March 5, 2013

"[I]f the justices don’t rule in favor of gay marriage, it is the Court that will look bad."

Writes Nan Hunter in The Nation, "judging from the press coverage of the briefs."
This perception is an incredible achievement, a brilliant exercise in political framing by the lawyers and legal organizations behind the two cases, who mobilized the amicus show of force. The business brief and the Republican brief, especially, are clearly designed to provide political cover for the Court’s five conservative Justices.
"This perception" — refers, I think, to the way the Court will look in the future if it doesn't rule in favor of gay marriage. This conditional appearance of badness is "an incredible achievement," something that has already taken place. Whose achievement is it? Who is doing the perception? We, the people, presumably. But Hunter does not mean to say that those doing the perceiving have achieved This Perception. She must intend to give credit for the "incredible achievement" to those who have placed This Perception in the minds of the people.

Hunter seems to credit the lawyers who wrote the briefs, but how did the "brilliant exercise in political framing" leap from the briefs into the public's mind? It was the "press coverage of the briefs." The briefs were raw material for the journalists. It is the journalists who performed the "political framing" that created the incredible achievement of This Perception — the journalists, including Hunter, right here, telling you what to make of the raw material generated by lawyers on the anti-gay marriage side. She wants you to know their stuff is "political cover," even as she delights in the "political framing" accomplished by the lawyers on the side she likes. It's all political. Isn't that marvelous? Incredible! Brilliant!

But if it's all political, shouldn't the judiciary restrain itself and allow the political branches of government to go where they will? Implicit in Hunter's cries of delight is the belief that the Court longs for public approval and with The Perception in place — it's there, believe it, all the journalists say it's there — the Justices know there are 2 possible futures, the one where Court looks good and the one where the Court looks bad.

Brilliant!

86 comments:

garage mahal said...

The Supreme Court rightfully lost credibility with the public after 2000.

Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Mo, Catch a Bush by his toe!

SJ said...

So, Nina.

Does Roe vs. Wade have this problem also?

In which direction? Was it positive or negative for the image of the Court?

What about Heller vs. DC?

Again, was it positive or negative for the image of the Court?

Jay said...

It's all political. Isn't that marvelous? Incredible! Brilliant!

Well, when the entirety of your self esteem is built around your political beliefs, sure.

But the idea that gay sex has no value to society and shouldn't be encouraged or subsidized can not occur to such people.

Remember, Democrats are for good things, and being a Democrat makes you good.

tim maguire said...

This is, of course, a proven formula for swaying the vote of Justice Roberts. and that's enough.

Henry said...

I knew a guy in public relations. Above his desk was a magazine clipping that explained that a huge amount of newspaper column inches came directly from PR materials written by people like him.

The message is the media, now.

Erika said...

Whatever would judges or We the People do without an army of journalists telling us the terms of our thoughts.

I had a Facebook exchange with a friend who posted a story about a gay, black mayoral candidate in Mississippi who had apparently been murdered in a rather spectacular way involving dragging and fire. There were some suggestions of shady circumstances, the police the police aren't releasing details of the investigation other than confirming that they are not treating it as a hate crime, but the headline is "Gay black Mississippi mayoral candidate tortured, killed" and my friend's immediate reaction is OMG typical for those H8y McH8ertons in Mississippi. I gently suggested that while the crime is certainly horrific and I sympathize with his family, maybe it's best not to leap to conclusions about its motive until more facts come to light. You can imagine how well that went over. And the headline for the article is not "Guy tortured and murdered," but "Gay black Mississippi" with full knowledge of what that will suggest in people's minds regardless of whether the facts bear out the implication.

Such utter dishonesty and such depressing ignorance among so many people.

chrisnavin.com said...

People who use such arguments will keep using them, in or out of power.

David said...

Part of the job of a Supreme Court justice is to "look bad" if need be.

Darrell said...

garage mahal is right By not ruling 9-0 for the second ruling on the Florida election case, the left side of the SCOTUS lost all its credibility. By not addressing the what the SCOTUS directed the Florida Supreme Court to address when it sent the case back to them, the FSC lost all its credibility.

Renee said...

You can call it marriage, but we all know there is a difference.

Even in Massachusetts, it seems marriage equality is all for show. The APA can say there is no difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, but even when homosexual behavior is accepted and normal it doesn't mean it is the same as heterosexual behavior. Deep down when it comes to public policy, we know children have a mother and father and they benefit when they can parent together as a family.

From Massachusetts

"When fathers are engaged with their children and families, we know that children display an increased exploration of the world around them, have higher educational achievement and better outcomes,” said Secretary Bigby. “I am proud to launch this first ever summit to support the engagement of fathers in positive way with their children.”

Three years ago, the Department of Children and Families (DCF) began working to change and improve the way it identified, found and worked with fathers. There are now 14 Fatherhood Engagement Leadership Teams where fathers come together with DCF staff and other community leaders welcome, engage and hold fathers accountable for parenting children that come to the attention of DCF.

“We have seen, firsthand, a child’s eyes light up when they see their father,” said Commissioner McClain. “I am proud to be surrounded by all of these amazing fathers today. The conversations taking place here will help us as we seek to further enhance and expand our efforts to engage fathers in the lives of their children and families.”

-------------

This world is strange.

SteveR said...

Yeah if nothing else, the need of a SC Justice for approval such as it may exist, cannot be a good thing.

Jay said...

We have seen, firsthand, a child’s eyes light up when they see their father,” said Commissioner McClain

Hell, then let's give them two!

Two is always better than one, right?

Pogo said...

Just like with Obamacare, SCOTUS will immamentize the gay eschaton like good little doggies.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Slightly off topic but I think I owe a bunch of conservatives an apology. I always thought the argument against gay marriage due to opening door to incest and beastiality was bullshit. But the fucking libs keep pushing and pushing.

From Drudge:

On Saturday afternoon, Yale hosted a “sensitivity training” in which students were asked to consider topics such as bestiality, incest, and accepting money for sex.

"I think that's what the point of the workshop was — to bring up things we thought we so taboo and desire or urges we criticize are just regular parts of sexual psychology," he said.  

http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4646

Please tell me this is a hoax.

furious_a said...

...it is the Court who will look bad.

Quick, name the majority justices in Dred Scott!

Renee said...

Jay,

That's when mom's new boyfriend comes in!

damikesc said...

Stunningly enough, when Roberts caved into pressure from the elites with the Obamacare decision, some people noted that it will simply insure that the SCOTUS will simply face that tactic over and over again.

I am stunned.

edutcher said...

Yes, but voting "No" means job security in case Big Sis sends one of the drones their way.

garage mahal said...

The Supreme Court rightfully lost credibility with the public after 2000.

No, that happened after Plessy.

Or was it Dred Scott?

I know! Marbury v whatshisname!!

betamax3000 said...

As the saying goes, atheists in foxholes are gay.

Mitchell the Bat said...

Nan Hunter looks like a combination of Glen Campbell and Jimmy Carter, is all I care.

Shouting Thomas said...

Erika,

A 22 year old black man has been arrested for that murder.

SJ said...

For extra-special bonus, can anyone explain whether Buck vs. Bell has a positive or negative influence on public opinion about the Supreme Court?

In that case, Justice Holmes gladly supported the idea of State-sponsored, compulsory sterilization of certain women, deemed unfit for reproduction under eugenics laws.

Talk about war on women!

It's been a while since that case was decided. And it probably got favorable mention from the great thinkers of the time.

But it would get unfavorable mention now.

Erika said...

ST, but wait, how could it not be a 60 year old Klansman?! It has to be!!

Shouting Thomas said...

In other words, there's nothing left to say on this subject...

Except...

You're a bigot if you won't give me what I want. Gays or [fill in the blank] are just like blacks under Jim Crow.

Feminists successfully pioneered this tactic back in the early 70s.

Everybody except for hetero white men is now just like blacks under Jim Crow and you're a bigot if you think otherwise. Andy R comes around to cackle over the success of this tactic from time to time.

n.n said...

So, the question remains, will the judges recognize the principles of evolution or will they defer to principles of instant gratification. They have already rejected human rights from "creation", so there is likely little hope that they will discover enlightenment now.

Also, will nominally heterosexual men and women, and pro-abortion and pro-choice men and women, continue to find a common cause with other men and women who desire normalization of their dysfunctional behaviors.

It's interesting to observe the basis people exploit to classify behaviors for rejection, tolerance, and normalization. The role of objective standards in our society is selective, typically to suit individual dreams of material, physical, and ego gratification.

That said, the trend that follows from dissociation of risk, closely correlated with the evolution of civilization, is for people to languish in a progressive decadence and to embrace dysfunctional behaviors. There is no reason to believe that modern Americans are any more or less reasonable and capable of self-moderating behavior than people in other societies and other generations.

furious_a said...

The Supreme Court rightfully lost credibility with the public after 2000.

Agreed, the FL SCs were humiliated 9-0 (Bush v. Palm Beach Co) and 7-2 (Bush v Gore, equal protection) before the third, 5-4 (Bush v Gore, remedy) rebuke.

That's....21-6!

jacksonjay said...


Well, according to Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg, the Court will "look bad" until it consists of nine female Justices!

The Kelo decision was not a great moment for the Court! A vacant lot now, generating not tax revenue for the city!

DADvocate said...

The Supremem Court lost credibility way before 2000. Forced busing for beginners.

SSM is a media endorsed event that they hope they can ram through via constant media coverage. Nothing brilliant about that.

TMink said...

Real men don't post as a woman.

Just sayin.

Trey

TMink said...

It seems to me that the problem is that once you throw off the "oppression" of God's law, you are left with preference. That makes morality almost impossible to discuss.

Trey

Seeing Red said...

If the justices don't rule in favor of polyandry or polygamy, it is the Court that will look bad.

Give it a generation, we'll see if I'm right.

Methadras said...

Gosh, I wonder how the court looks now that they've passed Urkel care when they knew it was an abomination of the Constitution and the law. When a court makes decision based on perceptions of how they will be viewed, we all lose.

ricpic said...

"We have seen, firsthand, a child's eyes light up when they (sic) see their (sic) father," said Commisioner McClain.

What would we do without our betters in gubmint? Is it possible to overpay them? The blinding insights they bring to us uncredentialed benighteds. Why, we'd be lost, lost without them ungrammatical bastards.

jacksonjay said...


Seeing Red sez:

If the justices don't rule in favor of polyandry or polygamy, it is the Court that will look bad.

Why stop there? What about pedophilia?

Susan Stewart Rich said...

They will look bad regardless of how it has been framed. But that's what they signed up for. If they are afraid of looking bad, they should look for a new job - say CEO of Nice to Everyone.

Renee said...

Massachusetts still deals with the hetero-normative concerns of establishing paternity with the Department of Revenue.

The video is the link is awkward.

Establishing paternity means determining the legal father of a child. If the parents are not married to each other when the child is born, then paternity must be established before the father’s name will be placed on the birth certificate.

Paternity establishment means more than having a father on the child’s birth certificate or obtaining an order for child support. Once paternity is established, a child gains legal rights and privileges.


-----

Real concerns, that people don't care about. Demanding equal representation of fathers in a child's life for the benefit of the child and society is so uncool compared to fighting for gay rights.

sigh...

I'm so uncool. I look bad.

cubanbob said...

The best and wisest thing the court should do is uphold prop 8 and suggest in the opinion that the people of CA should remove and replace it with a prop allowing same sex marriage. There is no federal marriage law, you can't get married in a federal court house by a federal judge under federal law. It's solely a state issue and federal courts should not be deciding whether a state constitutional amendment is constitutional in context of the state's constitution unless it clearly violates the US constitution.

Skyler said...

You know, after John Roberts scorned the People and refused to protect them from an over reaching executive and legislative branch, I don't think the Court can sink much lower in my esteem.

I can forgive Breyer and Ginsburg, et al., but Roberts believed the law to be wrong and refused to protect the People anyway.

Homosexual marriage is an abomination by definition, but it's just a symptom of societal decay that has already been completed.

Renee said...

cubanbob,

Should federal law just remove any laws dealing with being married, such as in our tax code?

That would make it easier as well. How would of that played different in the Court?

n.n said...

Seeing Red:

Absolutely. A subjective standard is by definition selective. When objective standards are rejected to favor instant or personal gratification, it is no longer possible to argue against any other variant of coupling, including inter-species.

For example, the mechanism proposed by Professor Volokh for normalization of formerly proscribed behaviors is a progressive disintegration of resistance, not actual acceptance. What difference does it make now?

Professor Volokh is right. We conduct social experiments which denigrate individual dignity. We conduct biological experiments which devalue human life. Why shouldn't we experiment with the inviolable principles of evolution? We already accept abortion for the most capricious of reasons: to preserve wealth and welfare, thereby denying the civil and human rights of human beings from "creation."

The unstated truth of evolutionary fitness is that it does not necessarily apply to a species, but to select minorities.

traditionalguy said...

The Gay is normal thought has reached the Tippling Point in society...at least it has on TV sitcoms and in Metropolitan areas.

They are right about that.

But what will SCOTUS do now to get the Muslims' love?

jr565 said...

What's she's saying is the pundits will make the court look
Bad if they don't row the line. It's a not so veiled threat.

And really other than "we want this and your w a bigot if you disagree" type arguments what is the argument to make gay marriage the same as heterosexual marriage.
Jeez, you hear cedar goes talking about the Jewish lobby. They don't hold a candle to the gay lobby. 2% of the population and yet to kowtow to them we have to accept the premise that normative opinions about institutions that have been in existence defined the way they are since before this countries founding is the equivalent of the KLan lynching black folks.

DADvocate said...

Real concerns, that people don't care about. Demanding equal representation of fathers in a child's life for the benefit of the child and society is so uncool compared to fighting for gay rights.

You are hopelessly uncool. As I am. People couldn't beleive I fought so hard and long during my divorce proceedings to have equal representation in my kids' lives. (I won though.)

jr565 said...

What's she's saying is the pundits will make the court look
Bad if they don't row the line. It's a not so veiled threat.

And really other than "we want this and your w a bigot if you disagree" type arguments what is the argument to make gay marriage the same as heterosexual marriage.
Jeez, you hear cedar goes talking about the Jewish lobby. They don't hold a candle to the gay lobby. 2% of the population and yet to kowtow to them we have to accept the premise that normative opinions about institutions that have been in existence defined the way they are since before this countries founding is the equivalent of the KLan lynching black folks.

Teri said...

What CubanBob said. The law was passed by the voters. If advocates of gay marriage want to see it passed in CA, then they should convince the voters of the state to support it. Frankly, marriage should only apply to religious ceremonies. Anything else should be a civil union.

AJ Lynch said...

Nan Hunter, a law prof at Georgetown, must make the far lefists at Georgetownn proud that it is not really a Catholic university anymore.

Amartel said...

She's so proud of the campaign of passive-aggressive propaganda. It's a really bizarre thing to be proud about. So I guess you have to build up the importance of the victory to compensate for the shame

Renee said...

I would like to agree with you Teri, but would that decrease the hostility against some religious institutions that define marriage as one man/one woman or anyone that acknowledges the difference between the two?

Again it makes me upset to have people think I hate them, even when I explain to them what I actually agree with. People are being labeled bigots, who are in no way are. Somehow the only way to pass the anti-gay test, is to make the claim homosexual behavior is no different the heterosexual behavior.

Sorry, I won't. I can't.

Baron Zemo said...

I think the Church should remove itself from many of these Universities and shut them down. Let them reopen as secular entities if they can. But all the fund raising and "cover" that they give them should end.

We should concerntrate on helping the poor and the sick and leave the feminists and people who need scumbags paid by government to their own devices. So to speak.

Bryan C said...

"The Supreme Court rightfully lost credibility with the public after 2000."

garage's personal timeline briefly intersects with reality every 12 years.

Renee said...

Baron,

In some cases, the Church builds private housing next to public universities for students who want to live a Catholic life around other Catholics.

Baron Zemo said...

I think that is a good idea Renee.

Many of the religious who run places like Georgetown and St Johns have become like Republicans in Washington.
They will go along with anything to be popular and get invited to the right parties.

Taking all of the Catholic schools into the Big East without the secular schools is a good first step. Just sayn'

KJE said...

As an attorney, I have no doubt that if revolution comes, I'll be one of the first up against the wall.

I suspect journalists won't be far behind.

jr565 said...

Again it makes me upset to have people think I hate them, even when I explain to them what I actually agree with. People are being labeled bigots, who are in no way are.

Its a very thin line between not thinking we need to redefine marriage to include gay people and killing a gay person after gay bashing him , then tying him to the back of a bumper and dragging his body till his head pops off.

It's like two peas in a pod.

Renee said...

At too many times Catholic parents ask themselves are we paying for a Catholic education or a private education? Might as well send your child to public school, if they're going to get the same message at a private Catholic school.

Renee said...

geesh, thanks jr565

Michael K said...

"
Blogger garage mahal said...

The Supreme Court rightfully lost credibility with the public after 2000.

Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Mo, Catch a Bush by his toe! "

I presume you also disagreed with the unanimous ruling on the election law changes by the Florida Supreme Court ?

I thought at the time, they might be abused by hard lefties like you for stopping the vote count. Had they not done so, we might not have had a Secretary of Defense on 9/11. The Democrats tried hard enough to block all Bush appointees.

I also think that the loonies like you are responsible for Gore's loss of his mind after that mess. Before the election, I didn't care who won very much. I had supported McCain and did not have a high opinion of Bush. Since then, Gore has lost his wife and all signs of sanity except his money grubbing. That seems to be intact. I assume you approve.

After Gore's machinations and the insane reaction of the left, I concluded that we had ended with the better choice.

Renee said...

"do you accept that a divorced person's re-marriage is real.

or just sophisticated adultry."
---------------
To be honest, if it is a no-fault divorce for no particular reason they were not happy, then it's just sophisticated adultry.


I teach my children a valid reason why someone MUST leave a spouse, and the selfish reasons who people leave a spouse. I use abstract examples, not other people's personal lives.

Alex said...

What does Scalia care about public opinion? I think John Roberts is the swing vote.

Alex said...

garage - if you believe so strongly about the 2000 election being stolen, then that's grounds for an insurrection. But you lefties were always gutless cowards.

Lem said...

Make the court an offer they cant refuse.

Alex said...

Show 'em the Chicago Way.

B said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Justin said...

What does Scalia care about public opinion? I think John Roberts is the swing vote.

I'll be money on a 6-3 vote in favor.

Nini said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nini said...

I am not Australian but maybe I can make some comments because afterall, what is being discussed here is philosophy of law and it transcends national boundaries.

Althouse says: She wants you to know their stuff is "political cover," even as she delights in the "political framing" accomplished by the lawyers on the side she likes. It's all political. Isn't that marvelous? Incredible! Brilliant!
But if it's all political, shouldn't the judiciary restrain itself and allow the political branches of government to go where they will?


What’s wrong with framing this as a political issue? Afterall, this is not just a legal issue but a social issue. And I agree with you, this should be decided on the political arena and not in the legal arena.

Justice Scalia thinks that that legislatures should be able to ban behavior deemed immoral. I think he means the Congress. That would mean representative democracy, let “we the people” decide.

Justice Scalia, when confronted by a young gay man in Princeton for his past writing linking bans on sex with animals and murder, says
“If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against these other things?. “Of course we can..” He said that it was an argument by way of reduction to the absurd. He adds: “It’s a type of argument that I thought you would have known…. I’m surprised you aren’t persuaded.”

(quoted from CNN Politics http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/11/scalia-defends-past-comments-some-see-as-anti-gay/)

"Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children's schools, or as boarders in their home," Scalia wrote. "They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive."

"Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda though normal democratic means," the justice continued. But he wrote the court is "departing from its role in assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed" - in other words, allowing the legislative branch of the federal government to determine law.

Lydia said...

Just a year ago, the European Court of Human Rightsruled that

"The European Convention on Human Rights does not require member states’ governments to grant same-sex couples access to marriage."

and

"With regard to married couples, the court considers that in view of the social, personal, and legal consequences of marriage, the applicants’ legal situation could not be said to be comparable to that of married couples".

and

"On the issue of gay unions, the judges said: 'Where national legislation recognises registered partnerships between same sex, member states should aim to ensure that their legal status and their rights and obligations are equivalent to those of heterosexual couples in a similar situation'."

Justices Ginsburg and Breyer (and maybe others) are on record saying that the U.S. could learn much from European legal rulings. Think it's at all possible they could use that to justify a vote leaving gay marriage up to individual states?

Eric said...

The Supreme Court rightfully lost credibility with the public after 2000.

If it didn't lose credibility from Roe credibility loss isn't possible.

Nini said...

Justice Scalia's opinion is similar to that of Australia's Federal Court Judge Jayne Jagot's opinion when she threw out the discrimination case put forward by a gay group. She said that if gays wanted to get married then they should ask that marriage be redefined but that should happen not in the legal arena but in the political arena.

Nini said...

It's also interesting that the Court (ruled by Justice Walker who, I read somewhere, is a gay, btw) decided that Prop 8 (an initiative through a referendum by the majority of California citizens) was unconstitutional and then now being challenged by a group of powerful corporations and individuals again in court.

Is the U.S. a bastion of democracy now tending to oligarchy?

Anglelyne said...

Seeing Red: If the justices don't rule in favor of polyandry or polygamy, it is the Court that will look bad.

Give it a generation, we'll see if I'm right.


Oh, it ain't gonna take a generation. I give it five years, max. I'd bet that the usual suspects are getting all their legal challenge ducks in a row right now.

Revenant said...

Walker's ruling isn't raising much of a stink in California because public opinion in the state has swung decisively towards gay marriage over the last five years.

Whatever his reasons for doing so, his ruling had the effect of throwing out a law most of us are embarrassed by.

Nini said...

I said: She said that if gays wanted to get married then they should ask that marriage be redefined but that should happen not in the legal arena but in the political arena.
=========

Mary responded: Does the U.S. Constitution come into play there...

cuz it does here.


-----------------------------------

Sorry but let me correct myself from my comments at 5.13 PM (don't know what happened there).

Let me state correctly: I am not American but maybe I can make some comments because afterall, what is being discussed here is philosophy of law and it transcends national boundaries.


I read somewhere that the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment was written specifically to abolish slavery and prevent giving harsher punishments to blacks than it would to whites, etc.

Now, the courts can debate for an expansive reading of the provision or they may stick to the original intent of the laws.

Titus said...

It will be 5-4 with Kennedy going with the moons and Roberts returning to the wings to assume some sort of credibility.

Scalia will say something sarcastic the wings with love.

Ginsburg will fall asleep.

Kagen and the Wise Latina will be fingering each other.

And
Thomas will be dreaming of pubic hair.

cubanbob said...

Renee said...
cubanbob,

Should federal law just remove any laws dealing with being married, such as in our tax code?

That would make it easier as well. How would of that played different in the Court?

3/5/13, 12:53 PM

You have it backwards. Marriage as a legal concept predates the US constitution and the 16th amendment by more than four thousand years. The constitution as the basic organic law of the nation incorporates the English common law that predates it's inception and the common law includes marriage laws. Keep marriage and junk the income tax.

I don't have a problem with gay marriage. If the good people of California decide on their own to repeal prop 8, great. If they want to change their state constitution to permit gay marriage, that is their choice. My point is the district court should have never heard this matter as it is a state issue and not a federal issue and the federal courts have no business in deciding what each state defines as a legal marriage. Different sovereignties.

Baron Zemo said...

Lots and lots of deletions.

Everybody loves our Constitution.

Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha!!!!!

Sam L. said...

History is going our way and if you don't get on the bus with us you are going to be run over. And then we will do the bus dance to grind your bodies into
(Chief Justice Ham)Burger!

Revenant said...

The constitution as the basic organic law of the nation incorporates the English common law that predates it's inception and the common law includes marriage laws.

The Constitution does not "incorporate the English common law", whatever that means. It doesn't even require that the states use the common law; Louisiana doesn't.

Also, the majority of that legal history you mention recognizes polygamy as legitimate and does not require the consent of the woman for a marriage to be valid. So I'm not sure why you bring it up, since it so clearly has no relationship to the modern institution of marriage.

Renee said...

In agreement with Revenant, despite it is unfortunate at what we are losing.

In the cleaning of thread, I made note comparing how the Canon Law defined marriage easily with purpose and function in one sentence, while the DOMA Act actually just muddled the definition even further.

How tragic... at least when it comes to language never mind law.

chickelit said...

Revenant said...
Walker's ruling isn't raising much of a stink in California because public opinion in the state has swung decisively towards gay marriage over the last five years.

Over that same time period California voters also elected Governor Jerry Brown, gave Sacramento democrats even more power, voted themselves hefty tax increases and so on. Whether or not voter sanity reflects public opinion is a good question for which there is no good answer.

Pianoman said...

Revenant said...
Walker's ruling isn't raising much of a stink in California because public opinion in the state has swung decisively towards gay marriage over the last five years.

Then repealing Prop 8 should be a piece of cake, right?

Hmm, I wonder why the SSM lobby doesn't just do that instead of spending all this time fighting in court? I mean, doesn't Hollywood have more money than the Mormon church? Couldn't the SSM lobby outspend the anti-SSM forces by a factor of 5?

You'd think if it was that easy, someone would have started a petition drive.

Maybe it's not as cut-and-dried as you think.

By the way, once the SSM lobby wins their victory over the H8T3RZ and bigots, are they going to come to the rescue of the first cousins who want to get married? There's 30 states that have banned it. Some states, like Texas, have actually criminalized it. Isn't that a huge civil rights violation? I mean, shouldn't you be able to marry who you want to without interference by the state?

Help, help! My first cousin and I can't get married in Nevada! My rights are being trampled!

Revenant said...

Then repealing Prop 8 should be a piece of cake, right?

We don't have to repeal it. The court threw it out already.

If the Supreme Court opts to reinstate Prop 8 then yes, I expect to see it repealed in 2014.

Hmm, I wonder why the SSM lobby doesn't just do that instead of spending all this time fighting in court?

This way is cheaper and quicker.

Dante said...

Suppose as some gays assert, being gay has genetic origins. By outing gays early, there will be less chance for them to procreate. Not that I mind gays: they tend to make more money than straights, probably because they don't have to raise children. In fact, that's the one good argument I've heard for why being gay has genetic advantages: the extra resources a gay produces can go towards supporting his immediate family.

Unfortunately, modern day society has largely wiped out that value. So perhaps being gay has lots its genetic value. So old hat.

Pianoman said...

@Revenant:

At this time, SSM are not happening in California:

"On February 21 [2012], proponents requested to have to the case reviewed en banc by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. If granted, en banc review could have taken a year or more, which would have delayed possible U.S. Supreme Court review. Pending the appeal, a stay was continued, barring any marriages from taking place. On June 5, the full Ninth Circuit refused to rehear the case; the stay remains in place pending final action by the Supreme Court."

In practical terms, Proposition 8 is still in effect in California. It will only be set aside if SCOTUS rules against it.

There was nothing stopping pro-SSM forces from starting up the initiative process immediately after Prop 8 passed. They could have done both things -- gone to court to stop Prop 8, AND started up the initiative process to eliminate it via a vote.

Prop 8 passed in 2008. Two election cycles have passed, and a third is coming up next year. Yet there is no effort to defeat Prop 8 at the ballot box. All of the resources have been dedicated towards winning at the judicial level.

It looks to me that support for SSM in California isn't as strong as you think it is. Non-whites -- the fastest growing demographic in California -- are strongly against it. The dirty little secret from 2008 is that blacks voted 70% against SSM; somehow I have a hard time believing that the last five years would have substantially changed their views.

By the way, nobody has addressed the business about first cousins, and how their rights are routinely trampled in this country. I wonder why that is? Maybe it's because we really do believe that states have the right to set their own marriage policy on a state-by-state basis?

Revenant said...

At this time, SSM are not happening in California:

Yes, I know that. Nevertheless, unless the Supreme Court overturns the lower court it will soon be legal.

It looks to me that support for SSM in California isn't as strong as you think it is.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. I see no reason to believe the polls are wrong.

By the way, nobody has addressed the business about first cousins. I wonder why that is?

Well, speaking only for myself, I ignored it because it was a dumb question.

Pianoman said...

Why is it a dumb question?

You have two people, who are in love, and who want the same legal married rights as everyone else. Several states are actively preventing that from happening. Some states actually criminalize the behavior.

I thought SSM was a civil rights issue. Maybe I'm mistaken?