SCOTAL Itch

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by erimir

I don't think Angakuk was being very serious. That would be uncharacteristic anyhow.

I was going to include something about being a slave of the state, but I thought that might be going a little over the top. Even for me.

However, I am serious about thinking that it would be better if there were a much clearer distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

Chuck isn't this a little different?

I mean if you practiced shariah law it would be the same.

But notaries are for official documents and often there is a charge. You don't get stuff notarized for fun or because of your religion.

People get all kinds of stuff notarized, and who are you to inquire into their motives? Notaries are just a mechanism to avoid evidentiary squabbles over the authenticity of signatures. I think getting stuff notarized is kind of fun.

Here, there is a religious ceremony which could be separate from the civil paperwork but is combined.

They can be easily separated at any time at the election of the marriageable couple or the officiant. The paperwork does not require the ceremony and the ceremony does not require the paperwork; overlap between the two is entirely optional.

It is not my fault that the State of Iowa doesn't think Angakuk is weird enough to be exempt from filling out its onerous forms.

[beyelzu]

Well, that's a solution we can all get behind.

Ang, just weird the fuck up. Do unironic princess bride only vows or perhaps fire exchange like in Krull.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Chuck

The paperwork does not require the ceremony and the ceremony does not require the paperwork; overlap between the two is entirely optional.

Is it?

Why must the contract be officiated or solemnized at all? Why not simply file the marriage license and you are married?

Are there any states that don't require some functionary to oversee your union? Why aren't the signatures on the form at the clerks office enough? Get them notarized if there is a worry about fraud.

There have been court cases about who can solemnize, which is just boggling. http://www.abajournal.com/news/artic...diana_7th_cir/

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Is it?

You omitted some key context:

Originally Posted by beyelzu

Here, there is a religious ceremony which could be separate from the civil paperwork but is combined.

The paperwork does not require the religious ceremony and the religious ceremony does not require the paperwork; overlap between the two is entirely optional.

Why must the contract be officiated or solemnized at all? Why not simply file the marriage license and you are married?

Because the license is not the contract - it is a license to enter into a state-recognized contract. The purpose of the person solemnizing the marriage is to administer a public oath and examine the parties to ascertain that they are eligible for civil marriage pursuant to applicable law, e.g. are you over 18, are you already married, etc. When you apply for a marriage license, you usually fill out an affidavit to this effect, which the solemnizing official reviews. They can also examine the parties seeking to be married by asking them questions. Solemnization finds particular facts that are of legal importance. This serves an evidentiary purpose as to the presumptive validity of the marriage - a third party authorized to do so by statute ascertains that the parties are entering into the agreement by mutual consent. It's basically what a notary does with signatures, except for marriage. If there are questions as to the validity or the marriage, the court can refer to the marriage certificate, or ask the person who signed it (or the witnesses, where required by law). Marriage is a pretty big deal, and having this kind of evidence resolves a lot of potential legal squabbles about the validity of a marriage before they can ever come up. It's kind of like how having your will notarized and witnessed with a self-proving affidavit is strong (but not necessarily conclusive) evidence that the will is valid.

Are there any states that don't require some functionary to oversee your union?

Sure. Common law marriage jurisdictions. You can kind of do this in Pennsylvania, but you still need witnesses.

Why aren't the signatures on the form at the clerks office enough?

Like on the marriage license application? Because that is not a marriage contract - it's a an application for a marriage license. (But the clerk can marry you right there.)

Get them notarized if there is a worry about fraud.

Getting them notarized would not really do much about fraud - it would just tend to show that the persons signing the document are who they claim to be. It would not tend to show that the parties are eligible to be married according to the law in that jurisdiction. But notaries can solemnize marriages in some states.

There have been court cases about who can solemnize, which is just boggling. http://www.abajournal.com/news/artic...diana_7th_cir/

I am 100% on board with getting religion out of marriage. And everything else.

[Dingfod]

Common law marriages in Oklahoma are easy peasy. If you cohabitate and represent yourselves as married, have a joint bank account or file taxes jointly, you are married in the eyes of Okie law, no waiting period, no blood tests, no preacher, no courthouse, and no papers required, though an affidavit of said relationship is recommended.

[Watser?]

I've been married to some roommates then.

[Janet]

Michigan doesn't have common-law marriage. So my brother isn't married even though he's been living with his girlfriend for over fifteen years now.

[Crumb]

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Supreme Court...

[Stephen Maturin]

And here it is, the first ever U.S. Court of Appeals decision holding that same-sex marriage bans are constitutionally A-OK. Feel free to skip to Judge Daughtrey's dissent, which starts on page 53 of the pdf and is masterful in every respect.

Here's yet another example of how a president can fuck you over long after leaving office. George W. Needledick "won" the presidency in 2000 and nominated Deborah Cook to an open seat on the Sixth Circuit in 2001. On hearing that news I jumped up, let out a "fuck yeah" and did a little dance in my office. The prospect of Cook being a federal court of appeals judge wasn't at all joyous, but I was deliriously happy that she'd no longer be fucking over our clients and similarly situated people from her seat on the Ohio Supreme Court. She provided the second vote for upholding same-sex marriage bans in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.

The ACLU, which represents many of the plaintiffs in these cases, will petition for Supreme Court review "right away." Since we now have conflicting court of appeals decisions, the odds of SCOTUS granting review are increased. It's possible (though not likely) that the case could be accepted for review and decided this term.

[The Man]

Just in case it hasn't been said enough yet (it can't be said enough): Fuck the Supreme Court.

Earlier this year, I argued that 9CA was right to interpret the Fair Labor Standards Act as requiring employers to compensate employees for mandatory security checks. This being the Roberts Court, it took them less than two months to unanimously conclude otherwise. The Sotomayor concurrence (joined by Kagan) suggests that the Obama administration siding with the employers helped foster the unanimity, although the workers were obviously drawing dead when it comes to securing a majority.

This is a statutory interpretation case, so Congress could step in and protect the worke….sorry, probably too soon for black humor.

…[Erik] It’s also worth noting how pervasive this sort of unpaid labor was in the early 20th century and it’s centrality to union campaigns at that time. The Triangle workers had to go through these checks to make sure they weren’t stealing. Loggers had to walk from the logging camp to the logging site without pay. Miners had to timber their own mines so they wouldn’t collapse on them–on their own time. All of these workers fought to end these injustices through their union campaigns and union contracts. Reinforcing the ability of employers to force workers to do things like this without pay is a real step back toward those principles of the Gilded Age. That it is a 9-0 decision really reinforces how far the ideology of employer domination over workers has come in this country and how far we have to go to turn this nation back toward one where workers and their time and their dignity is respected.

Check the link for more.

[Stephen Maturin]

This guy is pretty sure the government will win King v. Burwell, perhaps even by a 6-3 margin. I'm not so optimistic, but I hope he's right. A government win would preserve what's arguably the most essential part of Obamacare. Beyond that, a government win would generate a Scalia dissent featuring vitriol and lofty rhetorical excesses the likes of which would make even Thomas say, "Jeez, breh, tone it down."

The same sex marriage cases are set for 2.5 hours of oral argument on April 28. The parties' briefs are available here and the many fucktons of amicus briefs are available here.

[Stephen Maturin]

Here's a terrific summary of each and every amicus brief (all 139 of 'em ) filed in the same-sex marriage cases courtesy of lawprof Ruthann Robson. If you want to get directly to the lulz -- and really, who doesn't -- feel free to scroll down to the amicus briefs filed by individuals in support of same-sex marriage bans.

[LadyShea]

The Amici argue that the Court’s ruling will have a significant impact on religious organizations’ ability to carry out its mission unless there are religious liberty protections. It argues that should the Court recognize a right to marriage for same-sex couples, such ruling should include religious exemptions for people with an objection to same-sex marriage grounded in a religious belief.

Exemptions from what? Getting gay married?

Do they think that marriage equality will require churches to perform or host weddings, because churches refuse to marry people on various religious grounds all the time.

[LadyShea]

Since marriage is not remotely required for procreation (lol at "marriage is fundamentally the union between one man and one woman based on the immutable facts of biology") divorce is perfectly legal, women can inherit, vote, and own property etc. in their own name, adoption is legal, and we no longer have bastard laws, I am confused by all the arguments about children.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Exemptions from what? Getting gay married?

Here's the amicus brief in question. The meat of it starts on page 21. Basically:

1. Religious people are special snowflakes. Says so right in the Constitution.
2. A wide variety of laws recognize the special snowflake status of religious folk by exempting them from stuff that everyone else has to do.
3. If you wanna say that laws excluding the homos from marriage are unconstitutional, hey, whatever. But you'd better say it in a way that preserves every last little bit of our special snowflake status.

Essentially, they want exemption from anti-discrimination laws. They want to hang onto existing state and tax exemptions. They don't want anti-gay policies or practices to preclude them from accessing public facilities, obtaining public contracts or getting licensed or accredited. And naturally, they never, ever want to be defendants in a civil anti-discrimination lawsuit.

They're worried that a holding striking down same-sex marriage bans will be based in part on a determination that such bans are a form of state-sanctioned invidious discrimination.

In that regard, lol@pages 9-10, where we read that "[l]ower courts will likely split on whether longstanding religious practices constitutes prima facie evidence of anti-gay discrimination, instead of what they are: sincere expressions of religious belief." As if those are mutually exclusive.

[LadyShea]

So there were some arguments made today about some marriage shit or something. Just FYI in case you didn't know

[SR71]

I looked a way for a minute. Did we get the punch line yet for the Obamacare being functionally gutted deal over the wording about the federal government setting up Health Care Exchanges in lieu of state governments setting up Health Care Exchanges?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So there were some arguments made today about some marriage shit or something. Just FYI in case you didn't know

Indeed there were! Transcript and audio for the argument on the constitutionality of het-only marriage are available here. Same stuff for the argument on the interstate recognition issue is here.

Some old white dude got hauled out of the courtroom while screaming about how homosexuality is an abomination. Scalia described the incident as "refreshing."

The main takeaways seem to be: (1) the equal protection issue will be 5-4, and who wins is anyone's guess; (2) the interstate recognition issue looks like a win for the good guys; and (3) Justice Ginsburg, a little old lady who talks kinda funny, can still throw down.

Originally Posted by SR71

I looked a way for a minute. Did we get the punch line yet for the Obamacare being functionally gutted deal over the wording about the federal government setting up Health Care Exchanges in lieu of state governments setting up Health Care Exchanges?

Not yet. Wouldn't be surprised if they make us wait until the last week of June for that one.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Indeed there were! Transcript and audio for the argument on the constitutionality of het-only marriage are available here. Same stuff for the argument on the interstate recognition issue is here.

Roberts and Scalia (R-Vatican City) love them some hypotheticals, the tl;dr summum genus of which seems* to be "Suppose we were to make this obviously correct ruling in your favour; wouldn't legacy bigots then have to give up some of their legacy bigotry?" And Plaintiffs' counsel then trying unconvincingly to weasel out of just answering "Well, fuck yeah, fucking obviously," because this would send commentators into a FEMA-Camp Death-Panel frenzy and provoke full-blown stigmata in Scalia on the spot.

*seems, because, seriously, tl;dr

[Stephen Maturin]

My personal favorite was Alito's "Geez, breh, there were fgts in ancient Greece and het-only marriage in ancient Greece and Plato wrote approvingly about fgts therefore het-only marriage is totes nondiscriminatory."

show spoiler

You know something truly special is in the offing when transcripts of U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments start reading like some dumbfuck Mississippi stump jumper's Twitter account.

[ChuckF]

I was persuaded by the power of Michigan's argument against the constitutionality of divorce.

[LadyShea]

Right? Most of the anti arguments used are equally applicable to divorce

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

My personal favorite was Alito's "Geez, breh, there were fgts in ancient Greece and het-only marriage in ancient Greece and Plato wrote approvingly about fgts therefore het-only marriage is totes nondiscriminatory."

show spoiler

You know something truly special is in the offing when transcripts of U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments start reading like some dumbfuck Mississippi stump jumper's Twitter account.

"Some Dumbfuck Mississippi Stump Jumper's Twitter Account" would make an awesome name for an actual Twitter account, particularly if the author were not using the title ironically, but really was a hee-hawing southern-fried fuck face.

I wonder if someday a "Dumbfuck Mississippi Stump Jumper" smilie could join the horde.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Right? Most of the anti arguments used are equally applicable to divorce

Yeah I was a little surprised at how unforceful the argument against sounded at oral. I used to think it was a little unfair (just a little) to characterize it as "straight people might love their children less if gheys get married" but after I heard that guy said it out loud, I realize that is totally what it is. The whole thing about the state's interest in marriage having to do with binding parents to their children is pretty weak what with (a) people being able to get divorced nowadays and (b) all those gay people parenting kids but not able to get married. Sort of weird to punish adopted children by denying their parents access to this institution that apparently exists mainly for that purpose - that is probably why Michigan kept repeating "biological children."

All the weirdo ancient Greece dick-touching and creepy incest-y innuendo aside, I thought the weirdest part of oral arguments was the part where Michigan started going on about how marriage isn't intended to be a dignitary institution, because it's not like any woman has ever been called a whore for having a child out of wedlock or anything amirite. Of course they have to assert this because Kennedy really doesn't like excluding classes of people from dignifying institutions just because. But it still sounds goofy when you say it out loud.

Also notable that they basically pinned their hopes on basically unadulterated rational basis review for the equal protection dimension. They barely nibbled at the edges of some kind of heightened scrutiny, but in a weird and incomplete way (i.e. a marriage ban might survived some heightened scrutiny because straight people who get married and think they can't have kids might actually wind up having kids - I didn't quite follow it either.) It's notable because the kind of deference they're looking for and need wasn't applied in Lawrence, or Windsor, and probably not even Romer, to say nothing of Loving, Zablocki, or Turner.

Whatever they briefed on, the main thing that came through at oral arguments seemed to be that Michigan is leaning hard on Glucksberg and a due process argument, but not really up to the heavy lifting of explaining away Loving and a whole bunch of fundamental rights-speak to clarify how ghey marriage is more like assisted suicide than the state forbidding two people from getting married because of who they are.