Marriage ruling may be helpful in future LGBT cases: experts

  • metta

    Posts: 39091

    Jul 02, 2015 5:31 AM GMT
    Marriage ruling may be helpful in future LGBT cases: experts


    “It is now clear that the challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and it must be further acknowledged that they abridge certain precepts of equality,” Kennedy writes. “Here the marriage laws enforced by the respondents are in essence unequal: same-sex couples are denied all the benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples and barred from exercising a fundamental right.”


    - See more at: http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/07/01/marriage-ruling-applicable-to-future-lgbt-cases-experts-say/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2015 5:26 PM GMT
    metta8 saidMarriage ruling may be helpful in future LGBT cases: experts


    “It is now clear that the challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and it must be further acknowledged that they abridge certain precepts of equality,” Kennedy writes. “Here the marriage laws enforced by the respondents are in essence unequal: same-sex couples are denied all the benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples and barred from exercising a fundamental right.”


    - See more at: http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/07/01/marriage-ruling-applicable-to-future-lgbt-cases-experts-say/


    "Duh, yeah!" It doesn't take an "expert," least of all any lawyers looking for publicity, to recognize the broad implications of Obergefell for gay rights. This is not to carp; articles like this merely restate the obvious while adding a few more members to the mutual admiration society comprised of many liberal journalists, lawyers, and academics. Instead of preening over our win, let's move on to other things, like passing ENDA and applying the other anti-discrimination statutes to us as well.
  • metta

    Posts: 39091

    Jul 02, 2015 5:33 PM GMT
    Agreed. icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2015 7:33 PM GMT
    The crux of the article which interests this non-lawyer seems to be this difference between countering arguments rooted in animus as opposed fighting countering arguments based on equality which strikes a worthy note for the liberal paper to explore.

    That we'd less require efforts to prove what might cause inequality--be it animus outright or, oh, I don't know, say being religiously "justified" but simply that we'd have to show the suffering of inequality to suffice an argument seems to me could convey weight to counter upcoming religious so-called freedom bullshit.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jul 03, 2015 1:18 AM GMT
    Anyone want to take me up on a timeline guess as to how long it is going to take an UNMARRIED person to claim they are not being treated equally because they are... not married?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2015 3:06 AM GMT
    WrestlerBoy saidAnyone want to take me up on a timeline guess as to how long it is going to take an UNMARRIED person to claim they are not being treated equally because they are... not married?


    I've often mused over making that argument, but chose to forego selfishness in favor of contributing to the common weal; actually, life's too short to bother with such distractions, even if this is not a case of de minimis non curat lex. I don't mind paying taxes for schools, and other services that will never directly benefit me, because they foster the common good. Cf., WIC, AFDC programs, and other such schemes that reward and effectively subsidize parental irresponsibility while encouraging the further production of dependents upon the taxpayers, if not the active and ongoing oversight of law enforcement.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jul 04, 2015 7:18 AM GMT
    MGINSD said
    WrestlerBoy saidAnyone want to take me up on a timeline guess as to how long it is going to take an UNMARRIED person to claim they are not being treated equally because they are... not married?


    I've often mused over making that argument, but chose to forego selfishness in favor of contributing to the common weal; actually, life's too short to bother with such distractions, even if this is not a case of de minimis non curat lex. I don't mind paying taxes for schools, and other services that will never directly benefit me, because they foster the common good. Cf., WIC, AFDC programs, and other such schemes that reward and effectively subsidize parental irresponsibility while encouraging the further production of dependents upon the taxpayers, if not the active and ongoing oversight of law enforcement.


    Oh no, I'm not arguing against single people paying it forward as part of some more generalized Rousseauian "Social Contract", or such, more in terms of privileging married people over single people...in any respect.
  • Apparition

    Posts: 3521

    Jul 04, 2015 12:09 PM GMT
    there have been musings online that the whole, if in one state then another, thing applies to gay marriage then it also applies to concealed carry. gah.