Wisconsin, Indiana Gay Marriage Bans Unconstitutional

[magicpebble]

The nation took another big stride Thursday toward a historic legal showdown over gay marriage, as a federal appeals court in Chicago unanimously struck down bans on same-sex unions in Wisconsin and Indiana.

The decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds lower federal court decisions in Madison and Indianapolis

Comments

[crossfire]

Judge Posner was abot 407% done with the bullshit he was hearing:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/08/27/listen_to_judge_richard_posner_destroy_arguments_against_gay_marriage.html

[magicpebble]

yeah, I thought it was fairly clear from oral arguments that this was the way it would go

[lied_ohne_worte]

Aww, I didn't listen to all of them, but the bits I did were impressive. It really sounded like a professor tearing apart a first-semester's presentation for not having any logic. And it's very depressing that apparently people like that attorney (who deserved all the lambasting he got, as I assume this is not the kind of case people take on involuntarily) have been and continue to be successful with feeble arguments (or no arguments at all, really) like that one in other places. It should be a matter of embarrassment to the justices who let them get through.

[rkt]

yay

[moonshaz]

This is awesome (both the news and the article)!

The article linked in the fourth paragraph is great reading, too. Among other things, it contains this little gem:

"During oral arguments [in the Indiana case], Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher contended there is a fundamental difference between same-sex and heterosexual couples that allows the government to treat them differently.

"Opposite-sex couples make babies," he said. "Same-sex couples do not."

But Posner expressed skepticism of the idea that the states were trying to promote procreation.

"You allow all these sterile couples to get married," he said. "Why are you doing that if you're so interested in procreation?"In my experience, the procreation argument is always one of the main ones they trot out (right after whining about wanting to protect "traditional" marriage), and it's SO lame. According to that argument, anyone with a known infertility problem should not be allowed to marry, as well as post-menopausal women. (I guess old men could still get married, as

[magicpebble]

Yeah, I can't imagine being the lawyer who had to make those arguments, because they're SO awful. The procreation argument is just beyond stupid, like you said. Obviously marriage has other purposes.

I heard today that the Wisconsin AG is appealing to the Supreme Court, but that he's not sending his "A" team, so to speak, so I have to think they know all their arguments are losers.

[lied_ohne_worte]

That procreation argument is quite stupid, and the same goes for marriage being "endangered".

I've always wondered why people who want to "defend traditional marriage" from gay marriage don't start by banning divorce. Aren't quite a number of those conservative media people divorced while at the same time defenders of marriage? One would think they had started with themselves.

As for the endangerment of marriage, as my mother says: "As long as no one forces your father to divorce me and marry a man, what does gay people marrying have to do with my marriage?"

[lovis]

If that procreation argument would be true the only people allowed to marry should be couples with newborns. *pfft*