Butch Femme Planet  

Go Back   Butch Femme Planet > POLITICS, CULTURE, NEWS, MEDIA > Current Affairs/World Issues/Science And History

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-13-2012, 09:49 PM   #1
kittygrrl
Infamous Member

How Do You Identify?:
witchy
Relationship Status:
just for fun
 
kittygrrl's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: near the wild mushrooms
Posts: 9,358
Thanks: 21,574
Thanked 21,948 Times in 7,074 Posts
Rep Power: 21474861
kittygrrl Has the BEST Reputationkittygrrl Has the BEST Reputationkittygrrl Has the BEST Reputationkittygrrl Has the BEST Reputationkittygrrl Has the BEST Reputationkittygrrl Has the BEST Reputationkittygrrl Has the BEST Reputationkittygrrl Has the BEST Reputationkittygrrl Has the BEST Reputationkittygrrl Has the BEST Reputationkittygrrl Has the BEST Reputation
Cool Greyson

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyson View Post
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I get it that the next step would be to address it in the US Supreme Court after the ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals. What I don't understand is the second point that the Supreme Court asked Ms. Jackson to argue. I think this is what the question is. "Does the Supreme Court even have jurisdiction to rule on DOMA because of the agreement with the lower court? This is where it gets fuzzy for me. Am I reading the second point correctly? What agreement was made? Is the court implying that DOMA is restricted to the enforcement and interpretation of the Executive Branch only? The article did say something about the US House of Representatives (Congress) taking up the defense of DOMA in the courts and that would come under this second point question too.

Again, thanks for responding to my post.
It's a great question to ponder..complicated & very interesting..i hope it turns out to be a good thing that the Court is, at least, considering it..but it's hard to believe it can be considering it's a very conservative court..now why would they want to consider it now?..
__________________
"MAKE AMERICA THINK AGAIN"
kittygrrl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2012, 10:12 PM   #2
Greyson
Infamous Member

How Do You Identify?:
Transmasculine/Non-Binary
Preferred Pronoun?:
Hy (Pronounced He)
Relationship Status:
Married
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 6,589
Thanks: 21,132
Thanked 8,153 Times in 2,006 Posts
Rep Power: 21474858
Greyson Has the BEST ReputationGreyson Has the BEST ReputationGreyson Has the BEST ReputationGreyson Has the BEST ReputationGreyson Has the BEST ReputationGreyson Has the BEST ReputationGreyson Has the BEST ReputationGreyson Has the BEST ReputationGreyson Has the BEST ReputationGreyson Has the BEST ReputationGreyson Has the BEST Reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyson View Post
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I get it that the next step would be to address it in the US Supreme Court after the ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals. What I don't understand is the second point that the Supreme Court asked Ms. Jackson to argue. I think this is what the question is. "Does the Supreme Court even have jurisdiction to rule on DOMA because of the agreement with the lower court? This is where it gets fuzzy for me. Am I reading the second point correctly? What agreement was made? Is the court implying that DOMA is restricted to the enforcement and interpretation of the Executive Branch only? The article did say something about the US House of Representatives (Congress) taking up the defense of DOMA in the courts and that would come under this second point question too.

Again, thanks for responding to my post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kittygrrl View Post
It's a great question to ponder..complicated & very interesting..i hope it turns out to be a good thing that the Court is, at least, considering it..but it's hard to believe it can be considering it's a very conservative court..now why would they want to consider it now?..


I just read this piece in the NY Times today. It explains what the Supreme Court is doing in regards to Same Sex Marriage two court cases it will be looking at. I will need to read it again but for a layperson such as myself, it really helps clear up some of the above questions.

I gather that "Standing" is one of the issues to be addressed and there is also some variation of States Rights in relation to Federal Jurisdiction. I hope it may offer some understanding to others here in our community.
__________________________________________________ ___________





Standing and Delivering

December 12, 2012
By LINDA GREENHOUSE

Is it heretical of me, or merely quirky, to find myself nearly as fascinated by the procedural game the Supreme Court is playing in the same-sex marriage cases as I am by the underlying merits of the two appeals the court has agreed to decide?

After all, same-sex marriage is legal in nine states and the District of Columbia, and public opinion on the issue is evolving rapidly in other parts of the country, with or without the blessing of the United States Supreme Court. On the other hand, the procedural minefield the court has laid around these cases may hold implications reaching well beyond the domain of gay rights — for the relationship of states to their citizens and for the balance of power between the president and Congress.



http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...it_ty_20121213
__________________
Sometimes you don't realize your own strength
until you come face to face with your greatest weakness. - Susan Gale
Greyson is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Greyson For This Useful Post:
Old 12-15-2012, 08:39 AM   #3
wolfsgirl
Member

How Do You Identify?:
femme
Preferred Pronoun?:
she, her
Relationship Status:
Firmly attached...
 
wolfsgirl's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 111
Thanks: 43
Thanked 125 Times in 41 Posts
Rep Power: 983485
wolfsgirl Has the BEST Reputationwolfsgirl Has the BEST Reputationwolfsgirl Has the BEST Reputationwolfsgirl Has the BEST Reputationwolfsgirl Has the BEST Reputationwolfsgirl Has the BEST Reputationwolfsgirl Has the BEST Reputationwolfsgirl Has the BEST Reputationwolfsgirl Has the BEST Reputationwolfsgirl Has the BEST Reputationwolfsgirl Has the BEST Reputation
Default

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...r-january-vote

Maybe Illinois will be state 10.
Quote:
After counting heads and consulting with legislative leaders, the chief sponsors of a bill to permit same-sex couples to get married in the state disclosed this morning that they intend to push for a vote in the General Assembly's lame-duck session, which will occur over two weeks just after New Year's.
__________________
"May you live as long as you wish, and love as long as you live."
― Robert A. Heinlein
wolfsgirl is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to wolfsgirl For This Useful Post:
Old 12-28-2012, 09:49 PM   #4
Metro
Senior Member

How Do You Identify?:
 

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: •
Posts: 1,606
Thanks: 2,476
Thanked 2,911 Times in 730 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851
Metro Has the BEST ReputationMetro Has the BEST ReputationMetro Has the BEST ReputationMetro Has the BEST ReputationMetro Has the BEST ReputationMetro Has the BEST ReputationMetro Has the BEST ReputationMetro Has the BEST ReputationMetro Has the BEST ReputationMetro Has the BEST ReputationMetro Has the BEST Reputation
Thumbs up Maine!

http://tinyurl.com/c89yw4y
Metro is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Metro For This Useful Post:
Old 02-01-2013, 01:40 PM   #5
MsTinkerbelly
Timed Out - TOS Drama

How Do You Identify?:
...
Preferred Pronoun?:
...
 
MsTinkerbelly's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: ...
Posts: 6,573
Thanks: 30,737
Thanked 22,908 Times in 5,019 Posts
Rep Power: 0
MsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST Reputation
Member Photo Albums
Default News from Illinois

Illinois Gay Marriage: Senate President Aims For Bill To Pass By Valentine's Day


Valentine's Day might just be particularly poignant this year for same-sex couples in Illinois.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, Illinois Senate President John Cullerton is hoping to see legislation legalizing same-sex marriage in Illinois approved by lawmakers in time for the Feb. 14 holiday.

Cullerton told the paper he is hopeful the state Senate will approve the bill next week -- and is confident they have the 30 votes of support needed to do so. The bill would then need to advancing to the House of Representatives, which is considered to be more conservative. Gov. Pat Quinn has already vowed to sign the bill.

Earlier in the week, Cullerton told the City Club of Chicago that those pushing for marriage equality were "getting more support in the public every day," the Associated Press reports.

Bernard Cherkasov, CEO of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy group Equality Illinois, told the Windy City Times that he sees Cullerton's announcement as boding well for his and other advocates' push for marriage equality in the land of Lincoln.

"I believe that the Senate president would not have announced a timeline on the bill if he did not think it had the votes to pass," Cherkasov told the Windy City Times on Friday.

With marriage equality advocates ramping up their efforts, so too are the opposition -- but apparently that group does not include the state's Republican Party. According to a Sun-Times column by Capitol Fax blogger Rich Miller, Illinois GOP lawmakers, too, want to see the marriage equality bill approved as quickly as possible.




With Democratic majorities holding the reins in both chambers of the Illinois General Assembly, Miller argues that Republicans hope to get the matter out of the way and behind them.

Nevertheless, a group of African American clergy also stepped up this week to push for the matter of marriage equality in Illinois to be left up to voters, WBEZ reported. On the other side of the issue, 250 clergy members in Illinois previously endorsed the marriage equality bill as "morally just."

Marriage equality supporters in Illinois last month reintroduced legislation that would legalize same-sex marriage in the state. Sponsors had hoped to pass the bill during the lame-duck session in early January, but say they ran out of time to do so, though it was advanced by the Senate Executive Committee for the first time. President Barack Obama has expressed his support for the Illinois marriage equality bill
MsTinkerbelly is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MsTinkerbelly For This Useful Post:
Old 02-11-2013, 01:37 PM   #6
MsTinkerbelly
Timed Out - TOS Drama

How Do You Identify?:
...
Preferred Pronoun?:
...
 
MsTinkerbelly's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: ...
Posts: 6,573
Thanks: 30,737
Thanked 22,908 Times in 5,019 Posts
Rep Power: 0
MsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST ReputationMsTinkerbelly Has the BEST Reputation
Member Photo Albums
Default


Outgoing DOD boss Panetta extends some benefits to same-sex spouses, partners of gay troops


By Bill Briggs, NBC News contributor

Departing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta extended Monday a list of benefits — all previously denied by the Pentagon — to the same-sex spouses of service members as well as to the unmarried partners of gay troops.

The perks, automatically available to heterosexual military spouses, will include hospital child care services, hospital visits, and the issuing of military ID cards, which will give same-sex spouses and partners access to on-base commissaries, movie theaters and gyms. The policy changes will go into effect once training on the new rules is completed, Panetta said.

While advocates for gay and lesbian service members and their families hailed Panetta’s policy switch as “substantive” and “encouraging,” the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) still blocks the DOD from enacting more than 85 other benefits now provided to heterosexual military spouses and their children — most notably medical and dental care, housing allowances, and death benefits.


Also, as NBC News reported Feb. 4, that same federal law mandates that when a gay service member is killed in combat, military officials must first notify that troop’s blood family, not their spouse, as is normally the course of action.

Panetta said DOMA is “now being reviewed by the United States Supreme Court" — and he offered his first clear signal that the Pentagon wants that law overturned.

“There are certain benefits that can only be provided to spouses as defined by that law,” Panetta said. “While it will not change during my tenure as secretary of defense, I foresee a time when the law will allow the department to grant full benefits to service members and their dependents, irrespective of sexual orientation. Until then, the department will continue to comply with current law while doing all we can to take care of all soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and their families."

Same-sex advocates have been pushing the DOD to extend full benefits to the spouses and partners of all U.S. service members since the repeal 17 months of ago of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy which prohibited gay troops from revealing their sexual orientation.

“At the time of repeal, I committed to reviewing benefits that had not previously been available to same-sex partners based on existing law and policy,” Panetta said. “It is a matter of fundamental equity that we provide similar benefits to all of those men and women in uniform who serve their country ...

“Taking care of our service members and honoring the sacrifices of all military families are two core values of this nation. Extending these benefits is an appropriate next step under current law to ensure that all service members receive equal support for what they do to protect this nation."

Advocates for gay and lesbian service members and their families praised Panetta’s policy shift although they said that the move is not groundbreaking due to the DOMA legal blockade.

“Secretary Panetta’s decision today answers the call President (Barack) Obama issued in his inaugural address to complete our nation's journey toward equality, acknowledging the equal service and equal sacrifice of our gay and lesbian service members and their families,” said Allyson Robinson, an Army veteran and executive director of OutServe-SLDN, an association of actively serving lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender U.S. military personnel with more than 50 chapters and 6,000 members.

“We thank him for getting us a few steps closer to full equality — steps that will substantively improve the quality of life of gay and lesbian military families,” Robinson said.

The American Military Partner Association (AMPA), a support network for LGBT military families, released the following statement today in response to Panetta's announcement:

“We’ve waited far too long for this, and it’s fantastic news that our dedicated military families will now have access to some of the benefits and support services they need and deserve,” said Stephen Peters, the group's president. “However, (DOMA) continues to undermine our military families who sacrifice so much for our nation. This summer, we hope that the Supreme Court will make it clear that our families are just as important and deserve the same protections, benefits, and support that federal recognition brings.”

To offer the new benefits to partners, DOD will ask gay and lesbian service members to sign a “Declaration of Domestic Partnership” in which they will attest that they are in a committed relationship, and intend to remain so indefinitely, and that neither is legally married, according to OutServe-SLDN.

The changes will take “several months to complete, Pentagon officials said. The extra time is needed so that military leaders can offer a chance for the public to comment on the new rules and also to allow an opportunity for each of the branches to update its IT system, develop new processes for issuing ID cards, and train their personnel on the refreshed benefits package.

Panetta did stop short on offering a full slate of benefits that gay advocates have been requesting for two years: on-base housing and burial at Arlington National Cemetery and other items that don’t fall under DOMA, according to OutServe-SLDN. (The organization’s lawyers drafted an explanation outlining the policy shift for gay service members and their families.)

DOD officials have explained to OutServe-SLDN that “policy for burial at Arlington National Cemetery is under review. At issue is how to verify eligible same-sex relationships for the surviving spouse in order to ensure equitable policy implementation."
MsTinkerbelly is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to MsTinkerbelly For This Useful Post:
Old 02-22-2013, 09:40 PM   #7
blackboot
Member

How Do You Identify?:
TransgenderMasculineQueer
Preferred Pronoun?:
H with a y
Relationship Status:
fluxing the solder.
 
1 Highscore

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 484
Thanks: 1,964
Thanked 835 Times in 184 Posts
Rep Power: 7482394
blackboot Has the BEST Reputationblackboot Has the BEST Reputationblackboot Has the BEST Reputationblackboot Has the BEST Reputationblackboot Has the BEST Reputationblackboot Has the BEST Reputationblackboot Has the BEST Reputationblackboot Has the BEST Reputationblackboot Has the BEST Reputationblackboot Has the BEST Reputationblackboot Has the BEST Reputation
Default

Obama Administration Urges Supreme Court To Strike Down DOMA
The Huffington Post | By Anjali Sareen

The Obama administration on Friday urged the Supreme Court to strike down the Defense Of Marriage Act in a brief that calls the law unconstitutional because it violates "the fundamental guarantee of equal protection."

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argues in the brief that Section 3 of the 1996 federal law prohibits the marriage of same-sex couples and should get the court's close scrutiny.

"The law denies to tens of thousands of same-sex couples who are legally married under state law an array of important federal benefits that are available to legally married opposite-sex couples. Because this discrimination cannot be justified as substantially furthering any important governmental interest, Section 3 is unconstitutional."

DOMA, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman, has been found unconstitutional by lower courts. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal in one of those cases, U.S. v. Windsor. Oral arguments are scheduled for March 27.

Verrilli argues in his brief that gays and lesbians have been historically discriminated against. He describes how DOMA should proceed if the Supreme Court does not apply the increased scrutiny:

"The government has previously defended Section 3 under rational-basis review, and does not challenge the constitutionality of Section 3 under that highly deferential standard."

The administration argues that the court may consider a higher level of rational-basis review. The brief states that the increased consideration would be valid in order to "guard against giving effect to a desire to harm an 'unpopular group.'"

The brief wraps up with an argument against the view advanced by the House Republicans in the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group: the issue is not for the courts to decide.

"This is, however, the rare case in which deference to the democratic process must give way to the fundamental constitutional command of equal treatment under law. Section 3 of DOMA targets the many gay and lesbian people legally married under state law for a harsh form of discrimination that bears no relation to their ability to contribute to society. It is abundantly clear that this discrimination does not substantially advance an interest in protecting marriage, or any other important interest. The statute simply cannot be reconciled with the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. The Constitution therefore requires that Section 3 be invalidated."
blackboot is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to blackboot For This Useful Post:
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:07 PM.


ButchFemmePlanet.com
All information copyright of BFP 2018