. We drove by the Walker, a bunch of tourists cheered and took pictures, and we yelled a lot about how it was SUMMER and we can have a float.

And I declare that Pride in Minneapolis shall be CHAINLESS because we JUST legalized marriage equality as well. SO FUCK YEAH
posted by louche mustachio at 8:04 AM on June 26, 2013 [6 favorites]


smackfu: "Wow, Scalia is fucking bitter as hell."

There's a line forming:
Republican Representative Tim Huelskamp, who as a state legislator in Kansas authored that state’s amendment banning same-sex marriage, said that the decision does not mean the last word in the debate.

“This doesn’t end it,” said Mr. Huelskamp. “In 1973 a decision here was supposedly going to end the abortion debate. If anything it’s been ignited and continues to be discussed.” He said the court action was an attempt to “short circuit the process and to undo a decision, a strong bipartisan decision, signed by President Bill Clinton and supported by then Senator Joe Biden, for this court to overrule it, I think folks are tired of judges dictating.”
Hey, maybe this is how we re-ignite the space program in the US. Are you bitter? Angry that your laws keep getting ruled "unconstitutional"? Start a new life in the off-world colonies! 40 space acres and a hyper-mule can be yours!

"I think people are tired of judges dictating", please. Go be sullen in the Andromeda system.
posted by boo_radley at 8:04 AM on June 26, 2013 [5 favorites]


Please pardon my constitutional ignorance...
Have the courts opined on how equal protection applies in the case of, say, if a same-sex couple is married in a state that allows it, then moves to a state which specifically forbids it. Does their marriage stand in the new state?
posted by Thorzdad at 8:04 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


You win wars by winning one battle at a time. For issues like Gay Marriage, it's just a waiting game until the bigots die off.

Exactly this.

SO FUCKING HAPPY RIGHT NOW.
posted by flyingsquirrel at 8:04 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Obamacare + No DOMA = More alive gays. Rock on.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 8:04 AM on June 26, 2013 [10 favorites]


"All that money we had to donate to Prop 8. For nothing. I could have opened a Chik-Fil-A. Now I have to work at one"
— Mormon Dude
posted by Senor Cardgage at 8:04 AM on June 26, 2013 [5 favorites]


So can all gay widowers and widows who were injustly charged excessive estate taxes when their spouse died now sue the federal government? God, I hope so.

Note that the widower in this case actually filed as married and then was denied, which is probably an important distinction. And I'm not sure you can sue, but you certainly can refile your taxes with the new status.
posted by smackfu at 8:05 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


Have the courts opined on how equal protection applies in the case of, say, if a same-sex couple is married in a state that allows it, then moves to a state which specifically forbids it. Does their marriage stand in the new state?

They have not. DOMA says that states can choose whether or not to recognize other states' same-sex marriage, and the lawsuit before the court today did not challenge that provision.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:05 AM on June 26, 2013


It feels like creeping by absolute inches and that we never gain more than one at a time, regardless of how much effort we put into it.

In 1988, the Supreme Court ruled sodomy laws constitutional.

in 2004 the country was so squarely against gay marriage that the Bush team got anti-gay marriage laws on referenda in several states where no one was even contemplating making it legal.

Nine years later, the majority of the country favors gay marriage and sodomy laws are unconstitutional. To me it seems like a complete turnaround from 2000 years in 10 years.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:06 AM on June 26, 2013 [40 favorites]


Hahahaha. Google "gay marriage" right now and see what happens.

Why is that the thing that made me start crying? Brains are weird.
posted by amarynth at 8:06 AM on June 26, 2013 [15 favorites]


Have the courts opined on how equal protection applies in the case of, say, if a same-sex couple is married in a state that allows it, then moves to a state which specifically forbids it. Does their marriage stand in the new state?

Bascially nobody has any idea. The next step is: someone moves to a state that has no gay marriage or Civil Unions and claims that they should have full marriage protection, sues, case goes to SCOTUS, they win that narrowly. And on and on until all the states are like ugh fuck it let's concentrate on something more popular.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 8:07 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


I am so happy for all of couples and families this has the most immediate impact on, and overjoyed for what this means for the people who aren't even old enough to know this burden has been limited from them.

Now we just have to get through the state-by-state proving grounds. A slog, but I believe we're reinvigorated.

We'll need it, because we have to fight the effects of the VRA decision at the same time.

Still! This is good news! It's maybe not 100% the BEST news, but our nation is better than it was an hour ago!
posted by batmonkey at 8:07 AM on June 26, 2013


DOMA says that states can choose whether or not to recognize other states' same-sex marriage, and the lawsuit before the court today did not challenge that provision.

but the state can't do anything about the federal recognition of that marriage, and the mismatch there could create a nice legal mess.
posted by fallacy of the beard at 8:07 AM on June 26, 2013


Have the courts opined on how equal protection applies in the case of, say, if a same-sex couple is married in a state that allows it, then moves to a state which specifically forbids it. Does their marriage stand in the new state?

That's DOMA section 2, and DOMA section 3 was the one that was overturned today. AFAIK, someone would need to file a new case that uses the SCOTUS equal protection logic to argue that section 2 is unconstitutional. But that might easily get denied cert by the SCOTUS if they agree with that reasoning.
posted by smackfu at 8:07 AM on June 26, 2013


This establishes sexual orientation as a class, yes?
posted by Benny Andajetz at 8:08 AM on June 26, 2013


So with DOMA being unconstitutional this means that Same-Sex couples with 1 US citizen can get a green card for their partners because immigration is a federal issue?
posted by vuron at 8:08 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


My wife and I are standing at the door with shotguns waiting for the homoseshuals to come attack our marriage. It's quiet so far, but we're ready.

This conjures 3 images:

1. Conservatives frantically riding around on horseback, screaming "THE GAY IS COMING, THE GAY IS COMING" ala Paul Revere.

2. Gay people swarming around houses like zombies from the World War Z movie, wanting to come inside and redecorate EVERYTHING.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:08 AM on June 26, 2013 [21 favorites]


And the third?
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:09 AM on June 26, 2013 [5 favorites]


DOMA section 2 (moving to a state that doesn't recognize a federally/other-state recognized marriage) should be a no-brainer based on Loving v Virginia, I'd think. But I'm not a lawyer.
posted by rmd1023 at 8:09 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Gay people in WI are still fucked.

WI Statue 765.30
Penalties.
(1) The following may be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than 9 months or both:
(a) Penalty for marriage outside the state to circumvent the laws. Any person residing and intending to continue to reside in this state who goes outside the state and there contracts a marriage prohibited or declared void under the laws of this state.
Freedom hating conservatives can kiss my ass.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 8:09 AM on June 26, 2013 [15 favorites]


Abortion is a bad analogy. The Anti-abortion movements strength is based on caring about the wrong things. It has an internal logic to it, even if the motivations are super suspect. There's no Pro-Marriage (anti-marriage-equality) argument that people are making that makes any kind of sense at all. It's just either "UGH" or "YUCK" based on homophobia or plain old resistance to change. That has no staying power.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 8:09 AM on June 26, 2013 [4 favorites]


This establishes sexual orientation as a class, yes?

As far as I can tell, no. They didn't apply the "strict scrutiny" requirement that would have made orientation a protected class.

So with DOMA being unconstitutional this means that Same-Sex couples with 1 US citizen can get a green card for their partners because immigration is a federal issue?

Yes.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:10 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


This establishes sexual orientation as a class, yes?

No more than before. This is more 'rational basis with bite.'
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:10 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

article 4, section 1
posted by pyramid termite at 8:11 AM on June 26, 2013 [6 favorites]


Pogo_Fuzzybutt: "Gay people in WI are still fucked.

WI Statue 765.30
Penalties.
(1) The following may be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than 9 months or both:
(a) Penalty for marriage outside the state to circumvent the laws. Any person residing and intending to continue to reside in this state who goes outside the state and there contracts a marriage prohibited or declared void under the laws of this state.
Freedom hating conservatives can kiss my ass.
"


I would do that shit on purpose were I part of a gay WI couple. That'd be a damned fine case to take in front of SCOTUS for the next wave.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:11 AM on June 26, 2013 [30 favorites]


So with DOMA being unconstitutional this means that Same-Sex couples with 1 US citizen can get a green card for their partners because immigration is a federal issue?
posted by vuron


Yes, exactly!
posted by vacapinta at 8:12 AM on June 26, 2013


I might also add that I live in a Southern state that would probably actually rather have its guns pried from its cold dead hands than let Teh Gays marry (although it'd be close), so that might be coloring my view somewhat on how long it would take to get every state onboard with gay marriage. The Supreme Court is going to have to decide it at some point or another.
posted by WidgetAlley at 8:12 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]




I mean, yeah, I know that's not really how it works, and that there is no cabal (ha, that's like the only time that's ever been used in all seriousness on Mefi), I'm just saying that's what it feels like. It feels like creeping by absolute inches and that we never gain more than one at a time, regardless of how much effort we put into it.

I am not that much older than DOMA is. In my lifetime, we have gone from banning same-sex marriage at the federal level to having millions of Americans have the right to marry the people they love and know that their marriage will allow them visitation rights, immigration rights, and the myriad of other options. When I was eight and DOMA passed, I don't think I knew what gay even meant. There will be kids in America who will never have to worry about their parents being allowed to marry. There are kids in America who will never have to worry about their right to step up and be married. Is there still a fight going on? Sure. That was an awfully dark map posted up above. But this doesn't feel like a pittance chucked at the peasants. Not at all.
posted by jetlagaddict at 8:13 AM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


(a) Penalty for marriage outside the state to circumvent the laws.

Now, I wonder where I've seen that one before?

'Leaving State to evade law.-If any white person and colored person shall go out of this State, for the purpose of being married, and with the intention of returning, and be married out of it, and afterwards return to and reside in it, cohabiting as man and wife, they shall be punished as provided in § 20-59, and the marriage shall be governed by the same law as if it had been solemnized in this State. The fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be evidence of their marriage.'

Section 20-59, which defines the penalty for miscegenation, provides:
'Punishment for marriage.-If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years.'

posted by fifthrider at 8:14 AM on June 26, 2013 [35 favorites]


This is wonderful but I keep thinking the group celebrating the loudest is the divorce attorneys.
posted by TDavis at 8:14 AM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


I'm torn. I'm very happy that I'm closer to being an actual citizen of my own country, but I'm a little disappointed that my best excuse to riot has been negated, 'cause I was all prepared to loot REI, baby!
posted by sonascope at 8:16 AM on June 26, 2013 [15 favorites]


Hahahaha. Google "gay marriage" right now and see what happens

Can someone explain what happens, because all I get is a list of news articles describing the ruling.
posted by arcticwoman at 8:16 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


So, does this mean that couples in some non-gay-marriage states will wind up with the reverse of the tax-filing-carousel that those in the legal-gay-married states just left behind? Can file as married for federal but still have to file separately for state income tax?
posted by desuetude at 8:16 AM on June 26, 2013


Also, I'm hoping Sotomayor joined the minority on that one on standing grounds, because she wanted it struck down.

If only any information whatsoever about Sotomayor was known!

Have the courts opined on how equal protection applies in the case of, say, if a same-sex couple is married in a state that allows it, then moves to a state which specifically forbids it. Does their marriage stand in the new state?

This case really didn't affect it. States already have to hold valid the marriages of other states, but they don't have to provide same-sex benefits if the state otherwise doesn't allow it.
posted by spaltavian at 8:16 AM on June 26, 2013


arcticwoman: the google logo gets rainbowy.
posted by rmd1023 at 8:16 AM on June 26, 2013


Can someone explain what happens

Rainbow flag behind the search bar.
posted by Beardman at 8:17 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


I'm pretty sure if I suddenly got super powers, Antonin Scalia would end up as my arch nemesis.

Relevant Tom the Dancing Bug comics from his "Judge Scalia" series.
posted by aught at 8:17 AM on June 26, 2013 [4 favorites]


So I adopted a brother-sister pair of dogs (sort of unintentionally) and they are, um, really REALLY affectionate with each other. I wish I had gotten a brother-brother pair so I could joke about a gay-bestiality-incest trifecta.

Can file as married for federal but still have to file separately for state income tax?

I think literally no one knows at this point - there are a lot of speculations but it seems to me like it's going to depend on a close reading of the tax code.
posted by muddgirl at 8:17 AM on June 26, 2013


aught: first link is hosed.
posted by rmd1023 at 8:17 AM on June 26, 2013


gay-bestiality-incest trifecta

SEE?!? Santorum was right, we're already slding down the slippery slope!
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 8:19 AM on June 26, 2013


This makes me so happy. And it probably means I'm a terrible person, but I really hope that the nut that regularly protests gay marriage on the corner below my office shows up today so I can hear his reaction.
posted by maurice at 8:19 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


horray for rights!
posted by Jacen at 8:19 AM on June 26, 2013


Google "gay marriage" right now and see what happens.
posted by Rangeboy


it works for "marriage equality" as well, though not "equal marriage" (common phrase in UK debate).

I like "marriage equality"/"equal marriage" as rallying cries more than gay or same-sex marriage because they get really to the heart of the issue: equality. It's not about changing marriage, it's about treating people equally.

Also, it isn't just marriage for gay men and women at stake - marriage equality will allow straight transmen and transwomen to marry their partners without being discriminated against (regardless of legal sex), and allow bisexuals to marry a same-sex partner. (Some bi people feel excluded by the word "gay" - don't really agree with them but I understand why).
posted by jb at 8:20 AM on June 26, 2013 [5 favorites]


Bachmann: Supreme Court Can’t ‘Undo What A Holy God Has Instituted’ 1 MINUTE AGO

Marcus Bachmann: No comment.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:20 AM on June 26, 2013 [6 favorites]


cause I was all prepared to loot REI, baby!

Riot but in a celebratory way! Less looting, more loving!
posted by The Whelk at 8:21 AM on June 26, 2013


Wow, Scalia is fucking bitter as hell.
posted by smackfu at 10:18 AM on June 26 [+] [!]


I say this with a full heart, with great sincerity, and with surprisingly little malice - fuck that guy.
posted by ersatzkat at 8:21 AM on June 26, 2013 [23 favorites]


what kills me is that literally no one at work is talking about this or the filibuster

I'm really glad that no one at my work is - I don't need more reasons to dislike them.
posted by winna at 8:21 AM on June 26, 2013 [12 favorites]


The Google rainbow thing is for Gay and Lesbian Pride month, not this court case in particular. cite
posted by smackfu at 8:21 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


Can someone explain what happens, because all I get is a list of news articles describing the ruling.

I tried to upload a screenshot to imgur to no avail. Flickr worked, howevever.
posted by flyingsquirrel at 8:21 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Can file as married for federal but still have to file separately for state income tax?

the avalanche of such questions and the legal maneuvering and challenges arising from them is going to be sweet revenge on the anti-marriage states.
posted by fallacy of the beard at 8:23 AM on June 26, 2013 [5 favorites]


I am not that much older than DOMA is.

WHAT. THE. FUCK.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 8:23 AM on June 26, 2013 [20 favorites]


what kills me is that literally no one at work is talking about this or the filibuster

Same here. They lost their minds when Whitney Houston died and they talked about one of those gruesome subway killings for days, if that gives you any idea of the kind of news story gets them going.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:23 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


Deadline hell today, but wanted to stop by to be part of the celebration. I look forward to reading this thread tonight!

** Throws confetti, kisses everyone **
posted by madamjujujive at 8:24 AM on June 26, 2013 [4 favorites]


About goddamn time.
posted by Old'n'Busted at 8:25 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


@KellyO: President Obama calls from AF1 to couple that brought Prop 8 pic.twitter.com/yaY3znHreZ
posted by zombieflanders at 8:25 AM on June 26, 2013 [8 favorites]


Amazing. And just to preen for no reason, I'm so happy to live in the first state to have legal marriage for same-sex couples AND the state from which the case that overturned this came from. I love my liberal commie neighbors here in Massachusetts!
posted by xingcat at 8:26 AM on June 26, 2013 [5 favorites]


Reporting in from the Supreme Court: It's really fucking hot in DC today.
posted by schmod at 8:27 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


what kills me is that literally no one at work is talking about this or the filibuster

Same here. They lost their minds when Whitney Houston died and they talked about one of those gruesome subway killings for days, if that gives you any idea of the kind of news story gets them going


FWIW, at my workplace, the office culture tends to avoid potentially controversuial topics within the office itself. Talk about them out of the office or at lunch all you want, but please keep it to yourself when you're in the office.

This works out a LOT better than you might think. Yes, I'd love to do backflips all over my office about today's rulings, but at the same time, it spares me having to witness any anti-choice folks around here (and there are a few) rubbing their hands with glee over the latest shenanigans, so it all evens out in the end.
posted by magstheaxe at 8:27 AM on June 26, 2013 [13 favorites]


Traffic was unusually light on 280 from San Francisco down to Silicon Valley. Is everyone at City Hall or in the Castro celebrating? Man, I shoulda called out gay-married!
posted by rtha at 8:27 AM on June 26, 2013 [7 favorites]


Striking down DOMA was filling the bases when we're down by three runs in the bottom of the 9th with 2 outs. Striking down Prop 8 outright would have been a home run, but instead we got a clever bunt play that served as an inside-the-park grand slam.

I'll take it. :-)
posted by grubi at 8:28 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Reporting in from the Supreme Court: It's really fucking hot in DC today.

Let's take a moment to honor the real victims: reporters who have to stand outside in suits today.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 8:28 AM on June 26, 2013 [13 favorites]


Don't worry conservatives, as long as public support takes a hard swing in the opposite direction and no more of your elected officials' kids turn out to be gay, I don't think you'll face any additional pressure on same sex marriage. Should be fine, right?
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:28 AM on June 26, 2013


Reporting in from the Supreme Court: It's really fucking hot in DC today.

Welcome to Every DC Summer Ever Because Fuck This Humidity I'm Fucking Melting Here, Damnit.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:28 AM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]




I thought the DC heat/humidity was why Big Federal Government only happened once we invented Air Conditioning.
posted by rmd1023 at 8:32 AM on June 26, 2013


Bachmann: Supreme Court Can’t ‘Undo What A Holy God Has Instituted’

Bachmann, a school-educated female with professional employment, naturally maintaining the constant and unwavering directives declared to be made by God regarding her gender for the last few centuries.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:33 AM on June 26, 2013 [18 favorites]


Scalia raises some interesting questions in his dissent:
Imagine a pair of women who marry in Albany and then move to Alabama, which does not recognize as valid any marriage parties of the same sex.” Ala. Code §30–1–19(e) (2011). When the couple files their next federal tax return, may it be a joint one? Which State’s law controls, for federal-law purposes: their State of celebration (which recognizes the marriage) or their State of domicile (which does not)? (Does the answer depend on whether they were just visiting in Albany?) Are these questions to be answered as a matter of federal common law, or perhaps by borrowing a State’s choice-of-law rules? If so, which State’s? And what about States where the status of an out-of-state same-sex marriage is an unsettled question under local law?
It seems to me Congress is going to have to act to answer those questions. Or maybe the President can just do it via executive orders.
posted by beagle at 8:33 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


cause I was all prepared to loot REI, baby!

Riot but in a celebratory way! Less looting, more loving!


It's called a wedding registry. You'll love it!
posted by Elementary Penguin at 8:36 AM on June 26, 2013 [25 favorites]


Nine years later, the majority of the country favors gay marriage and sodomy laws are unconstitutional. To me it seems like a complete turnaround from 2000 years in 10 years.

People who grew up in the 80s and 90s started to vote - and also, it seems like change has a snowball like pattern. Activism in the 70s-90s only achieved small legal changes, but they changed people hearts and minds.

I remember is 1992, there was a soap opera that had a coming out storyline, and an episode featuring the AIDs quilt - and made powerful pro-LGBT statements through the actions of the characters. It was all soap-opera levels of cheesy, of course, but looking back, I can imagine that this had a powerful effect on viewers who may not have known anyone who was openly gay, but could "know" these fictional characters and follow them through their journeys of acceptance.
posted by jb at 8:37 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


>And the third?

There is no third thing! (That would be bigamy)
posted by Devils Rancher at 8:38 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


It's called a wedding registry. You'll love it!

And there is my other problem, alas.

I'll just have to be content to be riotously supportive for the moment.
posted by sonascope at 8:40 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


There is no third thing! (That would be bigamy)

It would be big of all of us. Let's be big for a change!

/Groucho
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 8:41 AM on June 26, 2013 [12 favorites]


marriage destroying yellow jackets and velociraptors

Is it wrong that a mis-read lead to images of urbane dinos in smoking jackets? I don't know if I want to be right here.
posted by bonehead at 8:42 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Just remember, yesterday they gutted the Voting Rights Act, one of the hardest-won civil rights achievements of the 20th Century. Evil plays the long game.
posted by briank at 8:42 AM on June 26, 2013 [16 favorites]


Activism in the 70s-90s only achieved small legal changes, but they changed people hearts and minds.

Interestingly the AIDS crisis had a largely humanizing effect for the LGBT community in the perspective of the larger general public as a whole, which in turn lead to much greater political traction for the rights movement.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 8:42 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


People who grew up in the 80s and 90s started to vote ...
I remember is 1992, there was a soap opera that had a coming out storyline...

Yeah, and then there were all of those episodes of Roseanne (three different major characters come out as gay over the course of the series, including Roseanne's mom) and Ross's ex-wife Susan on Friends is pretty likable, actually, as is Chandler's cross-dressing dad, and later, I dunno, Willow from Buffy, and Will and Grace... I mean, I do think Hollywood with its somewhat over-representation of gay folks has something to do with the pace of the change.
posted by OnceUponATime at 8:43 AM on June 26, 2013


beagle: "Scalia raises some interesting questions in his dissent:
Imagine a pair of women who marry in Albany and then move to Alabama, which does not recognize as valid any marriage parties of the same sex.” Ala. Code §30–1–19(e) (2011). When the couple files their next federal tax return, may it be a joint one?

I don't see why it couldn't be? I was married in Texas. I live in New York. The federal government does not require me to be living in a state that recognizes my marriage. For their purposes, they recognize my marriage. I file married jointly on my federal return because my marriage was recognized by the federal government. My state recognizes that I am married and allows me to file that way. If they didn't, I'd still file married/jointly Federal and then Single in the state. AFAICT, one has little to do with the other.
Which State’s law controls, for federal-law purposes: their State of celebration (which recognizes the marriage) or their State of domicile (which does not)? (Does the answer depend on whether they were just visiting in Albany?)
I don't really understand how this could possibly be relevant? It seems like he's trying to make connections that don't matter. I wasn't living in TX when I was married there. I still don't. The federal government recognizes my marriage anyway.
posted by zarq at 8:43 AM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


There is no third thing! (That would be bigamy)

It would be big of all of us. Let's be big for a change!

/Groucho
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 11:41 AM on June 26


Eponysterical!
posted by Gelatin at 8:44 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Just remember, yesterday they gutted the Voting Rights Act, one of the hardest-won civil rights achievements of the 20th Century. Evil plays the long game.

Hello wet blanket.
posted by smackfu at 8:44 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


What is Sotomayer's objections again?
posted by PinkMoose at 8:44 AM on June 26, 2013


Okay, here is the text of Judge Walker's injunction:

“Defendants in their official capacities, and all persons under the control or supervision of defendants, are permanently enjoined from applying or enforcing Article I, § 7.5 of the California Constitution.” [Article I, Section 7.5 is the amendment resulting from Proposition 8.]

If the appeal is dismissed for lack of standing, presumably the stay on the injunction will be removed and it will go into force. So, does the injunction keep the defendants (some county clerks, the AG of California, the Governor of California, and some officials in the California Dept. of Public Health) from enforcing Proposition 8 against everyone in California or just those particular plaintiffs? What about other county clerks who weren't defendants in that case, could some of them still limit marriage licenses to opposite-sex couples or are they covered because they are under the supervison of the state health department with respect to marriage licenses? Will California officials decide that the reasoning of the ruling, that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, applies even if the judgment is not binding in all instances and just stop enforcing the law on that basis? Will a follow-up case be needed, perhaps a class action?

I think this case will bring marriage equality to California, but the path is still a little messy.
posted by Area Man at 8:44 AM on June 26, 2013


Just remember, yesterday they gutted the Voting Rights Act, one of the hardest-won civil rights achievements of the 20th Century. Evil plays the long game.

Yep. One hand gives and the other takes away. I wonder how the order of the announcements was decided?
posted by Benny Andajetz at 8:45 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


My argument to Justice Scalia would be: well, there's an easy solution. Don't allow states to dictate the definition of marriage any longer.
posted by grubi at 8:45 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


"What is marriage. Marriage is a man and a woman. That's what it is historically. That's what it is legally. If we change the definition to accommodate a man and a man and a woman and a woman, then why can't we accommodate a man and two women, or a woman and three men?"

Let's hope, Mike.

YES WE CAN!
posted by markkraft at 8:45 AM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


Actually the wet blanket comment is that you can still be fired for being gay in 29 states.
posted by The Whelk at 8:45 AM on June 26, 2013 [18 favorites]


All these huge political issues being decided by a council of unelected elders is making me miss the hell out of Game Of Thrones right about now.
posted by Greg Nog at 8:45 AM on June 26, 2013 [5 favorites]


Anyway, not to damper things, NUPITALS ARE COMING.
posted by The Whelk at 8:46 AM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


Two of my grandparents were in what, for that time and place, was a 'mixed marriage'; very shortly after their wedding, the powers-that-be declared such a marriage (a Jew and a Lutheran! the horrors!) illegal. Thank goodness that changed. When I was born, there were quite a few places that declared interracial marriage illegal. Thank goodness that changed too. Now, finally, the pendulum is swinging even more: with any luck, pretty soon any consenting adult will be able to marry any other consenting adult, and the only problem will be what to get them as a wedding gift.
posted by easily confused at 8:46 AM on June 26, 2013 [4 favorites]


My state recognizes that I am married and allows me to file that way. If they didn't, I'd still file married/jointly Federal and then Single in the state. AFAICT, one has little to do with the other.

Some states with their own speshul DOMA laws specifically forbid state recognition of any relationship-thing that even looks like it encroaches on the territory of heterosexual marriage.

I'm unclear why the Supremes left this portion of DOMA unaddressed (was it not raised?), and I hope some kind lawyer who speaks law-for-non-lawyers will be able to explain.
posted by rtha at 8:46 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


rtha: I believe the case was very strictly about the taxes-n-stuff section.
posted by rmd1023 at 8:47 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


What is Sotomayer's objections again?

A finding that the petitioners lack standing guts the state referendum process by allowing the state government to veto a referendum it doesn't like by declining to defend it in court. The dissent doesn't reach the merits of whether Prop 8 is constitutional, which is why she, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito were able to all sign onto it.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:47 AM on June 26, 2013 [7 favorites]


After a rough night last night (and not just because of the Texas filibuster) I am finally waking to the news. And holy shit, does it feel good to weep some tears of joy right now.
posted by scody at 8:48 AM on June 26, 2013 [11 favorites]


Yes, that's the gist of it. The court can't rule on a question that isn't actually at issue in the current case, and Windsor wasn't affected by section 2, so she couldn't sue over it.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:48 AM on June 26, 2013


I hug you, scody!
posted by rtha at 8:49 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


I'm here for the party. Is it too early to start drinking? Never thought I'd live to see this day. Woo Hoo!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 8:49 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


"Acceptance of the argument would cast all those who cling to traditional beliefs about the nature of marriage in the role of bigots or superstitious fools."

That's p. 13 of Alito's dissent in Windsor.
posted by prefpara at 8:49 AM on June 26, 2013 [16 favorites]


I'm unclear why the Supremes left this portion of DOMA unaddressed (was it not raised?)

Speaking as a completely not-a-lawyer person, I think you've got it -- it wasn't raised, and this Court has a tendency to rule on things as narrowly as possible. I think all marriages will be recognized under full faith and credit eventually, but they're gonna make us fight that one too.
posted by KathrynT at 8:49 AM on June 26, 2013


Huzzah! Now Mr. Spitefulcrow and I can plan our wedding!
posted by spitefulcrow at 8:49 AM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


What is Sotomayer's objections again?

A finding that the petitioners lack standing guts the state referendum process by allowing the state government to veto a referendum it doesn't like by declining to defend it in court. The dissent doesn't reach the merits of whether Prop 8 is constitutional, which is why she, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito were able to all sign onto it.


I agree with that. I would not like it at all if, for example, a state law legalizing pot were to go down this way.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:50 AM on June 26, 2013 [4 favorites]


I'm *very* happy about the DOMA verdict, somewhat happy about the narrow California verdict, and still well aware that there's a tremendous amount of work to be done in 2/3 of my country.
posted by yellowcandy at 8:50 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


"What is marriage. Marriage is a man and a woman. That's what it is historically."

Nope. Marriage, historically speaking, WAS an agreement between a man and another man in conducting the transfer of property. One man would agree to marry the other man's daughter. A dowry was a bribe to do so. "Take this useless female off my hands and I'll give you lands and money."

Or: marriage WAS between one man and as many as twenty women, all of whom were treated as property. And they all had to allow him to have as many concubines and mistresses as he saw fit. How do I know this? Well, among other sources, it's in the Bible.

Or: marriage IS a contract between two people, recognized by the state, allowing rights of property and access.

You can shove "historically" up your stupid ass, Huckabee.
posted by grubi at 8:50 AM on June 26, 2013 [116 favorites]


"Acceptance of the argument would cast all those who cling to traditional beliefs about the nature of marriage in the role of bigots or superstitious fools."

EXACTLY.

Never thought I'd agree with Tony, but the world is a wide and weird place!
posted by rtha at 8:51 AM on June 26, 2013 [8 favorites]


rtha: " Some states with their own speshul DOMA laws specifically forbid state recognition of any relationship-thing that even looks like it encroaches on the territory of heterosexual marriage."

Yes, but that wouldn't affect one's ability to file married/jointly on a federal 1040, right? Unless I'm reading the quote wrong, he's saying that whether a person can file their federal return as married is dependent on whether their home state recognizes that they are married.
posted by zarq at 8:51 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


I'm here for the party. Is it too early to start drinking? Never thought I'd live to see this day. Woo Hoo!

I had a shipyard ale and a buttermilk Biscut friedin bacon fat for lunch while singing Smile Darn Ya Smile to myself tso, yes it is never too early to start.
posted by The Whelk at 8:51 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


"Acceptance of the argument would cast all those who cling to traditional beliefs about the nature of marriage in the role of bigots or superstitious fools."


That's p. 13 of Alito's dissent in Windsor.


Anton, word.
posted by Danf at 8:52 AM on June 26, 2013


Ironically, rtha, by saying that he thought he was exposing how unreasonable the majority's position is.
posted by prefpara at 8:52 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


"Acceptance of the argument would cast all those who cling to traditional beliefs about the nature of marriage in the role of bigots or superstitious fools."

That's p. 13 of Alito's dissent in Windsor.


Wait, that's a dissent argument?
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 8:52 AM on June 26, 2013


Motherfucker! Good job on expanding civil rights, all y'all!
posted by ersatz at 8:53 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Yes, but that wouldn't affect one's ability to file married/jointly on a federal 1040, right?

That's correct (or, at least, my understanding). Next year come tax time, gingerbeer will be able to file us as married for both state (which we could do before) AND federal (which we couldn't, and not being able to do so caused her days of snarling and muttering and swearing at tax time). Yay for easier taxes, really.
posted by rtha at 8:54 AM on June 26, 2013 [8 favorites]


The penultimate sentence of the majority’s opinion is a naked declaration that “[t]his opinion and its holding are confined” to those couples “joined in same-sex marriagesmade lawful by the State.” Ante, at 26, 25. I have heard such “bald, unreasoned disclaimer[s]” before. Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 604. When the Court declared a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy, we were assured that the case had nothing, nothing at all to do with “whetherthe government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.” Id., at 578. Now we are told that DOMA is invalid because it “demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects,” ante, at 23—with an accompanying citation of Lawrence. It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority’s moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress’s hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will “confine” the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with.
Oh Scalia, you rascal.
posted by jsturgill at 8:55 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


This is awesome..although I work in Key West so I hope the roads aren't too jammed for me to get home tonight.
posted by tetsuo at 8:55 AM on June 26, 2013


Motherfucker! Good job on expanding civil rights, all y'all!

Not interested in expanding that particular civil right, thanks.
posted by komara at 8:55 AM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


For what it's worth, standing in the DOMA case is also weird, in that both the petitioner (the United States federal government) and the respondent (Windsor) both agree that DOMA is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court isn't usually in the business of taking cases where the parties aren't actually arguing with each other, just in the name of making their agreement binding nationwide.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:55 AM on June 26, 2013


I don't usually make it to the blue but after hearing about the decision wanted to celebrate with Metafilter. Yay!
posted by mlle valentine at 8:56 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


rtha: "Next year come tax time..."

Awesome!

Congratulations to you both. :)
posted by zarq at 8:56 AM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


John Roberts wrote the Proposition 8 decision.

John Roberts also wrote the Obamacare decision.

John Roberts is not the Antichrist.

Scalia, then. It must be Scalia.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 8:58 AM on June 26, 2013 [5 favorites]


Acceptance of the argument would cast all those who cling to traditional beliefs about the nature of marriage in the role of bigots or superstitious fools.

And that's a problem because ... ?
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 8:59 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


Kind of disgusted by the cowardice of the court, but muddgirl's provided quote helps some. Again:

"We must take our little teaspoons and get to work. We can't wait for shovels."
posted by Corinth at 9:00 AM on June 26, 2013 [6 favorites]


So now is it extremely financially lucrative for gay couples to get the hell out of states where they can't marry, due to cross-coverage and tax issues?
If there is a gay-drain to states where they will be recognized, it will be interesting to see.
posted by Theta States at 9:00 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


You guys missed that it's imperative upon the court to ensure no one gets called names.
posted by shakespeherian at 9:00 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


Whelk: ( if the yellow jacket stings you, you become married to me Bwuahahahaha)

Wasn't that part of the first Hunger Games book -- stings that caused hallucinations and such?
posted by wenestvedt at 9:00 AM on June 26, 2013


As someone who doesn't fit into convenient boxen, I feel I have to ask...

"So... which side of the white picket fence and gated community walls are you on?!"
posted by markkraft at 9:00 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Scalia, then. It must be Scalia.

Doesn't look like a bunny to me.
posted by maudlin at 9:01 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Cool Papa Bell -- You know it's Scalia. Were you ever really confused on that point?
posted by Sophie1 at 9:01 AM on June 26, 2013


stings that caused hallucinations and such?

It's not a hallucination it's WEDDED BLISS.
posted by The Whelk at 9:03 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Damnit! I'm supposed to work today??? Couldn't we all call in queer?
posted by Sophie1 at 9:03 AM on June 26, 2013 [12 favorites]


wenestvedt: " Wasn't that part of the first Hunger Games book -- stings that caused hallucinations and such?"

Yes. From genetically engineered wasps called "tracker jackers."
posted by zarq at 9:04 AM on June 26, 2013


"Some might conclude that this loaf could have used a while longer in the oven. But that would be wrong; it is already overcooked. The most expert care in preparation cannot redeem a bad recipe."

Not totally sure Scalia understands how marriage or baking works, to be totally honest. It's an interesting list of pull quotes from a very quotable writer.
posted by jetlagaddict at 9:05 AM on June 26, 2013 [5 favorites]


Scalia: "The only thing that will “confine” the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with."

Well, he would know. That's pretty much been his modus operandi from day one.
posted by dnash at 9:05 AM on June 26, 2013 [4 favorites]


To any gay Mefites coming to NyC to get married, NPH will be staring as Hedwig in a revival of Angry Inch in the spring and Fort Tyron is nicer for weddings than Central Park.
posted by The Whelk at 9:05 AM on June 26, 2013 [13 favorites]


John Roberts is not the Antichrist.

No, he's not the antichrist, obviously (and nor is Scalia, come to that--he's just a nasty little bigot), but the Prop 8 decision is hardly a "come to Jesus" moment for Roberts. This was a rearguard action for the conservatives on the court. Finding that the complainants didn't have standing was about the most the conservatives were left to hope for: a decision that will allow gay marriage to proceed in California, but that has no wider (legal) implications for gay marriage in other states.

It is amazing, though, to think what a turn around that represents. When this Prop 8 case started there were many in the gay rights world who thought it was a tactical error to try to take the issue to the Supreme Court; that there was a good chance the movement would actually be set back by a too precipitate appeal. Now the ground under everyone's feet has moved so far that we have Roberts snatching at the issue of standing as a way of forestalling the possibility of a ruling that would have imposed marriage equality on all the states.

Predicting the future of public opinion is a mug's game, no doubt, but right now it's hard to see how we go another decade without gay marriage becoming universal in the US.
posted by yoink at 9:05 AM on June 26, 2013 [7 favorites]


The Whelk: "NPH will be staring as Hedwig in a revival of Angry Inch in the spring"

Whaaaaaat?
posted by boo_radley at 9:06 AM on June 26, 2013


BLARGH I want to ditch work and go to Stonewall Inn so bad!
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:06 AM on June 26, 2013


The Supreme Court isn't usually in the business of taking cases where the parties aren't actually arguing with each other, just in the name of making their agreement binding nationwide.

Yeah, how exactly did that happen? Did Obama's Justice Department make a disingenuous appeal to the Supreme Court that they never intended to argue for, just to get this ruling? Has that ever happened before?
posted by straight at 9:07 AM on June 26, 2013


I will be at Stonewall briefly at 5:45ish, after the champagne toast at work but before dinner with some friends whose NY marriage is now federally recognized.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:07 AM on June 26, 2013 [5 favorites]


the Prop 8 decision is hardly a "come to Jesus" moment for Roberts.

You take the victories where they come, and the ones that allow him to save a little face give him room to make another down the road. After all, he'll be on the Court for at least 20 more years.

Cool Papa Bell -- You know it's Scalia. Were you ever really confused on that point?

He's tricky, that Antichrist. For the longest time, I thought it was Alex Rodriguez.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:08 AM on June 26, 2013


After staying up to watch the events in Texas I wake up to this? YAY!
posted by Big_B at 9:08 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


NPH will be staring as Hedwig in a revival of Angry Inch in the spring

Technically, it's not a revival. It's the Broadway Premiere. (It's only ever been off-Broadway before.)
posted by hippybear at 9:08 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


From Twitter: Asked for a response to Rep Bachmann's statement about DOMA, Nancy Pelosi just responds: "Who cares?"
posted by Rangeboy at 9:11 AM on June 26, 2013 [75 favorites]


"We have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation" -- Scalia

IOKIYAR jurisprudence.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 9:12 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


"We must take our little teaspoons and get to work. We can't wait for shovels."

By stating that petitioners in the Prop 8 case lacked standing, the majority is saying that petitioners have suffered no harm. (Which I think most of us here would agree with the idea that allowing same sex marriage does no harm to opposite sex marriage. And it would distinguish something like the Pot legalization referendum mentioned above.)

This is laying the groundwork for a case like this one to work its way up to the Supreme Court, where the case can be made that a state denying someone the right to marry is causing actual harm.

So we will get there, incrementally. The only way gay folks in Mississippi are going to be able to marry is by working the teaspoons.
posted by ambrosia at 9:13 AM on June 26, 2013 [4 favorites]


The S.F. Pride committee has announced that this Sunday will be their best, biggest, and final Pride Day celebration.

"It's taken many years and lots and lots of corporate sponsorship, but we can finally wrap this party up! It's been fun, but there's nothing left to fight for", said committee chairman Gloria Fontaine. "Hopefully, we can finish things early, so that my wife and I can catch "Real Housewives" and take the red eye to Hawaii for our honeymoon!"
posted by markkraft at 9:13 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Holy shit, I overslept by several hours (getting a cold), woke up all disoriented and groggy, checked the news and just sat staring at it. Congratulations to all of us! And that "dogs happy to marry you" link is hilarious. It's so great to have you guys to share these things with. Hug!
posted by HotToddy at 9:14 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Governor Edmund G. Brown issued the following statement on the United States Supreme Court ruling on Proposition 8 (Hollingsworth v. Perry):

“After years of struggle, the U.S. Supreme Court today has made same-sex marriage a reality in California. In light of the decision, I have directed the California Department of Public Health to advise the state’s counties that they must begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in California as soon as the Ninth Circuit confirms the stay is lifted,” Brown said.
posted by muddgirl at 9:14 AM on June 26, 2013 [18 favorites]


Mo Rocca ‏@MoRocca Well I guess this means Justice Scalia is skipping Bear Week.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:14 AM on June 26, 2013 [5 favorites]


Oh HAYUL yeah!

How am I supposed to pack up my entire apartment today and follow the news?

(And while moving from Alabama to Georgia is a baby step in the right direction for my partner and me, I'm a little upset we're not moving somewhere bluer. Hopefully we will still be able to marry elsewhere and receive federal benefits.)
posted by robstercraw at 9:16 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Just here to join in the celebration :D!!

Hip hip hooray!!!
posted by Annabelle74 at 9:17 AM on June 26, 2013


Unfortunately the "traditional marriage" supporters were right about this undermining heterosexual marriage.
Part of today's ruling triggers an obscure law* from 1973 declaring that all married couples must now attend one "key party" a week.

(*Rhode Island v. "Good-Time Gary" - 1973)
posted by Senor Cardgage at 9:17 AM on June 26, 2013 [9 favorites]


YES!

Man, my little sister is going to have a fantastic time at Pride this weekend! :D
posted by wiskunde at 9:20 AM on June 26, 2013


I've been sufficiently starved for a sense of victory or progress in terms of developments in public policy that this is pretty much me right now.

seconding Fort Tryon in NYC as a great marriage spot, it is my favorite park in the city
posted by invitapriore at 9:22 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


You take the victories where they come, and the ones that allow him to save a little face give him room to make another down the road.

Oh, for sure. And this really is a victory. I think there's even something to be said for Ruth Bader Ginsberg's line of reasoning that a wider ruling on the Prop 8 case could actually have hurt the gay rights movement in the long run. Take these two things together: the DOMA ruling and the Prop 8 ruling and the momentum they add to the marriage equality movement is simply extraordinary: California is an immensely populous state. There are going to be thousands upon thousands of gay marriages here, and all of those marriages will now be recognized by the Federal government. With gay marriages occurring in the hundreds of thousands across the nation, and with all of those marriages receiving official federal recognition, more and more states are going to bow to the inevitable, until only the real die-hard conservative, Bible-belt states remain. And at that point even a Roberts-lead court is going to have to bow to historical inevitability; the absurdity of a situation where marriage equality is a fact in all but a small handful of states will just be too blatant, someone would bring some kind of a case up to the court in one of those states and, as we've seen already, Roberts isn't willing to go down in history as a legal cautionary tale.

On the other hand, it's just conceivable that a wider ruling on Prop 8--one that was seen as forcing the issue--would have generated a sufficient backlash to really kill some of the current gay rights momentum. Obviously counterfactual arguments of that kind can't ever be proven or disproven, but it's not unimaginable.
posted by yoink at 9:23 AM on June 26, 2013 [4 favorites]


Mike Huckabee's response to the news: "Jesus Wept". Ugh.
posted by tetsuo at 9:23 AM on June 26, 2013


I've got Lily Allen's perfect little anthem cranked up and am doing my happy swan dance.
posted by orange swan at 10:21 AM on June 2


I heavily recommend having this playing when reading Scalia's opinion.
posted by 6ATR at 9:24 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Mike Huckabee's response to the news: "Jesus Wept". Ugh.

Tears of joy, Mike. Tears of joy.
posted by yoink at 9:24 AM on June 26, 2013 [62 favorites]


Try Seattle's Volunteer or Seattle Art Museum Sculpture Parks. Who needs the Statue of Liberty when you have Mt. Rainier, the Space Needle, the Olympic Mountains, and Fairies (uh, FERRIES).
Also, you can celebrate yer queer marriage here with legal cannabis. Enjoy!
posted by Dreidl at 9:26 AM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


Okay so now the official record of times Jesus has cried:

1. A friend of his dies suddenly, and that man's friends are crying and tell Jesus that he could have still seen him before his death if Jesus hadn't gotten delayed on his way to visit

2. US Constitution upheld
posted by shakespeherian at 9:27 AM on June 26, 2013 [24 favorites]


I'm so scared my undefended marriage is going to get desanctified by some big, hunky, strapping gay man (or woman)!
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 9:28 AM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


3. Nails in the hands?
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:28 AM on June 26, 2013




I'm gonna run out of favorites in this thread.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:30 AM on June 26, 2013 [6 favorites]


Mike Huckabee's response to the news: "Jesus Wept". Ugh.

He wept? Pics, or it didn't happen!
posted by dnash at 9:30 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


I high-fived a chick at my coffee shop. "Fuck yeah, America!" she said.

This afternoon, I think I'm going to be listening to a bunch of gay disco music.
posted by rmd1023 at 9:30 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


It's like the good twin of Texas and South Carolina champing at the bit to be the first to start dodging the VRA.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:30 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


=
posted by alms at 9:31 AM on June 26, 2013 [6 favorites]


gay disco music

There is another kind?
posted by hippybear at 9:31 AM on June 26, 2013 [5 favorites]


rmd1023: "This afternoon, I think I'm going to be listening to a bunch of gay disco music."


Straight people are kidding themselves if they think there's any other kind.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 9:31 AM on June 26, 2013 [4 favorites]


Well, this will make you cry a little. Reaction from plaintiff's home
posted by lattiboy at 9:32 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Straight disco music is basically guns and roses.
posted by The Whelk at 9:32 AM on June 26, 2013 [12 favorites]


@frankthorpNBC: Asked for a response to Rep Bachmann's statement about DOMA, @NancyPelosi just responds: "Who cares?"

Never stop being awesome, Madam.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:34 AM on June 26, 2013 [27 favorites]


"We sent DOMA and Prop 8 off to a farm where they can play with other outdated, fear-driven legislation. It is the worst farm." - @Wonderella
posted by maryr at 9:35 AM on June 26, 2013 [4 favorites]


No, there's gay disco music and ambiguous disco music. I'm bringing full force Sylvester and Pet Shop Boys, babe. DEEP TRACKS!
posted by rmd1023 at 9:35 AM on June 26, 2013


Straight disco music is basically guns and roses.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that Whelk.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 9:35 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Aboard Air Force One , Pres Obama talks on phone w Edie Windsor, the plaintiff in the DOMA case
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:35 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


We mourn for America’s future, but we are not without hope. Our next line of defense is to vigorously protect our religious liberty. The homosexual lobby and agenda is running rampant across America, and is even pervading our elementary schools...Now, we must warn against the coming persecution, the barrage of criticism and the aggressive action of the homosexual agenda to indoctrinate and change the thoughts and convictions of Americans to accept this lifestyle as the new normal.
-Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, in Tupelo, Miss.

Won't someone think of the children?? But not the children of gay couples, obviously. Their elementary schools have already been tainted by gay cookie bake sales.
posted by jetlagaddict at 9:35 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


@frankthorpNBC: Asked for a response to Rep Bachmann's statement about DOMA, @NancyPelosi just responds: "Who cares?"

Oh God--that just made my day. Well, made my day all over again.
posted by yoink at 9:36 AM on June 26, 2013 [4 favorites]


So we've got the mass hysteria on the right, what about human sacrifice and dogs and cats living together?

Seriously, though, this is good news. Wish it were a bigger and better win, but these days, I'll take what I can get.
posted by entropicamericana at 9:36 AM on June 26, 2013


Our next line of defense is to vigorously protect our religious liberty.

Yes... Bigotry disguised as religious liberty has worked out so well for all those white supremacist groups, hasn't it?
posted by hippybear at 9:37 AM on June 26, 2013


No, there's gay disco music and ambiguous disco music. I'm bringing full force Sylvester and Pet Shop Boys, babe. DEEP TRACKS!

I'll play Erasure's "A Little Respect" to mark the occasion.
posted by tetsuo at 9:38 AM on June 26, 2013 [5 favorites]


indoctrinate and change the thoughts and convictions sap and impurify the precious bodily fluids of Americans
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 9:38 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


If y'all want to take the Wapo's poll you could fill out the text box with just YEEHAW like I did and make it seem like Gay Cowboys are hella excited about this ruling.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 9:40 AM on June 26, 2013 [4 favorites]


yoink: more and more states are going to bow to the inevitable, until only the real die-hard conservative, Bible-belt states remain.

But there are a lot of those. I think actually the momentum is going to slow down. Have a look at the map here. To legalize same-sex marriage in any state painted red or brown (or with red stripes) means undoing a constitutional amendment — a high hurdle. There are 31 of those states (that Wikipedia page says 32, but incorrectly still counts California). And 12 states, counting California, that recognize same sex marriage, plus DC. So there are only 7 states where legislative action could proceed. (Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Illinois, Indiana, New Mexico, Wyoming, New Jersey). Maybe some of those states will act in the next few years, but I think then we'll have a stalemate at 35-15 or so.
posted by beagle at 9:41 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


Mike Huckabee's response to the news: "Jesus Wept". Ugh.

What makes that worse is the origin of the phrase "Jesus wept." In the Bible, Jesus wept because he was mourning the death of Lazarus; moreover, Jesus had arrived too late to see his friend in the last days of his life. This is an example of Jesus' very humanity.

In the following verses, of course, Lazarus is raised from the dead -- an example of Jesus' divinity and God's mercy.

The phrase is not meant to be synonymous with anger, disbelief and chagrin. Jesus wept because he was sad, not because he was angry.

Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister, should know better than to take the Lord's name in vain. You know. If you're into that sort of thing. As a minister and all.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:41 AM on June 26, 2013 [55 favorites]


@donald_faison: @zachbraff we doing this or not?!? Everyone else can in California.

Back story
posted by zombieflanders at 9:42 AM on June 26, 2013 [10 favorites]


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.

(from the opinion in Windsor)

Chills down the spine at that.
posted by cjelli at 9:42 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


I think then we'll have a stalemate at 35-15 or so.

Well, yes and no. Now that the equal protection clause has been invoked for gay marriage issues once, there is a path laid forward which says that under equal protection, since straight marriages performed in any state are recognized by all other states, those constitutional amendments could eventually be struck down, if someone has a case and takes it high enough and it gets decided that way.

Plus I have heard of some states beginning repeal processes for anti-same-sex-marriage amendments, so that is happening, too.
posted by hippybear at 9:44 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


To legalize same-sex marriage in any state painted red or brown (or with red stripes) means undoing a constitutional amendment — a high hurdle.

That depends entirely on the individual state's mechanism for amending the constitution. California, for example, amends its constitution at pretty nearly every election: the process is a joke. A lot of those constitutional amendments were ballot propositions which can be reversed as easily as they were implemented; you just need to gather enough signatures to get them onto the ballot and then public opinion has to be on your side in the electorate. And public opinion is swinging very, very rapidly on this issue.

And that, of course, is where it actually matters that there's not much in these rulings that will arouse sympathy for the anti-equality bigots. I think the vast majority of Americans will regard both of these rulings as, if anything, no-brainers (not, in the Prop 8 case on the technicalities of the decision, but in terms of its practical outcome). So there's nothing here to turn the tide of public opinion backwards.
posted by yoink at 9:50 AM on June 26, 2013


Mike Huckabee's response to the news: "Jesus Wept". Ugh.

To be fair, maybe he was quoting Hellraiser.
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:50 AM on June 26, 2013 [15 favorites]


From the Williams Institute at UCLA:

tl;dr

DOMA
IMMIGRATION: An estimated 24,700 same-sex couples are bi-national (one US citizen and one non-citizen) along with 11,700 same-sex couples comprised of two non-citizens. The Windsor DOMA ruling has opened the door for a citizen to obtain permanent residence for a non-citizen, same-sex spouse, and expedited citizenship for a resident, same-sex spouse.

SOCIAL SECURITY: Surviving spouses of same-sex couples could gain access to spousal social security benefits, which could add up to more than $5,700 to the monthly income of the surviving spouse.

HEALTH CARE: Same-sex couples working in the private sector pay, on average, $1,000 more than different-sex couples in taxes for employer-sponsored healthcare. Same-sex spouses in federally recognized marriages might no longer be subject to this additional tax burden.

FEDERAL EMPLOYEES: Same-sex spouses of federal employees could be eligible for employee benefits that are currently provided to employees with different-sex spouses.

ESTATE TAX: In situations similar to that of plaintiff Edith Windsor in the DOMA case, same-sex spouses who are affected by the estate tax would no longer be subject to a greater federal estate tax burden upon the death of a spouse than similarly-situated different-sex married couples face.

PROP 8
By adding California, 30 percent of the entire U.S. population and 37 percent of same-sex couples will now live in states that extend marriage to same-sex couples.

REVENUE
: Institute research suggests that California will gain approximately $46 million in tax and fee revenue from the weddings of same-sex couples, and the state’s economy will gain $492 million in business revenue over the next three years.
posted by Sophie1 at 9:51 AM on June 26, 2013 [25 favorites]






Wow. Is this real? You know how sometimes you wake up from a dream, then realize you're still dreaming? That happened to me twice last night. I hope I'm really awake now.
posted by homunculus at 9:57 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


IMMIGRATION: An estimated 24,700 same-sex couples are bi-national (one US citizen and one non-citizen) along with 11,700 same-sex couples comprised of two non-citizens. The Windsor DOMA ruling has opened the door for a citizen to obtain permanent residence for a non-citizen, same-sex spouse, and expedited citizenship for a resident, same-sex spouse.

Let's not leave off the non-immigrants that now have the right to bring their same-sex spouses in as dependents. Also a bi-national gay couple (and dependents) is eligible for a K "fiancee" visa.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 9:57 AM on June 26, 2013


SWEEEET MOTHERFUCKING YES!

We've been at the office since 5:30 am and I'm finally getting a free moment for MeFi. This is fucking huge.

And any Ca. Mefites in the LA area that need a minister, I'm ordained to officiate. WOOOOOOO!
posted by klangklangston at 9:57 AM on June 26, 2013 [29 favorites]


Ooh Klangklangston, so am I as a rabbi- and I'm in L.A. also - . We could do an interfaith MeFi ceremony!
posted by Sophie1 at 9:59 AM on June 26, 2013 [13 favorites]


Wow. Is this real? You know how sometimes you wake up from a dream, then realize you're still dreaming? That happened to me twice last night. I hope I'm really awake now.

Go to your shower and see if Patrick Duffy is in it. That's the gold standard test as I understand it.
posted by yoink at 9:59 AM on June 26, 2013 [21 favorites]


Question: are marriage licenses ever issued by the Federal government or by organizations under the management of the Federal government? For example, if two members of the military overseas get married, who creates the marriage license? Can Americans in a foreign country go to a US Embassy to be married?

I'm wondering if the list of jurisdictions recognizing same sex marriage is actually 14 states plus the District of Columbia, plus the Federal government?
posted by alms at 10:00 AM on June 26, 2013


Wow. Is this real? You know how sometimes you wake up from a dream, then realize you're still dreaming? That happened to me twice last night. I hope I'm really awake now.

Go to your shower and see if Patrick Duffy is in it. That's the gold standard test as I understand it.


Wait, is that to know if you're dreaming or gay (or both)?
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 10:01 AM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


orange swan: "TOM AND LORENZO ARE GETTING MARRIED!!!!"

I am going to try to swing myself an invite and be so judgmental about what everybody wears.

(j/k congrats to them)
posted by MCMikeNamara at 10:01 AM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


Speaking of which, this really clears the boards for same-sex spouses of married servicemembers to have access to all the support stuff that opposite-sex spouses get. KILL DOMA AND SUPPORT THE TROOPS!
posted by rmd1023 at 10:01 AM on June 26, 2013 [4 favorites]


Practical question: What are the actual tax benefits of being married and filing jointly? I've never before had reason to be curious or to wonder whether it would benefit me.
posted by mudpuppie at 10:02 AM on June 26, 2013


Wow. Is this real? You know how sometimes you wake up from a dream, then realize you're still dreaming? That happened to me twice last night. I hope I'm really awake now.

Go to your shower and see if Patrick Duffy is in it. That's the gold standard test as I understand it.

Wait, is that to know if you're dreaming or gay (or both)?


The Man From Atlantis was a major part of my childhood... so yes.
posted by hippybear at 10:02 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]




Can Americans in a foreign country go to a US Embassy to be married?

No, they "witness" a marriage performed under local laws. As of today that can be a gay marriage too.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 10:07 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Just click this

RAINBOW UNICORN PEGASUSES FOR EVERYBODY!

Except 4 S.C. Justices, you know who you are, you can ride home on your jackasses.
posted by Devils Rancher at 10:09 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


"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." - Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, via press release.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:10 AM on June 26, 2013 [93 favorites]


My understanding mudpuppie is that most of the "marriage penalties" in the Tax Code have been eliminated and in many cases particularly where 1 partner makes significantly more than the other there are times where filing jointly can significantly reduce your overall tax bill.

Plus all the benefit shopping that you can do if both partners have employer provided medical coverage, IRA tax shelters, etc.
posted by vuron at 10:10 AM on June 26, 2013


fuckin chuck fuckin hagel made me cry
posted by KathrynT at 10:11 AM on June 26, 2013 [24 favorites]


The Department of Defense intends to make the same benefits available to all military spouses - regardless of sexual orientation - as soon as possible.

But that doesn't apply in states that don't have same-sex marriage, right? Which... sucks. Because a lot of the big bases are in conservative anti-equality states. Still, it's a Big Damn Deal for everyone who gets it!
posted by WidgetAlley at 10:12 AM on June 26, 2013


It's been a race all morning to see what would finally make me tear up about this, and it turns out it's Hagel.
posted by komara at 10:13 AM on June 26, 2013 [8 favorites]


Welcome to America, we have marriage equality in some states, but you don't mind if we listen in on you do you? And tread a little careful if you get pregnant, or want to vote in certain states.

Seriously though, this is fantastic news. I just wish we weren't backsliding in almost every other social metric.
posted by edgeways at 10:13 AM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


But that doesn't apply in states that don't have same-sex marriage, right?

Why wouldn't it? It's the federal government we're talking about.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 10:13 AM on June 26, 2013


The Department of Defense intends to make the same benefits available to all military spouses - regardless of sexual orientation - as soon as possible.

But that doesn't apply in states that don't have same-sex marriage, right? Which... sucks. Because a lot of the big bases are in conservative anti-equality states. Still, it's a Big Damn Deal for everyone who gets it!


Pretty sure it does apply. The fact that one state doesn't recognize another state's marriage is immaterial to the question of whether or not they are entitled to federal benefits.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:14 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


Normalizing gay marriage including spousal benefits in the Armed Services will be a massive help moving forward because IIRC Armed Services personnel make up a pretty significant percentage of overall federal employees.

I'm curious if the elimination of DOMA will also extend to US federal civilian contractors and agencies receiving federal grants because that will be really kinda cool as well.
posted by vuron at 10:14 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


Hooray! So if you can manage to sneak off on leave and get married in, say, California, then come back to Ft. Campbell, TN, they'll give you spousal benefits? Yussssssss.
posted by WidgetAlley at 10:15 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


The Department of Defense intends to make the same benefits available to all military spouses - regardless of sexual orientation - as soon as possible.

But that doesn't apply in states that don't have same-sex marriage, right? Which... sucks. Because a lot of the big bases are in conservative anti-equality states.


Federal bases, federal payroll systems, federal housing, etc. etc. -- Georgia can't tell Fort Benning not to let Private Snuffy's husband into the base hospital.
posted by Etrigan at 10:15 AM on June 26, 2013 [8 favorites]


But that doesn't apply in states that don't have same-sex marriage, right? Which... sucks. Because a lot of the big bases are in conservative anti-equality states. Still, it's a Big Damn Deal for everyone who gets it!

It will apply if they have been legally married in another state, unless it's a state which has specific provisions in their laws saying you can't go out of state to get gay married and then come back to live there.

The whole "what will be legal now and what won't if you live in a non-ss-marriage state" thing remains fuzzy. Best to live in a state where it's legal for full federal rights and recognitions.

(Which is hard to do if you're in the military, I recognize.)
posted by hippybear at 10:16 AM on June 26, 2013


When Minnesota was voting whether or not to explicitly ban same-sex marriage, I wrote a letter to the editor where I pointed out some of the things I've worried about during my engagement that straight people probably rarely consider so early on: how I won't be able to take time off to care for her under FMLA if she became ill; that we couldn't receive Social Security benefits, that either one of us could be critically ill and someone might bar us from seeing one another in the hospital.

And it seemed so morbid and sad to have to picture all these illness and death scenarios during our ENGAGEMENT. And it was extra affirming to know that yes, even with all of that so uncertain, I wanted to marry her.

It's such a relief that after our wedding, we won't have to worry about ALL those things anymore.
posted by nakedmolerats at 10:16 AM on June 26, 2013 [19 favorites]


Scalia: "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."

But... but... yesterday... *head explodes*
posted by brundlefly at 10:18 AM on June 26, 2013 [12 favorites]


Marriage Equality Now!
posted by markkraft at 10:18 AM on June 26, 2013


But that doesn't apply in states that don't have same-sex marriage, right?

It's called the U.S. Department of Defense because it's a Federal agency.

Here's John Kerry last week ( gets rolling about 4 min in)
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 10:19 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


It would be hilariously awful if an anti-SSM politician from an anti-SSM state were to try to cheat soldiers' spouses out of military benefits. I have a feeling that ploy would backfire so hard that the politician would land butt-first in Mexico, covered in soot like a post-explosion Looney Tune character.
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:19 AM on June 26, 2013 [12 favorites]


Our next line of defense is to vigorously protect our religious liberty.

Religious liberty, including the free exercise of religion or even liberty to be a bigot, has never been endangered by marriage equality, even as the pernicious lie that marriage equality does impede liberty has contributed much to the popular opposition to marriage quality.
posted by audi alteram partem at 10:20 AM on June 26, 2013 [4 favorites]


Link to the Hagel presser
posted by deezil at 10:20 AM on June 26, 2013


It seems like Federal employees should basically be golden under this ruling regardless of where they live, only a really dumb politician is going to try to get into a situation where they are going to try to deny federal employees the ability to visit loved ones in hospitals, etc because it's basically going to result in a judge ruling that that state's anti- gay marriage law is in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
posted by vuron at 10:22 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


That dweam within a dweam!
posted by ooga_booga at 10:26 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Regarding CA:
The Attorney General concluded that the California Department of Public Health “can and should” instruct county officials that they “must resume issuing marriage licenses to and recording the marriages of same-sex” couples. The Department will issue another letter to county officials as soon as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals confirms the stay is lifted.
via link
posted by ApathyGirl at 10:27 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


NPH will be staring as Hedwig in a revival of Angry Inch in the spring

Words fail me. Momentous news everywhere!
posted by lumensimus at 10:27 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]




John Roberts is not the Antichrist.

No, I think the question is whether he is Darth Vader or Darth Maul to Emperor Rehnquist , depending upon whether or not you think he has something good or honorable inside...
posted by ennui.bz at 10:30 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


.@CatoInstitute is the only org that filed briefs on the winning side of #SCOTUS rulings on #VRA, affirmative action, AND #marriageequality!

Can we please not ruin the moment?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:32 AM on June 26, 2013 [10 favorites]


Oh, you guys, the people tweeting at SCOTUSblog thinking they are tweeting the justices is hilarious.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:32 AM on June 26, 2013 [6 favorites]


But that doesn't apply in states that don't have same-sex marriage, right? Which... sucks. Because a lot of the big bases are in conservative anti-equality states. Still, it's a Big Damn Deal for everyone who gets it!

It will apply if they have been legally married in another state, unless it's a state which has specific provisions in their laws saying you can't go out of state to get gay married and then come back to live there.


I don't think that's right. While one state may decide to go after such a couple, that would be immaterial to the question of whether or not a married couple is entitled to such rights.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:33 AM on June 26, 2013


.@CatoInstitute is the only org that filed briefs on the winning side of #SCOTUS rulings on #VRA, affirmative action, AND #marriageequality!

Translation: We're OK with blatant voter suppression, institutional racism, and "separate but equal" for gays in states with homophobic legislatures and citizens!
posted by zombieflanders at 10:33 AM on June 26, 2013 [8 favorites]


From now on I'm only going to read the Supreme Court opinions that are issued on the last day of the term. I like those the most.
posted by MoonOrb at 10:35 AM on June 26, 2013


.@CatoInstitute is the only org that filed briefs on the winning side of #SCOTUS rulings on #VRA, affirmative action, AND #marriageequality!"

Even a broken clock that is also an asshole is right once and a while.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 10:37 AM on June 26, 2013 [14 favorites]


David Bowie and Paul Williams file their dissent from Lily Allen's opinion. Tinkly piano for the win!
posted by maudlin at 10:37 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


At one point this would have pissed me off, but today it just makes me laugh:
[W]hat today's liberals are advocating is far more radical than that. They are pushing not only for fatherless families but also, conversely, motherless families. Think about it: married male-male parents (the other half of gay marriage) will be households without moms.

Everyone reading my words knows that mothers are utterly irreplaceable. That's a statement of the obvious. I'm incapable of doing what my wife does. Fathers raising kids without their mother because of divorce, death or some other unfortunate circumstance, know what I'm talking about. Why would anyone, let alone a country or culture, want to open the door for a reconstitution of parenthood and family that, by literal definition, excludes mothers?

To be sure, we know why liberals are doing this. Again, they are doing this in the name of gay rights.
posted by mudpuppie at 10:37 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Regarding benefits for same-sex couples on military bases in states that outlaw same-sex marriage.

My brother is married to a man in Washington State. He claims that the two of them are no longer legally married when they enter a state that outlaws same sex marriage. So if they fly from Seattle to Boston with a stopover in Philadelphia, they are married at the start of the trip, not married during the stopover at the airport, and then married again when they arrive in Boston.

I would hope that this wouldn't apply to the case of military bases or federal employees in states that outlaw same-sex marriage, but I haven't read anything definitive one way or the other on it.
posted by alms at 10:38 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Nakedmolerats: It's such a relief that after our wedding, we won't have to worry about ALL those things anymore.

Of course, given that you just informed me that I'm lucky Ruth Bader Ginsberg is already married, suddenly I have a whole NEW thing to worry about ...

I'll put on the robe tonight sweetie I promise
posted by DingoMutt at 10:38 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


There was a winning side in the affirmative action case? i thought it was just a non losing side. And yeah, i can totally see how Cato would file "winning" briefs on the other two cases. Koch has long been ok on gay marriage, and pretty hostile to government oversight of just about anything.

So frankly it gets a pretty big meh from me.
(gonna Godwin here!!!)

Even Hitler loved his dogs and was a vegetarian.
posted by edgeways at 10:40 AM on June 26, 2013


.@CatoInstitute is the only org that filed briefs on the winning side of #SCOTUS rulings on #VRA, affirmative action, AND #marriageequality!

Translation: We're OK with blatant voter suppression, institutional racism, and "separate but equal" for gays with homophobic legislatures and citizens!


The granddaddy of libertarians Ron Paul on Gay Marriage and DOMA:
Rep. Paul said last week in a statement. “Like the majority of Iowans, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected.”

“I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’ constitutional authority to define what other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same sex marriage license issued in another state,” he added. “I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts.”
posted by Ironmouth at 10:41 AM on June 26, 2013 [10 favorites]


mudpuppie: [from the article linked]

"Think about it: married male-male parents (the other half of gay marriage) will be households without moms.

Everyone reading my words knows that mothers are utterly irreplaceable. That's a statement of the obvious.
"

1) Used to be we're too feminine, now we're not feminine enough. Christ, you can't win with these assholes.

I'm incapable of doing what my wife does.

2) Just because you're a shitty parent Paul Kengor doesn't mean I would be.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 10:41 AM on June 26, 2013 [35 favorites]


Everyone reading my words knows that mothers are utterly irreplaceable.

Doesn't that mean that households with two moms are twice as awesome?
posted by drezdn at 10:42 AM on June 26, 2013 [8 favorites]


Hey fellas! You're inadequate and if you are a single dad, your children will grow up stunted in some way emotionally, in part causing the destruction of America and its values! You know what I'm talking about!
posted by muddgirl at 10:43 AM on June 26, 2013 [9 favorites]


And that is why thinking people don't take libertarians seriously.
posted by entropicamericana at 10:43 AM on June 26, 2013 [7 favorites]


How much say do people in the military have in where they'll be posted? Because even though it is fantastic that on-base discrimination will be elimated, there could still be so many problems if they live off base. Or the spouse works and wants work benefits to be available to the military spouse.
posted by saffry at 10:43 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Hey New Yorkers, second best Pride ever, amirite?
posted by inertia at 10:44 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


In the minds of these morons, a family in which you have one horribly abusive father and one horribly abusive mother is preferable to two attentive, caring moms or dads. A mom and a dad are not automatically more valuable than any other arrangement -- context counts.

That, in a nutshell, is why I feel they can go screw themselves.
posted by grubi at 10:44 AM on June 26, 2013


The party in the Castro tonight is going to be EPIC.
posted by rtha at 10:45 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


inertia, it's supposed to rain all day, but uh, sure. :)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:46 AM on June 26, 2013


It's about time! The United States Federal Government is only 16 years behind some of the private sectors.

In 1997 Kodak decided to offer domestic partner benefits to employees to fulfill its commitment to diversity. Kodak lists "respect for individual dignity" among its "5 key values." The company decided that limiting spousal benefits to legally married employees compromised its policy prohibiting discrimination based on marital status or sexual orientation. cite

I loved working for that company, they really took care of their people. In my office group we had several same sex couples, it was such a relief when their partners became eligible for health insurance.
posted by JujuB at 10:47 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


Think about it: married male-male parents (the other half of gay marriage) will be households without moms.

WHERE ARE THE MOMS, OBAMA

AND WHERE IS THEIR ONE WEIRD OLD TRICK
posted by Greg Nog at 10:47 AM on June 26, 2013 [28 favorites]


How much say do people in the military have in where they'll be posted? Because even though it is fantastic that on-base discrimination will be elimated, there could still be so many problems if they live off base. Or the spouse works and wants work benefits to be available to the military spouse.

Service members don't technically have a lot of say in their assignments, but "family reasons" is historically a pretty compelling reason for people to get a little skoonch when being selected for one post or another. With a statement like that from DoD in the history books, I suspect assignment managers will be fairly open to "If it's a tie between stationing me in Alabama and stationing me in Washington, I'd really rather be in a place where my husband is going to feel comfortable."
posted by Etrigan at 10:48 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


The granddaddy of libertarians Ron Paul on Gay Marriage and DOMA

The apple don't fall too far from the tree:
Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) went on Glenn Beck's radio show following the decisions and said that the decision affirmed traditional marriage in 34 states.

"The good side of this ruling that they have affirmed this is a state issue and states can decide," Paul said. "I think traditional marriage laws are now upheld in 34 states."

But Paul predicted defeat for traditional marriage laws at the federal level, telling opponents of same-sex marriage that "the battle is going to be lost on the federal level, concentrate on the state."
Christ, what a family of glibertarian assholes.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:48 AM on June 26, 2013 [6 favorites]


PSA for those affected by the DOMA decision: you can amend your 2011 and 2012 federal tax returns if filing jointly will give you a larger tax return.
posted by ultraviolet catastrophe at 10:48 AM on June 26, 2013 [6 favorites]


I really don't believe there are many actual Libertarians (nor are there really all that many fiscal conservatives), it is a label some adopt when what they truly are Convenientarians. And at the end of the day that is what most of us are... but Libertarians on the whole are kind of a joke.
posted by edgeways at 10:51 AM on June 26, 2013


liberals now face few impediments to their relentless push for fatherless (and motherless) families

In groundbreaking news, liberal scientists have finally discovered how to make children appear out of thin air, with nothing preceding them but a slight popping noise, thus completing their quest to destroy Families.
posted by cacofonie at 10:52 AM on June 26, 2013 [9 favorites]


Meanwhile, here are a few photos I shot about an hour ago from the steps of San Francisco City Hall...
posted by markkraft at 10:55 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


liberals now face few impediments to their relentless push for fatherless (and motherless) families

Also, abortions for all. That's right: Liberals won't rest until all families are fatherless, motherless, and childless!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:57 AM on June 26, 2013 [29 favorites]


PSA for those affected by the DOMA decision: you can amend your 2011 and 2012 federal tax returns if filing jointly will give you a larger tax return.

(2010 also I think. Ask a professional.)
posted by ultraviolet catastrophe at 10:58 AM on June 26, 2013


If you guys love gays so much why don't you marry them?
posted by echocollate at 11:00 AM on June 26, 2013 [6 favorites]


...liberal scientists have finally discovered how to make children appear out of thin air, with nothing preceding them but a slight popping noise...

Thereby imperiling the integrity of our traditional, stork-based approach.
posted by fifthrider at 11:01 AM on June 26, 2013 [5 favorites]


Also, abortions for all. That's right: Liberals won't rest until all families are fatherless, motherless, and childless!

(sound of booing crowd)

Very well, abortions for some, miniature American flags for everyone!

(sound of cheering crowd)
posted by MoonOrb at 11:02 AM on June 26, 2013 [9 favorites]




Note to self: "traditional", when used by conservatives, means "like it was for heteronormative white males in the 1950s".
posted by grubi at 11:03 AM on June 26, 2013 [14 favorites]


@CatoInstitute is the only org that filed briefs on the winning side of #SCOTUS rulings on #VRA, affirmative action, AND #marriageequality!

1) Well, that's not something I'd brag about. Winning ≠ Being Right.

2) The first tweet responding to that (one of just three) is a link to a dietary supplement. Someone's twitter feed is not hot.
posted by benito.strauss at 11:03 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


A TON of fact sheets here
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:03 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


Religious Right Responds to DOMA Decision: 'Absurd'; 'Profound Injustice'; 'Shameful Day in American History'

Cardinal Timothy Dolan and Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

"scootus pls."
posted by fifthrider at 11:05 AM on June 26, 2013 [5 favorites]


Can someone please advise - is this a good thing for military couples? I am thinking that their 'arrangements' came under DOMA (the military being a federal rather than state institution) but now don't. I don't really know much about this and would love some information.
posted by Megami at 11:06 AM on June 26, 2013


The granddaddy of libertarians Ron Paul ...

Despite what he may call himself, it's important to realize that Ron Paul is actually a State Fascist, just not a Federal Fascist.
posted by benito.strauss at 11:06 AM on June 26, 2013 [14 favorites]


"Marriage is the only institution that brings together a man and a woman for life, providing any child who comes from their union with the secure foundation of a mother and a father."

-Cardinal Timothy Dolan


In what dream world are all of the children of heterosexual partners provided with a secure foundation of parenting for life? Marriage isn't a panacea, even for Catholic families.
posted by jetlagaddict at 11:10 AM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


Megami, yes this should be a good thing for military couples, provided they are legally married in whatever state they get married in. The implication of this ruling is that it should compel the DoD to recognize a same-sex marriage as valid. So the effect of this will only be felt by same-sex military members to the extent they are legally married in one of the jurisdictions that allows it, though.
posted by MoonOrb at 11:11 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Thereby imperiling the integrity of our traditional, stork-based approach.

Where are the storks getting all those babies from, anyway? Are the baby factories even in America, anymore? What if there are no native-born Americans? What if there never have been? Then none of the presidents would have been legal, and none of their appointments to Supreme Court would have been valid, and none of the court's rulings would be enforcible! I'd say teach the controversy, but I don't really believe in techurs, either. So never mind, I guess.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:11 AM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


The whole Paul family are a bunch of brownshirts — the son most of all. Keep an eye on that lot, they are dangerous people.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:11 AM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


Can someone please advise - is this a good thing for military couples?

Unabashedly good. The fact that some states still won't recognize the marriage means very, very little compared to the fact that service member's same-sex spouses will now accrue all the benefits of opposite-sex spouses -- housing eligibility, health care, survivor benefits, GI Bill benefits... And the ability of service members to get married any ol' damn place is pretty high.
posted by Etrigan at 11:12 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


Marriage is the only institution that brings together a man and a woman for life

Wow, I guess you better start cracking down on states that allow divorce then, Timmy D. Otherwise you're going to look like a great big fucking stupid hypocrite, and that would be embarrassing.
posted by elizardbits at 11:13 AM on June 26, 2013 [29 favorites]


Can someone please advise - is this a good thing for military couples?

It should be. This ruling in particular applies to federal benefits and so the DoD is bound to comply. However, state national guard units and so on operate under rules adjudicated by thier states - and some states make being gay married illegal entirely (WI, for instance) - so the actual on the ground effect for many military families is hard to predict.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 11:13 AM on June 26, 2013


Note to self: "traditional", when used by conservatives, means "like it was for heteronormative white males in the 1950s".

Sort of, more like what their revisionist historical fantasy was like for white males in the 50's (note: there weren't non-heteronormals back then in this fantasy)(another note: this fantasy is not the same one they have that leads them to pay rent boys for "services rendered" when they're on the road)
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 11:15 AM on June 26, 2013


Go to your shower and see if Patrick Duffy is in it. That's the gold standard test as I understand it.

Nope, just some mold. I really should clean that. I must be awake if I have chores to do.
posted by homunculus at 11:15 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


Are you sure that mold isn't some left over chest hairs?
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 11:16 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


I guess you better start cracking down on states that allow divorce then, Timmy D.

Given that he's a Catholic and a Cardinal, I imagine he'd rather love to do just that if he had anything near the political backing required to do so.
posted by fifthrider at 11:17 AM on June 26, 2013


However, state national guard units and so on operate under rules adjudicated by thier states - and some states make being gay married illegal entirely (WI, for instance) - so the actual on the ground effect for many military families is hard to predict.

But when the shit really hits the fan (e.g., deployment overseas, callup for disaster relief outside their own state) and the support structures are most needed, those National Guardsmen and Guardswomen are federalized.
posted by Etrigan at 11:19 AM on June 26, 2013


Can we be traditionalist about "In God We Trust" on our cash?
posted by edgeways at 11:21 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Can we be traditionalist about "In God We Trust" on our cash?

And the Pledge of Allegiance, while we're at it. I've made several "traditionalist" heads asplode over both.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:23 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


I did notice a few years ago that when people start waxing poetic about 'the good old days', they're really wishing for their childhoods.

"Life was so simple. We didn't worry about such things." Well, YEAH, doofus, children rarely do.
posted by grubi at 11:25 AM on June 26, 2013 [9 favorites]


Postal Employees are still Federal Employees as well?

Hopefully a whole bunch of them can drive to California (for the lulz) and get married and bring back gay marriage to their states.
posted by vuron at 11:27 AM on June 26, 2013


Stock market seems to like gay marriage just fine. Why do Republicans hate capitalism?
posted by Flunkie at 11:27 AM on June 26, 2013 [5 favorites]


I date my conservative traditions back to 410,000 BP. This whole fire thing is a liberal plot to destroy the traditional relationship between a man and his salmonella.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:29 AM on June 26, 2013 [7 favorites]


Why do Republicans hate capitalism?

It makes the "help" start to get all uppity. Just imagine how much more happy they'd be if they didn't have to pay their employees!
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 11:30 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Marriage (any kind) is the foundation of modern consumer captialism. I legitimately think both gay marriage and pot legalization will happen in our lifetime because in the end dollars beat ideology, no matter what. The beast must eats, it doesn't care how or on who.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 11:31 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Speaking of traditionalism, I just saw this tumblr linked on Twitter: Notorious R.B.G - Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in all her glory:
"How many women on the SCOTUS would be enough?" Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: "NINE."
posted by audi alteram partem at 11:33 AM on June 26, 2013 [30 favorites]


My mother texted me to say that this makes me, like, 4/5 of a person now! YAY!
posted by jph at 11:34 AM on June 26, 2013 [4 favorites]


tetsuo: "Mike Huckabee's response to the news: "Jesus Wept". Ugh"

I'm going to assume that Huckabee's day went something like this. Or at least I hope so.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:34 AM on June 26, 2013


I date my conservative traditions back to 410,000 BP. This whole fire thing is a liberal plot to destroy the traditional relationship between a man and his salmonella.

You're not foolin' me! I know for sure the earth is no more than 6000 years old, that's why I defend my right to kill my brother and "marry" my sister!
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 11:34 AM on June 26, 2013


WHERE ARE THE MOMS, OBAMA

AND WHERE IS THEIR ONE WEIRD OLD TRICK


Have you tried looking back at school?
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 11:35 AM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


Have you tried looking back at school?

No, but I've tried watching Back to School, and while I didn't find the answer I was looking for, it sure was an amusing way to wile away an afternoon.
posted by MoonOrb at 11:37 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


As a gay person I have had mixed feelings about Scalia's views. He frames the debate very differently (excerpts here)—for him it is a problem of constitutional or legal scope, in that he argues that it is not the justices' role to make moral decisions about society. While he has labeled the other justices as a group of "activists" who have overstepped their bounds, he has a good point and to me raises deeper questions about very fundamental/abstract/philosophical/theoretical aspects of law. Plausibly his views could be criticized for being excessively literalist, or maybe his rhetoric belies a hypocritical bias, but more generally, I sense that what's kind of lacking in the debate is explaining why his ideas about law are either wrong or incomplete.
posted by polymodus at 11:40 AM on June 26, 2013


Meanwhile this AskMe question raises the Issue: "Oh shit I have to actually get married to my hetero partner now? Crap crap crap crap crap..."
posted by Potomac Avenue at 11:42 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


for him it is a problem of constitutional or legal scope, in that he argues that it is not the justices' role to make moral decisions about society. While he has labeled the other justices as a group of "activists" who have overstepped their bounds, he has a good point and to me raises deeper questions about very fundamental/abstract/philosophical/theoretical aspects of law.

Except he's wrong, and a liar to boot. By basing his opinions in, say, Lawrence v. Texas and elsewhere purely in the realm of "This is morally wrong", Scalia is the one trying to make moral decisions about society. What happened today was archaic moralistic oppression being taken out of the equation, and allowing the law to provide equally for all within it.
posted by kafziel at 11:44 AM on June 26, 2013 [7 favorites]


I refuse to get divorced until EVERYONE can get divorced. You think I want to be married to this box turtle? Hell no. He's rude at dinner and he's cut me off sexually. This is about EQUALITY.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 11:46 AM on June 26, 2013 [14 favorites]


Any moral dimension to this question is merely in Scalia's mind. This is a question of equality. Denying one American a right that other Americans enjoy is wrong. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. That's the American way.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 11:46 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


Except that it shouldn't be Congress's job, either, to make decisions that are purely based on the majority's conception of "morality" and nothing else. Which is why the anti-sodomy laws reversed in Lawrence and the DOMA violate Equal Protection. And, in my view, the court is acting appropriately by stepping in and saying so. Because it's their fucking job.
posted by MoonOrb at 11:48 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


You guys type too fast.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 11:48 AM on June 26, 2013


Scalia thinks legislation that discriminates against queer people sails through rational basis scrutiny. Let's not leave that out when we analyze his moral fucking underpinnings.
posted by prefpara at 11:49 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


I have had mixed feelings about Scalia's views. He frames the debate very differently —for him it is a problem of constitutional or legal scope

I have to admit I share his unease about the government appealing a ruling when they have no intention of actually raising any objections about it.
posted by straight at 11:50 AM on June 26, 2013


Scalia, dissenting in Windsor: "even setting aside traditional moral disapproval of same-sex marriage (or indeed same-sex sex), there are many perfectly valid—indeed, downright boring—justifying rationales for this legislation. Their existence ought to be the end of this case."
posted by prefpara at 11:51 AM on June 26, 2013


for him it is a problem of constitutional or legal scope, in that he argues that it is not the justices' role to make moral decisions about society.

Which of course, means he's wrong, and is sliding around the real issue. It's a contract law issue as much as it is a rights issue. And if he can frame it as "morality" then he hopes to divert everyone from the fact that two men in any state can enter any contract with each other that is legally allowed in the US... except marriage.

I see his re-framing as a tacit admission that his side has no legal leg to stand on.
posted by grubi at 11:51 AM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


Religious Right Responds to DOMA Decision: 'Absurd'; 'Profound Injustice'; 'Shameful Day in American History'

Meanwhile Bradley Manning is still locked up, Snowden hops from nation to nation, PRISM is still in operation, Guantanamo Bay is still open, Michigan continues to seize control of its cities from their elected officials that it doesn't think are being run properly, and a hundred other dire things continue to be wrong about this country. But no, it's they who are the ones who have their priorities straight. Sure.
posted by JHarris at 11:52 AM on June 26, 2013 [9 favorites]


And as long as Loving v Virginia stands, then morality is non-issue in this.
posted by grubi at 11:52 AM on June 26, 2013


The tricky part in the fall of DOMA involves how states and federal agencies currently recognize marriage.
Some federal agencies adhere to what is known as a "place of celebration" standard. That means no matter where a couple is legally married anywhere in the world, the union is recognized for the purpose of federal benefits.
But other agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service and the Social Security Administration, hew to a "place of residence" standard. Marriage has to be recognized in the place the couple is living for them to be eligible for those federal spousal benefits.
"Every agency of government has, quite literally, a different standard for recognizing marriage," Sainz says. "They did not consult one another — and it has nothing to do with being gay or straight, they just have different standards."
Here's one example that points to the complexity to come: The Department of Defense has a "place of celebration" marriage standard for active-duty military. But the Department of Veterans Affairs has a "place of residence" standard.
While some definitions are set by regulation, others — including those used by Social Security and Veterans Affairs — are set by federal law, further complicating the DOMA rollback.
"It's a patchwork that makes no sense," Sainz says.


After DOMA: What's Next For Gay Married Couples

posted by Wyeldfire at 11:52 AM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


From the Syllabus of the decision:
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. The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379, 383–384. Marriage laws may vary from State to State, but they are consistent within each State.

DOMA rejects this long-established precept. The State’s decision to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a dignity and status of immense import. But the Federal Government uses the state-defined class for the opposite purpose—to impose restrictions and disabilities. The question is whether the resulting injury and indignity is a deprivation of an essential part of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment, since what New York treats as alike the federal law deems unlike by a law designed to injure the same class the State seeks to protect. New York’s actions were a proper exercise of its sovereign authority[...]
Emphasis mine.

So... at least from the Syllabus (which is admittedly not part of the actual Court's opinion), they essentially struck down DOMA on states' rights grounds.

That's gotta be really awkward for Scalia and Thomas.
posted by Kadin2048 at 11:54 AM on June 26, 2013


Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia

And it's those guarantees that will likely make up the bulk of the coming argument that anti-gay marriage laws are specifically unconstitutional. If they can rule the Federal govt has to recognize all same-sex marriages as legal, then applying those guarantees is mere extrapolation.

Of course, I am oversimplifying it a bit. But you see what I mean.
posted by grubi at 11:56 AM on June 26, 2013


tetsuo: Mike Huckabee's response to the news: "Jesus Wept". Ugh.

This phrase really needs to get a broader use.

Something's boring? Jesus slept.
Found money on the sidewalk? Jesus kept.
Invited to play double dutch? Jesus leapt.
Moving furniture? Jesus schlepped.
posted by dr_dank at 11:58 AM on June 26, 2013 [18 favorites]




Performed skillfully: Jesus adept.
posted by tetsuo at 11:59 AM on June 26, 2013 [5 favorites]


And it's those guarantees that will likely make up the bulk of the coming argument that anti-gay marriage laws are specifically unconstitutional. If they can rule the Federal govt has to recognize all same-sex marriages as legal, then applying those guarantees is mere extrapolation.

Of course, I am oversimplifying it a bit. But you see what I mean.


Yeah, but you just know there's gonna be plenty of state houses that are gonna be agin it jus' 'cause the Feds are fer it.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 12:00 PM on June 26, 2013


So... at least from the Syllabus (which is admittedly not part of the actual Court's opinion), they essentially struck down DOMA on states' rights grounds.

That's gotta be really awkward for Scalia and Thomas.
\

Quote of the Day: Nobody Cares About Federalism
Marriage is a state concern—in fact, it's literally a textbook example of a state concern—not a federal one. Taken as a whole, this ruling was as pure a defense of federalism as we've seen in a while.

So why did all the conservative justices oppose it? Answer: Because no one actually cares about federalism. It's merely a convenient veneer when you prefer one outcome over another. Yesterday state sovereignty was of crucial concern when conservatives gutted the Voting Rights Act. Today, they couldn't care less about it.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:05 PM on June 26, 2013 [16 favorites]


Yeah, but you just know there's gonna be plenty of state houses that are gonna be agin it jus' 'cause the Feds are fer it.

Oh, indeed. "States' Rights" proponents are oddly fluid when it comes to actual states' rights.
posted by grubi at 12:06 PM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


It's not perfect, but we're celebrating.
posted by firstdrop at 12:06 PM on June 26, 2013 [17 favorites]


The granddaddy of libertarians Ron Paul on Gay Marriage and DOMA

The apple don't fall too far from the tree:
Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) went on Glenn Beck's radio show following the decisions and said that the decision affirmed traditional marriage in 34 states.

"The good side of this ruling that they have affirmed this is a state issue and states can decide," Paul said. "I think traditional marriage laws are now upheld in 34 states."

But Paul predicted defeat for traditional marriage laws at the federal level, telling opponents of same-sex marriage that "the battle is going to be lost on the federal level, concentrate on the state."
Christ, what a family of glibertarian assholes.


I read that first line as Rue Paul and was completely befuddled for a good 5 minutes there.
posted by edbles at 12:07 PM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


Find a happy rally near you: http://www.lighttojustice.org/ ... Some of them are saying to wear red for love.

Not trying to be all self-linky, but I was feeling optimistic last night for celebrations today and I made some 11x17 signs with the Star Trek equality logo: http://imgur.com/a/upFAm
posted by Skwirl at 12:07 PM on June 26, 2013




This phrase really needs to get a broader use.

Jesus snuck in after curfew: Jesus crept
Jesus buckled down for pre-SAT review: Jesus prepped
posted by elizardbits at 12:08 PM on June 26, 2013 [11 favorites]


Scalia's skill as a persuasive writer obscures how facile and inconsistent his jurisprudence can be, especially when he's out on a limb as weak as DOMA. Google the Scalia-Posner debates for more. Scalia has no problem with judicial activism when it suits him.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:09 PM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


Jesus tidies up: Jesus swept.
Jesus steals things compulsively: Jesus klept.
posted by KathrynT at 12:14 PM on June 26, 2013 [14 favorites]


Jesus snuck in after curfew: Jesus crept
Jesus buckled down for pre-SAT review: Jesus prepped


Jesus going to synagogue after either one: Jesus schlepped.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:14 PM on June 26, 2013 [13 favorites]


Doesn't that mean that households with two moms are twice as awesome?

My nephew (age 5) has a classmate with two moms. My sister-in-law overheard the following conversation between the nephew and another classmate.

Classmate: Do you have a dad?
Nephew: Yeah. Do you?
Classmate: Yeah.
Classmate: Did you know that "Billy" has two moms?
Nephew: Really? How did that happen, do you think?
Classmate: He just got lucky, I guess.
Nephew: Yeah.

posted by Pax at 12:14 PM on June 26, 2013 [56 favorites]


It's about time! The United States Federal Government is only 16 years behind some of the private sectors.

I've always been a little bemused about that. I worked for big stodgy IBM fifteen years ago and they'd already had same-sex benefits for a few years at that point. Companies like that knew how powerless the religious right were in the marketplace no matter how noise they made and knew it was more important to not alienate their employees than to cater to some nut cases.
posted by octothorpe at 12:15 PM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Jesus showed his dance moves? Jesus stepped.
posted by Gelatin at 12:15 PM on June 26, 2013 [6 favorites]


Classmate: He just got lucky, I guess.

Or the converse, when my daughter is mad at me because I won't let her eat candy canes dipped in Nutella for lunch:

"I wish I didn't even have a mom! I wish I had two dads! Like Effie at school!"
posted by KathrynT at 12:16 PM on June 26, 2013 [26 favorites]


Jesus fell in love with Edward Scissorhands: Jesus depped.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 12:16 PM on June 26, 2013 [7 favorites]


Jesus is 1337: Jesus grepped
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:16 PM on June 26, 2013 [30 favorites]


Lame-ass justifications for bigotry against gays? Jesus inept.
posted by Gelatin at 12:16 PM on June 26, 2013 [7 favorites]


Winning the big football game? Jesus intercept.

(I'm done. Tip your wait staff!)
posted by Gelatin at 12:18 PM on June 26, 2013 [7 favorites]


Jesus filled his bunker with canned goods and ammunition: Jesus prepped.
posted by inertia at 12:18 PM on June 26, 2013 [6 favorites]


Jesus enjoys a nice Gin and Tonic? Jesus Schwepped
posted by murphy slaw at 12:19 PM on June 26, 2013 [20 favorites]


These jokes: Jesus wept.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 12:19 PM on June 26, 2013 [11 favorites]


Jesus kept
posted by invitapriore at 12:20 PM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


Which is why the anti-sodomy laws reversed in Lawrence and the DOMA violate Equal Protection

Speaking of Lawrence and the SCOTUS - Virginia Attorney General, vaginal probe advocate, and GOP candidate for Governor, Ken Cuccinelli, just filed his case with the Supremes over the 4th Circuit's ruling on MacDonald v. Moose...
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 12:21 PM on June 26, 2013


rtha: "Yes, but that wouldn't affect one's ability to file married/jointly on a federal 1040, right?

That's correct (or, at least, my understanding). Next year come tax time, gingerbeer will be able to file us as married for both state (which we could do before) AND federal (which we couldn't, and not being able to do so caused her days of snarling and muttering and swearing at tax time). Yay for easier taxes, really.
"

The special snarling has been because we HAVE to file as married with the state, and HAVE to file as single with the feds, BUT because CA is a community property state, have to divide up income etc. to then file as single for feds. So what I put down as income doesn't match any of our employer documents, can't use any of the turbotax forms, and can't file electronically but have to mail the whole thing. Annoying as fuck. And I am delighted to learn from a link above that we can possibly re-file our taxes and get some $ back.

Small potatoes compared to the legal rights, but still...
posted by gingerbeer at 12:23 PM on June 26, 2013 [4 favorites]


Do you get to go back and file for the difference retroactively now?
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 12:24 PM on June 26, 2013


Jesus a little choked up about how his children are actually treating each other with a little human decency and respect for once: Jesus verklempt.
posted by BlueDuke at 12:25 PM on June 26, 2013 [29 favorites]


gingerbeer, thank you for explaining. And again, congratulations! So happy for you both!
posted by zarq at 12:25 PM on June 26, 2013


Jesus makes you nine feet tall when you're four foot five? Jesus hep hepped.
posted by Flunkie at 12:26 PM on June 26, 2013 [6 favorites]


Everyone's been watching these developments closely! Jesus Rapt
posted by Potomac Avenue at 12:27 PM on June 26, 2013 [4 favorites]




The legal complexity and paperwork nightmare of having to file separately is one of the reasons behindhiring an accountant in the first place
posted by The Whelk at 12:29 PM on June 26, 2013


gingerbeer and rtha and any other mefites who get to rework their taxes: Congrats on ascending from tax hell to tax purgatory! plus all the other awesome stuff.
posted by rmd1023 at 12:29 PM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


Jesus scores a touchdown: Jesus high-stepped.
posted by tetsuo at 12:30 PM on June 26, 2013 [6 favorites]


Esp since i freelance so my taxes are dark arcane magic in the first place
posted by The Whelk at 12:30 PM on June 26, 2013


Jesus tidies up: Jesus swept.

Jesus deep cleans: Jesus zepped.

Jesus pops white crosses: Jesus pepped.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 12:31 PM on June 26, 2013 [5 favorites]


Jesus has a throat cold: Jesus strepped.

(Ok I'll stop now).
posted by tetsuo at 12:32 PM on June 26, 2013 [7 favorites]


The 10th Regiment of Foot: "Do you get to go back and file for the difference retroactively now?"

The US tax code gives taxpayers three years to file protective claims for income and estate tax refunds. So anyone who was legally married before or during 2010 should have the ability to submit amended returns until April 15, 2014. The deadline for 2009 has already passed. More. (Article is from March 9 of this year.)
posted by zarq at 12:32 PM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Okay, one more: Jesus digs bebop? Jesus hepped.
posted by Gelatin at 12:33 PM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


Jesus rambles on? Jesus Led Zep'd.
posted by scody at 12:33 PM on June 26, 2013 [9 favorites]


Tonight we will celebrate for all who never lived to see this day. - Armistead Maupin, via Facebook
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:34 PM on June 26, 2013 [5 favorites]


Jesus works out: Jesus repped.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:34 PM on June 26, 2013 [8 favorites]


In This Thread (pic swiped from George Takei's Facebook)
posted by Jacqueline at 12:35 PM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


We've run out of rhymes at this point, right? Please?
posted by mudpuppie at 12:36 PM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


.



for my marriage. Damn you, gays!
posted by Fezboy! at 12:37 PM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


You're just going to have to roll with it, mudpuppie. Y'know, Jesus accept.
posted by caution live frogs at 12:46 PM on June 26, 2013 [12 favorites]


We've run out of rhymes at this point, right? Please?

Said Jesus, "except..."
posted by Pax at 12:48 PM on June 26, 2013 [8 favorites]


Jesus Netflixes his favorite show: Jesus reapt.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 12:49 PM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


Does anyone have any hard data* on approximately how long I have before this ruling destroys my heterosexual marriage?

*not asking for ST:TNG slashfic
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:50 PM on June 26, 2013 [5 favorites]


Jesus Treked
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:50 PM on June 26, 2013 [14 favorites]


Jesus verklempt. Edit: whoops BlueDuke, probably "came up with that" by osmosis. Nice work.
posted by hoople at 12:51 PM on June 26, 2013


Working on it, Flo. Within 30 days is the best I can say right now. Check back if you want, though!
posted by rtha at 12:53 PM on June 26, 2013


Jesus worked out: Jesus repped.
posted by klangklangston at 12:56 PM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


My wife and I enjoy clothes shopping together, subscribe to style magazines, and watch "What Not to Wear" every night. It's not really *that* straight of a marriage to begin with.
posted by grubi at 12:56 PM on June 26, 2013 [8 favorites]


I am asking for ST:TNG slashfic, FWIW.
posted by murphy slaw at 1:00 PM on June 26, 2013


Livejournal is that way ---->
posted by entropicamericana at 1:05 PM on June 26, 2013 [4 favorites]


Well, I was hoping this might spur a more general political sea change, but our governor's still sticking to his guns on our own state's ban on gay marriage:

Scott: Federal ruling won't change Florida's gay marriage ban

And Scott's undoubtedly still riding high on yesterday's decision in his favor on the Voting Rights Act. From the perspective of a Republican governor, unfortunately, this decision hasn't changed much. It doesn't really change the balance of political power at the state level. Hopefully, that'll change with subsequent decisions and elections, but let's hope we don't just end up with a kind of gay-equality version of Jim Crow for the next few decades. The Voting Rights Act decision itself demonstrates how quickly one decision can reverse decades of progress on civil rights matters.

All the same, woo-hoo!
posted by saulgoodman at 1:11 PM on June 26, 2013


Wait a few years til all those old married gay folks in NY want to migrate south and retire to Florida like God intended...
posted by rmd1023 at 1:13 PM on June 26, 2013 [6 favorites]


jesus made an album with eminem: jesus rapped
posted by pyramid termite at 1:16 PM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


Raw, base human prejudice is incompatible with the ideals of the US constitution.
posted by Drexen at 1:17 PM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Jesus' milkshake brings all the boys to the yard: Jesus frapped.
posted by jph at 1:18 PM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


Nation Celebrates What Is, Technically Speaking, Progress


With shouts of “Land of the free, certainly more so than it was yesterday, at least!” and “We did it—if you look at the details here and ignore that it’s still disappointing that a high number of gay men and women still don’t have the same rights as straight citizens!” millions of Americans took to the streets to celebrate what is, in the end, a victory.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 1:20 PM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


Further evidence of Rand Paul's horribleness: Post-DOMA, Rand Paul fears humans marrying non-humans
Here's the entirety of Rand Paul's response, in which the senator said he's "kind of with" [Glenn Beck].
"I think this is the conundrum and gets back to what you were saying in the opening -- whether or not churches should decide this. But it is difficult because if we have no laws on this people take it to one extension further. Does it have to be humans?

"You know, I mean, so there really are, the question is what social mores, can some social mores be part of legislation? Historically we did at the state legislative level, we did allow for some social mores to be part of it. Some of them were said to be for health reasons and otherwise, but I'm kind of with you, I see the thousands-of-year tradition of the nucleus of the family unit. I also see that economically, if you just look without any kind of moral periscope and you say, what is it that is the leading cause of poverty in our country? It's having kids without marriage. The stability of the marriage unit is enormous and we should not just say oh we're punting on it, marriage can be anything."
Raise your hand if you think Rand Paul has any idea what he's talking about.

I realize there's a "Stand With Rand" crowd that's convinced the Kentucky Republican is a visionary when it comes to limited government, and I understand that much of the media establishment is eager for us to perceive him as a serious and credible person. But Rand Paul decided to chat with Glenn Beck, and during the interview the senator raised the prospect of marriage-equality proponents asking, "Does it have to be humans?"
posted by zombieflanders at 1:20 PM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


To be fair, The Onion, a lot of this sort of thing requires baby steps. We're further along than we were, and there's more of a firm legal leg to stand on.

(That's right, I'm talking to a parody website. What of it?)
posted by grubi at 1:21 PM on June 26, 2013


Jesus got his dancing shoes on: Jesus tapped.
posted by Happy Dave at 1:22 PM on June 26, 2013 [4 favorites]


THEY AREN'T EVEN RHYMING ANYMORE!!
posted by mudpuppie at 1:24 PM on June 26, 2013 [24 favorites]


Hey, I'm a libertarian and I'm not an asshole. Please stop lumping all of us in with the Pauls. They are more Republican than libertarian and do not speak for the majority of libertarians.

Here is what real libertarians think: Libertarian Party applauds DOMA strikedown

We have been in favor of marriage equality longer than the Democrats have been.
posted by Jacqueline at 1:24 PM on June 26, 2013 [6 favorites]


Someone on Facebook reposted Black Girl Dangerous, which said, "Black Girl Dangerous would like to send out a huge CONGRATULATIONS to LGBT folks with race and class privilege! Yay for y'all!"

Is she just being negative or is there something I am missing here? Whites and POC on my feed are both really excited about the decision.
posted by gucci mane at 1:24 PM on June 26, 2013


THEY AREN'T EVEN RHYMING ANYMORE!!

It's a slippery slope.
posted by jamaro at 1:25 PM on June 26, 2013 [6 favorites]


Jesus raised school spirit with a kick-ass pom pom routine: Jesus pepped
posted by en forme de poire at 1:25 PM on June 26, 2013 [5 favorites]


THEY AREN'T EVEN RHYMING ANYMORE!!: Jesus was into free verse
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:25 PM on June 26, 2013 [14 favorites]


Ugh, gucci mane, that's just cringe-worthy to me.
posted by mudpuppie at 1:26 PM on June 26, 2013


My response to the "slippery slope to marrying dogs!" crowd (like Mr Paul, above):

"Are you equating gay people with livestock and pets? Are you unaware of the difference? Such as these gay people wanting equal rights are consenting adults? And livestock and pets don't have an equal rights lobby or any legal precedent granting them any sort of civil rights to begin with? Are you that stupid?"

And then I'd be all FUCK YOU and stuff.
posted by grubi at 1:26 PM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


Jesus stood tall and charismatically extolled the best features of his place of origin: Jesus repped
posted by en forme de poire at 1:27 PM on June 26, 2013 [4 favorites]


mudpuppie: Ugh, gucci mane, that's just cringe-worthy to me.

My ignorance or her response? It was an honest question.
posted by gucci mane at 1:30 PM on June 26, 2013


"Are you equating gay people with livestock and pets? Are you unaware of the difference? Such as these gay people wanting equal rights are consenting adults? And livestock and pets don't have an equal rights lobby or any legal precedent granting them any sort of civil rights to begin with? Are you that stupid?"

He's just saying that without strict government regulation and oversight people might take advantage of their freedoms in ways he thinks are deleterious to the greater good.

In other words, he's a freedom hating big government type.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 1:30 PM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Is she just being negative or is there something I am missing here? Whites and POC on my feed are both really excited about the decision.

There's one argument on the left that the fight for marriage equality largely only benefits white, upper-middle-class people, and therefore isn't really a progressive struggle. (Obvs I think this is utter bunk -- as do plenty of working-class and poor LGBT folks of all races for whom marriage offers tangible, material benefits -- but that's how the argument basically goes when I've heard it.)
posted by scody at 1:32 PM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


My ignorance or her response? It was an honest question.

Sorry, gucci mane, I meant her comment. I can't even articulate why it rubs me the wrong way so much. Scody gets to part of it, but there's more that I can't put my finger on.
posted by mudpuppie at 1:33 PM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


Black Girl Dangerous, Mia McKenzie, is actually incredibly negative. And she means to be. The part of me that wants the bumper sticker that says "Well-behaved women rarely make history" wants to give her a fist bump and tell her to get on with her bad self. But no matter how uncomfortable it makes me to suggest to someone that they should be nicer when they're fighting for their rights - because, really, there's a fine, fine line between that and calling someone uppity - her tactics are self-defeating and I am angry that she is a spokesperson for any part of my identity.

Her tactics are ultimately cannibalistic. It is the Oppression Olympics at their worst, turning on other oppressed people (like the above quote) because they aren't quite oppressed enough. It's pretty fucking disgusting. I hope she finds a new tactic, and soon. Because she is clearly a smart person whose goals are right. But I can't say that her heart is in the right place, because I find no evidence in any of her writings that she even has a heart.
posted by jph at 1:34 PM on June 26, 2013 [8 favorites]


While I'm not sure how far down the class ladder "estate taxes" have a huge impact, I think things like "spousal health insurance is tax deductible for everyone" is a solidly middle class / working class improvement for same sex couples.
posted by rmd1023 at 1:35 PM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


It is the Oppression Olympics at their worst, turning on other oppressed people (like the above quote) because they aren't quite oppressed enough.

There it is.

(I'm not familiar with her, so the comment exists in a vacuum for me.)
posted by mudpuppie at 1:35 PM on June 26, 2013


Here is what real libertarians think: Libertarian Party applauds DOMA strikedown

We have been in favor of marriage equality longer than the Democrats have been.


On the other hand, they don't oppose discrimination against LGBT people by the private sector, something that Democrats have been in support of for just about as long (or longer, if you consider discrimination against minorities in general).
posted by zombieflanders at 1:38 PM on June 26, 2013 [4 favorites]


Someone on Facebook reposted Black Girl Dangerous, which said, "Black Girl Dangerous would like to send out a huge CONGRATULATIONS to LGBT folks with race and class privilege! Yay for y'all!"

Is she just being negative or is there something I am missing here? Whites and POC on my feed are both really excited about the decision.


she is performing the important and necessary work of tearing the scales from the eyes of the many people (all of them actual people who actually believe this and not at all POS [people of straw]) who believe that the SCOTUS decisions handed down today solved all of the problems, anywhere, ever, for anyone
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 1:40 PM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


There's one argument on the left that the fight for marriage equality largely only benefits white, upper-middle-class people, and therefore isn't really a progressive struggle. (Obvs I think this is utter bunk -- as do plenty of working-class and poor LGBT folks of all races for whom marriage offers tangible, material benefits -- but that's how the argument basically goes when I've heard it.)

Less that it only benefits them, so much as disproportionately benefits them because they are less likely to be worrying about other aspects of inequality.
posted by hoyland at 1:41 PM on June 26, 2013 [8 favorites]


Thanks for the explanations, jph and scody. I definitely agree with what you said about telling someone to be nicer and I do agree she is eye-opening in a lot of ways (there was a thread posted here recently about her that was really good). There are a lot of people on tumblr who are excessively negative about matters such as this that appear to be universally good things. Likewise, I think maybe she's also really pissed about the VRA, but I don't think that's any reason to take it out on everybody. Although, I guess someone could say the VRA is deliberately against POC while gay rights has a lot of white influence, and that that's why it passed, but that point-of-view comes off awfully cynical to me. But what do I know?
posted by gucci mane at 1:42 PM on June 26, 2013


THEY AREN'T EVEN RHYMING ANYMORE!!

In other words, Jesus inept?
posted by thomas j wise at 1:42 PM on June 26, 2013 [4 favorites]


On the other hand, they don't oppose discrimination against LGBT people by the private sector

Rather, they don't think such discrimination should be against the law.
posted by in278s at 1:43 PM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


On the other hand, they don't oppose discrimination against LGBT people by the private sector

Sure we do. My husband and I are boycotting Chick-Fil-A, even though he adores their sandwiches, because of that company's discrimination against LGBT people.

Passing legislation is not the only way to oppose something.
posted by Jacqueline at 1:44 PM on June 26, 2013 [4 favorites]


I think things like "spousal health insurance is tax deductible for everyone" is a solidly middle class / working class improvement for same sex couples.

Exactly. Access to affordable health care (and so many of the other material benefits of marriage under our current system) is the very opposite of some elitist, upper-crust concern. Nor, of course, is it only for rich white people to care about the right to visit your spouse in the hospital or the right for your non-US-citizen spouse to qualify for a green card or for your spouse to receive Social Security survivor's benefits after you die, etc. etc. I'm always gobsmacked to see how glibly the More Oppressed Than Thou crowd will elide these concrete issues that directly affect millions of working people's daily lives.

Anyway, I believe Think Progress wins the day so far for their perfect encapsulation of Antonin Agonistes: 24 Hours After Striking Voting Rights, Scalia Cries Out For Judicial Restraint
posted by scody at 1:45 PM on June 26, 2013 [4 favorites]


Rather, they don't think such discrimination should be against the law.

Passing legislation is not the only way to oppose something.


Sorry, I should have made it clear that I was referring to the Libertarian Party, not you specifically.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:47 PM on June 26, 2013


"Who's that dude, Chaucer?" "Jesus, yclept."
posted by fleacircus at 1:48 PM on June 26, 2013 [26 favorites]


A more eloquent argument for why fighting for LGBT marriage rights is NOT elitist or privileged, from Sherry Wolf's The Unapologetic Case for Gay Marriage (which I've quoted before, so apologies for the repeat):
Same-sex marriage is a civil right that must be unapologetically defended by socialists and other leftists--not only for its own sake as a material and social benefit under capitalism, especially to working-class and poor LGBT people, but because the reform is not a barrier to further struggles, but can be a gateway to them instead.

Socialists and other leftists defend strikes for higher pay and better health care, despite the fact that even total victory means renegotiating the terms of exploitation, not ending the wage system itself. Radicals are at the forefront of the antiwar movement demanding immediate withdrawal of all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the fact that the U.S. also maintains more than 700 bases on every continent.

Leftists take these stands for reforms because we understand that the capitalist system and its imperial might won't fall in one fell swoop. Reformist struggles themselves create the organizational and human material necessary for a further transformation of society. Moreover, it does make a difference in the here whether workers have more pay and couples have more rights.
posted by scody at 1:52 PM on June 26, 2013 [15 favorites]


Part of the argument is that marriage equality primarily benefits those who already have privilege and social and economic status. For example -- having a job with employer-sponsored health insurance. It is an argument that I personally agree with, much as I benefit from exactly those things.

Today's not really the day for highlighting the problems with marriage equality as a strategy, but it's fair to say that it is not going to benefit all LGBTQ folks equally, and that those with the most economic status are more likely to experience more of the benefits.
posted by gingerbeer at 1:52 PM on June 26, 2013 [10 favorites]


Exactly. Access to affordable health care (and so many of the other material benefits of marriage under our current system) is the very opposite of some elitist, upper-crust concern.

I totally agree with this, and I do think the ruling has a lot of good effects on everyone, regardless of race, and I don't know Black Girl Dangerous so I can't comment on her, but I do think there is a viewpoint out there that points out that the presentation of gay marriage rights has been largely concerned with making gays seem "exactly like us": white, affluent, normative. And that has sometimes meant pushing other groups out.

I think it's a valid criticism, but at the same time I'm not all that sure what exactly could be done to avoid it. Just like mainstream feminism's embrace of capitalist individualism as the only measure of success, being acknowledged by those in power often means doing your best to look and act like those in power. It's tricky, because marriage equality is important... but it's not the only important thing.

I hope when marriage equality happens we don't lose momentum and instead take that same energy and use it to address those other concerns.
posted by WidgetAlley at 1:54 PM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


Does this change how "family" health insurance for a married couple will be handled (and charged!) under the ACA? Or is that too many steps removed from the Federal government recognizing marriage that it's already a moot point?
posted by rmd1023 at 1:56 PM on June 26, 2013


Yeah, we were talking at the office about being disappointed because it didn't go far enough, and it can be a little, "But I like my sundaes with hot fudge…" But the good thing is that pretty much everyone in LGBT advocacy knows this, and active plans have been going for a while on what's next, especially on intersectional work. Marriage was never the end, it was just usually the best story.
posted by klangklangston at 1:58 PM on June 26, 2013 [4 favorites]


Sorry, I should have made it clear that I was referring to the Libertarian Party

"We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant." LP Platform section 3.5 Rights and Discrimination

Libertarians are generally in favor of using boycotts, picketing, and public shaming campaigns to get private companies to change their behavior. We agree with you that discrimination is bad, we merely disagree about which tactics to use to end it.
posted by Jacqueline at 2:01 PM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Clarence Thomas ... dissented.

... while eyeing coke can.
posted by Twang at 2:01 PM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


klang: "But the good thing is that pretty much everyone in LGBT advocacy knows this, and active plans have been going for a while on what's next, especially on intersectional work. Marriage was never the end, it was just usually the best story."

I wish I shared your optimism on that. And I couldn't disagree more strongly with the idea that "pretty much everyone" thinks that. That is not my experience.

And today is for celebrating a victory, so I'm going to stop being critical here!
posted by gingerbeer at 2:06 PM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


%n: "Does this change how "family" health insurance for a married couple will be handled (and charged!) under the ACA? Or is that too many steps removed from the Federal government recognizing marriage that it's already a moot point?"

Well immediately, the cost of Medicare is about to decrease for same-sex married couples. Married couples pay a lower joint premium for coverage than two single people. I don't know other details, but this will probably affect the cost of premiums/coverage under the ACA as well.

The big difference for several friends is they will now be able to contribute to Roth IRA's on their nonworking spouses' behalf.
posted by zarq at 2:10 PM on June 26, 2013


"We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant." LP Platform section 3.5 Rights and Discrimination

Not that I should buy into the derail...
Libertarians embrace the concept that all people are born with certain inherent rights. We reject the idea that a natural right can ever impose an obligation upon others to fulfill that "right".
Libertarians really believe that increased individual liberty must always lead to greater aggregate liberty even in the face of historical examples to the contrary. In other words, if nobody wants to hire or rent to black people, well, that's just the power of a free people at work.

It's a crap philosophy. You can only increase aggregate liberty by limiting what the powerful can do to the weak - government is not the only source of oppression.

That Libertarians in general are so very poor at understanding this simple truth is why they will never go even as far as the Green party has electorally.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 2:14 PM on June 26, 2013 [20 favorites]


Also, while I don't know if the Libertarian Party has an official position on this, as a libertarian I am in favor of federal, state, and local companies requiring nondiscrimination policies and practices in any private company that they contract with. It should be legal for private companies to discriminate but those that do shouldn't receive one penny of taxpayer money.
posted by Jacqueline at 2:18 PM on June 26, 2013


This tread and these comments are giving me sensory overload.
It feels like a deja vu that is as powerful as a car crash...

I am going to go buy a winning billion dollar lotto ticket and treat you all to gay marriage.
posted by QueerAngel28 at 2:18 PM on June 26, 2013


So I just got around to reading this DOMA opinion, and it is a remarkable constitutional opinion. I know everyone is cheering or jeering it based on how the outcome comports with their policy perspectives, but from a constitutional law position, this is a remarkable and novel opinion. It is a novel re-purposing of the federalism argument with the unique "liberty"/Fifth Amendment twist. I wonder how much of this is a doctrinal shift (if so, how fertile of one?) and how much was just the result of Kennedy needing 4 more votes for his opinion. Instead of saying "states get to define marriage, not federal government"--the straight forward federalist/enumerated powers argument--Kennedy says because states have legislated this and the federal government interfered with it, that interference causes heightened security and must have been improperly motivated (because why else would the federal government interfere?). So a state can create a liberty interest or right by state law, and if the federal government interferes with that, heightened scrutiny could be applied because of the Fifth Amendment. This is a blending of federalism and Fifth Amendment jurisprudence that is new and novel.

Scalia's legal dissent (as distinct from the policy parts of his dissent) underscores this well. It will be every interesting to see where this logic takes the Court. I wonder how far Kennedy's new doctrine will extend? What other rights/liberty interests can a state create such that the federal government's trumping of them gives rise to a heightened scrutiny under the Fifth Amendment? It is an interesting constitutional law question. I am sure we will be seeing quite a few law review articles about this and maybe some ideas on how else this theory might be used (I can't wait for the inevitable articles trying to claim it can be used to strike down federal laws against marijuana).
posted by dios at 2:19 PM on June 26, 2013 [17 favorites]


Also, while I don't know if the Libertarian Party has an official position on this, as a libertarian I am in favor of federal, state, and local companies requiring nondiscrimination policies and practices in any private company that they contract with. It should be legal for private companies to discriminate but those that do shouldn't receive one penny of taxpayer money.

Well your classic example is going to be something like a hotel or restaurant near the interstate. Their business may be dependent on federal funds but receive no taxpayer money directly. Widespread discrimination among those sorts of businesses can make it impossible for the taxpayers who paid for those highways to make use of them for travel and business. If you have to balance the right to travel the country and the right to discriminate, which one do you give priority to?
posted by Drinky Die at 2:22 PM on June 26, 2013 [6 favorites]


I am going to go buy a winning billion dollar lotto ticket and treat you all to gay marriage.

Fine, but can I pick the style? I'm not really a polka-dots guy.
posted by grubi at 2:28 PM on June 26, 2013


government is not the only source of oppression

Government is also not the only source of liberation. We support non-government solutions (boycotts, picketing, public shaming campaigns, etc.) in response to non-government oppression.

Historically, government has been more responsible for perpetrating discrimination than it has been for ending it. The reason segregation lasted so long in the South is that it was legally mandated until it became an entrenched cultural institution. The market didn't create Jim Crow laws, politicians did.
posted by Jacqueline at 2:29 PM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Thank you for your comment, jph. I've been following Black Girl Dangerous's blog/writing for a while because it's popular here (in the Bay area, where she lives), and it's been pretty infuriating. I entirely believe there are other, bigger things than same-sex marriage, but the vitriol is too much.
posted by needs more cowbell at 2:29 PM on June 26, 2013


You can only increase aggregate liberty by limiting what the powerful can do to the weak

Yes, but what you just said there, taken to the opposite extreme, is communism, the practical application of which has never advanced liberty ("We can solve this power problem by just killing all the powerful people! Bingo -- no more powerful preying on the weak! Why didn't we think of this sooner?").

So, that's clearly not something you're interested in, either.

And that's the thing about criticism of libertarians. They're not all Randians, just as those arguing for economic fairness are not all Stalinists.

Some of us sorta-kinda libertarians would just like the government to stop and take a breather once in a while.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 2:32 PM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


The market didn't create Jim Crow laws, politicians did.

Ahem.
posted by benito.strauss at 2:32 PM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


"I wish I shared your optimism on that. And I couldn't disagree more strongly with the idea that "pretty much everyone" thinks that. That is not my experience."

Maybe it's just SoCal sunshine and marriage good vibes, but GLAAD has basically decided that trans issues is going to be their next big educational push, we're working on a couple trans bills, Immigration Equality is doing good work on asylum and some of the other stuff not covered by DOMA going down. NCLR and Lambda Legal are national and have always had a much broader scope, and even more so the ACLU. Especially as more people in the movement come from intersectional backgrounds, those issues will be given more of a voice.
posted by klangklangston at 2:34 PM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


So I see how this affects the Army, but since the National Guard is run on the state level, how that might be handled differently than the federal branches? Anyone know?!
posted by whatgorilla at 2:34 PM on June 26, 2013


It should be legal for private companies to discriminate but those that do shouldn't receive one penny of taxpayer money.

To a not-insubstantial degree, private businesses are subsidized by taxpayers to the extent that they receive free or hugely discounted services which enable them to operate. There is a compelling argument for equal and fair treatment as a societal compromise.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:35 PM on June 26, 2013 [6 favorites]


Jesus refused the sniper rifle and the crossbow: Jesus GEPped.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 2:35 PM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


Yeah, those Woolworth's counters were just dying to serve black customers, if only the meddling guvernm't had gotten out of the way.

But perhaps this isn't the thread for debating Libertarian ethos?
posted by dry white toast at 2:35 PM on June 26, 2013 [5 favorites]


Historically, government has been more responsible for perpetrating discrimination than it has been for ending it. The reason segregation lasted so long in the South is that it was legally mandated until it became an entrenched cultural institution. The market didn't create Jim Crow laws, politicians did.

Except that the market didn't eliminate segregation either. Else there would have been no need for the subject of this FPP. That it was last published in 1964 is not a coincidence, I don't think.
posted by hoyland at 2:36 PM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


grep grepped Jesus.txt
posted by klangklangston at 2:37 PM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


The market didn't create Jim Crow laws, politicians did.

Politicians are some separate species that do whatever they like. They are voted for by people, and they are often quite responsive to what their constituencies want. "Politicians" did not institute Jim Crow laws top-down and against the will of the people who voted them into office.
posted by rtha at 2:40 PM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


Government is also not the only source of liberation. We support non-government solutions...in response to non-government oppression. Historically, government has been more responsible for perpetrating discrimination than it has been for ending it. The reason segregation lasted so long in the South is that it was legally mandated until it became an entrenched cultural institution. The market didn't create Jim Crow laws, politicians did.

Even conceding that all those statements are true, which I'm not particularly inclined to do, 'Markets weren't successful at effecting change' is...not a great argument for using markets to effect change, if you're talking about practicality.
posted by cjelli at 2:41 PM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


Maybe it's just SoCal sunshine and marriage good vibes, but GLAAD has basically decided that trans issues is going to be their next big educational push, we're working on a couple trans bills, Immigration Equality is doing good work on asylum and some of the other stuff not covered by DOMA going down. NCLR and Lambda Legal are national and have always had a much broader scope, and even more so the ACLU. Especially as more people in the movement come from intersectional backgrounds, those issues will be given more of a voice.

I think the issue that beyond maybe GLAAD, many (straight) people haven't really heard about those groups. They think the HRC is doing a bang up job and that everyone loves the HRC or whatever. My concern would not be so much that the NCLR and Lambda Legal and so on think that marriage is the end all and be all, but that the general public hasn't realised that they're interested in issues besides marriage.
posted by hoyland at 2:42 PM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


So I see how this affects the Army, but since the National Guard is run on the state level, how that might be handled differently than the federal branches? Anyone know?!

It's an interesting question because, by very definition, the various guard units operate under both the United States federal code (Titles 10 and 32) and state laws.

My guess is that the federal code trumps the state codes in this area.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 2:50 PM on June 26, 2013


That's what I'm thinking too, hoyland. The HRC branding on marriage equality has been highly effective, and though at least one of my friends who has more to do with them than I do says that there's internal movement toward a more inclusive approach to their advocacy, the fact that this apology was necessary indicates that they've still got a ways to go.
posted by EvaDestruction at 2:52 PM on June 26, 2013


2. Gay people swarming around houses like zombies from the World War Z movie, wanting to come inside and redecorate EVERYTHING.

The music video for German Sparkle Party is dying to be extended into a full-on zombie movie. The "survivor's" desperate lives on the run, living in fear and squalor, while the horde of slow-moving revellers grows ever bigger and... happier and brighter and sparklier. The virus is being alive. And it's contagious.
posted by anonymisc at 2:53 PM on June 26, 2013


Does anyone know if Lambda Legal or other groups have legal challenges lined up from couples who will still be actively discriminated against in other states (Texas, Florida, etc.)?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:54 PM on June 26, 2013


Dunno, but I'm a state employee in Texas and the Chair of our GLBT Employee Network. At least one of our members was just married in New York, and others are marrying elsewhere. So if anyone needs potential plaintiffs, I can put them in touch with some great options.
posted by jph at 3:00 PM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


Libertarians are generally in favor of using boycotts, picketing, and public shaming campaigns to get private companies to change their behavior. We agree with you that discrimination is bad, we merely disagree about which tactics to use to end it.

This is actually quite true. And generally speaking the more effective a tactic is at ending discrimination, the more vehemently Libertarians oppose it. Conversely, the stronger a Libertarian's support for a tactic, the less effective it is at ending discrimination. Is it because they are personally racist? No, it isn't. Is the effect to promote racism? Yes, it is.
posted by Justinian at 3:06 PM on June 26, 2013 [7 favorites]


This is such great news!

For an antidote to the religious right, check out the statement by Katharine Jefferts Schori, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. It's heartening to read.
posted by Biblio at 3:13 PM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


> > The market didn't create Jim Crow laws, politicians did.

> Ahem.

"It was a crime for for a black man to lack employment and a crime to change jobs without his previous employer's permission. It was a crime to sell the proceeds of his farm to anyone other than the man from whom he rented land..." (emphasis added)

Thanks, your link provides some great examples of how government regulations that restrict employment and markets have hurt people.
posted by Jacqueline at 3:14 PM on June 26, 2013


[Please, officially, do not turn this thread into a Libertarian axe-grind pro/con.]
posted by jessamyn at 3:17 PM on June 26, 2013 [13 favorites]


All the talk of man on man, man on beast, man on woman on beast, was getting Jesus a little bothered.. Jesus faped.
posted by wotsac at 3:17 PM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


When Judas asked the other disciples where to score dope, they didn't know. But Jesus did. Jesus hepped.
posted by klangklangston at 3:22 PM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


An estimated 24,700 same-sex couples are bi-national (one US citizen and one non-citizen) along with 11,700 same-sex couples comprised of two non-citizens. The Windsor DOMA ruling has opened the door for a citizen to obtain permanent residence for a non-citizen, same-sex spouse, and expedited citizenship for a resident, same-sex spouse.

I have a friend from library school who has been living like this for quite a while. He and his husband have been very active in trying to get the message out about this "edge case" seeming scenario that affects thousands of legally married couples. Here is a video they made about it. I'm happy about this decision for so many reasons and for so many people (including so many MeFites!) but especially for the two of them today.
posted by jessamyn at 3:31 PM on June 26, 2013 [4 favorites]


these Jesus action puns are terrible.
posted by boo_radley at 3:51 PM on June 26, 2013


these Jesus action puns are terrible.

And such small portions!
posted by en forme de poire at 3:53 PM on June 26, 2013 [16 favorites]


Enough with the Jesus jokes. Jesus left.
posted by SPrintF at 3:53 PM on June 26, 2013 [9 favorites]


Nah, he's just tired. Jesus slept.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 3:54 PM on June 26, 2013 [7 favorites]


I've not read many Scalia dissents in the past. Is he always this fucking pissed off?
posted by Room 101 at 3:59 PM on June 26, 2013


Only when he loses, when he wins he's smug.
posted by Kattullus at 4:02 PM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


Personal story time.

This past Saturday was the 20th anniversary of the day that my parents found out I was gay. (I didn't come out to them -- they came out and asked.) I've now been their gay daughter longer than I was their straight daughter. It was really hard at first. My mom was really concerned, and my dad felt betrayed. They both felt like they must have made many mistakes that they had been previously unaware of.

Things eventually got easier and less awkward to the point where it's always been kind of a nonissue.

All that to set up this: Just got a text from my mom. "Isn't this a wonderful day???"

Never, ever, ever, would have thunk it 20 years ago.
posted by mudpuppie at 4:03 PM on June 26, 2013 [79 favorites]


Except now she's going to hound you to get married and settle down, mudpuppie.
posted by ooga_booga at 4:24 PM on June 26, 2013 [19 favorites]


All that to set up this: Just got a text from my mom. "Isn't this a wonderful day???"

...and I thought my smile today couldn't get any wider! I think I just fractured my face with delight.
posted by MissySedai at 4:28 PM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


I'm anticipating a lot of argle-bargling tonight in San Francisco in celebration.

Lest we forget how we got here, DOMA was passed in 1996 by an overwhelming majority by the Democrat congress and signed by a Democrat president. Of course the Republicans at the time were even worse, but the Democrats were no friend to gays. Here's a list of all the Democrat senators who signed DOMA:

Baucus, Biden, Bingaman, Bradley, Breaux, Bryan, Bumpers, Byrd, Conrad, Daschle, Dodd, Dorgan, Exon, Ford, Glenn, Graham, Harkin, Heflin, Hollings, Johnston, Kohl, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Mikulski, Murray, Nunn, Reid, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Wellstone

Each and everyone owes apologies to every American citizen they wrongly disenfranchised.
posted by Nelson at 4:35 PM on June 26, 2013 [7 favorites]


I am so pleased to be living in a time of major societal change. Especially when that change makes things more progressive, not less.
posted by cooker girl at 4:41 PM on June 26, 2013


Except now she's going to hound you to get married and settle down, mudpuppie.

oh crap
posted by mudpuppie at 4:42 PM on June 26, 2013 [10 favorites]


Are you married, yet? Are you married, yet? Are you married, yet? Where are my grandkids?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:46 PM on June 26, 2013 [10 favorites]


Each and everyone owes apologies to every American citizen they wrongly disenfranchised.
posted by Nelson


Now list the Republicans.
posted by benito.strauss at 4:46 PM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


Video of Pelosi's response to Bachmann's statement

greatest response ever
posted by Flunkie at 4:48 PM on June 26, 2013 [11 favorites]


It's Raining Florence Henderson: "Are you married, yet? Are you married, yet? Are you married, yet? Where are my grandkids?"

Seriously -- when DOMA passed, my mom was dead set that I shouldn't talk about being gay with anybody, including my father. Now that gay marriage is closer to a reality, I've been getting not-too-subtle hints (from both parents) that maybe we should 'make it official' while both grandmothers are still alive.

These are better problems to have.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 4:49 PM on June 26, 2013 [42 favorites]


DOMA was passed in 1996 by an overwhelming majority by the Democrat congress

Guess again.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 4:49 PM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


These are better problems to have.

Yes, they are. *big grin*
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:53 PM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


Today was kind of D-Day for us. When we got engaged in March, it was all very theoretical because, what changes? We already live together. These cases were pending, about to be argued, and it was so unclear whether anything was going to change. When we told our families and friends about our engagement everyone was predictably thrilled. And as families are wont to do, they began peppering us with questions. When would it happen. Where would it be. Who would be involved. In some ways, it was nice because they were all so... ignorant.

To them, this was about a community coming together to celebrate commitment. You know, the way it *should* be. But for us, it was kind of this big scary unknown. Where should we be married? We're bi-national - what impact does that have on anything? We want to adopt - what does that mean in a state will require us to adopt separately even if we're married? We live in a community property state - which doesn't recognize same-sex marriages - what the hell do we do with that? If the Supreme Court rules, or if there's some weirdo backlash, will it pull the rug right out from under us like all those couples in California in 2008? It's all so tricky.

While mothers and sisters hounded us to draft save-the-date cards, we were just kind of overwhelmed trying to figure out what the hell to do next. It was really just easier to say "Look, we don't even know what the Supreme Court is going to say. We'll get back to you in June." But now that they have ruled, I don't know that we're really any closer to choosing a florist or a venue because, in short, they said "Not you; not yet." I'm pretty zen about it, actually. This was the legal outcome I expected. And knowing where we stand actually helps us prioritize when we're facing paying for a probably-transatlantic-wedding, buying a house and adopting adorable-future-pageant-and/or-olympic-winners.

Now I've started telling everyone that the wedding date is The 4th of Eventually. I hear that's a lovely month for a wedding.
posted by jph at 4:58 PM on June 26, 2013 [15 favorites]


Crap, you are right, the Republicans did control both halves of the Congress that passed DOMA. It's possible a Democrat Congress wouldn't have passed DOMA. But plenty of Democrats were happy to vote on the wrong side when given the choice. The final votes were 342–67 in the House and 85–14 in the Senate.

(I don't list the Republicans because we already know they're the party of bigotry. I prefer to remember how the Democrats were not significantly better on gay rights in 1996.)
posted by Nelson at 5:02 PM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


List of Senate and house votes.
posted by brent at 5:02 PM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


There's a man waving the rainbow and U.S. flags on my corner.
posted by goofyfoot at 5:06 PM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


I loved Kate Kendell's first words when she spoke at S.F. City Hall after the verdict:

"Fuck you, Prop 8."

(Or maybe she said, "fuck Prop 8." I cannot find a YouTube video of it, unfortunately. A huge roar went up when she said it.)

She did say she scanned the room first to see if there were kids around, and apologized for using language, saying she'd put a dollar in the swear box later.

On my local TV station, Kron4, you could hear someone whispering, panicked, something like "Go, go, go!" and they cut from their live coverage to a newscaster. :D

KTVU Channel 2 held on to a bit more of her speech but also cut away from her.
posted by joseph conrad is fully awesome at 5:07 PM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


I prefer to remember how the Democrats were not significantly better on gay rights in 1996.

Why, exactly? I don't think anyone's convinced themselves that the Democratic Party has always loved gay people. I mean, we don't exactly think they love us now.
posted by hoyland at 5:08 PM on June 26, 2013


Here is the teeny "fuck you prop 8" clip.
posted by jessamyn at 5:11 PM on June 26, 2013 [8 favorites]


mudpuppie: "
oh crap
"

And when that happens, the pressure for grandbabies begins....
posted by notsnot at 5:27 PM on June 26, 2013


We love you the most.
posted by Jacqueline at 5:31 PM on June 26, 2013


Scalia's dissent raises one issue I'm struggling with. In his attack on the majority opinion, I have to say he rightly takes it to task for not following a "legally honest" argument. Effectively, the majority attempts to have their cake and eat it too--they reach a decision that would be appropriate had they applied strict scrutiny but scrupulously avoid actually applying strict scrutiny.

From Scalia's dissent:
The majority concludes that the only motive for this Act was the “bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group.” Ante, at 20. Bear in mind that the object of this condemnation is not the legislature of some once Confederate Southern state (familiar objects of the Court’s scorn, see, e.g., Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U. S. 578 (1987)), but our respected coordinate branches, the Congress and Presidency of the United States. Laying such a charge against them should require the most extraordinary evidence, and I would have thought that every attempt would be made to indulge a more anodyne explanation for the statute.

Ignoring the laughable phrasing about "our respected coordinate branches, the Congress and Presidency of the United States", he's entirely right--I really don't see that Kennedy's opinion appropriately develops the idea that Congress or the Executive could have no, as Scalia phrases it, "perfectly valid—indeed, downright boring—justifying rationales for this legislation." Ignoring that Scalia supplies no such justifications apart from two very flimsy ones, Kennedy does not attempt to even consider that Congress may have justifications.

I wholeheartedly agree in advance that no justification exists for any sort of discrimination against homosexuals. So why should we even remotely consider that Congress was acting in good faith when it created DOMA? Because until the SCOTUS goes through the process in a decision and displays for the record that homosexuals fall under the realm of strict scrutiny, equality will remain only partial equality. Kennedy's decision is written as though he's put the case through strict scrutiny, but he never actually does so. I feel, sadly, the majority has again passed the buck. So in a way, Scalia's gripe is right on: the majority's opinion fails to make a convincing argument--basically because it's too scared to do so.
posted by Room 101 at 5:41 PM on June 26, 2013


Via Dan Savage

"DOMA has been struck down but that doesn’t ensure equal benefits for all same-sex married couples. Because federal agencies use different standards to determine who is married—some use a “place of residence” standard and others use a “place of celebration” standard—many SSM couples who are married in one state but residing in a state where same-sex marriage is prohibited won’t be eligible for many federal benefits. President Obama can change all of this at the stroke of a pen by issuing an executive order mandating a uniform place of celebration standard. This would mean that, effectively, everyone in the country would be able to get a federally recognized same-sex marriage and all attendant federal rights and responsibilities."

Here’s my Whitehouse.org petition asking the president to issue that executive order.
posted by justalisteningman at 5:45 PM on June 26, 2013 [8 favorites]


Has anyone linked Nate Silver's new piece at fivethirtyeight on the stunning increase in the number of people both in the States and world wide who now have same-sex marriage available to them compared to just a year ago?
posted by yoink at 6:27 PM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


I'm still just happily gobsmacked about this after reading all the comments and articles and looking at the photos. What a lovely day!
posted by pointystick at 6:39 PM on June 26, 2013


Had a seriously wonderful time at the rally listening to Edie Windsor and Robbie Kaplan, then went out to dinner with my husband and some friends friends whose marriage is now federally legalized. Could not have been a more perfect day, and to think how nervous we all were last night.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:54 PM on June 26, 2013


My partner was busy this evening off with friends, so I had to spend my time tonight with a married couple we're friends with destroying their marriage solo, with my newly federally granted GAY MARRIAGE POWERZ. I haven't seen any results yet, but I remain hopeful.
posted by rmd1023 at 7:17 PM on June 26, 2013 [11 favorites]


Here’s my Whitehouse.org petition asking the president to issue that executive order.

I'm not holding my head underwater, given that he never just issued an executive order granting partner benefits to federal employees. I sobbed with joy randomly during the day and will take this win and keep marching towards inevitable complete victory. But my faith in 44 going one inch past what's most expedient here is pretty much zero.
posted by phearlez at 8:17 PM on June 26, 2013


rms1023:... spend my time tonight with a married couple we're friends with destroying their marriage solo, with my newly federally granted GAY MARRIAGE POWERZ.

Ive always imagined these powers working like Death Eater face sucking... but more colorful.
posted by cacofonie at 8:18 PM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


Five years and three states later, my vote against H8 has finally been vindicated.

A hearty congratulations to everyone who can now get gay-married in the nation's most populous state, remain gay-married no-takebacks this time, and oh yeah: be gay-married for tax purposes.
posted by librarylis at 8:36 PM on June 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


given that he never just issued an executive order granting partner benefits to federal employees.

Wouldn't that have been a violation of DOMA? Like, it's struck down now, and good, but could he have done a legally useful EO like that?
posted by Lemurrhea at 8:53 PM on June 26, 2013


Could someone please post a Spotify playlist of the aforementioned disco music so I have something to listen to tonight while I drink alone?

I am going to celebrate the biggest civil rights milestone of my lifetime-thus-far, dammit, even if there's no one around to celebrate with.
posted by Jacqueline at 8:54 PM on June 26, 2013


I feel love, you make me feel mighty real, don't stop til you get enough, fat bottomed girls, whip it, and finish with modern disco let forever be and Doing It Right. Maybe pop in an age of Aquarius or freak out in there, and some funk classics but honestly I'd go with Q.U.E.E.N for modern funk.
posted by The Whelk at 8:59 PM on June 26, 2013 [3 favorites]


Actually wait, you need and want

U GO LOKO.
posted by The Whelk at 9:00 PM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


You are my favorite guru of gayness.
posted by Jacqueline at 9:02 PM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


OK, I put The Whelk's recs into a Spotify playlist: Gay Disco Music

I checked the box to make it "Collaborative" so y'all should be able to add to it as you see fit.
posted by Jacqueline at 9:13 PM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


I'm just going to add Abba's Waterloo and Elaine and ELO " don't tear me down" along with everything Gloria Gaynor ever did.
posted by The Whelk at 9:19 PM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Come to the chat room.
posted by Jacqueline at 9:47 PM on June 26, 2013


The Whelk: I also included some NRG in the form of Pet Shop Boys "where the streets have no name". Also Village People "go west" (pet shop boys covered this but I like the original), Donna Summer "I feel love", Kylie Minogue "your disco needs you" (oh the cheeze), the weathergirls "it's raining men".

And why don't I have a copy of the dance version of "I am what I am" on my phone??
posted by rmd1023 at 10:20 PM on June 26, 2013


I had Jack Daniels for dinner, so I'm gonna repurpose this dead-ish thread into a repository of #superhusbands wedding pics for future reference in celebration of the federal government finally recognizing Captain America and Iron Man's marriage. (Sheesh, how many times do a couple of guys gotta save the world to get a little equality around here????)

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mb5ufyhAXp1rwmngwo1_500.jpg

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbxlmvjtkJ1rx1344o1_500.png

http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/31600000/Becoming-Superhusbands-steve-and-tony-31698104-500-319.png

http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/adrianneb78239/15469042/2982/2982_640.jpg

http://25.media.tumblr.com/c6c97f82d41a7e61542eb75b59781565/tumblr_mk4kvvyDuE1s9pwgxo1_1280.jpg
posted by Jacqueline at 10:34 PM on June 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


I've heard a better argument that marriage equality is more important for poor people than for elites.

People with money can afford to hire lawyers to draw up complex legal documents like powers of attorney, property sharing, etc, in an effort to replicate (crudely) the rights that marriage grants. It's very expensive in both time and money.

Marriage equality will benefit such well-to-do couples, but not so nearly as much as it will benefit poor same-sex couples who had no access to legal expertise. For a few hundred dollars (or whatever a liscense costs), they can have the same rights that hetero couples have, and don't need a lawyer or special contracts.
posted by jb at 10:34 PM on June 26, 2013 [15 favorites]


"Jesus wept" -@GovMikeHuckabee
The same Jesus who washed feet? I bet he would've given Peter a handjob if it meant more love in the world. -@Halcyon

posted by jeffburdges at 2:02 AM on June 27, 2013 [4 favorites]


[...] in celebration of the federal government finally recognizing Captain America and Iron Man's marriage.

Because a thread about a historical governmental decision impacting hundreds of thousands of people isn't complete until it's relevant to some fictional characters? I mean, what?
posted by fight or flight at 5:31 AM on June 27, 2013 [1 favorite]


I yield DJ mastery for today to the Whelk, but I did just tear up watching the video for Mackelore's Same Love just now...
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:49 AM on June 27, 2013 [3 favorites]


I'm not holding my head underwater, given that he never just issued an executive order granting partner benefits to federal employees.

No, I would never hold your breath in waiting for the Federal government to act, but Obama/Biden's track record has certainly been better than past administrations (with the obvious exception of Fancy/Nancy).
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 6:30 AM on June 27, 2013


Jesus lends his name to a series of family-planning products. Jesus EPT™.
posted by Riki tiki at 6:38 AM on June 27, 2013 [1 favorite]


Jesus grows weary of bad internet puns - Jesus "meh"-pt.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 6:49 AM on June 27, 2013 [5 favorites]


Apologies if this has been posted already, but the New York Times just answered my question.
Consider two women living at Keesler Air Force Base in Biloxi, Miss., who travel to Maine to get married. When they get back to the base, the military will now recognize their marriage, affording them a variety of benefits that would go to any married couple, like health care and a housing allowance.

But once they exit Keesler’s gates, they will find their marriage license means nothing to the state of Mississippi, where same-sex couples cannot adopt children and employers can fire someone who is gay.

Federal Court Speaks, but Couples Still Face State Legal Patchwork
posted by alms at 7:22 AM on June 27, 2013 [2 favorites]


Man, y'all can't have gay disco without Patrick Cowley and Bobby O.
posted by klangklangston at 9:04 AM on June 27, 2013




Classic:

Tony Perkins of FRC on why people will turn against gay marriage (NYTimes):
He predicts that more Americans will turn against same-sex marriage when they see what he called its pernicious consequences — introducing teachings in school that parents consider immoral, forcing Christian business owners like florists and caterers to participate in gay marriages against their will.

Who does this man think are the florists and caterers of this country?
posted by Ironmouth at 9:14 AM on June 27, 2013 [5 favorites]


Ironmouth, a friend of mine made a similar argument back in 2004.

(Noting that he doesn't expressly state support of same-sex marriage in the column quoted, but that may have been an editorial request ten years ago; personally he is in favor and always has been.)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:38 AM on June 27, 2013


Tony Perkins can go jump in a lake. A lake of hellfire.
posted by rtha at 9:56 AM on June 27, 2013 [1 favorite]


We discussed the florist thing recently.

"forcing Christian business owners like florists and caterers to participate in gay marriages against their will."

Yes, yes, the big bad gay mafia will force you to celebrate their happy day. *eyeroll*

"Youse gotta a nice little place here. Lotsa 'spensive flowers. Lotsa glass cases. Lotsa breakables. Shame if somethin' were ta happen ta all a dat.... Accidental-like, know what I mean?"
posted by zarq at 9:57 AM on June 27, 2013 [8 favorites]


Or the converse, when my daughter is mad at me because I won't let her eat candy canes dipped in Nutella for lunch:

"I wish I didn't even have a mom! I wish I had two dads! Like Effie at school!"


Oh noes! Now we'll all have to let our kids eat candy canes dipped in Nutella for lunch! I guess the gay agenda includes letting kids eat all the junk food they want, too. I knew we would all have to divorce our opposite-sex partners and marry new same-sex ones, but this is too much! Our kids' teeth will be ruined! Think of the chiiiildren!
posted by Anne Neville at 9:59 AM on June 27, 2013 [1 favorite]


jb: "George Takei on the defeat of DOMA, and the end of "ick""

Good for him. The clear parallels between discrimination by race and gender need to be pointed out and harped on.
posted by zarq at 9:59 AM on June 27, 2013 [1 favorite]


"Youse gotta a nice little place here. Lotsa 'spensive flowers. Lotsa glass cases. Lotsa breakables.

...Shame if somebody came in here and purchased a bunch of 'em, giving you a tidy profit."
posted by straight at 10:05 AM on June 27, 2013 [14 favorites]


It always get me how the Republicans --- the party of big business, right?!? --- are so anti-SSM.

I mean, think about it: the average wedding in the US is currently around $25K..... think about all those wedding announcement printers, dress and suit sellers, cake bakers, caterers, florists, wedding planners, reception halls, rental limos, travel agents and hotels (the honeymoon trip!) and on and on that could be raking in the $$$$. Not to mention the divorce lawyers, because gay couples are no more nor less screwed-up than straight couples.
posted by easily confused at 10:28 AM on June 27, 2013


It always get me how the Republicans --- the party of big business, right?!? --- are so anti-SSM.

They've already got the business vote. The anti-SSM vote is (increasingly "was") people who would otherwise stay home -- viz. Bush's re-election in '04, which was largely on the back of anti-SSM measures that the GOP ginned up solely to get out that lazy-but-queer-hatin' vote.
posted by Etrigan at 10:31 AM on June 27, 2013


I know at least one catering/events branch at a museum is extremely happy about the downfall of DOMA and the marketing of events to even more couples. It's great for businesses, even if our state is one of the 37 that doesn't have civil unions or same-sex marriage.
posted by jetlagaddict at 10:40 AM on June 27, 2013




Living in one of the three states that were the first by popular vote to legalize gay marriage, yesterday was a great continuation of what we've been seeing here in Washington -- people who have loved each other for years, finally receiving full legal acknowledgement and protection from both the state and (here in our state and all the others that recognize gay marriage) the federal government.

And one thing that has become increasingly clear, too, is that this is all really good for the institution of marriage and for children. I.e., those who oppose the recognition of this basic civil right are being proved wrong daily on their basic claim that their discrimination protects marriage or children. To the contrary -- legal recognition of the right of consenting adults to marry is what enhances the institution of marriage and the law's protections for children. And the more same gender people who marry in the increasing number of states that have legally recognized the right, the more obvious this becomes.

I also agree with everyone on the thread, and Scalia too for that matter, that it is now just a matter of time until the right case gets to the Supreme Court and the court rules directly that prohibition of gay marriage, by legislation or state constitutional amendment, violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
posted by bearwife at 11:58 AM on June 27, 2013 [2 favorites]




Calling In A Queer Debt: On DOMA, the VRA and The Perfect Opportunity

Besides the fact that she's wrong about the implications for the ICWA, that is a pretty horrible sentiment to have in response to a handful of wins for the good guys.
posted by sparklemotion at 1:21 PM on June 27, 2013


buzzfeed Internet Rainbow Party
buzzfeed san-francisco-city-hall-lights-up-with-pride
I'm so happy about this decision, and the general happiness and party response. Lots more happy rainbows than spiteful neener-neeners, though a few Suck It, Haters are certainly appropriate.
posted by theora55 at 1:35 PM on June 27, 2013


Before divorce became commonplace, people used to go to Las Vegas, stay long enough to satisfy a residency requirement (10 days?), and get divorced. Even if that divorce couldn't happen in your actual home state, it was legally recognized, just as getting straight-married in Alabama is legally recognized in Louisiana. For that matter, getting married in another country or at sea, no country at all, is legally recognized all over the US. There's even at least 1 state that allows dual-proxy marriage, i.e., neither party is present. So, is recognition of marriage the next court challenge?
posted by theora55 at 1:41 PM on June 27, 2013


So, is recognition of marriage the next court challenge?

I'm guessing so. Section. . . 2? 3? I forget. Which ever section of DOMA it is that says that no state has to recognize another state's same-gender marriage, it's blatantly unconstitutional, violating the Full Faith and Credit clause. However, that section wasn't under review in this case. What needs to happen is that we need to get that under review.

I'm thinking the perfect test case is a military family, legally married with children, who gets deployed to one of the states that doesn't recognize their marriage. It would be very easy to show harm, the optics are great, it should be a no-brainer to have that go up to SCOTUS and push this dead tree over once and for all. I realize that real life doesn't always work that way, but man.
posted by KathrynT at 1:52 PM on June 27, 2013 [3 favorites]




The Nate Silver link from yesterday makes an interesting point: with the addition of California by August there will now, proportionally, be more people allowed a same sex marriage then in Europe. Roughly 30% to 23%
posted by edgeways at 2:15 PM on June 27, 2013 [1 favorite]


Let's hope both sides escalate.
posted by fleacircus at 2:51 PM on June 27, 2013 [3 favorites]


The Nate Silver link from yesterday makes an interesting point: with the addition of California by August there will now, proportionally, be more people allowed a same sex marriage then in Europe. Roughly 30% to 23%
The European Union is at 33%. England and Wales could pass their equal marriage law within a month, taking the EU up to 44%. At 210 million people it will be the biggest single marriage equality area in the world, overtaking Brazil. Come on you guys, try harder.
posted by Jehan at 3:08 PM on June 27, 2013


I don't mind BGD's sentiment so much, in that I think this is an opportunity to use our momentum to address a lot of the other issues that are vital to securing full equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. I can understand grousing about the tone, but hey, angry black lady is her thing, so it's kinda her schtick.
posted by klangklangston at 3:10 PM on June 27, 2013 [2 favorites]


I can understand grousing about the tone, but hey, angry black lady is her thing, so it's kinda her schtick.

Nevermind it being her schtick, I think that's where the point lies. She's trying to burst people's bubbles. You're meant to be reading along feeling a bit uncomfortable, not nodding away in agreement, almost regardless of whether you agree with her.
posted by hoyland at 3:48 PM on June 27, 2013


But it seems to me that this is largely a strawbubble, if you will. No one seriously claims that marriage equality is the be-all, end-all of LGBTQ civil rights, nor that it will definitively address all the economic injustices of capitalism, private health insurance, etc. But it is patently false to conclude from that that the primary recipients of marriage equality are already privileged.

For example, out of this list of just 15 (out of 1000+) benefits that are now available to same-sex couples, virtually all of them can apply to poor and working-class people (yes, even things like being able to apply for something like copyright renewal -- there are plenty of poor and working-class writers or musicians for whom this applies -- or being able to inherit property, even very modest amounts of property), and some of them specifically benefit the poor and working class (such as being able to apply for low-income housing assistance as a family). We're talking rights like being able to sponsor a spouse for immigration, have joint parenting rights, qualify for domestic abuse intervention, and being granted immunity from testifying against a spouse.

Hand-waving all of this away (and here I'm not talking about you, hoyland) in order to insist that marriage equality is really just some bourgie movement is simply disingenuous, no matter how much it "makes people uncomfortable." Millions of poor, non-privileged LGBTQ couples of all races in the U.S. now potentially have access to legal and material benefits that they didn't have last week. That's a fact.
posted by scody at 4:35 PM on June 27, 2013 [8 favorites]


Thanks for the response on the National Guard....still...my understanding is that soldiers serving in the NG only fall under Federal control in certain circumstances. Could a NG soldier in a state which does not recognize or allow same sex partners, become married in a state which does, thereby gaining DoD benefits while mobilized Federally, only to lose them when the soldier's status reverts to state control?
posted by whatgorilla at 6:01 PM on June 27, 2013


It isn't the tone that bothers me. Anger is absolutely appropriate for people dedicated to social justice. It is an emotion that is too often bypassed in favor of polite self-mutilation. The fact that Mia McKenzie is upset and angry is not the part that bothers me. The fact that she calls people on their privilege isn't something that bothers me.

The part that bothers me is that she consistently uses that anger against allies, to tear down and belittle people whose hearts are in the right place. It is a different kind of self-mutilation, and it is sad to see. Even if those people need to be educated - as with her recent article on how not to be an ally - the method... the schtick... whatever you want to call it... is spectacularly wrong for the audience she is addressing.

Plenty of my friends have managed to comment on the happenings this week, expressing both disgust at Shelby County and elation about Windsor. None of them felt the need to *blame* those whose rights were expanded for the rights that were trampled. None of them felt the need to demand their pound of flesh in repayment for my rights.

I ended up listening to her ruminations on Pride and I am kind of fascinated by the similarities between my observations about Pride and hers. They're literally the same. (Or, at least they were when I lived up North, much less so now that I'm back in the South.) The overwhelming white gay maleness of it all never failed to make me uncomfortable. The dance music and the speedos and the substance abuse. And yet, to her, I'm the same as all that. I'm the dreaded white gay male which makes her feel so excluded from Pride. So even though I am there feeling just as excluded from it all because I'm not the *right* kind of white gay male, I get lumped right in with all the other mainstream gays that she can't (or more accurately, refuses to) feel connected to. That's just myopia and a failure of empathy, or as we like to call it these days "some narcissistic millenial hipster bullshit."

I think that's what hurts so much to read her stuff. She's so bright. And she's so insightful. She really, really gets it. But her negativity is so strong and deeply-rooted that she can't control it. It's like a fire-hose with no one holding it. And it's got the same kind of force too, because it does nothing but push me way the fuck away from ever wanting to support anything she does.
posted by jph at 8:54 PM on June 27, 2013 [2 favorites]


But it seems to me that this is largely a strawbubble, if you will. No one seriously claims that marriage equality is the be-all, end-all of LGBTQ civil rights, nor that it will definitively address all the economic injustices of capitalism, private health insurance, etc. But it is patently false to conclude from that that the primary recipients of marriage equality are already privileged.

That's not what that piece is saying, though. She's saying the response to "Oh, isn't is so wonderful DOMA was struck down?" ought not to be "It is" but "It is, but there's work left to do." Call me a cynic, but I don't think that's going to be the HRC line.* Like klangklangston has said, the are organisations who are far better at the 'but' part, but they generally don't get the attention. The key line is:
This is a call to all of you who told undocumented queers and trans* activists not to talk about immigration status or wave trans pride flags because it wouldn't look good for your mainstream movement. This is a call to all of you who told all of us to wait. And wait. Until you got yours.
That's not to say undocumented people or trans people don't benefit from marriage equality. Trans people definitely do--it takes away one justification for challenging your will. (Good luck getting a fiancé or spousal visa if one of you is trans, though. Policy is on your side, but there's a good chance it'll be a mess.) But if trans people set the LGBT rights agenda, would marriage be at the top? Doubtful. I suspect robust non-discrimination legislation would beat it out. It's a little hazier how undocumented people benefit. Being married to a US citizen with US citizen children helps or at least it does if the children have special needs, so it surely benefits someone. It might be useful if Congress if decides to help you out. (But should what undocumented immigrants are deemed 'worthy' of documents really depend on their relationship status?)

We're talking rights like being able to sponsor a spouse for immigration

It's worth noting that this really is going to be disproportionately useful to people in more privileged positions. Immigration is much easier to navigate if you have a good education and good English skills. (The forms are only in English. If you're lucky, your library has a book in, say, Spanish explaining the process. But you have to not be working when the library is open and so on.) But it's also expensive. You don't want to be living paycheck-to-paycheck while paying the fees, which are each hundreds of dollars. (A green card is nearly $1000.) And that's assuming everything is in order and your partner wasn't a refugee or something. (I know a couple who ran into that problem. The system kind of assumes you can get a passport. That took a lot of time on the phone to sort out.)

I'm a bit confused on the parental rights thing, to be honest. Other than getting your kid a passport, isn't it basically a state issue? It's not like everyone can marry now. Heck, it's only last month the Iowa Supreme Court ruled being married meant both your names got to be on your kid's birth certificate.

*It's telling that the HRC website, despite a splash asking for money because the 'fight for equality isn't over' or something along those lines, is almost all marriage right now (there's a thing about non-discrimination in North Carolina, too). NCLR et al. are busy issuing joint press releases about immigration.

posted by hoyland at 9:03 PM on June 27, 2013 [4 favorites]


The New Yorker celebrates with Ernie & Bert.
posted by chavenet at 6:25 AM on June 28, 2013 [4 favorites]


chavenet: "The New Yorker celebrates with Ernie & Bert."

Heh. Wonder if Sesame Street will be upset.
posted by zarq at 7:49 AM on June 28, 2013


They're not lovers! They're brothers!

WHY DO I KEEP HAVING THIS CONVERSATION?!
posted by The Whelk at 8:40 AM on June 28, 2013 [3 favorites]


They're not lovers! They're brothers!

WHY DO I KEEP HAVING THIS CONVERSATION?!


If it was Game of Thrones, they could be both!
posted by grubi at 8:45 AM on June 28, 2013 [4 favorites]


I just KNEW googling Game of Thrones + Muppets would yield some good stuff
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:57 AM on June 28, 2013 [2 favorites]


I was also disturbed by the Bert and Ernie cover, because their relationship is so fraternal. Bert looked after Ernie when Ernie was a little muppet! (Don't know if it was canon, but somewhere I've seen a book or sketch about Ernie taking a bath as a little Ernie and Bert was already grown). To imply a romantic relationship just feel squicky.

If you have to look for some Sesame Street pair, maybe Big Bird and Mr Snuffalumpagus would make more sense, especially now that Mr S is out of the closet.
posted by jb at 9:52 AM on June 28, 2013 [1 favorite]


New Yorker cover infantilizing and offensive

For me, add " hacky" and " trite." it's up there with Steve Jobs at the pearly gates oh wait that was a cover too.
posted by The Whelk at 9:55 AM on June 28, 2013 [2 favorites]


They're not lovers! They're brothers!

Neither - they're puppets.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:18 AM on June 28, 2013 [1 favorite]


don't be silly, adult puppets can have lovers. Kermit and Miss Piggy are also puppets, and they have been lovers in the past.
posted by jb at 10:40 AM on June 28, 2013


next you'll tell me those Winchester brothers are just actors on a TV show and Captain America isn't real and other such lies
posted by The Whelk at 10:42 AM on June 28, 2013 [2 favorites]


You should have seen the cover they wanted to do. It wasn't a hand puppet, believe me.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:46 AM on June 28, 2013


It wasn't a hand puppet, believe me.

Well, not a plush one anyway.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 12:12 PM on June 28, 2013


Smell the (g)love!
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:48 PM on June 28, 2013 [1 favorite]


Prop 8 stay lifted! Marriages can start right now!
posted by Arbac at 4:01 PM on June 28, 2013 [7 favorites]


Arbac beat me to posting the good news! Any CA Mefites getting married?
posted by scody at 4:08 PM on June 28, 2013


Apparently, the two Prop 8 plaintiffs are getting married right now.
posted by schmod at 4:12 PM on June 28, 2013 [7 favorites]


Yay!
posted by brundlefly at 4:20 PM on June 28, 2013


Some photos of Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier, the plaintiffs in the Prop. 8 case, about to get married (scroll down).
posted by scody at 4:22 PM on June 28, 2013 [2 favorites]


Who does this man think are the florists and caterers of this country?

Altho...today a case here in WA is going to court over a florist who didn't want to provide flowers for a gay couple's wedding. (Previously on MeFi.)
posted by epersonae at 4:46 PM on June 28, 2013


I heard this in the car on the way home and whooped so loud that the guy next to me at the stoplight turned to look.
posted by rtha at 4:48 PM on June 28, 2013 [1 favorite]


SF City hall will stay open til 8 p.m. tonight, and be open 9-5 Sat & Sun, for marriage licenses, per KGO TV.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:48 PM on June 28, 2013 [2 favorites]


I love how the state government literally moved everything they could to start the marriages RIGHT DAMN NOW and blinged out with rainbow everything. That's adorable!
posted by jenfullmoon at 4:49 PM on June 28, 2013 [8 favorites]




Haha! We were all gonna split from the office early today!
posted by klangklangston at 4:58 PM on June 28, 2013


and be open 9-5 Sat & Sun, for marriage license

And I did not think Sunday could be more nuts. Wrong.
posted by rtha at 5:11 PM on June 28, 2013 [1 favorite]


Jesus wept. (Because Jesus always gets teary at weddings.)
posted by octobersurprise at 6:23 PM on June 28, 2013 [7 favorites]


Oh man I am all teary from those pictures.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:33 PM on June 28, 2013


There's a playwright I know who was born in Greece, and has been coupled up with a guy in New York for a while now - while New York State legalized same-sex marriage a while ago, he was still sort of in a state of limbo because he didn't know whether marrying his boyfriend would have any affect on his visa status or not.

Then after the Supreme Court ruling, S's first facebook status update was a picture of his completed application for a license; then his next status update was a picture of his Greek passport and his beloveds' United States passport sitting on a table next to their wedding license application packet. And then for the past two days he's been posting a whole series of updates about when their immediate "I need to do this now before my visa expires" marriage will be, and the subsequent plans for the bigger ceremonies in both upstate New York and in Greece.

The last time he had to renew his visa he had to actually go all the way back to Greece and stay there for several months. And now, now that the Federal government would actually recognize his marriage to his husband, he doesn't have to.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:12 PM on June 28, 2013 [10 favorites]




octobersurprise: Because Jesus always gets teary at weddings.

I thought he got winey at weddings.
posted by Kattullus at 4:28 AM on June 29, 2013 [3 favorites]


Lovely story for your Greek friend. I was going to post something cynical about "hope he has a good lawyer", but apparently DHS is already moving forward on granting immigration rights to gay spouses?

For Gay Immigrants, Marriage Ruling Brings Relief and a Path to a Green Card.
To make that clear, Janet Napolitano, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, confirmed on Wednesday that her department would move quickly to adapt. “Working with our federal partners, including the Department of Justice, we will implement today’s decision so that all married couples will be treated equally and fairly in the administration of our immigration laws,” she said.
posted by Nelson at 6:56 AM on June 29, 2013 [1 favorite]


Oh, I'm sure he's got an immigration lawyer on speed-dial. This just sounds like the kind of thing they were thinking about doing anyway and were preparing to renew his visa the normal way, but then this ruling happened and they both realized "EEEEEE NOW WE CAN DO WHAT WE WERE ALWAYS GOING TO DO ANYWAY BUT ALSO TAKE CARE OF IMMIGRATION BULLSHIT AT THE SAME TIME THIS IS PERFECT!"
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:28 AM on June 29, 2013


Jesus wept. (Because Jesus always gets teary at weddings.)

It's one part joy, one part sentimentality, and three parts getting stuck running the open bar again.
posted by GenjiandProust at 8:33 AM on June 29, 2013 [6 favorites]


The DOMA Project is reporting a Florida binational couple was granted a green card yesterday on the basis of their legal marriage.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:45 AM on June 29, 2013 [11 favorites]


A Florida couple? That's not just great news, it's a great precedent, after all the questions about how federal recognition will work for couples in states that don't recognize marriages performed elsewhere.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:16 AM on June 29, 2013 [5 favorites]




Many Federal workers got an OPM memo yesterday:
As a result of this decision, the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) will now be able to extend benefits to Federal employees and annuitants who have legally married a spouse of the same sex.
I'd never cried over an OPM memo before.
posted by MrMoonPie at 8:23 AM on July 2, 2013 [6 favorites]




(07-12) 16:55 PDT San Francisco -- After being turned away by the U.S. Supreme Court, sponsors of California's ban on same-sex marriage turned to the state's high court Friday, asking for a halt to the weddings that started two weeks ago and a ruling that Proposition 8 is still legally binding.

does anybody read the comments down here?
posted by rtha at 6:14 PM on July 12, 2013 [1 favorite]


I thought he got winey at weddings.

He weeps first, then changes the tears into wine.
posted by yoink at 6:18 PM on July 12, 2013


ZIPPITY BOP!
posted by homunculus at 6:24 PM on July 12, 2013 [4 favorites]


does anybody read the comments down here?

I do, but I'm reading it from the "Recent Activity" page.

posted by rmd1023 at 7:50 PM on July 12, 2013


does anybody read the comments down here?

No, I read them over here.
posted by arcticseal at 6:48 AM on July 13, 2013






Gay couple in Mississippi asks for marriage license. You'll never guess what happens.
After one of the couples today got turned down, Clarion-Ledger reporter Dustin Barnes tweeted that "sounds of laughter could be heard in clerk's office." A few minutes later, Barnes added more. "Hinds Circuit Clerk Barbara Dunn said when gay man cried in her office about denial of marriage license, 1 of her employees almost cried too," he tweeted. "Dunn said she was sure her employees weren't laughing at same-sex couples who were denied marriage license in Jxn today." I know it may not seem like much in blue states, but I can tell you from experience that when it's no longer acceptable for there to be any hint of making fun of gay couples in Mississippi -- and when it's OK to show some empathy for them -- you're looking at real change.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:35 PM on July 15, 2013 [4 favorites]


This probably deserves a separate FPP but here it is anyway: Same-sex marriage set to enter [English and Welsh] law later this week
posted by zombieflanders at 3:25 AM on July 17, 2013 [4 favorites]


BBC says today is the day. Yay England & Wales.
posted by jessamyn at 7:04 AM on July 17, 2013 [4 favorites]


Hooray for England and Wales indeed! Full marriage equality in both the state of my residence and the nation of my birth.
posted by KathrynT at 9:15 AM on July 17, 2013 [2 favorites]


« Older Le Corbusier: An Atlas of Modern Landscapes   |   India vs Pakistan in Afghanistan Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post