That's my brief and blunt reaction to the Supreme Court not hearing appellate level challenges about gay marriage in several different states.
Having a number of gay and lesbian friends, several of whom have had long-term partnerships, some of whom have wanted the legal, financial and social protections and assurances of marriage, I am glad to see this.
You know, like your partner being able to see you in the hospital. Or, when your partner dies, his or her homophobic parents being unable to break up a will. Or the right to adopt. Etc., etc.
That said, what if being gay or lesbian isn't 100 percent genetic? Or even 100 percent genetic + an uncontrollable part of "nurture," the womb environment?
What if, on average, it's 10 percent choice?
No matter.
Atheism is 100 percent choice, arguably, yet deserves the full protection of the First Amendment's "freedom of religion" clause as properly understood.
That said, there's another reason I raise the issue of "choice" on gay marriage.
What about certain elements of gay male culture that, stereotypically, at least, have an aversion to long-term partnerships? Bathhouse culture, to use a name?
Well, nobody's forcing them, or randier straight males, to get married. And gay marriage is likely to leave unchanged their non-interest in marriage.
And, let's hope it leaves unchanged our non-interest in their non-interest in gay marriage either.
The great majority of gay males aren't card-carrying members of Queer Nation, anyway. (And, that's despite PR efforts by both Queer Nation and fundamentalist Christians.)
That said, per discussion about the issue, SCOTUS' move still doesn't address the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution. If it's sending a signal to red states to stop the nonsense, I still would have preferred an explicit ruling sooner rather than later. Get married in California but move to Kansas? SCOTUS says "sorry, but not yet." Or, if you just live in Kansas, it's definitely "not yet." Residents of 20 states are still out in the cold.
Because, in hardcore red states like Texas, hardcore red-state politicos like Greg Abbott will keep trying to deny the rights of people they don't like. After all, he is our state's money-waster in chief. And, in a place like the south, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals WILL give SCOTUS the thumbs-down ruling that it's going to have to face anyway.
I'm also interested in who switched sides since the Court's Prop 8 and DOMA ruling. That was 5-4, after all, and it only takes 4 votes, not 5, to grant cert.
Showing posts with label full faith and credit clause. Show all posts
Showing posts with label full faith and credit clause. Show all posts
October 06, 2014
June 12, 2009
Obama wants gay couples at back of bus
Yessir, Just.Another.Politician.™ doesn’t really extend civil rights to gay marriage; in fact, his administrastion officially opposes that idea.
Obama’s Department of Justice, per the link, is officially on record in a federal suit as supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, one of the more craven bill-signings of the Clinton Administration, and officially rejecting the idea that the “full faith and credit” clause of the U.S. Constitution requires states to recognize each others’ marriage laws, regardless of gender and sexual orientation of the two married persons.
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration is being chickenshit in another way, insisting that Congress take the lead in overturning DOMA. On environmental issues and more, we’ve seen that this is The One’s M.O. No leadership from this White House.
John Aravosis at AmericaBlog, already excoriated over other issues by pseudoliberals at Kos for taking Obama to task, adds that Obama is lying in other ways, too, namely, claiming that DOMA doesn’t deny gay partners any equality under the law.
And, at another link, which itself has a link to the Obama DOJ official brief, we see that Obama says DOMA saves money, is consistent with equal protection under the law, and more, including claiming the right to marriage is not a fundamental right.
The Team Obama illogic is stunning.
First and foremost, if marriage is not a fundamental right, then why do we even have a Defense of Marriage Act? And, why are you so worried about protecting this act? Even to the point of using conservatives' rational-review scrutiny standard?
Obama’s Department of Justice, per the link, is officially on record in a federal suit as supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, one of the more craven bill-signings of the Clinton Administration, and officially rejecting the idea that the “full faith and credit” clause of the U.S. Constitution requires states to recognize each others’ marriage laws, regardless of gender and sexual orientation of the two married persons.
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration is being chickenshit in another way, insisting that Congress take the lead in overturning DOMA. On environmental issues and more, we’ve seen that this is The One’s M.O. No leadership from this White House.
John Aravosis at AmericaBlog, already excoriated over other issues by pseudoliberals at Kos for taking Obama to task, adds that Obama is lying in other ways, too, namely, claiming that DOMA doesn’t deny gay partners any equality under the law.
And, at another link, which itself has a link to the Obama DOJ official brief, we see that Obama says DOMA saves money, is consistent with equal protection under the law, and more, including claiming the right to marriage is not a fundamental right.
The Team Obama illogic is stunning.
First and foremost, if marriage is not a fundamental right, then why do we even have a Defense of Marriage Act? And, why are you so worried about protecting this act? Even to the point of using conservatives' rational-review scrutiny standard?
October 27, 2008
Jerry Brown’s best job ever — helping kill Prop 8?
The former California governor, now state attorney general, decided on the final ballot language for Proposition 8, the measure that would ban gay marriage in the Golden State. And, since the California Supreme Court had just legalized gay marriage, he changed Prop. 8’s official ballot language to reflect that.
The language as it stands (Prop. 8 organizers sued and lost) may have cost gay marriage foes as much as 8 percentage points.
Meanwhile, Prop. 8 foes are finally taking the lead on the fundraising race.
And, if Prop 8 fails, despite the “Defense of Marriage Act,” I don’t see how we can’t soon have a Constitutional challenge on the “full faith and credit” clase.
The language as it stands (Prop. 8 organizers sued and lost) may have cost gay marriage foes as much as 8 percentage points.
Meanwhile, Prop. 8 foes are finally taking the lead on the fundraising race.
And, if Prop 8 fails, despite the “Defense of Marriage Act,” I don’t see how we can’t soon have a Constitutional challenge on the “full faith and credit” clase.
July 16, 2008
Time for Texas gay couples to plan a trip to Massachusetts
Those that want to be married, that is!
The Bay State is primed to trash its 1913 law restricting marriage in that state to Massachusetts couples, or two other couples on the condition they could only get married by the law of their home state.
The archaic law, originally used to keep Southerners of different ethnicity from getting around anti-miscegenation laws down South, was pretty much ignored in recent years until in 2006, when then-Gov. Mitt Romney ordered it enforced after the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled the state’s gay marriage ban unconstitutional.
The state House has repealed the law and the Senate is expected to follow. Gov. Deval Patrick is expected to sign, for two reasons.
One, he’s African-American, and anybody in Massachusetts this side of the Religious Right acknowledges the racist background of the law.
Two, his daughter is out of the closet as a lesbian.
Assuming passage, the “full faith and credit” law of the Constitution is going to hit the fan.
I guess we’ll see in 2-3 years, maybe less, just how fucking hypocritical Nino Scalia will try to be with “originalism.”
The Bay State is primed to trash its 1913 law restricting marriage in that state to Massachusetts couples, or two other couples on the condition they could only get married by the law of their home state.
The archaic law, originally used to keep Southerners of different ethnicity from getting around anti-miscegenation laws down South, was pretty much ignored in recent years until in 2006, when then-Gov. Mitt Romney ordered it enforced after the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled the state’s gay marriage ban unconstitutional.
The state House has repealed the law and the Senate is expected to follow. Gov. Deval Patrick is expected to sign, for two reasons.
One, he’s African-American, and anybody in Massachusetts this side of the Religious Right acknowledges the racist background of the law.
Two, his daughter is out of the closet as a lesbian.
Assuming passage, the “full faith and credit” law of the Constitution is going to hit the fan.
I guess we’ll see in 2-3 years, maybe less, just how fucking hypocritical Nino Scalia will try to be with “originalism.”
May 15, 2008
California ruling on gay marriage and ‘full faith and credit’ detailed
There’s plenty of information to be mined from the California Supreme Court’s 172-page PDF of its ruling legalizing gay marriage in the state — and explicitly updating state law vis-à-vis the U.S. Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause and how it relates to gay marriage.
In the preamble to the ruling, the majority sets up the ground for noting that domestic partnerships are, in essence, separate but not equal.
The court then notes the state does not have a “compelling interest” in maintaining the status quo nor is it “necessary” to serve such an interest.
Specifically, the court notes the issue of “dignity” of same-sex marriage vs. domestic partnerships, the potential perpetuation of the idea of “second-class citizenship,”
Here’s the kicker graf on the court’s ruling:
The court specifically cited things such as changes in a married woman’s legal property rights as evidence of major evolution.
The court also found that California law, as written, appeared not to extend “full faith and credit” to gay marriage elsewhere.
This stems back to Prop. 22 in California in 2000, which read, in full:
Nobody had yet sued the state over this, but since Massachusetts had already legalized gay marriage, the court apparently felt this needed to be addressed.
Beyond the main ruling, this will earn the California Supreme Court more “judicial activism” brickbats, I’m sure.
And, given gay-marriage haters’ bid to get a proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot, this thing isn’t over. (The vote to approve Prop 22 was 4,618,673 votes versus 2,909,370. People who think California is the stereotypical “land of fruits and nuts,” or whatever, have no clue about its electoral complexity.)
So, fasten your political seat belts.
The history of the case is that a state superior court ruled California law unconstitutional, but an appellate court reversed that on a 2-1 vote, basically accusing the lower court of inventing a civil right where none existed before.
The state supreme court also said that anti-gay marriage advocacy groups that intervened in the original issue, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom performing gay marriages, had no legal standing once Newsom’s actions had been declared legally null and void.
That all said, given that much of the court’s language explicitly parallels the SCOTUS stance in 1954 on Brown v. Board of Education, I’m wondering how this will play out in California’s black communities.
Many, but by no means all, black civil rights leaders, of both older and younger generations, have said their struggles have been unique (which they have), but unique in a way that gay rights activists have no right to draw comparisons or make linkage.
In the preamble to the ruling, the majority sets up the ground for noting that domestic partnerships are, in essence, separate but not equal.
The court then notes the state does not have a “compelling interest” in maintaining the status quo nor is it “necessary” to serve such an interest.
Specifically, the court notes the issue of “dignity” of same-sex marriage vs. domestic partnerships, the potential perpetuation of the idea of “second-class citizenship,”
Here’s the kicker graf on the court’s ruling:
Although the California statutes governing marriage and family relations have undergone very significant changes in a host of areas since the late 19th century, the statutory designation of marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman has remained unchanged.
The court specifically cited things such as changes in a married woman’s legal property rights as evidence of major evolution.
The court also found that California law, as written, appeared not to extend “full faith and credit” to gay marriage elsewhere.
Section 308.5 provides in full: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” This statutory language does not purport to limit the statute’s application to out-of-state marriages or to draw any distinction between in-state and out-of-state marriages.
This stems back to Prop. 22 in California in 2000, which read, in full:
Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Nobody had yet sued the state over this, but since Massachusetts had already legalized gay marriage, the court apparently felt this needed to be addressed.
Beyond the main ruling, this will earn the California Supreme Court more “judicial activism” brickbats, I’m sure.
And, given gay-marriage haters’ bid to get a proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot, this thing isn’t over. (The vote to approve Prop 22 was 4,618,673 votes versus 2,909,370. People who think California is the stereotypical “land of fruits and nuts,” or whatever, have no clue about its electoral complexity.)
So, fasten your political seat belts.
The history of the case is that a state superior court ruled California law unconstitutional, but an appellate court reversed that on a 2-1 vote, basically accusing the lower court of inventing a civil right where none existed before.
The state supreme court also said that anti-gay marriage advocacy groups that intervened in the original issue, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom performing gay marriages, had no legal standing once Newsom’s actions had been declared legally null and void.
That all said, given that much of the court’s language explicitly parallels the SCOTUS stance in 1954 on Brown v. Board of Education, I’m wondering how this will play out in California’s black communities.
Many, but by no means all, black civil rights leaders, of both older and younger generations, have said their struggles have been unique (which they have), but unique in a way that gay rights activists have no right to draw comparisons or make linkage.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)