The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Gay Service Members Sue to End DOMA
Quid
Definitely not a bananaRegistered User regular
Definitely not a bananaRegistered User regular
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/gay-lesbian-service-members-sue-government-14825501
This is something I knew would be occurring soon after the end of DADT. Same sex spouses of military members aren't able to receive most benefits due to DOMA and the service members are trying to end it. Glad to see it happening.
A group of married gay current and former military personnel sued the federal government on Thursday, seeking equal recognition, benefits and the same support as married heterosexual couples who serve in the military.
The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Boston says the government's Defense of Marriage Act violates their constitutional rights and asks the military to recognize their legal marriages.
This is something I knew would be occurring soon after the end of DADT. Same sex spouses of military members aren't able to receive most benefits due to DOMA and the service members are trying to end it. Glad to see it happening.
Quid on
0
Posts
Nice to see this getting started up, and just in time for some truly batshit insane commentary during the GOP primary debates.
'Cause you know it's going to be asked about.
Full medical and dental coverage, continued for the spouse after divorce if they've been married to the member for over 12 years of service. Probably the biggest one.
Housing allowance, something the service member can at best only receive the single rate for unless they're so low ranking they're forced to live in barracks anyway.
Family separation allowance.
Payment for household moves. Specifically, while the government will cover someone wanting to move their dog, money for plane tickets, hotels, etc. during a move will be denied for a person's spouse.
Child care services.
And so on.
Its good for the country when the moderates can see what republicans really think about people they disagree with. So their negative reaction to an equal rights issue will only hasten their demise.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I know! It's going to be awesome!
The brighter a spotlight that can be shon upon the bigotry within their ranks, the better.
Kennedy might rule in favor of gay rights. He has before.
He wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas. Also, wishing death on people with whom you disagree politically is silly goosery of the highest order.
Not when they keep their jobs for life no matter how ethicially or professionally compromised they may be.
Well, we'd prefer they retire. But that ain't happening. I'd really prefer we move to staggered 18 year single terms.
Yes, even then.
Happy to see this challenge is finally happening. I thought it'd have come out of massachusettes a long time ago, but I guess they tailored their gay marriage statute pretty specifically to prevent it from being an issue.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
But yeah, I'm a bit despondent over the ages of the SCOTUS conservatives compared to the liberals.
The issue has been standing. For these military families, the federal government is directly harming them with a discriminatory law, so they have clear standing.
But married couples who don't maek t3h babies get benefits anyway, so ya.
In your opinion.
they're also making it harder for married couples to not maek t3h babies too, though!
except ones that are physically incapable, i guess, in which case something something sanctity
There's little to suggest the first part of your statement is true.
As for the second part, well OK then. You're that kind of person, and I guess you people do exist. How far are you willing to take it?
Will you hope somebody murders one of them?
Will you advocate murdering one of them?
Uh...I thought that the law can only really be changed through the court? What other way is there?
The court could rule in favor of the families and strike down some or all of DOMA, obviously.
Citizens United is the better example if you're rooting for them to be replaced. I have some hope with Kennedy here.
Well yeah but the current supreme court judges are unlikely to do something that unsuspected, and any way it's probable that real change will happen only with newer judges.
But you're right, it's not impossible that they will rule in favour.
And I have pretty high confidence that Kennedy will make the right choice. Potentially it'll be 6-3 so that Roberts can make sure that Kennedy writes the opinion rather than, say, Ginsberg.
And the only way to really influence the Court is with fortunately timed deaths or retirement. It may be macabre, but that is written into the way that it operates. Life tenure means you have to wait for life to end in order to have meaningful changes in the rulings. There is some possibility for surprises when it comes to people taking counter intuitive positions, but on the whole SCOTUS is a fairly known quantity until it changes robes.
This is probably the #1 reason for liberals to vote for Obama again, despite the other misgivings they may have. A 2-term GOP president might end up with a 7-2 conservative Court.
If Obama got a 2nd term, you'd probably see Ginsburg and Breyer retire to ensure liberal replacements, with a chance to replace Scalia and/or Kennedy depending on their health. Would be insane to see Obama have 6 appointees on the Court.
He will not only vote for gay rights, he's going to write the opinion.
Quite so. Which just makes it all the worse that people are wishing death on the appointees they disagree with - DOMA is very likely to be struck down when this case is decided by the SCOTUS. People think because the Court's majority is originalist and conservative in its bent, this means it will necessarily be anti-gay, but there's really nothing to lend any evidence to that belief.
@Moniker there's one other way to influence the Court - have a strong legal argument in your favor and a persuasive lawyer to present it! Anti-DOMA plaintiffs are likely to have both.
In fairness if they rule against this they'll literally be causing people's deaths due to lack of health care for spouses.
And putting forward a strong legal argument doesn't necessarily influence the court.
Ah, if only politics worked by simply winning the argument...
We're not talking about politics!
Not really. The only true swing vote on the court is Kennedy. If you have an issue which is going to go 4-4 (and these are easy to predict), you're going to tailor your entire argument to him. The annoying thing is that Kennedy both knows, and enjoys this.
However, if it's an issue that doesn't invoke partisanship, you'll probably get 6-3 or sometimes 9-0.
Yes we are.
But he has nothing against homosexuals, really. He just thinks they deserve no rights.
You are if you're talking about the SC.