ChrysT17

ChrysT17

49p

10 comments posted · 3 followers · following 0

351 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - Potential class-action... · 3 replies · +2 points

I don't understand why the lawyers arguing for SSM (in this case and others) accept this fallacy and let it stand without rebuttal. It's a strong (sounding) argument for the anti side and refutable with a little anthropological research.

366 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - BREAKING: Supreme Cour... · 0 replies · +1 points

Does anyone here have an idea as to the likelihood of the 5th going ahead with a ruling?

375 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - South Carolina same-se... · 1 reply · +2 points

That doesn't keep the anti-equality crowd from claiming exactly that, though, repeatedly. Maybe you're assuming these people use reason! ; )

384 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - Ninth Circuit to hear ... · 0 replies · +2 points

An excellent demonstration of the real motives of the anti-M.E. crowd. Thanks.

388 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - Equality news round-up... · 0 replies · +3 points

Ditto here.

389 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - Sixth Circuit Court of... · 0 replies · +11 points

Yes. And the other thing that infuriates me about Sutton (& courts in other cases, e.g. the Equality Foundation case mentioned in comments below) is his haughtily expressed skepticism about animus being involved in the passage of marriage bans. Do these people really think the hate-mongering anti-gay bigots leave all that at home & become of good will & rational when they go to vote? Or do they deny that anti-gay bigotry exists on a significant scale? All one has to do to know for certain otherwise is to listen to the public statements of mainstream anti-gay politicians & others or read the on-line comments to news stories about lgbt rights or study the (under-reported) FBI statistics on hate crimes or read the transcripts of legislative hearings on gay rights issues or talk to most any gay person about their personal experience.

How we can still in 2014 NOT be a suspect class deserving heightened scrutiny is beyond me. It's only because animus toward & discrimination against us are so pervasive that they're not seen for what they are - a case of not seeing the forest for the trees. When & if the courts treat lgbt cases as a suspect class deserving heightened scrutiny, we will start winning all our cases & the battle for equality will be over.

390 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - Further briefing sough... · 1 reply · +1 points

I'm not sure that RBG is the only concern, either. I believe Justice Breyer has made a similar public comment about the reputation of the court and "getting ahead of" public opinion. And one of the other liberal justices - Kagan or Sotomayor - asked during oral arguments in March 2013 something to the effect of "why shouldn't we let this percolate?"

Though it might be unusual or even unprecedented for SCOTUS to overturn as many lower court rulings as we have seen in the last year's winning streak, I imagine it is also unusual if not unprecedented for them to overturn the laws of 31 states - 28 of them constitutional amendments - and that may weigh on the minds of the liberal justices otherwise sympathetic to ME.

With this publicly-expressed hesitancy on the part of at least 3 of the liberal justices, and other concerns that belong in another thread, I wonder if some people may have become overconfident that ME nationally in 1 or 2 years is a near certainty? I hope, as I overheard one person predict, we're going to be throwing a REALLY big party in June, 2015, but I'm not convinced.

391 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - Colorado appeals court... · 0 replies · +3 points

Yes, thanks Bruno. Hope you're right.

391 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - Colorado appeals court... · 0 replies · +6 points

Thanks to Japrisot & sfbob for the explanation.

391 weeks ago @ Equality on Trial - Colorado appeals court... · 6 replies · +2 points

What is the four factor test? I'm aware of two - that the party requesting the stay is being harmed more than the other & that they are likely to prevail in the case - but not of the other two.

I would also be interested in whether commenters on this site think the SCOTUS granting of stay in the Kitchen case might indicate that they plan to uphold the state bans - otherwise, the stay makes no sense in light of the usual test for stays: the plaintiffs in marriage equality cases are clearly suffering more harm, & if they are likely to win at the Supreme Court, then what would justify the stay? Unless the justices know we're not going to win there? Please tell me I'm wrong & why.