The Texas Inquisition

[azbadpuppy]

For whatever reason, gay marriages are not recognized in Oklahoma and DOMA has pretty much made it impossible for one state to recognize another state's decision to allow gay marriage.

It's really not for whatever reason, it is religious reasons why gay marriages are not recognized in Oklahoma, and elsewhere.

And DOMA only says that states do not have to recognize same sex marriage- but only explicity prohibits the federal govt from recognizing them.

There are 5 states, and D.C. that grant same sex marriages, as well as recognize all legal gay marriages, and 3 more states that recognize them but do not perform them, and there are 3 more states that grant pretty much the same rights to gays as they do to straights through a 'civil union' but the gays still cannot legally 'marry'.

It will be interesting to see how the courts rule on the 'Perry vs Schwarzenegger' case under review right now regarding Prop 8. Experts are predicting it will go all the way to the Supreme Court, which ultimately could overturn DOMA, and the illegality of same sex marriage in the other 45 states. I have serious doubts however, given the current makeup of the SCOTUS.

The Obama administration has already vowed to overturn the highly discriminatory DOMA. I'm not holding my breath on that one either....

[rwarn17588]

It's really not for whatever reason, it is religious reasons why gay marriages are not recognized in Oklahoma, and elsewhere.

And DOMA only says that states do not have to recognize same sex marriage- but only explicity prohibits the federal govt from recognizing them.

There are 5 states, and D.C. that grant same sex marriages, as well as recognize all legal gay marriages, and 3 more states that recognize them but do not perform them, and there are 3 more states that grant pretty much the same rights to gays as they do to straights through a 'civil union' but the gays still cannot legally 'marry'.

It will be interesting to see how the courts rule on the 'Perry vs Schwarzenegger' case under review right now regarding Prop 8. Experts are predicting it will go all the way to the Supreme Court, which ultimately could overturn DOMA, and the illegality of same sex marriage in the other 45 states. I have serious doubts however, given the current makeup of the SCOTUS.

The Obama administration has already vowed to overturn the highly discriminatory DOMA. I'm not holding my breath on that one either....

I've been reading reports on the Prop 8 trial, and it's amazing how the defense didn't even bother to present any evidence to support the ban on gay marriages. That's not an exaggeration. The defense didn't present *any* evidence to bolster its case. 

Based on that alone, I can't see how the judge can do anything but rule for the plaintiffs.

Before jamesrage or some other fool blames the upcoming ruling on "liberal" judges or lawyers, it should be known that the judge in this case is a Bush appointee, and that the plaintiffs' lead attorney is Ted Olson, who worked for the Bush II administration and is an avowed conservative.

[guido911]

I am not sure what "evidence" has to be produced to establish that Prop 8 violates the fourteenth amendment's equal protection violation clause.  In any case, these sort of constitutional violation trials are not just about the facts/evidence, it also is about the law as it is applied to these facts. This case will drag on for years and imho will be heading to the Supremes.

[azbadpuppy]

I've been reading reports on the Prop 8 trial, and it's amazing how the defense didn't even bother to present any evidence to support the ban on gay marriages. That's not an exaggeration. The defense didn't present *any* evidence to bolster its case. 

Based on that alone, I can't see how the judge can do anything but rule for the plaintiffs.

Before jamesrage or some other fool blames the upcoming ruling on "liberal" judges or lawyers, it should be known that the judge in this case is a Bush appointee, and that the plaintiffs' lead attorney is Ted Olson, who worked for the Bush II administration and is an avowed conservative.

Apparently, early on, the defense presented the TV show 'Will & Grace' as evidence that gays are not a discriminated class and are just as accepted socially as anyone.

I find it completely ironic that the defense has used the tactic of downplaying discrimination, in order to defend a totally discriminatory ban on marriage!

From what I've heard, Ted Olson and David Boies have done an outstanding job. It's really cool IMO that these guys chose to pursue this lawsuit because they knew it was the right thing to do, in spite of the ridicule and demonization from some of their conservative peers.

[bugo]

let me rephrase, it's determines what benefits, if any, are dirived from the coupling.  Now I have to ask, do you feel the same about polygamy?

If all parties are consenting, I have no problem with polygamy.  I wouldn't do it myself, but if somebody wants to it's their business.

[nathanm]

From what I've heard, Ted Olson and David Boies have done an outstanding job.

If you haven't seen it, you should watch Bill Moyers' discussion with them on his (now ended) show.

It's very enlightening as to the actual issues being raised.

[Red Arrow]

I believe the Jews/Hebrews (I don't know the correct term for that era in history) were originally polygamous (many wives, doubt many husbands). I don't recall the details of converting to monogamy but that obviously followed into Christianity.  Whether our most famous founding fathers were actually "Christians" or just believed in a supreme being is for another thread. The laws of our country though are obviously founded in Christian beliefs.  That still does not make us a Christian nation such as the European countries of the Middle Ages when the King was still subservient to the Pope.

[rwarn17588]

If you haven't seen it, you should watch Bill Moyers' discussion with them on his (now ended) show.

It's very enlightening as to the actual issues being raised.

Thanks for linking to that.

One legal angle I'd forgotten was that 18,000 gay couples were married before Prop 8, but the courts allowed those marriages to stand. That's a clear case of California painting itself into a corner when you've got a certain number of gay couples who remain married and scores of others in that state who cannot. If anything, this incongruity bolsters the plaintiffs' case.

[Conan71]

Meh, Olson's a toe-tapper

Sorry couldn't resist.

[Red Arrow]

Sorry for the cultural ignorance but..... what is meh?  Several posters have used it.

Sounds like "so what".

[RecycleMichael]

Sorry for the cultural ignorance but..... what is meh? 

UrbanDictionary.com

MEH - "Indifference; to be used when one simply does not care."

[Red Arrow]

Thanks, about what I thought.

[custosnox]

I believe the Jews/Hebrews (I don't know the correct term for that era in history) were originally polygamous (many wives, doubt many husbands). I don't recall the details of converting to monogamy but that obviously followed into Christianity.  Whether our most famous founding fathers were actually "Christians" or just believed in a supreme being is for another thread. The laws of our country though are obviously founded in Christian beliefs.  That still does not make us a Christian nation such as the European countries of the Middle Ages when the King was still subservient to the Pope.

A large portion of our founding fathers were christian, though a number of them were Deist and at least one that quiet possibly was an athiest (no sound proof one way or the other).  As far as the laws being founded on Christian beliefs, that issue was cussed and discussed on the OKC monument thread.

[Red Arrow]

As far as the laws being founded on Christian beliefs, that issue was cussed and discussed on the OKC monument thread.

True.  This thread seemed to be asking where we got all our laws from.  For further enlightenment, see the OKC monument thread.

[guido911]

Texas judge nixes death benefits for transgendered widow.

WHARTON, Texas (AP) -- A Texas judge has signed an order that voids the marriage of a transgender widow whose firefighter husband died battling a blaze.

The order prevents Nikki Araguz from receiving the death benefits of her firefighter husband, Thomas Araguz III, who died last year.

State District Judge Randy Clapp's ruling comes in a lawsuit filed by the firefighter's family. The suit claims his widow should collect nothing because she was born a man and Texas doesn't recognize same-sex marriages.

In his ruling signed last week and made public Tuesday, the Wharton County judge said the marriage was "void as a matter of law."

Clapp's decision was first made known early last week after attorneys in the case saw a draft of the decision.

The widow has previously said she would appeal.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FIREFIGHTER_TRANSGENDER_WIDOW?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-05-31-19-27-23