Marriage Equality Legalization Would Add To Illinois' Economy

Mar 6, 2013 | Posted by: Sei | Full story: lezgetreal.com

The legalization of same-sex marriage would add millions to the Illinois economy as at least half of the state's LGBT population would marry.
Comments
61 - 80 of 290 Comments Last updated Mar 27, 2013

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
so sad how many americans like you don't understand how it works...
I think its a symptom of the "me" generation...
I understand just fine.

When you don't like a decision of the court, you label it "judicial activism".
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
First, the subject is legislative action to include same-sex couples under the same marriage law as everyone else. This does not require a constitutional amendment (at least in Illinois). It just requires a bill properly enacted by the legislature and signed by the governor.
Second, Baker will be irrelevant when the status of same sex couples as married Americans is denied by the federal government. Baker was dismissed for lack of a federal question, since states define marriage.
What will be relevant in DOMA is the fourteenth amendment, which was purposefully written broadly to include all.[Had its authors meant some Americans, they would have specified which ones.] In this case, the same-sex couples from Illinois are situated similarly to other married couples from Illinois, but they are singled out for disparate treatment.
So the question then becomes what compelling purpose the government has for treating one group of citizens differently from another. Because this is ENTIRELY a federal question, your favorite Baker case is completely irrelevant.
actually state's rights resolves doma and the prop 8 case (an AMENDMENT case) will no doubt rely on baker...

like I said, our conjecture will be reality soon, my bet is down!
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand just fine.
When you don't like a decision of the court, you label it "judicial activism".
um, remember when I pulled this on you two posts back?
I do...

you advocate for the judiciary to take a more active role than is laid out for them in the Constitution...

see how that works?
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The current SCOTUS has never ruled on whether gays have the right to marry.
So you're arguing before the SCOTUS?
It doesn't matter what argument you use or I use, since neither of us are on the SCOTUS.
The SCOTUS can do whatever they want and will use whatever arguments they can think of to justify their opinion. I'm sure the bigots like Scalia will use arguments similar to yours.
the CURRENT justices have not, but what do you REALLy think that is worth?

no, but when the decision comes out, it will show who was in the zone and who was in left field...
you'll be around to check back with, right?
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, I just read the 14th amendment, and it doesn't say anything about voting being only for white men or marriage only being opposite-sex couples.
You didn't look where the court in Baker said it was...
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't look where the court in Baker said it was...
Aren't you forgetting something?

-The facts in the potentially binding case must not bear any legally significant differences to the case under consideration.

-The binding precedent encompasses only the issues presented to the Court, not the reasoning found in the lower court's decision.

-Of the issues presented, only those necessarily decided by the Court in dismissing the case control.

-Subsequent developments by the Court on the relevant doctrines may cast doubt on the continuing validity of a summary judgment.

Are you really trying to say there are no legal differences in the Prop 8 case? Gay marriage was granted by the Supreme Court of California. A voter initiative ammended the Cal. Constitution to take that right away.

Sounds like a "legally significant" difference to me.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#67
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
the CURRENT justices have not, but what do you REALLy think that is worth?
no, but when the decision comes out, it will show who was in the zone and who was in left field...
you'll be around to check back with, right?
It will be sweeter than Nov 6th.
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Aren't you forgetting something?
-The facts in the potentially binding case must not bear any legally significant differences to the case under consideration.
-The binding precedent encompasses only the issues presented to the Court, not the reasoning found in the lower court's decision.
-Of the issues presented, only those necessarily decided by the Court in dismissing the case control.
-Subsequent developments by the Court on the relevant doctrines may cast doubt on the continuing validity of a summary judgment.
Are you really trying to say there are no legal differences in the Prop 8 case? Gay marriage was granted by the Supreme Court of California. A voter initiative ammended the Cal. Constitution to take that right away.
Sounds like a "legally significant" difference to me.
nope. I didn't forget.
Baker is still spot on point.

" A voter initiative amended the Cal. Constitution to take that right away."

Same as Baker was with legislation but here we have an even greater state's rights issue in that they Amended...

"Second, to create such a new suspect classification for same-sex relationships would have far-reaching implications--in particular, by implying an overruling of Baker, which we are neither empowered to do nor willing to predict. Nothing indicates that the Supreme Court is about to adopt this new suspect classification when it conspicuously failed to do so in Romer--a case that could readily have been disposed by such a demarche. That such a classification could overturn marriage laws in a huge majority of individual states underscores the implications."

wanna bet the Prop 8 case relies on Baker?
You can bet that 1.5 million dollar condo you lied about having...
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69
Mar 8, 2013
 
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
nope. I didn't forget.
Baker is still spot on point.
" A voter initiative amended the Cal. Constitution to take that right away."
Same as Baker was with legislation but here we have an even greater state's rights issue in that they Amended...
"Second, to create such a new suspect classification for same-sex relationships would have far-reaching implications--in particular, by implying an overruling of Baker, which we are neither empowered to do nor willing to predict. Nothing indicates that the Supreme Court is about to adopt this new suspect classification when it conspicuously failed to do so in Romer--a case that could readily have been disposed by such a demarche. That such a classification could overturn marriage laws in a huge majority of individual states underscores the implications."
wanna bet the Prop 8 case relies on Baker?
You can bet that 1.5 million dollar condo you lied about having...
I'll bet the whole peer.

Same as Baker was with legislation? I don't think so. Try another one.
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70
Mar 8, 2013
 
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll bet the whole peer.
Same as Baker was with legislation? I don't think so. Try another one.
we'll see what the court says, I'll have a tissue ready for you...
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
we'll see what the court says, I'll have a tissue ready for you...
Funny that the court hasn't mentioned it yet, isn't it. Not even the federal appeals court mentioned it.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
um, remember when I pulled this on you two posts back?
I do...
you advocate for the judiciary to take a more active role than is laid out for them in the Constitution...
see how that works?
No, I expect the judiciary to do exactly what the constitution requires of them- rule whether laws are constitutional or not. Nothing more, nothing less.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
actually state's rights resolves doma and the prop 8 case (an AMENDMENT case) will no doubt rely on baker...
like I said, our conjecture will be reality soon, my bet is down!
So your prediction is that SCOTUS strikes DOMA and upholds Prop 8?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
the CURRENT justices have not, but what do you REALLy think that is worth?
no, but when the decision comes out, it will show who was in the zone and who was in left field...
you'll be around to check back with, right?
The current SCOTUS is all that matters.

DOMA can't be overturned strictly on state's rights; there will have to be some measure of equal protection.

Prop 8 is a mess, but it won't be upheld because of Baker.

I doubt Baker will be mentioned much, except when they say it's no longer relevant.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't look where the court in Baker said it was...
That's not what I asked.

I asked where in the text of the constitution does it say marriage is only for opposite-sex couples?

Unless it's in the text, then there is no reason to amend the constitution just to allow same-sex couples the same right to marry as opposite-sex couples.

The judiciary can simply rule equal protection requires the right to marry be extended to same-sex couples; similar to the Iowa Supreme Court ruling.

Same goes for voting. Since the constitution didn't specifically state only white men can vote, then there was no need to amend the constitution. The judiciary should simply have ruled that equal protection requires the right to vote to be extended to blacks & women.

What's the point of having a equal protection clause if it's meaningless?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76
Mar 8, 2013
 
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
nope. I didn't forget.
Baker is still spot on point.

wanna bet the Prop 8 case relies on Baker?
You can bet that 1.5 million dollar condo you lied about having...
So you think they're going to overturn Prop 8 by relying on Baker?

That ought to be an interesting argument!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#77
Mar 8, 2013
 
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
we'll see what the court says, I'll have a tissue ready for you...
I tend to agree.

I prepare for the worst.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

After reading all these "opinions", I am gong to shut down the computer and have another Martini with my honey. I'll just wait for the opinion of the court to be revealed.
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79
Mar 11, 2013
 
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
So your prediction is that SCOTUS strikes DOMA and upholds Prop 8?
yes. both predominantly on state's rights issues with a little nod to gay rights...
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80
Mar 11, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not what I asked.
I asked where in the text of the constitution does it say marriage is only for opposite-sex couples?
Unless it's in the text, then there is no reason to amend the constitution just to allow same-sex couples the same right to marry as opposite-sex couples.
The judiciary can simply rule equal protection requires the right to marry be extended to same-sex couples; similar to the Iowa Supreme Court ruling.
Same goes for voting. Since the constitution didn't specifically state only white men can vote, then there was no need to amend the constitution. The judiciary should simply have ruled that equal protection requires the right to vote to be extended to blacks & women.
What's the point of having a equal protection clause if it's meaningless?
I find your argument curious (and unpersuasive) given that marriage itself is not in the text of the constitution yet you maintain it is a fundamental right anyway...
so in this sense, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth, both relying on court interpretation and rejecting it...

the EP clause is not meaningless. when two groups are not similarly situated, they don't get the same rights...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••