Gay marriage (2 Viewers)

[Henry Ford]

The really neat thing is that, as some of the guests on TV have pointed out, there is a sense of inevitability here. The opponents to gay marriage really have no credible argument remaining. I think we are witnessing something momentous this week: the beginning of the end to the last remaining major discrimination in this country.

I'm a big fan of marriage equality, but I'd caution you against referring to anything as the 'last major discrimination' in a country which failed to raitify the Equal Rights Amendment and still pays women a fraction of what men make. Among other things.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The really neat thing is that, as some of the guests on TV have pointed out, there is a sense of inevitability here. The opponents to gay marriage really have no credible argument remaining. I think we are witnessing something momentous this week: the beginning of the end to the last remaining major discrimination in this country.

I'm a big fan of marriage equality, but I'd caution you against referring to anything as the 'last major discrimination' in a country which failed to raitify the Equal Rights Amendment and still pays women a fraction of what men make. Among other things.

Wage discrimination by gender is nearly nonexistent. The large majority of the wage gap is explained by stuff like career choice, level of education, labor market experience, etc. And it's also unwarranted to automatically assume that the unexplained portion of the gap must be due to discrimination -- the unexplained portion of the wage gap is at best an upper bound on how bad discrimination might be.Edit: Also, if you've been in the same area code as a university recently, you know that young women have clearly overtaken young men in terms of higher education. The ERA and pay inequality were issues from 30 years ago. It's a very different world today.

 

[jason12vb]

I couldn't keep reading this...don't want to waste any more time than I already have fighting the "I'm not the one who's close-minded" argument.

I'm for, my best friend is against, and Peens reminds me of him. Our final discussion on the topic was when I realized my efforts were futile because he likened the gay marriage movement to slavery and women's rights. Things that were one day blasphemous, today we look back and cannot believe how crazy it was to discriminate against such a large percent of the population .

I will fight for what I believe in, and this is important to me, but there's a point where you just have to accept that time is the only thing that's going to change some people's minds. I'm straight, engaged, and wondering if there's anything we can do to strip the word marriage from anything related to our union.

 

[NCCommish]

The really neat thing is that, as some of the guests on TV have pointed out, there is a sense of inevitability here. The opponents to gay marriage really have no credible argument remaining. I think we are witnessing something momentous this week: the beginning of the end to the last remaining major discrimination in this country.

I'm a big fan of marriage equality, but I'd caution you against referring to anything as the 'last major discrimination' in a country which failed to raitify the Equal Rights Amendment and still pays women a fraction of what men make. Among other things.

Wage discrimination by gender is nearly nonexistent. The large majority of the wage gap is explained by stuff like career choice, level of education, labor market experience, etc. And it's also unwarranted to automatically assume that the unexplained portion of the gap must be due to discrimination -- the unexplained portion of the wage gap is at best an upper bound on how bad discrimination might be.Edit: Also, if you've been in the same area code as a university recently, you know that young women have clearly overtaken young men in terms of higher education. The ERA and pay inequality were issues from 30 years ago. It's a very different world today.

There is roughly a 10% difference in men and women's pay for the same job even when you try to factor out all that other stuff. And it should be mentioned that studies have found women are discriminated against at hiring time. For instance one study used restaurants in the Philly area looking for waitstaff. In the higher paying places they were much less likely to even accept a woman's application and that certainly cut down on the call backs as well.So probably too early to call an end to discrimination against women in the workplace.

 

[Henry Ford]

The really neat thing is that, as some of the guests on TV have pointed out, there is a sense of inevitability here. The opponents to gay marriage really have no credible argument remaining. I think we are witnessing something momentous this week: the beginning of the end to the last remaining major discrimination in this country.

I'm a big fan of marriage equality, but I'd caution you against referring to anything as the 'last major discrimination' in a country which failed to raitify the Equal Rights Amendment and still pays women a fraction of what men make. Among other things.

Wage discrimination by gender is nearly nonexistent. The large majority of the wage gap is explained by stuff like career choice, level of education, labor market experience, etc. And it's also unwarranted to automatically assume that the unexplained portion of the gap must be due to discrimination -- the unexplained portion of the wage gap is at best an upper bound on how bad discrimination might be.

I'm fairly certain I've heard this before. Maybe it was one of Wal-Mart's arguments during the attempt to dismiss the lawsuit by thousands of their female employees. They didn't do very well with that argument. Primarily because it doesn't account for the $.21 on the dollar that women are paid less than men for the same job, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's study which concluded less than two years ago.

Edit: Also, if you've been in the same area code as a university recently, you know that young women have clearly overtaken young men in terms of higher education. The ERA and pay inequality were issues from 30 years ago. It's a very different world today.

Women are about twice as likely to work for minimum wage as men are. Reconcile for me the fact that women are more educated and more likely to earn minimum wage. I'll hang up and listen.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The really neat thing is that, as some of the guests on TV have pointed out, there is a sense of inevitability here. The opponents to gay marriage really have no credible argument remaining. I think we are witnessing something momentous this week: the beginning of the end to the last remaining major discrimination in this country.

I'm a big fan of marriage equality, but I'd caution you against referring to anything as the 'last major discrimination' in a country which failed to raitify the Equal Rights Amendment and still pays women a fraction of what men make. Among other things.

Wage discrimination by gender is nearly nonexistent. The large majority of the wage gap is explained by stuff like career choice, level of education, labor market experience, etc. And it's also unwarranted to automatically assume that the unexplained portion of the gap must be due to discrimination -- the unexplained portion of the wage gap is at best an upper bound on how bad discrimination might be.Edit: Also, if you've been in the same area code as a university recently, you know that young women have clearly overtaken young men in terms of higher education. The ERA and pay inequality were issues from 30 years ago. It's a very different world today.

There is roughly a 10% difference in men and women's pay for the same job even when you try to factor out all that other stuff. And it should be mentioned that studies have found women are discriminated against at hiring time. For instance one study used restaurants in the Philly area looking for waitstaff. In the higher paying places they were much less likely to even accept a woman's application and that certainly cut down on the call backs as well.So probably too early to call an end to discrimination against women in the workplace.

10% is a little high, but more important is

And it's also unwarranted to automatically assume that the unexplained portion of the gap must be due to discrimination -- the unexplained portion of the wage gap is at best an upper bound on how bad discrimination might be.

There's a lot of sociological stuff going on behind why men and women pursue the career paths that they do. Saying something along the lines of "Oh there's 10% of the wage gap that's unexplained by other quantifiable factors, so that must be discrimination" isn't a good approach to interpreting what these numbers mean.Edit: Also, wage discrimination is one of the most well-studied topics in labor economics. There are literally hundreds of papers on this issue. Citing just one as if it particularly settled the issue isn't very helpful.

 

[Henry Ford]

The really neat thing is that, as some of the guests on TV have pointed out, there is a sense of inevitability here. The opponents to gay marriage really have no credible argument remaining. I think we are witnessing something momentous this week: the beginning of the end to the last remaining major discrimination in this country.

I'm a big fan of marriage equality, but I'd caution you against referring to anything as the 'last major discrimination' in a country which failed to raitify the Equal Rights Amendment and still pays women a fraction of what men make. Among other things.

Wage discrimination by gender is nearly nonexistent. The large majority of the wage gap is explained by stuff like career choice, level of education, labor market experience, etc. And it's also unwarranted to automatically assume that the unexplained portion of the gap must be due to discrimination -- the unexplained portion of the wage gap is at best an upper bound on how bad discrimination might be.Edit: Also, if you've been in the same area code as a university recently, you know that young women have clearly overtaken young men in terms of higher education. The ERA and pay inequality were issues from 30 years ago. It's a very different world today.

There is roughly a 10% difference in men and women's pay for the same job even when you try to factor out all that other stuff. And it should be mentioned that studies have found women are discriminated against at hiring time. For instance one study used restaurants in the Philly area looking for waitstaff. In the higher paying places they were much less likely to even accept a woman's application and that certainly cut down on the call backs as well.So probably too early to call an end to discrimination against women in the workplace.

10% is a little high, but more important is

And it's also unwarranted to automatically assume that the unexplained portion of the gap must be due to discrimination -- the unexplained portion of the wage gap is at best an upper bound on how bad discrimination might be.

There's a lot of sociological stuff going on behind why men and women pursue the career paths that they do. Saying something along the lines of "Oh there's 10% of the wage gap that's unexplained by other quantifiable factors, so that must be discrimination" isn't a good approach to interpreting what these numbers mean.

As everyone's does, my personal and professional experience colors my world view significantly. I sue employers for gender discrimination, and I promise you that there's a lot going on in a lot of businesses.

 

[jason12vb]

I haven't thought about it before (I'm sure someone else has), but maybe we need to attack this problem from the other side. Maybe marriage should be defined as a religious thing and have nothing to do with governmental policies. Maybe we should all just be civil-unions and allow religions to control their own followers and determine who is worthy/right/holy enough for the title of marriage. If we devalue the term marriage and place more value on the term union wouldn't that make everyone happier (not going to say happy)? The main opposition from the religious nuts is that it's tainting the word marriage..why does the government need to use that word...why do they need to even acknowledge it?

- Religions are then free to define it whatever way they want without government interference.

- Governmental Reps aren't pressured by groups or motivated by their religious beliefs.

- People denied a marriage ceremony by their religion are free to leave that denomination and chose one which will accept them (or none)...and still be allowed the same governmental rights as anyone else through governmental union.

- Everyone is equal.

A religious marriage certificate would be meaningless when applying for a civil-union. It would merely just be a religious title that gives you no governmental benefits or rights....no different than a Bah Mitzvah or Confirmation, just a religious right of passage.

Obviously this still leaves the door open for other questions about who can be joined via a civil union (groups, man/animal, man/object, etc)...but those are tangential and might still be easier to come to terms on without religion coming into play (what am I saying, the righteous will always stick their head into other people's business).

I think I'm going to talk to my fiance about this tonight...not sure if our invites reference the word married or marriage...but I might be willing to pay the money to have them reprinted to change it to union. If marriage is a religious term, I don't really want to continue supporting it.

 

[Henry Ford]

I haven't thought about it before (I'm sure someone else has), but maybe we need to attack this problem from the other side. Maybe marriage should be defined as a religious thing and have nothing to do with governmental policies. Maybe we should all just be civil-unions and allow religions to control their own followers and determine who is worthy/right/holy enough for the title of marriage. If we devalue the term marriage and place more value on the term union wouldn't that make everyone happier (not going to say happy)? The main opposition from the religious nuts is that it's tainting the word marriage..why does the government need to use that word?

- Religions are then free to define it whatever way they want without government interference.

- Governmental Reps aren't pressured by groups or motivated by their religious beliefs.

- People denied a marriage ceremony by their religion are free to leave that denomination and chose one which will accept them (or none)...and still be allowed the same governmental rights as anyone else through governmental union.

- Everyone is equal.

A religious marriage certificate would be meaningless when applying for a civil-union. It would merely just be a religious title that gives you no governmental benefits or rights....no different than a Bah Mitzvah or Confirmation, just a religious right of passage.

Obviously this still leaves the door open for other questions about who can be joined via a civil union (groups, man/animal, man/object, etc)...but those are tangential and might still be easier to come to terms on without religion coming into play (what am I saying, the righteous will always stick their head into other people's business).

I think I'm going to talk to my fiance about this tonight...not sure if our invites reference the word married or marriage...but I might be willing to pay the money to have them reprinted to change it to union. If marriage is a religious term, I don't really want to continue supporting it.

The church doesn't get to own the word "marriage" just because they want to. The law is pretty clear - it is the government which gets to define the status of its citizens, not any church. I'd say a more worthwhile protest would be to have a non-religious official oversee your wedding, and use the word marriage as you'd like.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I haven't thought about it before (I'm sure someone else has), but maybe we need to attack this problem from the other side. Maybe marriage should be defined as a religious thing and have nothing to do with governmental policies. Maybe we should all just be civil-unions and allow religions to control their own followers and determine who is worthy/right/holy enough for the title of marriage.

This topic has come up a bunch of times. It boils down to the fact that when people use the term "marriage," sometimes they mean a civil union and sometimes they mean a religious sacrament. It's not worth the hassle of ripping up what we currently do just to add another word to describe the first type of marriage. If we were designing the entire institution from scratch, then yeah the civil union / marriage distinction would be a good approach IMO, it's not an important enough distinction to worry about given the way the law is already written.

 

[bigbottom]

As everyone's does, my personal and professional experience colors my world view significantly. I sue employers for gender discrimination, and I promise you that there's a lot going on in a lot of businesses.

About time we got a plaintiff's employment lawyer in here. Welcome.

 

[Henry Ford]

As everyone's does, my personal and professional experience colors my world view significantly. I sue employers for gender discrimination, and I promise you that there's a lot going on in a lot of businesses.

About time we got a plaintiff's employment lawyer in here. Welcome.

Thanks. It's only about 20% of my practice, but it's definitely the kind of thing that makes me want to stab managers of chain stores.

 

[roadkill1292]

What marital rights exactly do opponents of SSM not want gay people to have? To file joint tax returns? Make medical decisions on behalf of their partners? Get on their partners' insurance plans? Spell it out for me here.

 

[Henry Ford]

As everyone's does, my personal and professional experience colors my world view significantly. I sue employers for gender discrimination, and I promise you that there's a lot going on in a lot of businesses.

About time we got a plaintiff's employment lawyer in here. Welcome.

Wait, are you a defense attorney? Because you seem too reasonable for that. Is this what defense attorneys are like when they aren't representing a bag of ####s who's trying to ruin a plaintiff's life?Edit: I hope it's clear that I'm joking.

 

[Henry Ford]

What marital rights exactly do opponents of SSM not want gay people to have? To file joint tax returns? Make medical decisions on behalf of their partners? Get on their partners' insurance plans? Spell it out for me here.

Lots of them just don't want gay people to be allowed to use the word marriage.But yes, some people seem very invested in making sure that the church has sway over who gets to file joint tax returns and inherit property.

 

[timschochet]

What marital rights exactly do opponents of SSM not want gay people to have? To file joint tax returns? Make medical decisions on behalf of their partners? Get on their partners' insurance plans? Spell it out for me here.

One issue they repeatedly bring up is that churches could lose their tax-exempt status if they refuse to marry gay couples.

 

[roadkill1292]

What marital rights exactly do opponents of SSM not want gay people to have? To file joint tax returns? Make medical decisions on behalf of their partners? Get on their partners' insurance plans? Spell it out for me here.

One issue they repeatedly bring up is that churches could lose their tax-exempt status if they refuse to marry gay couples.

Listen up, dummies: we can't and won't make churches marry gay couples. What else they got?

 

[timschochet]

Related to my last post, here is an excerpt from an opinion piece today by a rabbi who is in favor of civil unions but concerned about the effect legalizing gay marriages would have on religious institutions:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/24/opinion/stern-gay-marriage/index.html?hpt=op_t1

Among other likely questions that will arise are these:

-- Must rabbis, priests and pastors provide religious marriage counseling to same-sex couples?

-- Must religious colleges provide married-student housing to same-sex couples?

-- Must churches and synagogues employ spouses who are in same-sex marriages, even though such employees would be persistently and publicly flouting the religious teachings they would be hired to promote?

-- Must religious social service agencies place children for adoption with same-sex couples? Already, Catholic Charities in Illinois, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia have closed their adoption units because of this issue.

Resolving these conflicts will not be easy. In some instances the rights of same-sex couples will unavoidably trump religious liberty rights -- for example, the much discussed question of visits to spouses in intensive care units. But there will be cases where religious liberty will trump, and same-sex couples will have to accept the reality that not everyone accepts their relationships as legitimate. This, too, is a price to be paid for religious liberty.

 

[jason12vb]

I haven't thought about it before (I'm sure someone else has), but maybe we need to attack this problem from the other side. Maybe marriage should be defined as a religious thing and have nothing to do with governmental policies. Maybe we should all just be civil-unions and allow religions to control their own followers and determine who is worthy/right/holy enough for the title of marriage.

This topic has come up a bunch of times. It boils down to the fact that when people use the term "marriage," sometimes they mean a civil union and sometimes they mean a religious sacrament. It's not worth the hassle of ripping up what we currently do just to add another word to describe the first type of marriage. If we were designing the entire institution from scratch, then yeah the civil union / marriage distinction would be a good approach IMO, it's not an important enough distinction to worry about given the way the law is already written.

I don't think i agree with you that it's not an important enough distinction. We have come a long way in the last few years, but I feel like this argument is not going to die until those who seem to be constitutionally against it literally pass away. Bigots tend to bread bigots and as each generation passes we become more accepting of things. Those against it today are not going to be talked into changing their minds, for some reason they are just as passionate about denying people equality as those who are oppressed are about gaining it. If it takes another 20 years to change everything on our current path, is it really too much effort to change a word and definition in a few thousand documents in the name of equal rights?

 

[jason12vb]

I haven't thought about it before (I'm sure someone else has), but maybe we need to attack this problem from the other side. Maybe marriage should be defined as a religious thing and have nothing to do with governmental policies. Maybe we should all just be civil-unions and allow religions to control their own followers and determine who is worthy/right/holy enough for the title of marriage. If we devalue the term marriage and place more value on the term union wouldn't that make everyone happier (not going to say happy)? The main opposition from the religious nuts is that it's tainting the word marriage..why does the government need to use that word?

- Religions are then free to define it whatever way they want without government interference.

- Governmental Reps aren't pressured by groups or motivated by their religious beliefs.

- People denied a marriage ceremony by their religion are free to leave that denomination and chose one which will accept them (or none)...and still be allowed the same governmental rights as anyone else through governmental union.

- Everyone is equal.

A religious marriage certificate would be meaningless when applying for a civil-union. It would merely just be a religious title that gives you no governmental benefits or rights....no different than a Bah Mitzvah or Confirmation, just a religious right of passage.

Obviously this still leaves the door open for other questions about who can be joined via a civil union (groups, man/animal, man/object, etc)...but those are tangential and might still be easier to come to terms on without religion coming into play (what am I saying, the righteous will always stick their head into other people's business).

I think I'm going to talk to my fiance about this tonight...not sure if our invites reference the word married or marriage...but I might be willing to pay the money to have them reprinted to change it to union. If marriage is a religious term, I don't really want to continue supporting it.

The church doesn't get to own the word "marriage" just because they want to. The law is pretty clear - it is the government which gets to define the status of its citizens, not any church. I'd say a more worthwhile protest would be to have a non-religious official oversee your wedding, and use the word marriage as you'd like.

Sorry, but that seems as hard headed and closed minded as those who want to deny rights to gays. The church has the same view and doesn't think the government should be able to define the word either.

We do have a non-religious official overseeing our wedding...people are not going to know that though, so I fail to see how that is a protest or how it might get people thinking? If society has the power to change the definition of the word literally to mean practically...we should have the power to devalue the term marriage and attach a negative connotation to it to signify groups that wish to deny people equality.

 

[timschochet]

-- Must religious social service agencies place children for adoption with same-sex couples? Already, Catholic Charities in Illinois, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia have closed their adoption units because of this issue.

The fact that they closed down these units entirely, which probably did so much good over the years, just to avoid gay adoption sickens me. I understand that homosexuality is considered a sin in the Catholic Church and that's not going to change. But why do they emphasize it so? Why must these religions treat it as such an evil, just below murder and rape? I just don't get the obsession.

 

[Joe Summer]

-- Must religious social service agencies place children for adoption with same-sex couples? Already, Catholic Charities in Illinois, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia have closed their adoption units because of this issue.

The fact that they closed down these units entirely, which probably did so much good over the years, just to avoid gay adoption sickens me. I understand that homosexuality is considered a sin in the Catholic Church and that's not going to change. But why do they emphasize it so? Why must these religions treat it as such an evil, just below murder and rape? I just don't get the obsession.

"Just below?" I'm sure the Catholic Church has placed kids for adoption with murderers and rapists. God forgives all, you know.

 

[jason12vb]

-- Must religious social service agencies place children for adoption with same-sex couples? Already, Catholic Charities in Illinois, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia have closed their adoption units because of this issue.

The fact that they closed down these units entirely, which probably did so much good over the years, just to avoid gay adoption sickens me. I understand that homosexuality is considered a sin in the Catholic Church and that's not going to change. But why do they emphasize it so? Why must these religions treat it as such an evil, just below murder and rape? I just don't get the obsession.

"Just below?" I'm sure the Catholic Church has placed kids for adoption with murderers and rapists. God forgives all, you know.

I don't normally post "LOLs"...but that made me snicker...in a disgustingly funny and oh-so-true way. :/

 

[Henry Ford]

I haven't thought about it before (I'm sure someone else has), but maybe we need to attack this problem from the other side. Maybe marriage should be defined as a religious thing and have nothing to do with governmental policies. Maybe we should all just be civil-unions and allow religions to control their own followers and determine who is worthy/right/holy enough for the title of marriage. If we devalue the term marriage and place more value on the term union wouldn't that make everyone happier (not going to say happy)? The main opposition from the religious nuts is that it's tainting the word marriage..why does the government need to use that word?

- Religions are then free to define it whatever way they want without government interference.

- Governmental Reps aren't pressured by groups or motivated by their religious beliefs.

- People denied a marriage ceremony by their religion are free to leave that denomination and chose one which will accept them (or none)...and still be allowed the same governmental rights as anyone else through governmental union.

- Everyone is equal.

A religious marriage certificate would be meaningless when applying for a civil-union. It would merely just be a religious title that gives you no governmental benefits or rights....no different than a Bah Mitzvah or Confirmation, just a religious right of passage.

Obviously this still leaves the door open for other questions about who can be joined via a civil union (groups, man/animal, man/object, etc)...but those are tangential and might still be easier to come to terms on without religion coming into play (what am I saying, the righteous will always stick their head into other people's business).

I think I'm going to talk to my fiance about this tonight...not sure if our invites reference the word married or marriage...but I might be willing to pay the money to have them reprinted to change it to union. If marriage is a religious term, I don't really want to continue supporting it.

The church doesn't get to own the word "marriage" just because they want to. The law is pretty clear - it is the government which gets to define the status of its citizens, not any church. I'd say a more worthwhile protest would be to have a non-religious official oversee your wedding, and use the word marriage as you'd like.

Sorry, but that seems as hard headed and closed minded as those who want to deny rights to gays. The church has the same view and doesn't think the government should be able to define the word either.

Well, the church is wrong because there are laws about what defines marriage. It's definitely the purview of a government to determine the status of its citizens. No lie. Promise. Marriage in this country exists outside of the definitions that any single religion has placed on it.

We do have a non-religious official overseeing our wedding...people are not going to know that though, so I fail to see how that is a protest or how it might get people thinking? If society has the power to change the definition of the word literally to mean practically...we should have the power to devalue the term marriage and attach a negative connotation to it to signify groups that wish to deny people equality.

I guess you could, but I'm not sure why you'd want to. And it would probably take longer than getting marriage rights for gay people.

 

[beavers]

It is with mixed emotions, that I have decided to advocate for same sex divorce instead of marriage today.

Yay for same sex divorce!

PS. I am in the process of filing for a SS divorce with California.

 

[jon_mx]

Lots of drama queens on this issue.

 

[bigbottom]

Lots of drama queens on this issue.

I see what you did there.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Lots of drama queens on this issue.

I see what you did there.

I had the good fortune to find myself strolling past the Court about an hour ago. Kind of seemed like the queens and the drama queens were on opposite sides of the issue. Apparently a good number of people are under the impression that if we allow gays to marry, America will crumble into the sea within hours.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

It is with mixed emotions, that I have decided to advocate for same sex divorce instead of marriage today. Yay for same sex divorce!PS. I am in the process of filing for a SS divorce with California.

I had the good fortune to find myself strolling past the Court about an hour ago. Kind of seemed like the queens and the drama queens were on opposite sides of the issue. Apparently a good number of people are under the impression that if we allow gays to marry, America will crumble into the sea within hours.

As you can see, the lesbo's are already destroying the sanctity of marriage. THE HORROR!

 

[the moops]

Obviously this still leaves the door open for other questions about who can be joined via a civil union (groups, man/animal, man/object, etc)

Actually no, it doesn't leave the door open.

 

[Henry Ford]

Obviously this still leaves the door open for other questions about who can be joined via a civil union (groups, man/animal, man/object, etc)

Actually no, it doesn't leave the door open.

Sure, if two men want to enter into a consensual relationship and have it recognized by the state, why can't a man and a horse do the same thing? Or a man and a fleshlight?'

 

[jonboltz]

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/03/the-proposition-8-oral-argument/

The Proposition 8 oral argument

Much will be written about the Proposition 8 oral argument. The bottom line, in my opinion, is that the Court probably will not have the five votes necessary to get to any result at all, and almost certainly will not have five votes to decide the merits of whether Proposition 8 is constitutional.

Several Justices seriously doubt whether the petitioners defending Proposition 8 have “standing” to appeal the district court ruling invalidating the measure. These likely include not only more liberal members but also the Chief Justice. If standing is lacking, the Court would vacate the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

The Justices seem divided on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 on ideological lines, four to four – i.e., all the members other than Justice Kennedy. For the more liberal members of the Court, there was no clarity on how broadly they would rule.

But Justice Kennedy seemed very unlikely to provide either side with the fifth vote needed to prevail. He was deeply concerned with the wisdom of acting now when in his view the social science of the effects of same-sex marriage is uncertain because it is so new. He also noted the doubts about the petitioners’ standing. So his suggestion was that the case should be dismissed.

If those features of the oral argument hold up – and I think they will – then the Court’s ruling will take one of two forms. First, a majority (the Chief Justice plus the liberal members of the Court) could decide that the petitioners lack standing. That would vacate the Ninth Circuit’s decision but leave in place the district court decision invalidating Proposition 8. Another case with different petitioners (perhaps a government official who did not want to administer a same-sex marriage) could come to the Supreme Court within two to three years, if the Justices were willing to hear it.

Second, the Court may dismiss the case because of an inability to reach a majority. Justice Kennedy takes that view, and Justice Sotomayor indicated that she might join him. Others on the left may agree. That ruling would leave in place the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

The upshot of either scenario is a modest step forward for gay rights advocates, but not a dramatic one. The Court would stay its hand for some time for society to develop its views further. But combined with a potentially significant ruling in the DOMA case being argued tomorrow, the Term will likely nonetheless end up as very significant to gay rights.

 

[Henry Ford]

I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a lack of standing opinion. I don't think Roberts wants his court to just punt on one of the biggest issues of our time, so I'd be surprised to see it just get kicked out for failure to get 5 votes.

 

[timschochet]

Obviously this still leaves the door open for other questions about who can be joined via a civil union (groups, man/animal, man/object, etc)

Actually no, it doesn't leave the door open.

Sure, if two men want to enter into a consensual relationship and have it recognized by the state, why can't a man and a horse do the same thing? Or a man and a fleshlight?'

None of those are people. However, I'd like to marry a corporation.

 

[jon_mx]

Obviously this still leaves the door open for other questions about who can be joined via a civil union (groups, man/animal, man/object, etc)

Actually no, it doesn't leave the door open.

Sure, if two men want to enter into a consensual relationship and have it recognized by the state, why can't a man and a horse do the same thing? Or a man and a fleshlight?'

None of those are people. However, I'd like to marry a corporation.

Kobe is a corporation?

 

[rct]

Lots of drama queens on this issue.

Takes one to know one.

 

[NCCommish]

The really neat thing is that, as some of the guests on TV have pointed out, there is a sense of inevitability here. The opponents to gay marriage really have no credible argument remaining. I think we are witnessing something momentous this week: the beginning of the end to the last remaining major discrimination in this country.

I'm a big fan of marriage equality, but I'd caution you against referring to anything as the 'last major discrimination' in a country which failed to raitify the Equal Rights Amendment and still pays women a fraction of what men make. Among other things.

Wage discrimination by gender is nearly nonexistent. The large majority of the wage gap is explained by stuff like career choice, level of education, labor market experience, etc. And it's also unwarranted to automatically assume that the unexplained portion of the gap must be due to discrimination -- the unexplained portion of the wage gap is at best an upper bound on how bad discrimination might be.Edit: Also, if you've been in the same area code as a university recently, you know that young women have clearly overtaken young men in terms of higher education. The ERA and pay inequality were issues from 30 years ago. It's a very different world today.

There is roughly a 10% difference in men and women's pay for the same job even when you try to factor out all that other stuff. And it should be mentioned that studies have found women are discriminated against at hiring time. For instance one study used restaurants in the Philly area looking for waitstaff. In the higher paying places they were much less likely to even accept a woman's application and that certainly cut down on the call backs as well.So probably too early to call an end to discrimination against women in the workplace.

10% is a little high, but more important is

And it's also unwarranted to automatically assume that the unexplained portion of the gap must be due to discrimination -- the unexplained portion of the wage gap is at best an upper bound on how bad discrimination might be.

There's a lot of sociological stuff going on behind why men and women pursue the career paths that they do. Saying something along the lines of "Oh there's 10% of the wage gap that's unexplained by other quantifiable factors, so that must be discrimination" isn't a good approach to interpreting what these numbers mean.Edit: Also, wage discrimination is one of the most well-studied topics in labor economics. There are literally hundreds of papers on this issue. Citing just one as if it particularly settled the issue isn't very helpful.

This was when comparing the same jobs and career paths. And yes I know there are lots of studies and generally they come to the same conclusion. Women face discrimination in hiring and pay. Sorry I didn't cite every one ever done.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

This was when comparing the same jobs and career paths. And yes I know there are lots of studies and generally they come to the same conclusion. Women face discrimination in hiring and pay. Sorry I didn't cite every one ever done.

No, they don't come to that conclusion. The conclusion they reach is that there's about an 8% income gap that correlates with gender and isn't explained by quantifiable factors like years of education, years of job experience, marital status, number of children, etc. It's not possible to attribute all of that remaining gap to discrimination because there are a bunch of other factors that correlate with both gender and wages and which are hard or impossible to control for. For example, it is well-known that women, on average, tend to accept job offers without negotiating, whereas men are more likely to bargain for higher salaries. When you consider that a "counter-offer" of something in the 10% range is completely standard and acceptable, it's theoretically possible that this phenomenon could account for the entire unexplained wage gap. (It's highly unlikely that it explains the whole thing because some women do bargain and some men don't, and not all counter-offers are successful, but any honest observer is going to concede that it explains at least a decent chunk of the unexplained gap).

Furthermore, men tend to be more competitive and career-driven than women. This has nothing to do with labor discrimination, but is more of a sociological fact of life, and when you take this into consideration, you would completely expect it to result in some difference in mean salaries.

Finally, women tend to attach a greater importance to fringe benefits and flexible jobs than men do. If you have two groups of workers, and one cares about both salary and flexible hours (say) whereas the other group cares only or mainly about salary, of course the second group is going to end up with higher average salaries. There are studies out there that attempt ot look at total compensation as opposed to just salary/wages, but it's hard to quantify this sort of thing, especially since the problem is being driven by the fact that people place a different subjective value on things like maternity leave.

We could keep going with this, but you get the idea. Once you start to subtract these sorts of issues from the 8% unexplained wage gap, or even the 10% gap that you proposed, you're not left with much that could even possibly be attributed to discrimination. In other words, are there some instance of discrimination out there? Sure. Is there enough to show up as an important social issue statistically? Almost certainly not.

 

[beavers]

This was when comparing the same jobs and career paths. And yes I know there are lots of studies and generally they come to the same conclusion. Women face discrimination in hiring and pay. Sorry I didn't cite every one ever done.

No, they don't come to that conclusion. The conclusion they reach is that there's about an 8% income gap that correlates with gender and isn't explained by quantifiable factors like years of education, years of job experience, marital status, number of children, etc. It's not possible to attribute all of that remaining gap to discrimination because there are a bunch of other factors that correlate with both gender and wages and which are hard or impossible to control for. For example, it is well-known that women, on average, tend to accept job offers without negotiating, whereas men are more likely to bargain for higher salaries. When you consider that a "counter-offer" of something in the 10% range is completely standard and acceptable, it's theoretically possible that this phenomenon could account for the entire unexplained wage gap. (It's highly unlikely that it explains the whole thing because some women do bargain and some men don't, and not all counter-offers are successful, but any honest observer is going to concede that it explains at least a decent chunk of the unexplained gap).

Furthermore, men tend to be more competitive and career-driven than women. This has nothing to do with labor discrimination, but is more of a sociological fact of life, and when you take this into consideration, you would completely expect it to result in some difference in mean salaries.

Finally, women tend to attach a greater importance to fringe benefits and flexible jobs than men do. If you have two groups of workers, and one cares about both salary and flexible hours (say) whereas the other group cares only or mainly about salary, of course the second group is going to end up with higher average salaries. There are studies out there that attempt ot look at total compensation as opposed to just salary/wages, but it's hard to quantify this sort of thing, especially since the problem is being driven by the fact that people place a different subjective value on things like maternity leave.

We could keep going with this, but you get the idea. Once you start to subtract these sorts of issues from the 8% unexplained wage gap, or even the 10% gap that you proposed, you're not left with much that could even possibly be attributed to discrimination. In other words, are there some instance of discrimination out there? Sure. Is there enough to show up as an important social issue statistically? Almost certainly not.

Good information here:http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=529410&st=0

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

This was when comparing the same jobs and career paths. And yes I know there are lots of studies and generally they come to the same conclusion. Women face discrimination in hiring and pay. Sorry I didn't cite every one ever done.

No, they don't come to that conclusion. The conclusion they reach is that there's about an 8% income gap that correlates with gender and isn't explained by quantifiable factors like years of education, years of job experience, marital status, number of children, etc. It's not possible to attribute all of that remaining gap to discrimination because there are a bunch of other factors that correlate with both gender and wages and which are hard or impossible to control for. For example, it is well-known that women, on average, tend to accept job offers without negotiating, whereas men are more likely to bargain for higher salaries. When you consider that a "counter-offer" of something in the 10% range is completely standard and acceptable, it's theoretically possible that this phenomenon could account for the entire unexplained wage gap. (It's highly unlikely that it explains the whole thing because some women do bargain and some men don't, and not all counter-offers are successful, but any honest observer is going to concede that it explains at least a decent chunk of the unexplained gap).

Furthermore, men tend to be more competitive and career-driven than women. This has nothing to do with labor discrimination, but is more of a sociological fact of life, and when you take this into consideration, you would completely expect it to result in some difference in mean salaries.

Finally, women tend to attach a greater importance to fringe benefits and flexible jobs than men do. If you have two groups of workers, and one cares about both salary and flexible hours (say) whereas the other group cares only or mainly about salary, of course the second group is going to end up with higher average salaries. There are studies out there that attempt ot look at total compensation as opposed to just salary/wages, but it's hard to quantify this sort of thing, especially since the problem is being driven by the fact that people place a different subjective value on things like maternity leave.

We could keep going with this, but you get the idea. Once you start to subtract these sorts of issues from the 8% unexplained wage gap, or even the 10% gap that you proposed, you're not left with much that could even possibly be attributed to discrimination. In other words, are there some instance of discrimination out there? Sure. Is there enough to show up as an important social issue statistically? Almost certainly not.

Good information here:http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=529410&st=0

Are you recommending Ivan's own posts on this subject to himself?

 

[shader]

This was when comparing the same jobs and career paths. And yes I know there are lots of studies and generally they come to the same conclusion. Women face discrimination in hiring and pay. Sorry I didn't cite every one ever done.

No, they don't come to that conclusion. The conclusion they reach is that there's about an 8% income gap that correlates with gender and isn't explained by quantifiable factors like years of education, years of job experience, marital status, number of children, etc. It's not possible to attribute all of that remaining gap to discrimination because there are a bunch of other factors that correlate with both gender and wages and which are hard or impossible to control for. For example, it is well-known that women, on average, tend to accept job offers without negotiating, whereas men are more likely to bargain for higher salaries. When you consider that a "counter-offer" of something in the 10% range is completely standard and acceptable, it's theoretically possible that this phenomenon could account for the entire unexplained wage gap. (It's highly unlikely that it explains the whole thing because some women do bargain and some men don't, and not all counter-offers are successful, but any honest observer is going to concede that it explains at least a decent chunk of the unexplained gap).

Furthermore, men tend to be more competitive and career-driven than women. This has nothing to do with labor discrimination, but is more of a sociological fact of life, and when you take this into consideration, you would completely expect it to result in some difference in mean salaries.

Finally, women tend to attach a greater importance to fringe benefits and flexible jobs than men do. If you have two groups of workers, and one cares about both salary and flexible hours (say) whereas the other group cares only or mainly about salary, of course the second group is going to end up with higher average salaries. There are studies out there that attempt ot look at total compensation as opposed to just salary/wages, but it's hard to quantify this sort of thing, especially since the problem is being driven by the fact that people place a different subjective value on things like maternity leave.

We could keep going with this, but you get the idea. Once you start to subtract these sorts of issues from the 8% unexplained wage gap, or even the 10% gap that you proposed, you're not left with much that could even possibly be attributed to discrimination. In other words, are there some instance of discrimination out there? Sure. Is there enough to show up as an important social issue statistically? Almost certainly not.

Nice

 

[beavers]

This was when comparing the same jobs and career paths. And yes I know there are lots of studies and generally they come to the same conclusion. Women face discrimination in hiring and pay. Sorry I didn't cite every one ever done.

No, they don't come to that conclusion. The conclusion they reach is that there's about an 8% income gap that correlates with gender and isn't explained by quantifiable factors like years of education, years of job experience, marital status, number of children, etc. It's not possible to attribute all of that remaining gap to discrimination because there are a bunch of other factors that correlate with both gender and wages and which are hard or impossible to control for. For example, it is well-known that women, on average, tend to accept job offers without negotiating, whereas men are more likely to bargain for higher salaries. When you consider that a "counter-offer" of something in the 10% range is completely standard and acceptable, it's theoretically possible that this phenomenon could account for the entire unexplained wage gap. (It's highly unlikely that it explains the whole thing because some women do bargain and some men don't, and not all counter-offers are successful, but any honest observer is going to concede that it explains at least a decent chunk of the unexplained gap).

Furthermore, men tend to be more competitive and career-driven than women. This has nothing to do with labor discrimination, but is more of a sociological fact of life, and when you take this into consideration, you would completely expect it to result in some difference in mean salaries.

Finally, women tend to attach a greater importance to fringe benefits and flexible jobs than men do. If you have two groups of workers, and one cares about both salary and flexible hours (say) whereas the other group cares only or mainly about salary, of course the second group is going to end up with higher average salaries. There are studies out there that attempt ot look at total compensation as opposed to just salary/wages, but it's hard to quantify this sort of thing, especially since the problem is being driven by the fact that people place a different subjective value on things like maternity leave.

We could keep going with this, but you get the idea. Once you start to subtract these sorts of issues from the 8% unexplained wage gap, or even the 10% gap that you proposed, you're not left with much that could even possibly be attributed to discrimination. In other words, are there some instance of discrimination out there? Sure. Is there enough to show up as an important social issue statistically? Almost certainly not.

Good information here:http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=529410&st=0

Are you recommending Ivan's own posts on this subject to himself?

Actually, I was hoping he'd read more of my links

 

[Cliff Clavin]

My link

 

[timschochet]

I'm surprised that my comment about "the last major discrimination" has led to a debate about women's salaries in the workplace. What I meant by the word "major", I suppose, is legal- there is no law, for instance, preventing women from earning as much or more than men. If any discrimination does exist, (and you guys are debating it) it's a private enterprise issue.

On the other hand, gays are not allowed to marry each other in most states because the law proscribes it. Therefore, this is, at least in my mind, a much greater discrimination than any private act. And so far as I know, it is the last major discrimination by law that we have in this country. So I'll stand by my earlier statement.

 

[Henry Ford]

I'm surprised that my comment about "the last major discrimination" has led to a debate about women's salaries in the workplace. What I meant by the word "major", I suppose, is legal- there is no law, for instance, preventing women from earning as much or more than men. If any discrimination does exist, (and you guys are debating it) it's a private enterprise issue. On the other hand, gays are not allowed to marry each other in most states because the law proscribes it. Therefore, this is, at least in my mind, a much greater discrimination than any private act. And so far as I know, it is the last major discrimination by law that we have in this country. So I'll stand by my earlier statement.

"By law" is a pretty important part of that statement. So I think you should stand by that one, instead.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

There's still plenty of discrimination, even by state actors. For example, the UCLA Ph.D. program in mathematics actively discriminates against stupid people.

I can't think of any remaining legally sanctioned invidious discrimination by state actors, however. Some people will say that chimps and other animals are discriminated against because they lack the right not to be tortured in experiments. Others will say that atheists are discriminated against because dollar bills refer to God. Others will say that white males (and others) are discriminated against because of affirmative action, or that high-income earners are discriminated against in the tax code. And I'm sure others can come up with further examples.

But none of that is comparable to the ways blacks, women, Jews, Japanese, Native Americans, and gays have been discriminated against in our country's past. I agree with Tim that forbidding gay marriage is the last really bad, overt, invidious discrimination by the government. For now.

 

[squistion]

The ultimate anti-gay marriage ad (video at link).

http://www.am760.net/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=460766&article=11108818

 

[bigbottom]

For now.

I can see a situation like Gattica occurring at some point in the future, notwithstanding laws like the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act being currently on the books.

 

[urbanhack]

I'm surprised that my comment about "_____________________" has led to a debate

sig material?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I agree with Tim that forbidding gay marriage is the last really bad, overt, invidious discrimination by the government. For now.

Which is really pretty ####### amazing when you stop and think about it.I mean the lack of discrimination. Not you agreeing with Tim.