What is new on the Gay Marriage front?

[Alnitak]

Australia's first same sex marriages will take place this Saturday in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). The ACT law provides for a legally nuanced marriage scheme, which I do not understand, but apparently operates on some loophole in Australia's 2004 marriage act. The High Court of Australia heard arguments over the ACT law's legality today, and will issue a ruling on December 12. The 40 couples who registered in advance will be able to marry at least during those five days.

http://www.queerty.com/heres-what-y...=website&utm_campaign=wordtwit&utm_medium=web

 

[Kulindahr]

Australia's first same sex marriages will take place this Saturday in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). The ACT law provides for a legally nuanced marriage scheme, which I do not understand, but apparently operates on some loophole in Australia's 2004 marriage act. The High Court of Australia heard arguments over the ACT law's legality today, and will issue a ruling on December 12. The 40 couples who registered in advance will be able to marry at least during those five days.

http://www.queerty.com/heres-what-y...=website&utm_campaign=wordtwit&utm_medium=web

Now that's what I call a slender loophole! Since the law apparently only mentions heterosexuals, they're saying it's only for heterosexuals, so it doesn't restrict same-sex marriages.

This should be fun.

 

[Alnitak]

Now that's what I call a slender loophole! Since the law apparently only mentions heterosexuals, they're saying it's only for heterosexuals, so it doesn't restrict same-sex marriages.

This should be fun.

Persuasive pressure by other commonwealth countries is crushing.

The high court cannot be aware of the decisions in Canada and South Africa, and the legislation passed in New Zealand and England, and Scotland already by its first reading, and conclude that Australia is not seriously backwards on same sex marriage.

 

[Kulindahr]

Persuasive pressure by other commonwealth countries is crushing.

The high court cannot be aware of the decisions in Canada and South Africa, and the legislation passed in New Zealand and England, and Scotland already by its first reading, and conclude that Australia is not seriously backwards on same sex marriage.

How much weight does other Commonwealth practice have?

 

[Alnitak]

How much weight does other Commonwealth practice have?

I consulted a UK legal encyclopedia, which seems to confirm the general assumption that the commonwealth countries are persuasive towards each other. When that is five against one, I think the odds are pretty well stacked.

Decisions of courts in other countries

This particulary applies to Commonwealth countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada as their legal systems have evolved in a very similar way to our own.

http://www.lawmentor.co.uk/glossary/P/persuasive-precedent/

And here is a quote from an article about foreign precedent.

[Professor] Worthington explains that "Australia still looks to the UK, New Zealand and Canada... which reflects the feelings of cultural similarities... arguments referencing those three are very common..."

http://www.justis.com/news/articles/news-all-story-2.pdf

 

[Alnitak]

Mexican PDR senator will introduce a marriage bill in the Senate.

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/mexican-senator-seeks-allow-same-sex-marriage-nationally041213

Success all depends on the dominant and centrist PRI party, to which the current president also belongs. According to the link above, it has no public position as of yet, although the president has previously said the issue is one of states rights.

 

[scream4ever]

Mexico would be a huge victory population-wise. If the Supreme Court carries any sway it should pass.

 

[Kulindahr]

Mexican PDR senator will introduce a marriage bill in the Senate.

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/mexican-senator-seeks-allow-same-sex-marriage-nationally041213

Success all depends on the dominant and centrist PRI party, to which the current president also belongs. According to the link above, it has no public position as of yet, although the president has previously said the issue is one of states rights.

PRI, long the sole party in Mexico, won't take a position unless they think not doing so will cost them electorally.

 

[Alnitak]

A hearing on summary judgment was held in Utah today over its marriage case.

The judge is an Obama appointee with a reputation for being a straight shooter apparently.

A ruling on summary judgment is expected by January when a trial date could be set as well.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/challenge-utahs-sex-marriage-ban-21091519

 

[Alnitak]

No court dates planned until Utah's scheduling conference on January 7th.

Some of the outstanding actions we are waiting for are summary judgment rulings in Utah and Virginia, and the written opinion in New Mexico. The last two could come at any moment of any day now.

Meanwhile, Tim Huelskamp's threat to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment to the states after the Windsor decision has but 57 cosponsors, and not even a quarter of House Republicans.

 

[Alnitak]

Oregon technically has the required number of signatures, but activists will continue collecting signatures until a comfortable margin is reached. No worries, they are due by the summer and the 116K already collected has been done in the last four months.

Oregon Campaign For Gay Marriage Hits Signature Goal

 

[Kulindahr]

Oregon technically has the required number of signatures, but activists will continue collecting signatures until a comfortable margin is reached. No worries, they are due by the summer and the 116K already collected has been done in the last four months.

Oregon Campaign For Gay Marriage Hits Signature Goal

As long as the bigots didn't encourage people to sign with false information... If that sort of tactic is suspected, it's best to shoot for 20% over the requirement, so challenged signatures become irrelevant. But a the rate they're going, my guess is they'll be turning in over a quarter million signatures by the deadline.

 

[Alnitak]

As long as the bigots didn't encourage people to sign with false information... If that sort of tactic is suspected, it's best to shoot for 20% over the requirement, so challenged signatures become irrelevant. But a the rate they're going, my guess is they'll be turning in over a quarter million signatures by the deadline.

It's against the law in Maryland to commit election fraud or tamper with petitions, and I'm sure it's the same in Oregon. In any event, they will shoot for as many as they can get. There are plenty of volunteers.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's against the law in Maryland to commit election fraud or tamper with petitions, and I'm sure it's the same in Oregon. In any event, they will shoot for as many as they can get. There are plenty of volunteers.

Oh, it's against the law, but all they have to really do is switch two digits in their address, or "forget" one, and the signature is thrown out if challenged. It's a nasty tactic, though not likely to account for more than ten percent of signers.

I suppose I've been torquing the law when I filled in everything about a friend except his signature and then handing the form to him to sign, without telling him what it was -- but then my argument always is, "You don't have to support it, you just have to believe people should have a chance to vote on it".

 

[Ninja108]

I do believe the bigots believe they are going to lose in Oregon,hence the reason they're trying to put a bill on the ballot that will allow vendors engaged in commercial business the right to refuse gay and lesbian couples on religious grounds.
If you read the bill,it's unconstitutional on its face as it applies to gays and lesbians couples and them alone.

 

[scream4ever]

I do believe the bigots believe they are going to lose in Oregon,hence the reason they're trying to put a bill on the ballot that will allow vendors engaged in commercial business the right to refuse gay and lesbian couples on religious grounds.
If you read the bill,it's unconstitutional on its face as it applies to gays and lesbians couples and them alone.

The funny thing about this attempt is that it's likely to increase support for our measure in the end, and indeed will be struck down swiftly if the recent ruling from Colorado is any indication.

 

[Kulindahr]

I do believe the bigots believe they are going to lose in Oregon,hence the reason they're trying to put a bill on the ballot that will allow vendors engaged in commercial business the right to refuse gay and lesbian couples on religious grounds.
If you read the bill,it's unconstitutional on its face as it applies to gays and lesbians couples and them alone.

These people are just like Wayne LaPierre, now -- they don't care, so long as they keep the money flowing, which they do by making people afraid.

There's a chance that measure may not make it to the ballot -- IIRC, a measure can be challenged as blatantly unconstitutional and taken to the courts before the state wastes money putting it before the voters.

 

[Alnitak]

IIRC, a measure can be challenged as blatantly unconstitutional and taken to the courts before the state wastes money putting it before the voters.

Even then it's a long shot to keep a referendum off the ballot. Most successful challenges have occurred where the wording was confusing or misleading, "unlawfully vague," or because they relied on some legal fiction. More successful lawsuits come after the fact when there is an actual legal injury. Anyway, direct state democracy is really a flawed style of governing, and expensive. California leads the nation in pricey ballot initiatives that were later thrown out by federal court.

 

[Kulindahr]

Even then it's a long shot to keep a referendum off the ballot. Most successful challenges have occurred where the wording was confusing or misleading, "unlawfully vague," or because they relied on some legal fiction. More successful lawsuits come after the fact when there is an actual legal injury. Anyway, direct state democracy is really a flawed style of governing, and expensive. California leads the nation in pricey ballot initiatives that were later thrown out by federal court.

I'm always amused by Democrats saying that.

Actually, in Oregon I think having that process has made politicians pay a little more attention to the people.

 

[Alnitak]

I'm always amused by Democrats saying that.

Mob rule is flawed, sorry. You have no protection from demagoguery. Anyone, including some of the most malicious corporations and conservative groups, with misleading ads can enact any dangerous legislation they want.

Actually, in Oregon I think having that process has made politicians pay a little more attention to the people.

I know. Our politicians are constantly "campaigning" while in office and getting nothing practical done, just more soundbites for the media.