Marriage Equality Has 21-Point Lead i...

Marriage Equality Has 21-Point Lead in Maine

There are 175 comments on the EDGE story from Oct 3, 2012, titled Marriage Equality Has 21-Point Lead in Maine. In it, EDGE reports that:

A poll revealed that that support for a referendum that would legalize same-sex marriage in the state has a 21-point lead, the Waterville Morning Sentinel reports.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

First Prev
of 9
Next Last

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#168 Oct 22, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
eJohn, I think you're right, over the long term.
But I have always imagined that, when the federal government finally does recognize same-sex marriage, it will depend on your state of residence. So as a resident of New Hampshire, our marriage would be recognized. But if we move to Pennsylvania, the IRS would demand separate filing. This, of course, will cause its own set of nightmares.
And even without moving, it's quite common for couples to file state returns in several states. For instance, a couple living in New York and working in New Jersey would have tax returns in one state that recognizes their marriage and one that doesn't. I would imagine that the treatment by the state of residence would then take precedence under comity.
Interestingly, this may provide an incentive for couples to maintain residence, even though they've moved to another state. This could be a windfall for them.
This all goes to show that recognizing marriages for everyone is the only sensible option to provide rights and benefits to same-sex couples. Any other path will result in a patchwork of incompatible policies, endless argument, and endless lawsuits.
I can't imagine a scenario where the courts would strike down the Federal DOMA AND leave it intact for couples living in states that don't recognize marriage equality.

The whole point of all the cases against DOMA have been the unequal treatment by the Federal government of certain legally married couples. It's hard for me to believe that they would be allowed to continue the unequal treatment, but just based on a different criterion.

Ultimately, I think the huge drain on government resources that will be created by having to deal with all the possible combinations of people working in one place and living in another and some couples being married here, but not there, and having to file multiple, conflicting tax returns WILL ultimately resolve this issue if the SCOTUS doesn't end the madness once and for all.

The more this type of insanity increases in complications and legal issues, the more likely the courts will be to end the problem. So I guess either way, we'll see progress, even as things get more complicated and more difficult.

When push comes to shove, it's all about the money, isn't it?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#169 Oct 22, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
eJohn, I think you're right, over the long term.
But I have always imagined that, when the federal government finally does recognize same-sex marriage, it will depend on your state of residence. So as a resident of New Hampshire, our marriage would be recognized. But if we move to Pennsylvania, the IRS would demand separate filing. This, of course, will cause its own set of nightmares.
And even without moving, it's quite common for couples to file state returns in several states. For instance, a couple living in New York and working in New Jersey would have tax returns in one state that recognizes their marriage and one that doesn't. I would imagine that the treatment by the state of residence would then take precedence under comity.
Interestingly, this may provide an incentive for couples to maintain residence, even though they've moved to another state. This could be a windfall for them.
This all goes to show that recognizing marriages for everyone is the only sensible option to provide rights and benefits to same-sex couples. Any other path will result in a patchwork of incompatible policies, endless argument, and endless lawsuits.
Yes, that will probably be a likely first decision.

AN almost immediate case will come into play. One of an implicit and real effective limitation of freedom of movement between the several States without significant economic and other loss.

If we win Suspect Classification and the resultant Strict Scrutiny, such a case could lead to the actual striking down of State discriminatory legislations.

IF we achieve Suspect Classification, barring a U.S.Constitutional Amendment against us, that would be all the marbles.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#170 Oct 23, 2012
I think it will be very difficult for the SCOTUS to strike down DOMA only for those living in states with marriage equality laws. That goes against how the federal govt has historically recognized marriages pre-DOMA, including inter-racial marriages pre-Loving and even 1st cousin marriages today. If the marriage was legally contracted, it was/is recognized regardless of current state residency.

Such a scenario would be a nightmare for the military which gives numerous additional benefits to married servicemembers. Spouses & children would be eligible for healthcare, housing, & commissary benefits etc at one duty station, but ineligible at the next.

I think the MOST LIKELY scenario is the SCOTUS rules Sec 3 unconstitutional, but with no specific mention of residency. It would then be up to the AG to direct the various federal agencies how to implement such a ruling.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#171 Oct 23, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, that will probably be a likely first decision.
AN almost immediate case will come into play. One of an implicit and real effective limitation of freedom of movement between the several States without significant economic and other loss.
If we win Suspect Classification and the resultant Strict Scrutiny, such a case could lead to the actual striking down of State discriminatory legislations.
IF we achieve Suspect Classification, barring a U.S.Constitutional Amendment against us, that would be all the marbles.
Though I think we SHOULD, I seriously doubt this SCOTUS is ready to grant us suspect classification. At most they will go with some form of heightened scruitiny or "rational-basis plus".

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#172 Oct 23, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Though I think we SHOULD, I seriously doubt this SCOTUS is ready to grant us suspect classification. At most they will go with some form of heightened scruitiny or "rational-basis plus".
Shall we discuss why the SCOTUS is unlikely to do so?

I don't think anyone has done so on these boards. Not specifically, anyway.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#173 Oct 23, 2012
Should we make a thread specific to it? Cross post it in a few other forums?

It could get pretty interesting.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#174 Oct 23, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Shall we discuss why the SCOTUS is unlikely to do so?
I don't think anyone has done so on these boards. Not specifically, anyway.
I'd say it's pretty obvious why they won't grant us suspect classification. To do so would mean they'd have no option but to overturn all state marriage bans, because there is no way they would ever meet the standards of strict scrutiny.

I don't think the SCOTUS wants to go there just yet, plus the court tends to resolve the case before them using the LEAST intrusive manner possible, and these DOMA cases can be resolved without addressing the state bans using enhanced rational basis or heightened scrutiny.

I know everyone wants the SCOTUS to jump right to "the big one", but I just don't see that happening; not with this particular court at this particular time. They're being very cautious, as evidence by the delay in even deciding which marriage cases to take or reject.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#175 Oct 23, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd say it's pretty obvious why they won't grant us suspect classification. To do so would mean they'd have no option but to overturn all state marriage bans, because there is no way they would ever meet the standards of strict scrutiny.
I don't think the SCOTUS wants to go there just yet, plus the court tends to resolve the case before them using the LEAST intrusive manner possible, and these DOMA cases can be resolved without addressing the state bans using enhanced rational basis or heightened scrutiny.
I know everyone wants the SCOTUS to jump right to "the big one", but I just don't see that happening; not with this particular court at this particular time. They're being very cautious, as evidence by the delay in even deciding which marriage cases to take or reject.
Rather than assigning motives to persons of the Court, I was thinking along the lines of discussing the criteria for Suspect Classification, and our relation to them.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#176 Oct 24, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Rather than assigning motives to persons of the Court, I was thinking along the lines of discussing the criteria for Suspect Classification, and our relation to them.
Is there any doubt whatsoever that we meet the criteria for suspect classification?

-History of discrimination/prejudice
-Possess an immutable and/or highly visible trait
-Powerless to protect themselves via the political process
-The distinguishing characteristic doesn't inhibit them from contributing meaningfully to society.

We don't have to meet ALL of those criteria, but just any or a combination of them are usually enough to be granted suspect classification. There are no hard & fast rules; it's entirely up to the courts to decide.

At a MINIMUM sexual orientation should be considered a quasi-suspect classification (like gender) and afforded intermediate scrutiny, as the 2nd circuit court did.

The qualifications for some form of suspect classification are obvious. That's why I believe MOTIVE of the justices is THE DETERMINING factor. As long as we have a conservative majority on the court (and yes, I still consider Kennedy a conservative), I doubt we'll be granted suspect classification.

The federal DOMA can be overturned on a rational basis or "rational basis plus" criteria. The state DOMA laws CAN'T.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#177 Oct 25, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Is there any doubt whatsoever that we meet the criteria for suspect classification?
-History of discrimination/prejudice
-Possess an immutable and/or highly visible trait
-Powerless to protect themselves via the political process
-The distinguishing characteristic doesn't inhibit them from contributing meaningfully to society.
We don't have to meet ALL of those criteria, but just any or a combination of them are usually enough to be granted suspect classification. There are no hard & fast rules; it's entirely up to the courts to decide.
At a MINIMUM sexual orientation should be considered a quasi-suspect classification (like gender) and afforded intermediate scrutiny, as the 2nd circuit court did.
The qualifications for some form of suspect classification are obvious. That's why I believe MOTIVE of the justices is THE DETERMINING factor. As long as we have a conservative majority on the court (and yes, I still consider Kennedy a conservative), I doubt we'll be granted suspect classification.
The federal DOMA can be overturned on a rational basis or "rational basis plus" criteria. The state DOMA laws CAN'T.
As we make progress in many localities, the argument can be made that your #3 doesn't entirely apply.

See what I mean?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#178 Oct 25, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
As we make progress in many localities, the argument can be made that your #3 doesn't entirely apply.
See what I mean?
The 32 losses at the ballot box indicate otherwise.

I get what you're saying, but we don't have to meet EVERY criteria at the 100% level.

As long as DOMA exists it is evidence of our lack of political power. If we had power, then we'd be able to repeal it legislatively, along with the state DOMAs & constitutional amendments.

Yes, our political power is slowly growing, but we are a LONG way from having equal power at the level heterosexuals do.

That will be another judgment call by the individual justices; hence their motivation will factor in again.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#179 Oct 25, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The 32 losses at the ballot box indicate otherwise.
I get what you're saying, but we don't have to meet EVERY criteria at the 100% level.
As long as DOMA exists it is evidence of our lack of political power. If we had power, then we'd be able to repeal it legislatively, along with the state DOMAs & constitutional amendments.
Yes, our political power is slowly growing, but we are a LONG way from having equal power at the level heterosexuals do.
That will be another judgment call by the individual justices; hence their motivation will factor in again.
The argument could be made that the closeness of our losses in, say, California suggests otherwise.

The problem is that we are at a stage that the SCOTUS can use these arguments to deny Suspect Classification. They have in the past when our support was far more paltry, and discrimination far more virulent and institutionalized.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#180 Oct 25, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
The argument could be made that the closeness of our losses in, say, California suggests otherwise.
The problem is that we are at a stage that the SCOTUS can use these arguments to deny Suspect Classification. They have in the past when our support was far more paltry, and discrimination far more virulent and institutionalized.
That's why I think it comes down to the personalities on the SCOTUS more than anything else.

Scalia is NEVER going to grant suspect classification even if we were enslaved for a century.

Ginsburg is ready to rule gays can marry and never have to pay taxes and get a free mercedes and can have a pony and every day is their birthday.

A liberal majority will grant suspect classification.
A conservative majority won't.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#181 Oct 25, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
As we make progress in many localities, the argument can be made that your #3 doesn't entirely apply.
See what I mean?
Such a claim would provide a very thin cover for outright prejudice and denial. Blacks, for instance, maintain their suspect classification. But nobody can claim blacks are less powerful than gays.(Oh, sorry. They can and they will. But only fellow nut jobs will take them seriously.)

Neither are Jews politically powerless. Yet they are protected by the courts. These days, even Christians go running to the courts for protection!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#183 Oct 25, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
That's why I think it comes down to the personalities on the SCOTUS more than anything else.
Scalia is NEVER going to grant suspect classification even if we were enslaved for a century.
Ginsburg is ready to rule gays can marry and never have to pay taxes and get a free mercedes and can have a pony and every day is their birthday.
A liberal majority will grant suspect classification.
A conservative majority won't.
Ginsburg ...

OMFG !!

Coffee EVERYWHERE !!!

(damn you)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 9
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Parade kicks off Erie's pride festival 4 min Fa-Foxy 22
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 33 min JODECKO 38,890
News Study: Children Of Same-Sex Parents More Likely... 1 hr JODECKO 147
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 2 hr who cares 16,119
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 4 hr June VanDerMark 11,336
News Man charged after lubricant dispenser filled wi... 5 hr Mite Be 27
News Transgender Ken doll cake triggers outrage afte... 6 hr WasteWater 49
More from around the web