Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Insofar as there was confusion about what Windsor meant at the time it was decided, the lower courts across the country have now effectively settled it. A survey of publicly available opinions shows that in the eight months since Windsor, 18 court decisions have addressed an issue of equality based on sexual orientation. And in those 18 cases, equality has won every single time. In other words, not a single court has agreed with Chief Justice Roberts that Windsor is merely about state versus federal power. Instead, each has used Windsor exactly as Justice Scalia “warned”—as a powerful precedent for equality.


This hasn’t all been about marriage. Twelve decisions have addressed a substantive aspect of marriage equality since Windsor, and equality has won in all 12—with the Virginia decision now joining decisions from Kentucky, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and West Virginia, and two decisions each in Illinois, New Jersey, and Ohio. But six other cases since Windsor have addressed different aspects of discrimination based on sexual orientation, such as discrimination on juries and employment benefits, and the side of equality has won in all six of those cases as well.


The tally is even starker when you look at the number of judges who have considered the issue. Since Windsor, in these 18 decisions, 32 different judges have considered whether Windsor is merely about the relationship between the state and federal governments or whether it is about equality. And all 32 of them have found for equality. In other words, 32 accomplished, intelligent lawyers, appointed by Democrats and Republicans, whose job it is to read precedent, have ruled for equality. Not a single one has disagreed.






http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ingle.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Conks with brains gotta just surrender on these "tar pit" social issues and, at the same time, drop the persecution complex. It's the only way they're gonna win elections.

Who is going to keep us safe and keep us prosperous? Conk or Donk, they get my vote. When abortion and gay rights and such things become "major" issues in a candidate's run, I get turned off and default to the most liberal candidate because they don't discriminate and look out for all Americans.

The nation and the world become more and more Progressive each day. In a couple of decades, most of these social things will only be pursued by increasingly marginal enclaves of the parties.

Cap'n Cat wrote:
Who is going to keep us safe and keep us prosperous? Conk or Donk, they get my vote. When abortion and gay rights and such things become "major" issues in a candidate's run, I get turned off and default to the most liberal candidate because they don't discriminate and look out for all Americans.

The nation and the world become more and more Progressive each day. In a couple of decades, most of these social things will only be pursued by increasingly marginal enclaves of the parties.

Make up your mind. You want safe and prosperous but you then will vote "most liberal"?
You can't be very liberal and taken serious on issues of crime/defense and the economy. That's like saying you love IPA's yet drink Bud Light.

And there will always be social issues. The next generation of social causers are still in the closet, but they will exit when their platform has less competition.

CAA Flagship wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:
Who is going to keep us safe and keep us prosperous? Conk or Donk, they get my vote. When abortion and gay rights and such things become "major" issues in a candidate's run, I get turned off and default to the most liberal candidate because they don't discriminate and look out for all Americans.

The nation and the world become more and more Progressive each day. In a couple of decades, most of these social things will only be pursued by increasingly marginal enclaves of the parties.

Make up your mind. You want safe and prosperous but you then will vote "most liberal"?
You can't be very liberal and taken serious on issues of crime/defense and the economy. That's like saying you love IPA's yet drink Bud Light.

And there will always be social issues. The next generation of social causers are still in the closet, but they will exit when their platform has less competition.

What a fuckin' dolt......

Reread the posts and think.

dbackjon wrote:Insofar as there was confusion about what Windsor meant at the time it was decided, the lower courts across the country have now effectively settled it. A survey of publicly available opinions shows that in the eight months since Windsor, 18 court decisions have addressed an issue of equality based on sexual orientation. And in those 18 cases, equality has won every single time. In other words, not a single court has agreed with Chief Justice Roberts that Windsor is merely about state versus federal power. Instead, each has used Windsor exactly as Justice Scalia “warned”—as a powerful precedent for equality.


This hasn’t all been about marriage. Twelve decisions have addressed a substantive aspect of marriage equality since Windsor, and equality has won in all 12—with the Virginia decision now joining decisions from Kentucky, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and West Virginia, and two decisions each in Illinois, New Jersey, and Ohio. But six other cases since Windsor have addressed different aspects of discrimination based on sexual orientation, such as discrimination on juries and employment benefits, and the side of equality has won in all six of those cases as well.


The tally is even starker when you look at the number of judges who have considered the issue. Since Windsor, in these 18 decisions, 32 different judges have considered whether Windsor is merely about the relationship between the state and federal governments or whether it is about equality. And all 32 of them have found for equality. In other words, 32 accomplished, intelligent lawyers, appointed by Democrats and Republicans, whose job it is to read precedent, have ruled for equality. Not a single one has disagreed.






http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ingle.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ironic that Scalia's dissent has opened the door for gay marriage across the country, isn't it? Judges keep citing that dissent in holding that Windsor outlaws gay marriage bans on equal protection grounds. At this point, the issue is decided and it's time to move on. A few years ago, I told you that it was just a matter of time, but I was thinking in terms of 10-15 years. I'm surprised by how fast this is happening.

So they've said two things are equal when they're not. Swell. Nice to know we're governed by a Judiciary that's totally out of touch with reality.

JohnStOnge wrote:So they've said two things are equal when they're not. Swell. Nice to know we're governed by a Judiciary that's totally out of touch with reality.

You're completely right, John.



In your world.....

JohnStOnge wrote:So they've said two things are equal when they're not. Swell. Nice to know we're governed by a Judiciary that's totally out of touch with reality.

Go drop some acid, John. You've been crankier than usual lately.