June 28, 2013

"Three judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that same-sex marriages can resume 'effective immediately' in the state of California..."

... says Breaking News email from CNN.

So! I'm glad I didn't get sucked into the legalistic argle-bargle about the effect of the Supreme Court's Prop 8 case. Did you read any of that? I did, but I chose not to inflict it on you. Perhaps some local functionary will refuse to record a gay marriage and there will be more litigation, but really... get a clue. It's over.

69 comments:

Michael said...

So, no more oppressing gays. That should be a relief. The younger ones might want to consider one of the quirks of divorce in California before they tie the knot. Spousal support can last a lifetime. That is oppression.

Revenant said...

Of course it isn't over. The court still hasn't ruled on whether states may legally ban gay marriages.

If they say "no" then it's Roe v. Wade all over again. If they say "yes" there will be endless harping over it at the state level.

Michael said...

By the way, how will the court know to which party in a divorce to award support?Maybe it is obvious but I cant get my head around it. Will one party claim the female role or will there be haggling over that at divorce? Will there be a box on the marriage license that ondicates who gets hammered and who can simply waltz into court and pull the trigger on the easy life? Or maybe support wont be allowed but then that wouldnt be fair and equal.

Saint Croix said...

but really... get a clue. It's over.

I would say the future belongs to the breeders. Although it is true the liberals have our children!

Saint Croix said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
pbAndjFellowRepublican said...

but really... get a clue. It's over.

What if scientists discover that gay fetuses actually masturbate to the opposite sex?

Then we'll know that adult gays are an abomination. So! we must hate the sin.

Revenant said...

I would say the future belongs to the breeders.

Blacks and Hispanics? :)

pbAndjFellowRepublican said...

"I would say the future belongs to the breeders.

Blacks and Hispanics? :)"

You forgot the Muslims.

Harrison said...

How much longer before the lawsuits from polygamists will begin?

Gahrie said...

but really... get a clue. It's over.

Which of course, is exactly the same position you would have taken if the USSC had ruled the other way....right?

Becuase of course, when the people of California spoke, not once, but twice, the gay rights movement accepted their verdict.

rhhardin said...

You'd think against the will of the people would figure in more in the attitude towards a legal action.

edutcher said...

As I said earlier, "Isn't 9th Circus the one that's always getting overturned?".

Nothing is over.

Any ruling can be overturned.

Rosa Parks proved that.

In this case, I think the people in favor of same sex marriages by taking this "The science is settled" route, as I told the Baghdad Bob of Althouse, are really saying, "We won! You're supposed to stop objecting! Now go home!".

That's not going to happen. A bad idea is a bad idea, particularly if you hold that view not only with objective data (history, biology, psychiatry), but as a strong principle (religion, logic).

We've seen this with abortion. Science has shoved the reality of the womb in all our faces; people like Gosnell and Tiller have shown what an ugly business it is; politicians like Sibelius and Choom have shown us how corrupt it is. Support for abortion is weakening and Roe is already looking shaky. It took 40 years.

I give this a lot less time.

edutcher said...

rhhardin said...

You'd think against the will of the people would figure in more in the attitude towards a legal action.

To invalidate state control of marriage, SCOTUS would have to nullify the 9th Amendment.

What happens when some governor says, "Ms Kagan has made her decision, now let her enforce it"?

Now there is a Constitutional crisis.

Methadras said...

Nothing is ever over. Well, I take that back, we finally stopped paying the tax on our phone bill to pay for the spanish american war. Wow, glad that's over.

RiverRat said...

This will not shut up the Socons but it will help. There are more important issues like immigration...don't be distracted.

Ann is correct "move on" until "they" attempt to impose this on churches and religious associations. Let's see if SCOTUS can't read the 1st...freedom of association and religion.

Inga said...

Hey I was a good breeder, I had four children, I'm proud of my former fecundancy, and only three of my kids are liberals! One is a conservative, go figure. I still love her.

Congratulations California!

Mr. D said...

The gay marriage thing is probably over, but the real fun comes when the lawsuit to overturn Prop 13 hits the Ninth Circuit. Wonder if Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris will defend that one....

edutcher said...

RiverRat said...

This will not shut up the Socons but it will help. There are more important issues like immigration...don't be distracted.

Ann is correct "move on" until "they" attempt to impose this on churches and religious associations. Let's see if SCOTUS can't read the 1st...freedom of association and religion.


No, don't "move on". That's when they slip stuff by you. Keep on top of all the issues.

"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance".

Somebody said that once.

PS The word is fecundity, or is that as funky as everything else?

somefeller said...

It's over in California. Elsewhere, it'll take awhile. But it's a question of time now.

kentuckyliz said...

In other news, 37 states have constitutional amendments that do not allow SSM.

Harold said...

Harrison said...
How much longer before the lawsuits from polygamists will begin?

It's a weekend. Monday.

Gene said...

Now that the Supreme Court has blessed fudge-packing, the next demand will be to have the Catholic Church declare it a holy sacrament.

edutcher said...

somefeller said...

It's over in California. Elsewhere, it'll take awhile. But it's a question of time now.

No, it's a long way from being over, much as the Lefties want everybody to think that way.

If Chuckie Schumer got his way, would the 35 million peons descending on the Once-Golden State like the idea? Don't think so.

The death penalty was "over" almost 40 years ago, according to SCOTUS.

Now it's not "over".

The fight against abortion was supposed to be "over", but support for it is diminishing.

As long as people say it's not over

It's.

Not.

Over.

edutcher said...

That is, support for abortion is diminishing.

wholelottasplainin' said...

Ann will not be satisfied until she ass-rapes her conservative commenters with a broken beer bottle.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Revenant said... Of course it isn't over. The court still hasn't ruled on whether states may legally ban gay marriages.

If they say "no" then it's Roe v. Wade all over again. If they say "yes" there will be endless harping over it at the state level.


I'm cool with that. At some point a balance will be achieved and no one will think anymore about it. That is what should have happened with abortion.

edutcher said...

Agree or not, 55 million is a lot of people.

Henry said...

KentuckyLiz wrote:

In other news, 37 states have constitutional amendments that do not allow SSM.

Is this predictive? You could be right. It won't make much difference against strict scrutiny.

The map on this Wikipedia page is instructive. It's a mix of prohibitions and permissions and equivalencies. And then there's ambivalent New Mexico: "No specific prohibition or recognition of same-sex marriages or unions."

The fact that SCOTUS allowed California to be flipped shouldn't obscure the trend. This map in 2003 would have showed one state blue.*

Maybe this will pattern will stabilize for a while. New England and Hawaii have never really been in sync with the rest of the country.

But I suspect that one outcome of the Prop 8 battle is that some of the large institutional opponents of gay marriage in that battle will be far less aggressive in the do-overs. Time will tell.

*It's funny to consider how out-of-date an old print encyclopedia would be. You would have to wait for the annual yearbook to come out, and then remember to look up the issue in the S volume and the yearbook both.



I Callahan said...

but the real fun comes when the lawsuit to overturn Prop 13 hits the Ninth Circuit

It's already been challenged, and the challengers lost. Declared constitutional:

Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992).

jr565 said...

If the supremes rule that gay marriage must occur despite states ruling against it, polygamists in Utah should adopt the following strategy. Get someone in power who is down with polygamy and have that person simply ignore the ban on polygamy. Once people are married sue the govts who will argue that their marriages on the grounds that are illegal that they are trying to void legal marriages. In a couple of years we can get polygamy in all states

And frankly, I can see a lot of benefits to polygamy. More income, more sexual partners. Better distribution of household cores. I'm in.

Leland said...

It's just starting, #loveislove

Ann Althouse said...

This post is about California.

More is needed re other states.

Ultimate outcome pretty apparent there though, but I didn't intend to refer to that.

jr565 said...

But really... Get a clue.its over.
Reminds me of the following scene:

Bluto: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Otter (Tim Matheson): [whispering] Germans?
Boon (Peter Riegert): Forget it, he's rolling.
Bluto: And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough... [thinks hard] the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go! [runs out, alone; then returns] What the fuck happened to the Delta I used to know? Where's the spirit? Where's the guts, huh? "Ooh, we're afraid to go with you Bluto, we might get in trouble." Well just kiss my ass from now on! Not me! I'm not gonna take this. Wormer, he's a dead man! Marmalard, dead! Niedermeyer -
Otter: Dead! Bluto's right. Psychotic, but absolutely right. We gotta take these bastards. Now we could do it with conventional weapons that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part.
Bluto: We're just the guys to do it.
D-Day: Let's do it.
Bluto: LET'S DO IT!!


Revenant said...

I'm cool with that

I'd be fine with that, too -- but it does mean that things are a long way from being "over".

I fully expect that the abortion issue will eventually return to the states as well. Honestly, for the amount of money spent keep abortion legal in all 50 states you could probably provide every pregnant woman in America with free transportation from the states that ban it to the states that don't.

jr565 said...

Not saying that that quote has a direct bearing on what's happening in CA. You just have to quote that when someone says its over.

edutcher said...

jr565 said...

But really... Get a clue.its over.
Reminds me of the following scene:

Bluto: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Otter (Tim Matheson): [whispering] Germans?
Boon (Peter Riegert): Forget it, he's rolling.
Bluto: And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough... [thinks hard] the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go! [runs out, alone; then returns] What the fuck happened to the Delta I used to know? Where's the spirit? Where's the guts, huh? "Ooh, we're afraid to go with you Bluto, we might get in trouble." Well just kiss my ass from now on! Not me! I'm not gonna take this. Wormer, he's a dead man! Marmalard, dead! Niedermeyer -
Otter: Dead! Bluto's right. Psychotic, but absolutely right. We gotta take these bastards. Now we could do it with conventional weapons that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part.
Bluto: We're just the guys to do it.
D-Day: Let's do it.
Bluto: LET'S DO IT!!


Damned straight.

Palladian said...

Now that the Supreme Court has blessed fudge-packing, the next demand will be to have the Catholic Church declare it a holy sacrament.

Nah, the Catholic holy sacrament is kiddie-packing.

Henry said...

It's over.

I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part.

Except for that part.

edutcher said...

Palladian said...



Nah, the Catholic holy sacrament is kiddie-packing.


No, that's the Ghey Church's sacrament.

d243e478-b01b-11e2-b6bf-000bcdcb5194 said...

Idiot Know-it-all Professor is still gloating and preening, I see. Her female imperative has been set on 11 ever since her little pet feelings-based issue has been front and center.

"I Won!"

Let's see how society looks in 20-40 years, shall we?

Wait, you're an academic. You couldn't care less about results. I'm sorry, I forgot.

pbAndjFellowRepublican said...

I used to be against the gays, but then it turned out that I very closely knew one. Now I'm ok w/ them.

/thoughtful con

pbAndjFellowRepublican said...

I'm not against the gays, I even have gay friends (and blacks too!). But, marriage has always been for Jack and Jane. Not Jack and Jack.

/thoughtful con

Eric said...

I'm cool with that. At some point a balance will be achieved and no one will think anymore about it. That is what should have happened with abortion.

That's what did happen with abortion until the court decided to act as a super-legislature.

Eric said...

I'm amazed it took over a hundred years for the invisible writing to appear on gay marriage.

Gahrie said...

In other news, 37 states have constitutional amendments that do not allow SSM.

California used to also.

n.n said...

It's not over. The principles of evolution are inviolable. However, Saint Croix is correct. It is possible to fulfill the principal requirement of evolutionary fitness either through reproduction or indoctrination (i.e. subjugation). It is, once again, clear, that the Left prefers to dominate rather than coexist.

That said, I await a principled response from the Left, but I know that they are incapable of offering something they neither comprehend nor possess. They will never support equal protection in equal measure unless it serves their political, economic, and social interests. They will never acknowledge or appreciate the terms and circumstances of reality because it is so often inconvenient to realizing their dreams of instant (or immediate) gratification.

Let the semantic games continue. Only bribery (i.e. redistributive change) and disenfranchisement will secure your victories.

Darleen said...

Nice to know that states with referendum systems are now moot depending on the whims of a Governor or AG.

California is no longer a representative democracy. It's tyranny.

Get a clue, Ann. You just supported fascism.

Paul said...

Soon they will want polygamy legalized. Then polyandry. Later bestiality and man-boy live (yes pedophilia.)

Just watch. Once the idea marriage is not about a man and women, then it will be perverted to mean nothing.

And I hear Obama say he won't force churches to marry gays. Why how thoughtful of him!

Inga said...

Dooooooom!

Darleen said...

I'll say it again ... any state with referendum systems are doomed. Any Governor can now ignore the duly passed laws.

California is no longer a representative democracy. It is tyranny.

So why the applause and sneering at those of us that support American principles, not convenient fascism?

Inga said...

Tyranny!

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

On a lighter note, I understand that classical musicians all over the Bay Area are rejoicing at the imminent bumper crop of wedding gigs. (No joke -- if your income is mainly from regional orchestras that run September to May or so, making ends meet over the summer can be difficult.)

averagejoe said...

Althouse being so Freaking Obnoxious- makes me wonder, is Althouse alter ego Titus?

Darleen said...

Hey Inga, how would you explain the what exists outside the Rule of Law?

Jerry Brown, convenient fascist.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

"Hey Inga, how would you explain the what exists outside the Rule of Law?"

Last time I checked, the constitution was w/in the Rule of Law?

Don't be silly.

edutcher said...

Paul said...

Soon they will want polygamy legalized. Then polyandry. Later bestiality and man-boy live (yes pedophilia.)

Sex before 8 or else it's too late.

Not to mention Vagina Monologues between Eve Ensler look alikes and 13 year old girls.

Get used to it.

Just watch. Once the idea marriage is not about a man and women, then it will be perverted to mean nothing.

And I hear Obama say he won't force churches to marry gays.


Yet.

But he will force military chaplains.

Darleen said...

Last time I checked, the constitution was w/in the Rule of Law?

Don't be silly.


I'm being deadly serious. As the ruling that stands is Judge Vaughns with only two couples as plaintiffs, it should only affect that northern CA district.

But Los Angeles county is "marrying" same-sex couples as we speak.

Prop 8 was duly passed and upheld by CA Supreme Court. The SCOTUS DOMA decision said states could make their own decision.

Obviously, then, real marriage is legal in the states that define it.

Square those round pegs. Moonbeam is a fascist pig and the AG with him.

Jane said...

Now that we have the precedent that, if the state refuses to defend a Proposition it doesn't like, tough luck -- what next?

Is it possible to write into such a Proposition the requirement that the state vigorously defend the law if challenged in court?

Gahrie said...

Is it possible to write into such a Proposition the requirement that the state vigorously defend the law if challenged in court?

Probably not. however, even if you did, they would just ignore that too.

Real American said...

why start following the law now? their making it up as they go along. they don't care about the rule of law. they care getting what they want.

every single left wing innovation has hurt the American family, not helped it - whether it be no fault divorce, abortion on demand or welfare. You name it, you've fucked it up. But why should you give a shit, anyway. you got your short term little victory, which means we're all fucked in the long run. so keep the champagne flowing. It's not like you give a fuck anyway.

eventually, Robespierres of the world get their turn at the guillotine.

RichardS said...

By "argle-bargle" you seem to mean legal reasoning. But the Ninth Circuit seldom lets the law get in the way of its moral opinions (aka: its religion--or do they suddenly claim a monoply on truth?).

Achilles said...

Darleen said...
I'll say it again ... any state with referendum systems are doomed. Any Governor can now ignore the duly passed laws.

California is no longer a representative democracy. It is tyranny.

So why the applause and sneering at those of us that support American principles, not convenient fascism?

6/28/13, 10:08 PM

This post is instructive for its total lack of self awareness.

As long as marriage is defined by government it will be Tyranny. If you get a majority to support a prop 8 style law you are forcing people that disagree with that law to submit to your will. Along the same lines if Jerry Brown and the ninth circuit disagree with you and pull shenanigans you will be forced to submit to their will.

In the end you will lose this because the young voters in this country don't agree with you. They will be the majority and they will make SSM the law of the land. You will be forced to heed that law. And this will happen because when you were the majority you forced them to submit to your tyranny.

The only way you can save marriage is by getting the state and electoral majority out of the decision making process. This was and should always be a decision made by individuals in their communities. But you big government conservatives are too stupid to realize you forcing your beliefs on society is leading to your and all of our detriment.

Government and progressives will destroy marriage. It has always been their goal. And you give them the tools to do it.

Thanks a lot.

And please save the high minded foundations of society bullshit. Government and progressives obviously don't give a shit. Grow a brain and realize the government is not a tool to force your views on others, because they are a lot better at it than you and will win.

Achilles said...

edutcher said...
Paul said...

Soon they will want polygamy legalized. Then polyandry. Later bestiality and man-boy live (yes pedophilia.)

Sex before 8 or else it's too late.

Not to mention Vagina Monologues between Eve Ensler look alikes and 13 year old girls.

Get used to it.

Just watch. Once the idea marriage is not about a man and women, then it will be perverted to mean nothing.

And I hear Obama say he won't force churches to marry gays.

Yet.

But he will force military chaplains.

6/28/13, 10:49 PM

As long as you think the government should make these kinds of decisions you put yourself in this position.

When progressives and big-government conservatives fight to see who can use government to force everyone to do what they want progressives will win every time because they are soulless disgusting people. Some of them actually care about gay people, but most are trying to destroy this country and the individual virtue that is the true foundation of freedom. Most of the big-gov conservatives have good intentions and are not haters, but where does the road paved with good intentions lead?

edutcher said...

Jane said...

Now that we have the precedent that, if the state refuses to defend a Proposition it doesn't like, tough luck -- what next?

Is it possible to write into such a Proposition the requirement that the state vigorously defend the law if challenged in court?


We all know the Lefties reserve for themselves to disobey any law they don't like.

Diogenes of Sinope said...

Soon we will see attempts to legislate to favor gay marriage and disadvantage heterosexual marriage.

DEEBEE said...

Yeah all you can do is rest in your Hubris

Mr. D said...

It's already been challenged, and the challengers lost. Declared constitutional:

Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992).


Yep, I was just thinking about the permanence of judicial rulings the other day.

Calypso Facto said...

Why does the US Circuit Court get to weigh in on what the Supreme Court just said is wholly a state issue?

Baron Zemo said...

Palladian said...
Now that the Supreme Court has blessed fudge-packing, the next demand will be to have the Catholic Church declare it a holy sacrament.
Nah, the Catholic holy sacrament is kiddie-packing


No that was the result of having homosexual predator priests. 99% of the molestation was of adolescent boys. There were almost no instances of true pedophiles who preyed on both sexes.