Judges chide Indiana & Wisconsin state lawyers over gay marriage bans

[Atomic Playboy]

The judge's opinion affirming the lower court's overturning of the ban on gay marriage was released today. I strongly recommend everyone read it; he thoroughly eviscerates the arguments against gay marriage in a calm, rational way. The detailed arguments start at the bottom of page 8 and go on for 30 pages or so, carefully breaking down every argument against gay marriage Indiana and Wisconsin put forward.

 

[werepossum]

The judge's opinion affirming the lower court's overturning of the ban on gay marriage was released today. I strongly recommend everyone read it; he thoroughly eviscerates the arguments against gay marriage in a calm, rational way. The detailed arguments start at the bottom of page 8 and go on for 30 pages or so, carefully breaking down every argument against gay marriage Indiana and Wisconsin put forward.

Thoughtful opinion, thanks. Shame though that it takes that many page to convey what we supposedly learned in kindergarten: Hold hands and be nice.

Too bad it's coming too late for your mom, but I believe she knows.

 

[DrPizza]

The judge's opinion affirming the lower court's overturning of the ban on gay marriage was released today. I strongly recommend everyone read it; he thoroughly eviscerates the arguments against gay marriage in a calm, rational way. The detailed arguments start at the bottom of page 8 and go on for 30 pages or so, carefully breaking down every argument against gay marriage Indiana and Wisconsin put forward.

Wow! 20-something pages of completely ripping apart the arguments the states made against same-sex marriage. It completely rips apart virtually every argument, if not every argument made against same-sex marriage on these forums. If only those making the arguments had enough of an open mind to ever realize they are undeniably wrong.

 

[MrPickins]

The judge's opinion affirming the lower court's overturning of the ban on gay marriage was released today. I strongly recommend everyone read it; he thoroughly eviscerates the arguments against gay marriage in a calm, rational way. The detailed arguments start at the bottom of page 8 and go on for 30 pages or so, carefully breaking down every argument against gay marriage Indiana and Wisconsin put forward.

That was an extremely well thought out opinion. :thumbsup:

Wow! 20-something pages of completely ripping apart the arguments the states made against same-sex marriage. It completely rips apart virtually every argument, if not every argument made against same-sex marriage on these forums. If only those making the arguments had enough of an open mind to ever realize they are undeniably wrong.

At this time, it's a moot point; same sex marriage will be the law nationwide very soon.

Besides:

 

[dmcowen674]

It's in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court now:

9-10-2014

http://www.nuvo.net/indianapolis/waiting-for-scotus/Content?oid=2919700#.VBB_sxZ_TFI

Waiting for SCOTUS



Now that the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down Indiana’s ban on gay marriage, the wait for the ultimate decision begins.



The decision from the 7th Circuit is now one of four waiting for attention from the U.S. Supreme Court for a final call on whether or not same sex couples should be allowed to marry and receive all associated benefits in the eyes of the law.


The issue has traveled through the federal court system at break-neck speed since the cases were originally filed in March. That speed has been attributed in part to the case of Niki Quasney and Amy Sandler because of Niki’s terminal battle with ovarian cancer. And for the moment, they remain the only married gay couple recognized in Indiana. The 7th Circuit lifted the stay for their case specifically on July 1, thereby requiring the state to recognize their marriage. The court made no reference to their case or that order last week, keeping their marriage alive so that when the time comes, Amy and their kids can receive the benefits in death that all of the other couples are fighting for.


When asked if the state planned to appeal this decision as well, the Attorney General’s office had no additional comment.

 

[waggy]

The judge's opinion affirming the lower court's overturning of the ban on gay marriage was released today. I strongly recommend everyone read it; he thoroughly eviscerates the arguments against gay marriage in a calm, rational way. The detailed arguments start at the bottom of page 8 and go on for 30 pages or so, carefully breaking down every argument against gay marriage Indiana and Wisconsin put forward.

lol. yeah that pretty much tears through any argument against it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The judge's opinion affirming the lower court's overturning of the ban on gay marriage was released today. I strongly recommend everyone read it; he thoroughly eviscerates the arguments against gay marriage in a calm, rational way. The detailed arguments start at the bottom of page 8 and go on for 30 pages or so, carefully breaking down every argument against gay marriage Indiana and Wisconsin put forward.

Just at the beginning of the judge's dissection, I take a slight issue with his use of the premise that homosexuality is not a choice as a foundation to his rebuttals.

Please don't misunderstand my point here, though. I do not believe that sexual orientation is a choice. I think his premise is a true one.

My issue is that using it as a premise is less iron-clad, in my opinion, than explaining the basis of the discrimination as one of gender, rather than sexual orientation.

What I'm saying is that acknowledging the right of Jennifer to marry Steve while simultaneously denying the right of Adam to marry Steve presents a clear inequality between the rights of Jennifer and Adam on the basis of their gender. Jennifer can marry Steve because she is female. Adam can't marry Steve because Adam is male. Adam does not have the same right that Jennifer enjoys because he isn't the same gender as her. The sexual orientations of Jennifer, Adam and Steve are irrelevant.

It's pedantry, I suppose, but I think its more difficult to rebut that line of reasoning.

 

[werepossum]

Just at the beginning of the judge's dissection, I take a slight issue with his use of the premise that homosexuality is not a choice as a foundation to his rebuttals.

Please don't misunderstand my point here, though. I do not believe that sexual orientation is a choice. I think his premise is a true one.

My issue is that using it as a premise is less iron-clad, in my opinion, than explaining the basis of the discrimination as one of gender, rather than sexual orientation.

What I'm saying is that acknowledging the right of Jennifer to marry Steve while simultaneously denying the right of Adam to marry Steve presents a clear inequality between the rights of Jennifer and Adam on the basis of their gender. Jennifer can marry Steve because she is female. Adam can't marry Steve because Adam is male. Adam does not have the same right that Jennifer enjoys because he isn't the same gender as her. The sexual orientations of Jennifer, Adam and Steve are irrelevant.

It's pedantry, I suppose, but I think its more difficult to rebut that line of reasoning.

I agree. Government has no need and no business worrying about why Adam wants to marry Steve; government has only the responsibility to determine if there is a compelling societal need to prevent Adam marrying Steve. Maybe Adam has screwed Eve in every position possible for years but is in love with Steve; maybe Adam cannot conceive of Eve as a partner. Either way, it's none of our business, and it should be none of government's.

 

[zinfamous]

BRB. going to dust off the old toaster and replenish my lube. My time approaches!

 

[Paratus]

BRB. going to dust off the old toaster and replenish my lube. My time approaches!

Wow, this opinion can just be cut and pasted whenever toaster boy posts.