Victory at the Supreme Court for GLBT Student Groups!

  • metta

    Posts: 39089

    Jun 28, 2010 9:57 PM GMT
    Victory at the Supreme Court for GLBT Student Groups!

    I realize that this affects more than GLBT groups but I did not want you to think it had to do with the Prop 8 trial from the title.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 28, 2010 11:55 PM GMT
    Oh that's great. This will allow the defunding and unrecognition of other discriminatory groups, esp. Christian orgs. And maybe the Boy Scouts.

    And I love the court saying the names on the gay marriage repeal proposition have to be released. Come out of the closet, bigots!

    It's only when the bigotry of all these people becomes a hinderance and annoyance to their own lifes will they stop.
  • DCEric

    Posts: 3713

    Jun 29, 2010 12:30 AM GMT
    Clicky Pops
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2010 1:04 AM GMT
    That is an outstanding decision, yet it is still distressing that four of the justices dissented. This decision seems like a no-brainer to me.

    But true to form, Aleto, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas voted for hate. The group is not being prohibited from assembling, discriminating, hating, excluding, preaching or anything else. It's just not being supported by the state due to right and just non-discrimination laws.

    If the SCOTUS had voted the other way, what's to stop a group like the KKK from applying for recognition?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2010 1:23 AM GMT
    sdgman saidThat is an outstanding decision, yet it is still distressing that four of the justices dissented. This decision seems like a no-brainer to me.

    But true to form, Aleto, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas voted for hate. The group is not being prohibited from assembling, discriminating, hating, excluding, preaching or anything else. It's just not being supported by the state due to right and just non-discrimination laws.

    If the SCOTUS had voted the other way, what's to stop a group like the KKK from applying for recognition?


    Actually, it's a little more complicated than that. While I agree with the majority, the minority did have some valid points.

    The argument I acknowledge the most is the following: What's to stop right-wing Christians from joining LGBT groups and voting based on their own values? BTW: That university Christian group does not bar gays and lesbians—they (LGBT) can join the group but cannot vote on anything or hold any positions of power… no one can who violates their code of ethics (I believe this also includes str8s who have premarital sex).

    **An LGBT group has 10 members who are gay/lesbian/allies/bisexual/etc. One day 20 Christian-right students decide to join the group. According to the university, the Christians have every right to join the LGBT group and vote the way they see fit.**

    This Christian group is worried that people who do not hold their values will be able to join and steer the group in a less "conservative" direction. What's to stop atheists, Muslims, Christians, gays (etc.) from joining opposing groups and transforming the group into something completely different?

    While I doubt this happens often, I think it is a legitimate concerns.

    Plus, the KKK would be described as a hate group... I think universities are protected from having to acknowledge such groups on campus.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2010 2:40 AM GMT
    conscienti1984 said

    (I believe this also includes str8s who have pre-martial sex).



    But the military is a whole other issue, isn't it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2010 2:45 AM GMT
    theatrengym said
    conscienti1984 said

    (I believe this also includes str8s who have pre-martial sex).



    But the military is a whole other issue, isn't it?


    HAHA good call. My bad!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2010 3:32 AM GMT
    this makes me happy icon_smile.gif
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Jun 29, 2010 3:38 AM GMT
    Caslon14000 saidOh that's great. This will allow the defunding and unrecognition of other discriminatory groups, esp. Christian orgs. And maybe the Boy Scouts.

    And I love the court saying the names on the gay marriage repeal proposition have to be released. Come out of the closet, bigots!

    It's only when the bigotry of all these people becomes a hinderance and annoyance to their own lifes will they stop.


    the video is misleading on that front. the case doesn't deal with groups in general excluding gays but rather uc hastings. the boy scouts of america are a private entity, which is why the ruling would not apply to them (as reasoned in the case from back in the early 2000s)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2010 3:49 AM GMT
    Awesome! Thanks for that info.
  • metta

    Posts: 39089

    Jun 30, 2010 2:42 AM GMT
    On Supreme Court's recent ruling in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez:

    Theodore Boutrous, one of the attorneys for the plaintiff side of Perry v. Schwarzanegger just wrote up a letter to Judge Walker that highlights this.

    From prop8trialtracker.com (courage campaign website):

    Quote:
    In Christian Legal Society, the Supreme Court definitively held that sexual orientation is not merely behavioral, but rather, that gay and lesbian individuals are an identifiable class. Writing for the Court, Justice Ginsburg explained: “Our decisions have declined to distinguish between status and conduct in this context.” Slip op. at 23 (citing Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 575 (2003); id. at 583 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment); Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263, 270 (1993)). This confirms that a majority of the Court now adheres to Justice O’Connor’s view in Lawrence, where she concluded that “the conduct targeted by [the Texas anti-sodomy] law is conduct that is closely correlated with being homosexual” and that, “[u]nder such circumstances, [the] law is targeted at more than conduct” and “is instead directed toward gay persons as a class,” id. at 583 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment) (emphasis added). See also Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (treating gay and lesbian individuals as a class for equal protection purposes). The Court’s holding arose in response to Christian Legal Society’s argument that it was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, but rather because gay and lesbian individuals refused to acknowledge that their conduct was morally wrong. The Court rejected that argument, holding that there is no distinction between gay and lesbian individuals and their conduct.


    http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/06/29/boutrous-sends-letter-about-yesterdays-scotus-ruling/

    Most of the Supreme Court, including Anthony Kennedy, made no comment in Lawrence v. Texas (or any other case) as to whether sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic. This precedent strongly suggests that a higher standard than the rational basis test may be used to make a determination in Perry v. Schwarzanegger.