MsGuy

In a speech at the U of Minnesota law school, Justice Ginzburg opined that it would be an urgent matter for the Supremes to take up a gay marriage case if the 6th Circuit let stand its current position, otherwise there seemed to her to be no immediate need for the court to address the issue.

Exceptionally good post. That's a risk that's hard to avoid in any venue.

Interesting how many different ways the Cincinnati ruling affects folks lives: I confess that when I first heard of gay marriage the whole notion struck me as silly and, full truth be told, made me feel a bit queasy, so I can understand how some straights react to the idea of equality in marriage. But the more I've studied on it and the more I've learned about all the different ways this issue plays out in real people's lives, the more it's come to seem common sense and basic justice to recognise legally the marriage of same sex couples. Maybe it's not everybody's thing (and it's not for me) but for those who choose this path, it now seems wilfully cruel to me now to stand in their way.

A bit more detail on the 6th Circuit ruling and how its reasoning differs from the other Circuit opinions.

Or it will unless the 6th US Court of Appeals decides to hear this case en banc.1 By a 2 to 1 vote the Court of Appeals in Cincinnati just overturned a district court finding a state's anti-gay marriage law to be unconstitutional. This creates a situation where an action is both legal and illegal under Federal law depending on which Court of Appeals region the citizens involved live in. That's the kind of contradiction the Supreme Court has traditionally acted (and sooner rather than later) to resolve. Most of you will recall that the Supremes recently declined to rule on the question of whether The Constitution's equal rights clause extends to gays wanting to get married. Most folks interpeted this as a victory for gay marriage reasoning 1) failure to take up the case permitted the number of gay marriages to grow exponentially, making an ultimate adverse decision that much more difficult, 2) only 4 justices have to vote to take up a case for review so it appears that justices known or reckoned to be against gay marriage have calculated that they do not have the votes needed to overturn the pro gay lower court decisions (5 needed). In other words, the conservative wing of the Court figured that it was better to dodge the question and hope for a change of the court later rather than risk a pro gay decision now. Now it's possible that the 6th Circuit will decide that the issue has sufficient importance to hold a new hearing and rule en banc, but as things stand now the Supreme Court will almost be forced to rule on this issue sometime next year. x1 En banc is legalese for the all of the judges sitting together to rule on a case in place of the usual 3 judge panel.

That ship has long since sailed.

That's our OZ, Santush. Just one WOW after another.

Lookin, I suspect that folks are less interested in shining lights than in getting that pay stub up. And for whatever reason the Dems have failed to show much in the way of progress in that area. ==== In the past year or so, I've read a few articles by economists that argue that the period from the 1940s to the early 1970s (when the division of GDP between capital and labor shifted substantially in favor of labor) was an anomaly. In effect they argue that, since the 1980s & for various reasons (they can't seem to agree on just why) labor's share of economic output has been regressing to its historical mean. Not just in the USA but in Europe and the rest of the world. And the rate of the shift back toward capital has been increasing, not slowing down. When you add to that that economists count senior managers, investment bankers, physicians and the like as 'labor', that paints a pretty grim picture when you get to figuring out what's left over for ordinary folks. And what's going to be left in the future.

True. Let's move that monument over to the Fathers Hall of Fame.

And I haven't run across a story as feel good as this one in a long time. Gay dads probably are no better or worse than straight ones, by and large, but these two deserve some kind of monument in front of whatever Gay hall of fame finally gets set up.

RA1, I just voted and, just for you, I voted for the libertarian candidate for congress. For the life of me though I can't see why a libertarian would want to be a congress-critter. Maybe it's the case that he wouldn't have run if he thought he had a chance in hell to be elected. (Which he doesn't.) For the record I voted Democrat, Libertarian, skip, skip, skip, skip, skip, non-partisan and No.

538, the poll analysis site run by Nate Silver that won fame and fortune with it's incredibly accurate calls of the last few elections, gives the Republicans a 75.5 % chance of getting a majority in the Senate. Oh well. (sigh)

I meant that in the nicest way possible, AS. Damn, I knew I should have added "bless your heart."

Definitely sounds familiar but I can't quite put a name on it.

Nerd

Oh my! Did he say Furry Fairy?

Seems like someone here posted a few shots of that underwear.

So OZ, what dire emergency did the two principal BFs concoct to get you to wire them US$1,000? Urgent medical bill? Grandma's funeral? Inquiring minds want to know. Oh, also, did you bite and decide to play Santa?

Got me! You know, I remember initially I typed "Christy" but then that didn't look right and besides (lurking around in the back of what's left of my brain) I had an idea that there was some fluffy governor in New Jersey with a name something like that. So, long story short, I shortened it to "Christ" and that looked better and I went with it. More fool me. It's a good thing BoyToy remembers my login code for me. (sigh)

Personally I think some of our best threads come from hijacking. Maximise the effects of serendipity, that's my motto.

Hangs around BoyToy a lot. Keeps butt flap tightly buttoned.

What you mean "finally'? I can put AS on his knees begging any day of the week and twice on Sundays.