Do the other parts of DOMA have to be challenged to get rid of them?
Yes, exactly.
The court's judgment was that, in almost all cases, definitions of marriage fall to the states, not to the federal government. The only time the federal government can step into marriage is to invalidate a state law that denies equal rights, as in Loving v. Virginia. DOMA Section 3 did the opposite: the federal government was invalidating a state law that granted equal rights. Without getting into legalese details about levels of scrutiny, the court said that DOMA Section 3 overstepped the federal government's bounds for no good reason by getting into state business.
Rather than overrule the states, Section 2 of DOMA specifically upholds the power of the states to define marriage. It therefore isn't a federal overreach by the line of reasoning used above to overturn Section 3. While state laws against same-sex marriage may be unconstitutional, this was not the court case to say that. It will take a plaintiff who has been specifically harmed by Section 2 to get that conversation going. And given that Section 2 grants the states the power that the court already says they have, that'd be a much harder case to argue. A better idea would be to challenge the constitutionality of a state ban directly, and use Loving as precedent.
Or does this just apply to the federal government?
I believe this particular ruling only covers DOMA... they are supposed to release other decisions which might weigh in on individual state bans.
More than that, this particular ruling only covers Section 3 of DOMA. I mentioned this in a post below, but it's going to get lost in the fuss. DOMA has two halves: Section 2, which allows a state to not recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state, and Section 3, which defines marriage for the federal government as heterosexual. Only Section 3 was struck down. Section 2, which directly answers GP's question (correct, Alabama will not recognize your marriage), was not challenged and is still law.
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
That's Section 2 of DOMA, which was not ruled on. Only Section 3 of DOMA was ruled unconstitutional. The above section, which decrees that one state does not have to uphold a same-sex marriage conducted in another state, is still law.
An identical story was posted back in February. By the same user, no less. So, Mr. Josh Fruhlinger, how much does Eric Bloom pay you to Slashvertise for him?
Well, he was brave enough to come to a site he knew hated him and try to defend his actions. I respect him for that. Having never heard of the guy or his company before ("what do you do?" was my question), I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. But while he wrote persuasively about the benefits of the patent system in general, his answers regarding Personal Audio were not nearly as convincing.
Basically, his argument boils down to "patents are an insurance policy so that you can get your money back if your investment fails". This is a rather novel analysis of the patent system that I've never heard before, and a completely paradoxical one. While encouraging innovation on the surface (by lowering the risk of "reach for the stars"-type innovative startups), it stifles it in the long run by chilling any follow-up innovation. If the first foray into a new field fails, anyone who comes in to try to do a better job is then penalized. It creates a barrier to entry for an empty field.
His other point of note was the threat that, if patent-holders are forced to create a product to enforce their patents, he would just create a useless podcast to justify holding his podcasting patent. I wonder if he realizes that any legislation would be written to give a court leeway to define such a strategy as useless or vexatious, at the court's discretion rather than written into the law. Designing a podcast to overcome that barrier would then make him a productive member of society and hey, maybe he'd find an actually-useful means of getting back his lost $1.6 million. He asks if Google should be required to produce a driverless car within a certain timeframe or forfeit their driverless-car patents. He asks it in such a way as to imply that this would be a ludicrous requirement. I almost find it funny that he could be so out of touch.
tldr: I went in with an open mind, but now believe/. was well justified in jumping all over this guy. Shameless, useless patent troll.
If I understood GP properly, he was saying that for a given skill, while the mean level of ability may be the same between genders, the variance among men will generally be higher. There will be both more genius-level men and more retarded-level men, while women will generally be more concentrated around the mean. It's a point I've heard a couple times before, never with a cited source.
Even in comparison to the numbers of women and men among world class scientists – from the world top ranked institutions for life sciences, and authors in the top-tier journals Nature and Science - women were still underrepresented among invited speakers."
Yes, there was so much popular opposition to Communist militias executing people during the Cultural Revolution. After all, those people hadn't been raised to believe in the word of God, just in the word of some guy named Mao.
The power-hungry won't be stopped by something as simple as a secular government.
But good dodge around the fact that a leftist government made the Jews their target in the 1930s.
So did a far right one. In fact, it was the same one! National Socialism was both leftist and rightist at the same time. It united the far-right ultranationalists and anti-Communists with the far-left Socialists. It was politics' version of a supergroup.
Yes, even in the Salganik studies or in the real world, you have to be "good enough" in order to get a "big break", but my concern is that with the chaotic luck-dominated process that we have now, the number of qualified people (or songs, or ideas) is vastly greater than the number that do get the "big break", and their potential is being wasted. (In the NFL, by contrast, even the losing teams get paid well and provide entertainment value to fans, unlike musicians who are not lucky enough to get discovered.)
I don't see how your solution changes that, though. Assuming it's implemented properly, wouldn't the ideas that already get their big break still make it through the screening alongside others that wouldn't have, and then be subject to the whims of the people? It seems like all you'd be doing is having a layer of bureaucracy to do what the Salganik effect already does. So as an example, in the current, free-range internet, there'd be a million potential memes, of which 20,000 qualify as "good enough" for the Salganik effect, and then two or three get their big break. In your proposed system, the jury would examine the million possible memes, whittle them down to probably around 20,000, then release them to the greater public, and then two or three would get the big break from there. Extra effort for similar results.
You also have to account for the fact that people do not like being told what to believe in. You suggest sites like Reddit start doing this - wouldn't Redditors cry censorship, and simply move to a site that didn't? A jury system works in real-life courts because it's difficult to move to a different country when a jury hands down a verdict you don't like (think of the outrage after the Casey Anthony acquittal, for instance). All it would take would be one high-profile "hey look how great my idea was, and the jury voted it down!" for people to start switching over to a Reddit-Sans-Jury, and we'd be back where we started.
So you have a system that's ineffective on both sides. If it skews too lenient, then it would simply slice out the fraction of bad memes that would already be ignored. If it skews too draconian, then people will simply go to a different website.
Yes, random chance is a factor in which grassroots campaigns take hold. Luck is a factor in everything. Luck is a factor in Mr. Haselton's proposed solution as well (basically extending the "internet jury duty" idea he's pushed in many other posts) - if this campaign had been reviewed by 20 random internet-users who just so happen to be militant anti-feminists, then it would've been killed on the spot.
The luck factor of a success can be minimized by actually being better than the alternatives. In the Salganik study, though the popular songs were chosen randomly, they were chosen randomly from the better subset of songs. No "world" chose a crappy song to be popular. And that study was on a very subjective medium - how good or bad a song was. In something that is generally more agreed-upon, such as "rape is bad", the luck factor is understandably much diminished.
So just because a success has a luck factor involved, that's not a reason to cast doubt on the veracity of the success. If you run a simulated NFL season a million times, certainly the same team will not win the Super Bowl all million times. When an actual team then does win the Super Bowl, does that take away from their victory, that part of it came from luck? No.
Thomas writes opinions as often as any other justice. His famed silence only applies during oral arguments. And he's hardly the first "silent" justice - it's simply made more prominent by how verbose his colleagues are.
The "new" layer is between the stroma and Descemet's membrane (behind the stroma). Since LASIK and most other refractive procedures modify and reshape the stroma, they wouldn't even touch this layer. Corneal transplants, though, would be affected. A full-thickness transplant can take up to a year to recover from, since, among other reasons, there are no blood vessels in the cornea to aid healing. Partial-thickness transplants still take something like six weeks. Here's hoping this new knowledge can help speed those recovery times.
Actually, the translation of that particular passage is a rather interesting affair. The Hebrew word in question, the one that the King James Version translates as "have dominion", is "radah". Radah can mean "to rule", but it's really the verb form of "the point where the roots meet the stem", or in other words, "(to be) the center of strength". It's where we get the English words "radicle", the first root of a plant, as well as "radius", "radiate", and "radical", which all have definitions that relate to a defined center point. Genesis 1:26 says that man is the center of strength of the world. If you want to interpret that as "rule", that works, but it's a focus much more on the responsibility side of ruling, rather than the power side. As a counterpoint, take a look a few verses earlier at Gen. 1:16, where he sets the sun and moon to rule the sky: "God made the two great lights, he made the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; he made the stars also." The word here translated as "to govern", "lememselet", is a much stronger declaration of rulership than "radah". Man doesn't get to lememselet the world, he gets to radah the world.
Africa and the Middle East won't be taking many manufacturing jobs until they can stop being in a state of constant war. If your factory gets blown up, it really doesn't matter how cheap the labor is.
I came here to say this too. I would much rather put a sperm-impenetrable barrier in my vas deferens (a vasectomy without the "snip-snip"), resulting in no fertility, than cook my balls with a laser, resulting in merely reduced fertility.
Slashdot Mirror
i didn't realize small towns were keeping permanent databases.
They have for decades. It's an undeletable, all-seeing database called "the Pastor's Wife"
So go challenge it in court, then. It's not unconstitutional until a court says it is.
Do the other parts of DOMA have to be challenged to get rid of them?
Yes, exactly.
The court's judgment was that, in almost all cases, definitions of marriage fall to the states, not to the federal government. The only time the federal government can step into marriage is to invalidate a state law that denies equal rights, as in Loving v. Virginia. DOMA Section 3 did the opposite: the federal government was invalidating a state law that granted equal rights. Without getting into legalese details about levels of scrutiny, the court said that DOMA Section 3 overstepped the federal government's bounds for no good reason by getting into state business.
Rather than overrule the states, Section 2 of DOMA specifically upholds the power of the states to define marriage. It therefore isn't a federal overreach by the line of reasoning used above to overturn Section 3. While state laws against same-sex marriage may be unconstitutional, this was not the court case to say that. It will take a plaintiff who has been specifically harmed by Section 2 to get that conversation going. And given that Section 2 grants the states the power that the court already says they have, that'd be a much harder case to argue. A better idea would be to challenge the constitutionality of a state ban directly, and use Loving as precedent.
What this means, in a nut shell, is that sate have to recognize you as married and all the benefits there in.
The Federal government does, states do not.
I believe this particular ruling only covers DOMA ... they are supposed to release other decisions which might weigh in on individual state bans.
More than that, this particular ruling only covers Section 3 of DOMA. I mentioned this in a post below, but it's going to get lost in the fuss. DOMA has two halves: Section 2, which allows a state to not recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state, and Section 3, which defines marriage for the federal government as heterosexual. Only Section 3 was struck down. Section 2, which directly answers GP's question (correct, Alabama will not recognize your marriage), was not challenged and is still law.
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
That's Section 2 of DOMA, which was not ruled on. Only Section 3 of DOMA was ruled unconstitutional. The above section, which decrees that one state does not have to uphold a same-sex marriage conducted in another state, is still law.
Why get a Honda Fit when you could get a Pontiac Aztek?
An identical story was posted back in February. By the same user, no less. So, Mr. Josh Fruhlinger, how much does Eric Bloom pay you to Slashvertise for him?
Well, he was brave enough to come to a site he knew hated him and try to defend his actions. I respect him for that. Having never heard of the guy or his company before ("what do you do?" was my question), I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. But while he wrote persuasively about the benefits of the patent system in general, his answers regarding Personal Audio were not nearly as convincing.
Basically, his argument boils down to "patents are an insurance policy so that you can get your money back if your investment fails". This is a rather novel analysis of the patent system that I've never heard before, and a completely paradoxical one. While encouraging innovation on the surface (by lowering the risk of "reach for the stars"-type innovative startups), it stifles it in the long run by chilling any follow-up innovation. If the first foray into a new field fails, anyone who comes in to try to do a better job is then penalized. It creates a barrier to entry for an empty field.
His other point of note was the threat that, if patent-holders are forced to create a product to enforce their patents, he would just create a useless podcast to justify holding his podcasting patent. I wonder if he realizes that any legislation would be written to give a court leeway to define such a strategy as useless or vexatious, at the court's discretion rather than written into the law. Designing a podcast to overcome that barrier would then make him a productive member of society and hey, maybe he'd find an actually-useful means of getting back his lost $1.6 million. He asks if Google should be required to produce a driverless car within a certain timeframe or forfeit their driverless-car patents. He asks it in such a way as to imply that this would be a ludicrous requirement. I almost find it funny that he could be so out of touch.
tldr: I went in with an open mind, but now believe /. was well justified in jumping all over this guy. Shameless, useless patent troll.
If I understood GP properly, he was saying that for a given skill, while the mean level of ability may be the same between genders, the variance among men will generally be higher. There will be both more genius-level men and more retarded-level men, while women will generally be more concentrated around the mean. It's a point I've heard a couple times before, never with a cited source.
Even in comparison to the numbers of women and men among world class scientists – from the world top ranked institutions for life sciences, and authors in the top-tier journals Nature and Science - women were still underrepresented among invited speakers."
It's right there in the freaking summary...
Pipe down, terrorist scum!
Yes, there was so much popular opposition to Communist militias executing people during the Cultural Revolution. After all, those people hadn't been raised to believe in the word of God, just in the word of some guy named Mao.
The power-hungry won't be stopped by something as simple as a secular government.
All "holy books" call for violence. Except for one, Buddah does not call for it in any instance.
And yet, Buddhists have committed and still commit violence in the name of their religion. People are funny creatures, aren't they?
If you're paying $60 for used games, you're doing it wrong.
But good dodge around the fact that a leftist government made the Jews their target in the 1930s.
So did a far right one. In fact, it was the same one! National Socialism was both leftist and rightist at the same time. It united the far-right ultranationalists and anti-Communists with the far-left Socialists. It was politics' version of a supergroup.
use a ladder between the steps and the car door so you're not touching the ground?
Couldn't they then claim he was violating their airspace and shoot him down?
"Everything was going great, until the bank manager sprayed me in the face with his DNA!"
Yes, even in the Salganik studies or in the real world, you have to be "good enough" in order to get a "big break", but my concern is that with the chaotic luck-dominated process that we have now, the number of qualified people (or songs, or ideas) is vastly greater than the number that do get the "big break", and their potential is being wasted. (In the NFL, by contrast, even the losing teams get paid well and provide entertainment value to fans, unlike musicians who are not lucky enough to get discovered.)
I don't see how your solution changes that, though. Assuming it's implemented properly, wouldn't the ideas that already get their big break still make it through the screening alongside others that wouldn't have, and then be subject to the whims of the people? It seems like all you'd be doing is having a layer of bureaucracy to do what the Salganik effect already does. So as an example, in the current, free-range internet, there'd be a million potential memes, of which 20,000 qualify as "good enough" for the Salganik effect, and then two or three get their big break. In your proposed system, the jury would examine the million possible memes, whittle them down to probably around 20,000, then release them to the greater public, and then two or three would get the big break from there. Extra effort for similar results.
You also have to account for the fact that people do not like being told what to believe in. You suggest sites like Reddit start doing this - wouldn't Redditors cry censorship, and simply move to a site that didn't? A jury system works in real-life courts because it's difficult to move to a different country when a jury hands down a verdict you don't like (think of the outrage after the Casey Anthony acquittal, for instance). All it would take would be one high-profile "hey look how great my idea was, and the jury voted it down!" for people to start switching over to a Reddit-Sans-Jury, and we'd be back where we started.
So you have a system that's ineffective on both sides. If it skews too lenient, then it would simply slice out the fraction of bad memes that would already be ignored. If it skews too draconian, then people will simply go to a different website.
Yes, random chance is a factor in which grassroots campaigns take hold. Luck is a factor in everything. Luck is a factor in Mr. Haselton's proposed solution as well (basically extending the "internet jury duty" idea he's pushed in many other posts) - if this campaign had been reviewed by 20 random internet-users who just so happen to be militant anti-feminists, then it would've been killed on the spot.
The luck factor of a success can be minimized by actually being better than the alternatives. In the Salganik study, though the popular songs were chosen randomly, they were chosen randomly from the better subset of songs. No "world" chose a crappy song to be popular. And that study was on a very subjective medium - how good or bad a song was. In something that is generally more agreed-upon, such as "rape is bad", the luck factor is understandably much diminished.
So just because a success has a luck factor involved, that's not a reason to cast doubt on the veracity of the success. If you run a simulated NFL season a million times, certainly the same team will not win the Super Bowl all million times. When an actual team then does win the Super Bowl, does that take away from their victory, that part of it came from luck? No.
Thomas writes opinions as often as any other justice. His famed silence only applies during oral arguments. And he's hardly the first "silent" justice - it's simply made more prominent by how verbose his colleagues are.
The "new" layer is between the stroma and Descemet's membrane (behind the stroma). Since LASIK and most other refractive procedures modify and reshape the stroma, they wouldn't even touch this layer. Corneal transplants, though, would be affected. A full-thickness transplant can take up to a year to recover from, since, among other reasons, there are no blood vessels in the cornea to aid healing. Partial-thickness transplants still take something like six weeks. Here's hoping this new knowledge can help speed those recovery times.
Actually, the translation of that particular passage is a rather interesting affair. The Hebrew word in question, the one that the King James Version translates as "have dominion", is "radah". Radah can mean "to rule", but it's really the verb form of "the point where the roots meet the stem", or in other words, "(to be) the center of strength". It's where we get the English words "radicle", the first root of a plant, as well as "radius", "radiate", and "radical", which all have definitions that relate to a defined center point. Genesis 1:26 says that man is the center of strength of the world. If you want to interpret that as "rule", that works, but it's a focus much more on the responsibility side of ruling, rather than the power side. As a counterpoint, take a look a few verses earlier at Gen. 1:16, where he sets the sun and moon to rule the sky: "God made the two great lights, he made the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; he made the stars also." The word here translated as "to govern", "lememselet", is a much stronger declaration of rulership than "radah". Man doesn't get to lememselet the world, he gets to radah the world.
Africa and the Middle East won't be taking many manufacturing jobs until they can stop being in a state of constant war. If your factory gets blown up, it really doesn't matter how cheap the labor is.
I came here to say this too. I would much rather put a sperm-impenetrable barrier in my vas deferens (a vasectomy without the "snip-snip"), resulting in no fertility, than cook my balls with a laser, resulting in merely reduced fertility.