With Reinhardt and Hawkins on the panel, the question was not whether this would happen, but how. And the answer is: they chose to forego a sweeping ruling in favor of a narrower one, the reasoning of which is more likely to appeal to Anthony Kennedy.
No principles to be found here. Just naked power, restrained only by an awareness of a greater power in D.C.
Decision may be read here. If you care to read such sophistry.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | ||||
Powered by WordPress.
I spent twenty years defending the country and all I learned is I shouldn’t have bothered.
Steve (475035) — 2/7/2012 @ 1:32 pmIf allowed to prevail, you can never overturn a court decision ever via legislation or referendum. At least they permitted standing as a consession.
MyOpinion (259251) — 2/7/2012 @ 1:37 pmMyOpinion: that’s an awfully broad reading of the case. I read it as being hinged very heavily on the fact that Prop. 8 merely revoked the name and left behind all of the incidents of marriage. Which is to say – finding an analagous case would be fairly difficult.
I’m not even sure it applies in Maine, and I’m certain it wouldn’t apply to a referendum in Washington.
aphrael (5d993c) — 2/7/2012 @ 1:42 pmI would also note that this outcome – a Romer-based argument which can easily be confined to California – was heavily foreshadowed by the questions at the oral arguments and so should come as no real surprise.
aphrael (5d993c) — 2/7/2012 @ 1:58 pmThank you Ted Olson for your work against H8.
snaps (805ade) — 2/7/2012 @ 2:04 pmSAme-sex marriage supporters are seeking a proposition for the November ballot that would overturn Prop 8. If that were to pass, what would happen to this case?
aunursa (0687cf) — 2/7/2012 @ 2:27 pmAfter more than twenty years of marriage, and my divorce finalized three weeks ago, I wish everyone, including those godforsaken breakers of God’s and Nature’s law, all the best, no matter how it comes about.
BTW, guys and girls. Rule #11 for keeping a marriage together. When he/she starts an argument and you don’t want any part of it, the most unforgivable thing you can do is walk out on it. Damn, they hate that.
nk (0498ac) — 2/7/2012 @ 2:30 pmI mean, supposed that SCOTUS (a) hears oral arguments in October, or (b) schedules oral arguments for January 2013. Then if the initiative were to pass, would the case go forward? Or be dropped?
aunursa (0687cf) — 2/7/2012 @ 2:30 pmI’m so sorry, nk. I know I barely know you, but I’m sorry you’re going through a lot of very challenging events.
I’ll keep your advice in mind.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/7/2012 @ 2:32 pmAunursa: assuming that such a proposition passes in 2012, then the Supreme Court would likely dismiss the case as moot.
aphrael (5d993c) — 2/7/2012 @ 2:33 pmNK: i’m sorry to hear that. :{
aphrael (5d993c) — 2/7/2012 @ 2:35 pmhang in there Mr. nk
I think the November ballot thing sounds like the way to go here since we all have to vote anyway
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 2/7/2012 @ 2:38 pmThe pretense that the initiative ws for the purpose of undoing the CA Supreme Court action is preposterous. In fact the exact opposite is true; the Supreme Court acted when it did solely to create the argument the Appeals Court is using.
I support gay marriage, but I do not support judicial coups to get it.
Kevin M (563f77) — 2/7/2012 @ 2:39 pmThank you Ted Olson for working against H8.-Some ultra-left gay dude.
Wasn’t aware Olson opposed Sharia.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 2/7/2012 @ 2:48 pmIt would save a lot of people a lot of grief if activists would just bring it back to a vote in CA.
Unfortunately, the circulation deadline for the ICA (http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i1001_11-0058_(civil_marriage).pdf) is 5/24, and the qualification deadline is 6/28. It seems unlikely they could finish a random sample in that time.
aphrael (5d993c) — 2/7/2012 @ 2:48 pmThis should add some punch to any Republican ads reminding the voters that control of the USSC is probably at stake over the next four years.
M. Scott Eiland (003254) — 2/7/2012 @ 2:50 pmAgreed, M. Scott… definitely!
Colonel Haiku (a3006f) — 2/7/2012 @ 2:54 pmThis will be litigated until they finally get their desired result, at which point it will be declared settled law and homophobic to disagree with it.
JD (4fbc0a) — 2/7/2012 @ 2:57 pmIsn’t that Catch 22? If same-sex couples are deprived of one of the incidents of marriage then it will be (quite properly in my opinion) held to be discrimination, and if they are not then that itself is a violation?!
Milhouse (d7842d) — 2/7/2012 @ 3:14 pmBy the way, Romer was a travesty. In my opinion the Supreme Court was ultra vires in making it, and lower courts as well as everyone else ought to ignore it. It is not law.
Milhouse (d7842d) — 2/7/2012 @ 3:16 pmExactly. There seems to be a one-way ratchet in effect.
Milhouse (d7842d) — 2/7/2012 @ 3:18 pmCali Supreme Court creates “right” to SSM out of whole cloth. As a direct result of same, the people of Cali vote, again, to amend the State Constitution. Court declares constitutional amendment unconstitutional ecause state SC already declared it a right. Government and Dems hate voters. Govt by decree is much less messy.
JD (4fbc0a) — 2/7/2012 @ 3:25 pmOut of the penumbras of shadows of emanations, whereas the second amendment, check the magic eightball
narciso (87e966) — 2/7/2012 @ 3:33 pmIn my case it was 15 years, nk. And you’re exactly right about that argument thing.
Move forward!
Icy (83a940) — 2/7/2012 @ 3:37 pmSo, sorry to hear that Nk.
narciso (87e966) — 2/7/2012 @ 3:39 pm18. This will be litigated until they finally get their desired result, at which point it will be declared settled law and homophobic to disagree with it.
— Has this not already happened?
Icy (83a940) — 2/7/2012 @ 3:39 pmThe CA Supremes and the 9th Circ should declare cows to be vegetables, so vegetarians could eat cheeseburgers.
JD (4fbc0a) — 2/7/2012 @ 3:52 pmIf Meghan Mccain were against H8 she would call for stiffer penalties against Muslims who burn gays alive.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 2/7/2012 @ 3:55 pmRuth Bader Ginsburg: ”I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.”
Icy (83a940) — 2/7/2012 @ 3:57 pmIcy – she shares Barcky’s contempt for the Constitution. She is just more honest about it.
JD (4fbc0a) — 2/7/2012 @ 3:59 pmAn honest traitor OR a dishonest patriot: Which one is better?
Icy (83a940) — 2/7/2012 @ 4:05 pmMoochelle Obama is now a vegetable?
Icy (83a940) — 2/7/2012 @ 4:07 pm
Icy (83a940) — 2/7/2012 @ 4:07 pmBlack-eyed pea brain[I denounce myself]“Exactly. There seems to be a one-way ratchet in effect.”
As if there was a objective direction of history, with a group on the right side, and a group on the wrong side. Give it a generation and this won’t be an issue much more. Other than for the gay people who can get married.
snaps (805ade) — 2/7/2012 @ 4:12 pm“Ruth Bader Ginsburg: ”I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.””
What’s fantastic about this statement is just how reasonable it is, yet appears to be calculated to anger just the right people.
snaps (805ade) — 2/7/2012 @ 4:14 pmJudging by news reports (I didn’;t really read the decision) the essence of the decision is:
1) The proponents of the proposition deliberately designed it so that there would be no distinction in any legal rights between marriages and these domestic partnerships. If that’s the case, said the court, there was no purpose for the law!!
Other than to deny same sex couples equal dignity and respect and this violated the 14th Amendment even under the reasonable basis standard.
However, they were not saying a state had to authorize same sex marriages (they would not create positive law declaring what was required for a marriage) but once it existed in a satte it could never be abolished – nobody could ever decide that they made a mistake. At least if no distinctions were made between heterosexual and homosexual unions.
If you take the decision literally, then if there was a greater distinction than simply nomenclature, then it might be OK to reserve the word marriage for heterosexual unions. As long as the court found a good enough reason for it. The court, you see, left itself an out, in case they changed their minds, or it caused unforeseen trouble, like marriage fraud…
So we could think, or the court could rule later, that if the state had said same sex couples could register only under certain condituions stricter than marriage, like sharing medical and financial records, because say they were more unstable, or there was less reason for each one to trust the other, then it that be constitutional. Or if they would have said same sex marriages had fewer privileges, then it would be OK.
Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 2/7/2012 @ 4:39 pmEgypt is a hostage-taking thugstate they don’t need a constitution as much as they need to stop behaving like gangster trash
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 2/7/2012 @ 4:39 pmnot one penny more to Egypt.
Colonel Haiku (a3006f) — 2/7/2012 @ 4:40 pmWhat’s your objection to that? Lots of provisions in our constitution are stupid or outdated, and I wouldn’t put them in a new one. And many provisions are just not suited for Egypt. Why should Egypt have a federal system, or jury trials? Why should it have an electoral college, or protect people against being forced to quarter troops in peace time?
Milhouse (d7842d) — 2/7/2012 @ 4:43 pmAs a direct result of same, the people of Cali vote, again, to amend the State Constitution.
Well, not quite. Prop 8 had qualified for the ballot well before the CASC ruled, and when asked to stay the ruling until after Prop 8 was decided, the SC refused, artificially creating the situation the Appeals Court finds fault in.
Kevin M (563f77) — 2/7/2012 @ 4:45 pmHistorical determinism? How quaint.
Milhouse (d7842d) — 2/7/2012 @ 4:47 pmthe bill of rights kicks ass it is a very kick ass bill of rights
the 10th was apparently not very clearly written though
oops
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 2/7/2012 @ 4:48 pm“Ruth Bader Ginsburg: ”I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.””
And the main problem with the European Union is they took that advice, and instead created an unworkable mishmash that no one understands or supports. And which is about to come crashing down.
Maybe next time they’ll use the one federal constitution that has actually stood the test of time. Ginsberg is a fool.
Kevin M (563f77) — 2/7/2012 @ 4:49 pm39)That is missing the main point of the Constitution which are limited powers, regional autonomy, seperation of powers. and the ‘negative
narciso (87e966) — 2/7/2012 @ 4:53 pmliberties’ of speech, assembly, et al.
Maybe next time they’ll use the one federal constitution that has actually stood the test of time.
Then again, it hasn’t stood the test of Barack so very well.
Kevin M (563f77) — 2/7/2012 @ 4:57 pmMilhouse, the US Constitution would have failed without the Electoral College, which is a sophisticated firewall and tiebreaker and in no way operates by accident.
Kevin M (563f77) — 2/7/2012 @ 4:59 pmLots of provisions in our constitution are stupid or outdated, and I wouldn’t put them in a new one.
— Such as?
And many provisions are just not suited for Egypt.
— Talking about what you would base a new constitution on. Not talking about a cut-and-paste job.
or jury trials?
Icy (83a940) — 2/7/2012 @ 5:07 pm— You’re happy with the current system of jurisprudence in Egypt, are you?
nk, I’m sorry you’re going through such a tough season.
Dana (4eca6e) — 2/7/2012 @ 5:12 pmseems so long ago
Colonel Haiku (a3006f) — 2/7/2012 @ 5:13 pmMilhouse parted the Dead Sea
Let my people surf!
I believe it’s called “liberal policy”. It applies to pretty much any law they want to misuse to push a specific agenda that is generally detrimental to the nation as a whole.
IGotBupkis, Three Time Winner of the Silver Sow Award (8e2a3d) — 2/7/2012 @ 5:17 pmNo, no, no….!!
Dems LOVE voters.
They just don’t want to pay any attention to them.
Voting is a right everyone should have… everyone.
Those six Armenians living in a mud hutch in outer Mongolia?
They ought to be able to vote in Federal, State, and Local elections…
You see, if the result of a vote can’t possibly make any sense, the Dems are all in favor of it.
IGotBupkis, Three Time Winner of the Silver Sow Award (8e2a3d) — 2/7/2012 @ 5:21 pm===============================
Remember the GOAL.
===============================
The destruction of the nation as a force for pretty much anything. The repudiation of the entire last half-millenium of human socio-political and moral development on the basis of Christianity and the legacy of Greek Culture.
Liberals, aka “Democrats” are a cancer eating away at all the bases for these ideas — they seek to invalidate science by politicizing it and making people confuse the unreliability of the soft-sciences with actual science based on the scientific method, destroy the foundations of anything but utterly relativistic truth based on “whatever you want it to mean”, and the overall concept that humans have any hope of betterment or improving their lot in the world. They abuse language with “deconstruction”, rhetoric with appeals to emotion, and consistency by not considering the position on something on one day to be relevant to the position on something the next.
IGotBupkis, Three Time Winner of the Silver Sow Award (8e2a3d) — 2/7/2012 @ 5:26 pmTwo dead sonsabitches is best.
IGotBupkis, Three Time Winner of the Silver Sow Award (8e2a3d) — 2/7/2012 @ 5:29 pmMilhouse, about the only thing the last 223 or so years of the Constitution has shown needing changes is the language assumes the reader has the brain of a gnat. If it should be rewritten, the primary emphasis should be on making stuff any rational person would grasp as obvious unavoidably so with absolute outright and undeniable statements that libtards and imbeciles can’t take wrong… except they will, since “shall make no law” seems to be a fuzzy statement to them. But at least then everyone around them who is NOT an abject imbecile will know what is meant and no amount of blatherous argumentation on their part would succeed in muddying the waters.
IGotBupkis, Three Time Winner of the Silver Sow Award (8e2a3d) — 2/7/2012 @ 5:34 pm9 for me. Although I don’t think 2 or 3 counted. There was that recall thingy following 9/11.
Steve (475035) — 2/7/2012 @ 5:41 pmEugene Volokh can’t see what the fuss is about either.
Milhouse (d7842d) — 2/7/2012 @ 5:55 pmGinsberg’s comment was ugly. We all know that.
If she wanted to explain how one could make a more modern version of our system, she could have done so. There is real value in our ‘leaders’ showing they respect the tremendous virtues of our system, which has done a very good job at advancing mankind and is a pretty decent system.
Of course, if Ginsberg has spent so much time trying to overcome this document’s wise limitations on the fed’s powers, she may have missed that this was a good idea.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/7/2012 @ 5:58 pmIn other words, she did not show a hell of a lot of respect for this institution she’s supposedly sworn loyalty to. That kind of thing actually matters to me.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/7/2012 @ 6:02 pmDustin – she doesn’t spend any time on that. She ignores the Constitution.
JD (c32343) — 2/7/2012 @ 6:02 pmOn capital punishment the Supreme Court explicitly adopted the one-way ratchet principle, under which states are free to move from considering some class of criminals eligible for execution to considering them ineligible, and if enough states move in that direction then the majority of states that don’t agree with the change must adopt it because that is the trend; but then it becomes impossible for any state to move in the opposite direction!
Milhouse (d7842d) — 2/7/2012 @ 6:03 pmWhy should Egypt adopt any version of our system? Why is it necessary for a Supreme Court justice believe that our system is the best of all possible ones?
Milhouse (d7842d) — 2/7/2012 @ 6:05 pmYeah, I stand corrected.
Because I think it’s one of the best systems, when instituted well. I mean, that’s the only answer I’ve got. It’s just an opinion.
I think it is better for the people we have trusted to show great respect to our constitution at least try to show respect for it. And I think someone who has devoted their life to it should actually be impressed with it, because it is actually quite an accomplishment. If they want to discuss ways to make it better, that’s cool too.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/7/2012 @ 6:11 pmThere is real value in our ‘leaders’ showing they respect the tremendous virtues of our system
— Ginsburg is a ‘leader’ of absolutely NOTHING.
Icy (83a940) — 2/7/2012 @ 6:11 pmSammy, I think “The proponents of the proposition deliberately designed it so that there would be no distinction in any legal rights between marriages and these domestic partnerships.” is a misstatement.
They drafted it to be identical to an earlier statutory intiative which had previously been reuled not to effect domestic partnerships. At the time of the drafting, domestic partnerships were ~90% equivalent to marriage except in name. After the passage of Proposition 8, the CA SCT court interpreteed it to require that DPs be 100% equivalent to marriage except in name – because prop 8 was only about the name and so didn’t effect the substantive equal protection requirement in CA constitutional law.
aphrael (d46bb0) — 2/7/2012 @ 6:12 pmThey are adopting Sharia law, the worst possible variation outside of the Soviet Constitution,
narciso (87e966) — 2/7/2012 @ 6:13 pmKevin M, that’s a slight misstatement of timing.
The proposition was taken out before _In Re Marriage Cases_ was decided but the decision was handed down about a week before the petitions were turned in. So the signatures hadn’t even been counted, let alone the initiative qualified.
aphrael (d46bb0) — 2/7/2012 @ 6:13 pm“If you care to read such sophistry.”
Well, actually I don’t care to.
The 9th Circuit is full of crap, and that’s pretty much all there is to it.
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;”
Marrying someone of ANY sex isn’t a privilege of being a citizen of the United States. Such a privilege is defined nowhere in the law. If you want marrying to be a privilege of being a citizen of the United States, then you need to say so somewhere in the Constitution.
“…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Everyone is treated exactly the same under the law. I can’t marry anyone of the same sex, and neither can anyone else.
The law (which says “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”) doesn’t violate the 14th Amendment, and the 9th Circuit is, as is so often the case, completely full of it.
All they’re doing is twisting and distorting the Constitution and violating it themselves by legislating from the bench, and asserting powers, like defining marriage contracts, which isn’t an enumerated power of the federal government (see Amendment 10).
And, I don’t have to wade through page after page of smokescreen dicta to know that.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 2/7/2012 @ 6:13 pmWhy is it necessary for a Supreme Court justice believe that our system is the best of all possible ones?
— What is necessary (in addition to a sense of propriety) is that a Supreme Court justice render decisions based on US law and the US Constitution.
Icy (83a940) — 2/7/2012 @ 6:24 pm“Ginsberg’s comment was ugly. We all know that.”
Ginsburg.
“There is real value in our ‘leaders’ showing they respect the tremendous virtues of our system”
The foxnews article on this says she also:
“extolled several aspects of the document, particularly the separation of powers, the concept of checks and balances and an independent judiciary that can’t have its salaries diminished if it rules a law enacted by Congress as unconstitutional.”
Also from the transcript:
“So the spirit of liberty has to be in the population, and then the constitution – first, it should safeguard basic fundamental human rights, like our First Amendment, the right to speak freely, and to publish freely, without the government as a censor.”
Don’t know what all the fuss is about, other than angering just the right people.
snaps (805ade) — 2/7/2012 @ 6:26 pmAre you in a quetion-answering mood tonight, Milhouse?
Icy (83a940) — 2/7/2012 @ 6:27 pmIn my view, these are the heads of a branch of our government and have some implicit responsibilities. Not legal ones, just honorable ones.
But with many of these justices in recent memory, they are only leading the constitution into a shredder.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/7/2012 @ 6:27 pmiowahawkblog “You can’t build a moral high ground on feces and glitter.”
Colonel Haiku (a3006f) — 2/7/2012 @ 6:27 pmOoh, snap!
Icy (83a940) — 2/7/2012 @ 6:28 pmoh, snap.
Colonel Haiku (a3006f) — 2/7/2012 @ 6:28 pmjinx on ten… you owe me a Pepsi, Icy!
Colonel Haiku (a3006f) — 2/7/2012 @ 6:29 pmGotta love that her salary is the item she’s specifically praising among these categories.
Anyway, Snaps, you seem to be a troll who loves anger, so good bye.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/7/2012 @ 6:32 pm“Prior to November 4, 2008 the California Constitution guaranteed the right to marry to opposite sex couples and to same sex couples alike”–An innovative judge
Someone ought to tell Reinhardt that people who lie go to the bad place when they die.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 2/7/2012 @ 6:32 pmYou know I could barely see Ramona’s strings when he wrote that,
narciso (87e966) — 2/7/2012 @ 6:35 pmMy bet is the SCOTUS sends the decision back saying that the Federal judge should have recused himself. Judicial jujitsu at its finest.
Xmas (a99d25) — 2/7/2012 @ 6:40 pmthe important thing is everyone gets to marry who they want and then they can buy a house together and grow cucumbers out back and do sex stuff to where it’s pleasing in the eyes of God
how is that not a win win everybody likes cucumbers
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 2/7/2012 @ 6:41 pmHome grown cucumbers are pretty awesome.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/7/2012 @ 6:43 pm“snaps” is a demonic clown.
JD (c32343) — 2/7/2012 @ 6:46 pmmy favorite is peabnut bubber and cucumber and banana smoovies
Pro-Tip: use the otherwise inedible laura scudder peabnut bubber (drain the oil don’t listen to laura) and add a little stevia for to sweeten it up
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 2/7/2012 @ 6:47 pm“What’s your objection to that?”
My objection is that Ginsburg is a commie tart who prefers the Constitution of South Africa to the Constitution she’s bound to uphold.
South Africa is a steaming pile of crap, by pretty much any standard you want to employ, and so is their Constitution.
I’ve read it.
Ginsburg probably likes South Africa because in practice it’s a one party state ruled by the ANC/Communists, it’s heavily oriented towards redistribution of wealth, the government has virtually unrestrained powers, and all rights are contingent on whether or not the government thinks any particular right ought to be limited for reasons the government deems to be reasonable and justified.
It also happens to be a poverty stricken, lawless rathole, one of the worst countries on planet earth, which doesn’t seem to be of much concern to Ginsburg.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 2/7/2012 @ 6:47 pm74.jinx on ten… you owe me a Pepsi, Icy!
— Dammit!
Icy (83a940) — 2/7/2012 @ 6:48 pmThat is not the important thing, happyfeet, if they plan on corrupting the language, and imposing law from the bench, in the face of a Constitutional amendment, in order to get to your goal.
JD (c32343) — 2/7/2012 @ 6:49 pmhow is that not a win win everybody likes cucumbers
— God is not pleased by the presence of two cucumbers in the same patch.
Icy (83a940) — 2/7/2012 @ 6:52 pmyes the people involved, they should pay more attention to means than ends I think in this case
at best this route they’ve taken betrays an unseemly impatience and at worst it suggests they’ve no faith that they can achieve their goals at the ballot box
but at the end of the day letting people marry who they want is not injustice, certainly not set against many of the crueler more outrageous injustices what are so plenteous, days are
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 2/7/2012 @ 6:53 pmYou do have to love the irony of Judge Ginsburg attempting to give advice to the Judenrein Egyptians.
I’m sure the boys in the Muslim Brotherhood And the Salafists are just dying to get Jewish input on the subject of their legal system.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 2/7/2012 @ 6:56 pm“Gotta love that her salary is the item she’s specifically praising among these categories.”
The? She also listed the first amendment. Plus I think an independent judiciary is a good idea. Read the federalist papers on it if you’re unconvinced.
Basically your demands were met, if you just found out more of what she said.
snaps (5cb04e) — 2/7/2012 @ 6:57 pmGiven Barcky’s raping of the 1st Amendment in his war on the Catholic Church, it is funny that “snaps” brought that up.
JD (c32343) — 2/7/2012 @ 7:01 pmDave,
Another thing about South Africa is that trials there are trial by judge, not by jury. Cases succeed or fail based on the technical skills of the lawyers, not on persuading lay-persons that someone is guilty or innocent of charges. So, I can see why some types of Supreme Court judges would like that system.
Xmas (a99d25) — 2/7/2012 @ 7:03 pm#91
I’m quite sure that statists like Ginsburg adore the fact that South Africa has no trials by jury.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 2/7/2012 @ 7:11 pmGinger snaps . . . lip-smack them like a red-headed stepchild.
Icy (83a940) — 2/7/2012 @ 7:12 pmPlus I think an independent judiciary is a good idea
— aka: A judiciary unencumbered by a system of checks & balances?
SHOCKA!
Icy (83a940) — 2/7/2012 @ 7:15 pm“You do have to love the irony of Judge Ginsburg attempting to give advice to the Judenrein Egyptians.”
I’d trust the constitutional advice that a liberal feminist jew gives to Egypt, or any country for that matter.
“Given Barcky’s raping of the 1st Amendment in his war on the Catholic Church, it is funny that “snaps” brought that up.”
Actually it was Ginsburg that brought it up, but she was talking about freedom of expression. Another piece of advice I’d give Egypt is to reduce the power of religious institutions, or as a wingnut might say it, have a “war” on the “church.” Oh and “rape.”
snaps (5cb04e) — 2/7/2012 @ 7:15 pm“– aka: A judiciary unencumbered by a system of checks & balances?”
It’s almost as if you’re not familiar with our Constitution.
snaps (5cb04e) — 2/7/2012 @ 7:16 pm“snaps” is a serial troll.
JD (c32343) — 2/7/2012 @ 7:16 pmGood point. And that is a great description of the Ninth Circuit’s behavior. What check or balance (other than the same branch) is there on these judges?
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/7/2012 @ 7:22 pmGotta love the unhesitating beeline straight to the patronizing dismissal.
Icy (83a940) — 2/7/2012 @ 7:22 pmImpeachment
JD (c32343) — 2/7/2012 @ 7:23 pmI’d trust the constitutional advice that a liberal feminist jew gives to Egypt, or any country for that matter
— It’s ALL about the labels; right?
Another piece of advice I’d give Egypt is to reduce the power of religious institutions, or as a wingnut might say it, have a “war” on the “church.”
— Is that your prescription for the USA as well?
Oh and “rape.”
Icy (83a940) — 2/7/2012 @ 7:29 pm— You want the Egyptians to declare “war” on rape? Bwa-ha-ha-ha-hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
“I think an independent judiciary is a good idea”
It’s almost as if you’re not familiar with our Constitution
— Your definition of “an independent judiciary” pending . . .
Icy (83a940) — 2/7/2012 @ 7:34 pm“– It’s ALL about the labels; right? ”
It’s more about the results.
“– Is that your prescription for the USA as well?”
More access to birth control on women’s terms, rather than the terms of religious authorities, is my prescription all around, yes.
“You want the Egyptians to declare “war” on rape?”
Just on the overuse of the term by wingnuts.
snaps (5cb04e) — 2/7/2012 @ 7:34 pm“– Your definition of “an independent judiciary” pending . . .”
Like the one that we have in our system of checks and balances….
snaps (5cb04e) — 2/7/2012 @ 7:35 pmBemoaning labels while flinging them around is priceless.
JD (c32343) — 2/7/2012 @ 7:44 pmAs is your totalitarian authoritarian view of forcing religious organizations to act contrary to their beliefs for your political posturing.
JD (c32343) — 2/7/2012 @ 7:46 pmMore access to birth control on women’s terms, rather than the terms of religious authorities, is my prescription all around, yes
— Have the wimmins not been allowed access to the Internets yet?
Like the one that we have in our system of checks and balances
Icy (83a940) — 2/7/2012 @ 7:48 pm— And I was wrong about the Constitution WHERE?
‘Aristotle is not Belgian,’ no matter how hard you try to make it so
narciso (87e966) — 2/7/2012 @ 7:49 pmAnd what could be more authoritarian than allowing women more reproductive choice?
snaps (5cb04e) — 2/7/2012 @ 7:55 pm“Have the wimmins not been allowed access to the Internets yet?”
Last I checked that is not how birth control works.
“And I was wrong about the Constitution WHERE?”
When you said an independent judiciary was aka “unencumbered by a system of checks & balances.”
snaps (5cb04e) — 2/7/2012 @ 7:57 pmYeah well, forcing non-govermental entities to kow-tow to a standard that violates the tenets of their beliefs . . .
a victim of collision on the open sea
nobody ever said that life was free
sank, swam, go down with the ship
but use your freedom of choice
then if you got it you don’t want it
Icy (83a940) — 2/7/2012 @ 8:08 pmseems to be the rule of thumb
don’t be tricked by what you see
you got two ways to go
‘Aristotle is not Belgian,’ no matter how hard you try to make it so
But he was a Belgian, for a rather long time too. However, you may have been confused by his use of a nom de plume. He went around calling himself Hercule Poirot.
🙂
JBS (38f6c3) — 2/7/2012 @ 8:08 pmLast I checked that is not how birth control works.
— Well . . .
“One kind of emergency contraception (EC) is available for sale online in the United States. ella (ulipristal acetate) is available with prescription at a pharmacy, or through the online pharmacy KwikMed. ella is effective for up to 5 days (120 hours) after unprotected sex, and does not lose effectiveness over this time period.”
— And, of course, this is just IN ADDITION to going online to simply locate a local provider of such pharmacueticals.
Icy (83a940) — 2/7/2012 @ 8:13 pmWhen you said an independent judiciary was aka “unencumbered by a system of checks & balances.”
— I said that?
Ah, back in the day we had RIF. More’s the pity these days.
Icy (83a940) — 2/7/2012 @ 8:15 pmIndeed. And for that purpose it is entirely irrelevant whether one thinks US law and the US constitution are good or bad. They are what they are, and a judge’s duty is to rule according to them, even if he or she thinks they’re “uncommonly silly”.
Milhouse (9a4c23) — 2/7/2012 @ 8:25 pmOr you could just go to planned parenthood, true. But when people talk about access, we’re talking about more than getting a prescription and going online every time you need morning after. Some people like to get it on a bit often. It’s about choice unmediated by religious authorities, and pointing out a multi-step way to overcome the barriers raised by these authorities doesnt’ really provide that.
snaps (5cb04e) — 2/7/2012 @ 8:26 pmEven when I agree with liberals, the douchebags that post here do not impress. “Some people like to get it on a bit often” has exactly zero to do with pharmacological solutions to pregnancy. Screw off, jerk.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 2/7/2012 @ 8:29 pmSure. If you want to make sure I see the question, though, or if for some reason you want to keep it private, try email.
Milhouse (9a4c23) — 2/7/2012 @ 8:30 pmI’d say what I think about snaps but Carlitos will defend him.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 2/7/2012 @ 8:31 pmMilhouse, Ginsburg’s comments give one pause to wonder: is she ruling according to US law and the Constitution? OR, is she guided more by consideration of “international law” and the rights specified in the texts of documents that she does not think are “uncommonly silly”?
Icy (83a940) — 2/7/2012 @ 8:34 pmVery astute observation, “Dohbiden.” “Screw off, jerk” and calling them a douchebag is the very epitome of “defending” someone.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 2/7/2012 @ 8:34 pm““Some people like to get it on a bit often” has exactly zero to do with pharmacological solutions to pregnancy.”
But it has quite a lot to do with how accessible EC over the internet (with a prescription, gotten elsewhere) is as a reality for people who seek birth control. Do you guys think much about the practicality of this stuff?
snaps (5cb04e) — 2/7/2012 @ 8:34 pmI was asking you to respond to post #47.
Icy (83a940) — 2/7/2012 @ 8:36 pmYou tell him to screw off jerk and call him a douschebag but if I were to say that you’d tell me to not let the troll get to me…………..which makes sense.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 2/7/2012 @ 8:37 pmEC (Emergency Contraception) has “quite a lot” to do with how accessible EC (Emergency Contraception) “over the internet” is as a reality for people who seek birth control.
Idiot, please go take some English classes. You make no sense.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 2/7/2012 @ 8:40 pmRedundant statement carlitos.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 2/7/2012 @ 8:42 pm“EC (Emergency Contraception) has “quite a lot” to do with how accessible EC (Emergency Contraception) “over the internet” is as a reality for people who seek birth control.”
There’s more situations that require birth control other than just EC over the internet. If that’s all that you offer, that’s quite a burden to lots of people who don’t want that hassle everytime they have sex. Imagine a couple that likes to get it on a few times a week. That’s not a very accessible solution to them.
snaps (5cb04e) — 2/7/2012 @ 8:45 pmI’m not sure I’d put it quite like that, but I’m certainly no fan. Though Scalia seems to have found some redeeming qualities in her.
I still don’t understand why this is a problem. Do you think it improper for a judge to opine that a particular law is “uncommonly silly”? Do you think his doing so is inconsistent with his duty to uphold that law?
Agreed about the country, and it wouldn’t surprise me about the constitution, though I haven’t read it.
Milhouse (9a4c23) — 2/7/2012 @ 8:45 pm116. Or you could just go to planned parenthood, true. But when people talk about access, we’re talking about more than getting a prescription and going online every time you need morning after.
— As opposed to taking a trip to the pharmacy every time you “need” it. Yeah, big difference! *eye roll*
Some people like to get it on a bit often.
— Pharmacies sell condoms, too. We can probably get by without installing a dispenser in the lavatory at the local cathedral.
It’s about choice unmediated by religious authorities
— And it’s just tough noogies that the federal authorities are denying choice to religious entities; right?
and pointing out a multi-step way to overcome the barriers raised by these authorities doesnt’ really provide that
Icy (83a940) — 2/7/2012 @ 8:46 pm— Because . . . what, because you say so?
They should go to 7/11 and buy some condoms, moron.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 2/7/2012 @ 8:47 pmGinsburqa needs to go to Egypt.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 2/7/2012 @ 8:47 pmNO. It’s NOT merely a “pretty decent system”.
Of all the major powers, it’s the OLDEST CONTIGUOUS LARGELY UNCHANGED SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT ON THE PLANET.
I grant some nation like Lichtenstein or Monaco might show a longer contiguous reign of power, but no other can — think about it — Germany, Italy did not exist in their current form. China, Russia, France, all through one or more revolutions. South America, almost none of them existed. India? Not the same one as in 1800.
The UK comes closest, but it reformed itself in the early 1800s to switch from a pure monarchy it had under George to the Parliamentary Figurehead Monarchy (a major change!) under Victoria.
The biggest change we’ve had is to switch to direct election of Senators. :-/
(Yeah, there was the slavery issue but that’s not exactly about how our government operates)
Our Founding Fathers managed to come up with a literally astoundingly stable form of government, that, historically, has resisted aggregation of power in anyone able to dominate, and to encourage an orderly transition of power over time to prevent anyone from getting too much of it.
It’s not just fucking “pretty decent”, it’s frigging amazing.
IGotBupkis, Three Time Winner of the Silver Sow Award (8e2a3d) — 2/7/2012 @ 8:48 pm;-D
So what are these checks on the judiciary? What check prevents judges from deliberately misinterpreting the law, as for instance the Supreme Court did in Wickard, Roe, and several dozen other decisions, or as Reinhardt does practically every week?
Milhouse (9a4c23) — 2/7/2012 @ 8:53 pmsnaps? Milhouse was addressing you. Response?
Icy (83a940) — 2/7/2012 @ 8:55 pmIf you weren’t wondering that a long time ago, there’s something wrong with you. I don’t see how her recent comments affect that in any way. Thomas could easily have made the same comments too.
Milhouse (9a4c23) — 2/7/2012 @ 8:59 pmWell, the [object TextRange]ain’t that bad. The Preamble kinda nice. It’s full of positive rights…but most of those are in direct response to actions taken by the Apartheid-era actions of the government.
Xmas (a99d25) — 2/7/2012 @ 8:59 pmNo, that’s Shakes the Clown.
“Snaps” is more of a diminutive troll-demon, kinda like Wormwood.
Smock Puppet, 10 Dan Snark Master (8e2a3d) — 2/7/2012 @ 8:59 pmOh, OK
I already gave a few examples. See Volokh’s article that I linked for a few more.
Even so, why is our constitution a better model than some other ones, or than something brand new? What’s so great about a federal system, for example? Or a presidential system?
No, but how does that mean that they should adopt jury trials?
Milhouse (9a4c23) — 2/7/2012 @ 9:05 pmIf you need “Plan B” several times a week then it’s clearly not your plan B. Plan B is for when Plan A, whatever it is, fails. That shouldn’t happen very often.
Milhouse (9a4c23) — 2/7/2012 @ 9:08 pmThomas could easily have made the same comments too
— Thomas would not have made those comments is my point, I guess.
Icy (83a940) — 2/7/2012 @ 9:32 pmNo, but how does that mean that they should adopt jury trials?
— I’m in favor of any system that places more power (and responsibility) in the hands of the people, and less in the clutches of a ruling elite.
Icy (83a940) — 2/7/2012 @ 9:35 pmI’m too.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 2/7/2012 @ 9:37 pmIf you need “Plan B” several times a week then it’s clearly not your plan B. Plan B is for when Plan A, whatever it is, fails
— Very well put. Of course, “snaps” is of the do-whatever-feels-good-and-make-the-government-clean-up-your-mess school.
Icy (83a940) — 2/7/2012 @ 9:37 pmSnaps is part of the do whatever you want mafia.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 2/7/2012 @ 9:41 pmSome people are not poor in america.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 2/7/2012 @ 9:42 pm“I still don’t understand why this is a problem.”
Well, I explained the best I could.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/us/12ginsburg.html
Looks to me like she’s more interested in following foreign laws, then American laws.
And, anyone who looks at a dysfunctional country and a dysfunctional government like the one in South Africa, and concludes that the South African system is superior, is a couple of cans short of a sixpack.
And, I don’t want ideologically retarded nitwits, with lifetime tenure, sitting on the Supreme Court, and wasting our time and money fiddling around, talking about how cool the legal codes in Outer Mongolia are, and wanting to cite to them as precendent.
As far as I’m concerned, her irresponsible comments, and general attitude about American lawm are enough to merit removing her from the court. I want judges who study and know (and adjudicate based on) American law, not South African law.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 2/7/2012 @ 9:53 pmI meant “than American laws”, not “then”.
and “law” not “lawm”. I don’t even know what “lawm” is.
I need an editor.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 2/7/2012 @ 9:56 pmHer and Breyer. They gots to go-go!
Icy (83a940) — 2/7/2012 @ 9:56 pm“Her and Breyer. They gots to go-go!”
You won’t hear me arguing.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 2/7/2012 @ 10:05 pmI won’t argue with you.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 2/7/2012 @ 10:07 pmOH NOEZ POLAR ICE CAPS IS MELTING
/Liberals
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 2/7/2012 @ 10:08 pmLuckily for the wise Jewina, she’s got a ready made commie utopia in South Africa she can go to. Hopefully she’ll take Breyer and the wise Latina with her, when she go-goes.
Breyer and Ginsburg. Boy, what I wouldn’t give to punch Bill Clinton right in the kisser. Might almost be worth the 90 days.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 2/7/2012 @ 10:13 pmI will never forget an interview Charlie Rose did with Breyer in which the justice — in reference to taking into consideration Western European and International Law — said (and I paraphrase), “Why not use all of the tools that are available?” As if the US Constitution and the US Code are somehow woefully inadequate when it comes to ajudicating the cases that come before the Supreme Court.
Icy (83a940) — 2/7/2012 @ 10:18 pmIcy, by the same logic you would have to claim that state judges should not take into account decisions of courts in other states or by federal courts, and that federal courts in one circuit should not take into account decisions in other circuits. That is not how judges operate, or ever have. In considering the questions that come before them they have always given careful consideration to how their colleagues in other jurisdictions have handled similar questions, and that is right and proper. The issue is somewhat different when it comes to the US constitution, only because there are very few similar documents, and thus the questions that arise under it rarely if ever come up anywhere else.
Milhouse (9a4c23) — 2/7/2012 @ 10:48 pmNormally I wouldn’t cut Ginsburg any slack–but she deserves some here. I’ve listened to the sound bite. But she was apparently advising Egyptians about possible models for their new constitution. And it’s not unreasonable that the framers of a new constitution for a country that’s largely a pile of sand dunes and pyramids might look at more modern constitutions drafted since the end of WW II. After all there have been a pile of them. Of course as Justice Scalia observed at another venue, “Every banana republic has a constitution. Lots of them have have several constitutions”. And in those banana republics, Islamic theocracies or dictatorships, the constitutions generally don’t mean squat. And if you don’t have the people with the will to follow the constitution–both in the public and in the government and courts, even the best constitution doesn’t mean squat. And we’re losing that will with the current cast of poltroons on the Potomac.
Comanche Voter (0e06a9) — 2/7/2012 @ 10:54 pmThat is not what I am asserting, Milhouse. Dependent upon the specifics of the case, state courts should render their decisions within the confines of the state constitution (if only the California Supreme Court had done this!) while feeling free to consider any and all decisions from other districts or states as long as they do not conflict with said state constitution.
Icy (83a940) — 2/7/2012 @ 11:13 pmOf course. And when has anyone suggested anything different? When has anyone suggested that US judges should adopt foreign decisions when they conflict with local law?!
Milhouse (9a4c23) — 2/7/2012 @ 11:16 pmTo Comanche Voter’s point, South Africa (whose constitution Ginsburg sees as being a good template) has a high murder rate and is known as “the rape capital of the world”.
It’s all just worthless paper unless you adhere to it and use it as a tool to achieve positive results.
Icy (83a940) — 2/7/2012 @ 11:20 pmMilhouse, Stephen Breyer has suggested interpreting constitutional law based on precedents that were established and codefied in other nations. He does not give a flying fig if those precedents “conflict with local law”. If they do, then he will just re-interpret “local law” (read: the COTUS) to make it fit.
This is one way in which the Left is attempting to change E pluribus unum into Liberté, égalité, fraternité. It’s important to recognize and fight against.
In its decision the California Supreme Court asserted over 100 times that there is “a constitutional right to marry,” even though the California Constitution — if one bothers to read it — is ABSOLUTELY SILENT on the issue.
In that Charlie Rose interview I mentioned, the book Breyer had written, and was promoting, is titled “Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution,” for chrissakes!
Judicial activism and “legislating from the bench” are a lot more than mere George W. Bush talking points, sir. It is one of those areas in which those of us that care deeply for the future of our nation MUST remain ever vigilant.
Icy (83a940) — 2/7/2012 @ 11:41 pm“Normally I wouldn’t cut Ginsburg any slack…”
Same here. And, this is a good time for being normal.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 2/8/2012 @ 12:31 am“– And it’s just tough noogies that the federal authorities are denying choice to religious entities; right?”
I pretty much said it’s about women’s reproductive choices being placed above religious authorities.
“– Pharmacies sell condoms, too. We can probably get by without installing a dispenser in the lavatory at the local cathedral.”
Some people find condoms not very fun. Pharmacies also sell over the counter contraceptives and Primary care docs can write prescriptions for them and the visit and script could be covered by insurance. I think you’re not quite getting the point about people’s access — it’s not about you retorting with some other way they should lead their lives. It’s about them being able to lead their lives free of the intrusion of religious authorities and busybodies.
“If you need “Plan B” several times a week then it’s clearly not your plan B. Plan B is for when Plan A, whatever it is, fails. That shouldn’t happen very often.”
That’s basically my point — people should be able to have their plan A, and some anti-choicer pointing to plan B doesn’t count as a plan A.
snaps (5cb04e) — 2/8/2012 @ 5:15 amhttp://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/07/my-take-on-komen-controversy-media-told-half-the-story/
narciso (87e966) — 2/8/2012 @ 5:58 amAnd this is the game, never mind the troll;
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290402/breaking-free-constraints-founding-fathers-victor-davis-hanson
narciso (87e966) — 2/8/2012 @ 5:59 amSo snaps is more concerned with morning after pills than the 1st Amendment. SHOCKA
JD (c32343) — 2/8/2012 @ 6:07 amB-but the founding fathers had slaves.
/Libturd
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 2/8/2012 @ 6:17 amPlease list all of the names you have commented under, “snaps”. Kthxby
JD (c32343) — 2/8/2012 @ 6:20 am“And this is the game, never mind the troll;”
Never got the wingnut bemoaning of that quote — he called the constraints “essential.” He said the court focus of the civil rights movement doomed it because it stuck within a negative liberties model. He’s saying the court and constitution can’t deliver what politics and other sources of power can, and that it is a mistake to ask them to.
snaps (5cb04e) — 2/8/2012 @ 6:37 amMilhouse , at 19:
it’s not clear that if same-sex couples were deprived of an incident of marriage, if it would be discrimination under *federal* law. It would be under state law, absolutely. But no federal court that i’m aware of has endorsed the equal-protection-requires-gay-people-get-the-incidents-of-marriage argument in interpreting the federal equal protection clause.
The argument in Perry boils down to this:
* California law holds that *all* Prop 8 did was remove the _name_ marriage. (this is true; the CA Supreme Court ruled that in Strauss v. Horton … and prior to the decision in the marriage cases, domestic partnerships had been almost-marriages for a number of years).
* Proposition 8 acted to *remove* the privelege of using the name (this is true, but only because of an accident of timing).
* Because the only effect of Prop. 8 was to remove the name, most of the putative rational bases are in fact irrational, because they’re all related to the *incidents* of marriage rather the name.
* By extension, there’s no rational basis for removing the name.
* Because California irrationally removed the name marriage from a disfavored minority group who had the privilege of using that name, it engaged in the same kind of conduct which Colorado did when it excluded a particular minority group from being able to ask local governments to protect their members with anti-discrimination ordinances. (The *structure* of the act is the same, not the *substance*).
* Acts which have that procedural structure have been declared unconstitutional.
* Thus, Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, because it represents the state irrationally withdrawing just the name ‘marriage’, and none of its incidents, from a disfavored minority group.
——–
If you want to challenge this with legal reasoning rather than with angry denunciations about tyrannical judges, the best places to attack this are:
(a) find a way that one of the putative rational bases can be applied to the name in isolation, rather than the incidents
(b) find some other rational basis which can be applied only to the name
(c) demonstrate that the substance of this makes it so different from the substance in romer (the colorado case) that the procedural analogy doesn’t apply.
——–
I recognize that it’s tempting to argue that Proposition 8 didn’t *remove* anything, because the papers were taken out before the court changed the law, but this argument will not fly in federal court. Under the state’s constitution and procedural law, the law the day before the proposition was that same sex marriages were legal. To demonstrate otherwise, you have to prove to the satisfaction of a federal court that the California Supreme Court acted in so impermissable a fashion as to deny the people of California a republican form of government – and the Supreme Court has *never* been willing to adjudicate a guaranty clause case in this fashion, even when Rhode Island had two competing state governments.
aphrael (5d993c) — 2/8/2012 @ 7:47 amSammy, at 36, as usual, it’s more complicated than that.
In particular, it’s not clear that they’re even saying that once SSM exists in a state it couldn’t be abolished.
Under the reasoning advanced in this decision, a state which had amassed statistical evidence to show that adopting SSM caused an increase in the opposite-sex divorce rate of 10% could establish a rational basis for then abolishing SSM.
For that matter, a state which had amassed statistical evidence to show that adopting SSM resulted in a 10% decrease in in-wedlock births could probably also establish a rational basis for abolishing SSM.
But it’s much harder to establish a rational basis for removing *only the label*. Unless that rational basis is ‘some people don’t think *those people* should be able to use this label’, in which case the rational basis is based on animus against ‘those people’ … which isn’t permitted under Romer.
aphrael (5d993c) — 2/8/2012 @ 7:52 amWell said, aphrael.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 2/8/2012 @ 8:58 amAphrael, I suppose I’m one who’d you’d consider to have an “animus” against “those people.”
Naturally, I don’t see it that way. I see it more like this. If we redefine marriage to fit modern fashions, can we still say it provides all the benefits for society that we’ve always supposed it does?
The judge in the Massachusetts case declared that marriage has nothing to do with procreation. Surprising, really. For a few thousand years the rest of us thought it did. But no. We were wrong. The Mass. judge set us straight (pun intended).
Marriage has zero, zip, nada, to do with procreation. It has to do with an “exclusive” and “committed” relationship.
OK.
The laws against same sex marriage have often been compared to the laws against interracial marriage. The Loving v. Virginia decision called marriage “fundamental to our very existence and survival.” That seems to me to be a pretty clear reference toward procreation.
If a judge can just strike that from the list, what’s to stop the next judge from striking the words “exclusive” and “committed” and just gutting the definition of marriage entirely?
As far as I’ve noticed, gay marriage hasn’t proved to be fundamental to our existence and survival. We haven’t had it. And we’re still here.
If I observe that fact, does that represent animus?
Steve (475035) — 2/8/2012 @ 9:04 amI wish we could apply rational basis standards to BarckyCare, Social Security, the War on Poverty, AGW, green jobs, etc …
JD (318f81) — 2/8/2012 @ 9:07 amSteve – not at all, but you seem to be discussing gay marriage in general, not the specifics of California.
Granted that California law allows same-sex couples all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage – every legal protection, every legal commitment, every responsibility to others, all that’s being discussed is the use of the *word* marriage.
Is it the *word* marriage which is fundamental to our existence and survival, or the other incidents of the relationship?
aphrael (5d993c) — 2/8/2012 @ 9:13 am“I wish we could apply rational basis standards to BarckyCare, Social Security, the War on Poverty, AGW, green jobs, etc …”
It’s almost as if you didn’t understand what rational basis review means.
snaps (5cb04e) — 2/8/2012 @ 9:21 amEveryone would be much better off if they recognized that the SSM marriage debate is merely the latest (and possibly culminating) phase of society redefining marriage in a process that began, for all intents and purposes, in the 18th century, when people began to accept the entirely new-fangled idea that love should come before marriage instead of developing out of the marriage relationship–that companionship and affection were as much the reason for marriage as establishing a stable household in which to raise the next generation, and not merely helpful adjuncts in establishing such a household which could, if necessary, be ignored.
JBS (46fd97) — 2/8/2012 @ 9:22 amIf I believe that a potentially procreative relationship has unique features that don’t exist in other relationships, and that society should in any way acknowledge that relationship, shouldn’t I also believe the name be reserved for only those couples that at least respect the form of those relationships?
I honestly don’t hate gay people. I just have a hard time believing that anyone would want to enter into a relationship when kids aren’t even potentially involved, and it’s going to take a lawyer, judge, and a pile of cash to get out of.
Steve (475035) — 2/8/2012 @ 9:35 amSnaps – list the multiple names you have posted under and been banned under. Kthxby
JD (318f81) — 2/8/2012 @ 9:38 am#176
So the REASONS for marriage maybe underwent change. That has nothing to do with REDEFINING marriage.
Gerald A (cc0aaa) — 2/8/2012 @ 9:42 am“I just have a hard time believing that anyone would want to enter into a relationship when kids aren’t even potentially involved, and it’s going to take a lawyer, judge, and a pile of cash to get out of.”
Kids are “potentially involved” in a gay marriage.
snaps (5cb04e) — 2/8/2012 @ 9:48 amThe entire debate simply exemplifies the mischief that ensues when Judges take upon themselves the job to “define” rights from silence.
The California Constitution is SILENT on the issue. Yet the California Supreme Court DECLARED from on high that there was a right to SSM enshrined in the California Constitution that obligated state officials to allow SSM ceremonies to be recognized under California’s organic document.
The residents of California took it upon themselves to modify their organic document to address the action of the Court — never before having reason or need to do so since the “right” had not theretofore been recognized as having always existed.
So now the 9th Circuit comes along and says “You can’t take a right away from a minority class without a rational basis to do so.”
So, to recap, there was never a “right” until the Supreme Court of California declared one to exist out of thin air. The people then moved to define the relationships with one and other by amending their organic document in the manner they thought appropriate IN RESPONSE, but now another Court comes along and says the people have no ability to respond to the creation of a right by a different court.
Judicial Activism in its most naked employ.
shipwreckedcrew (5b82f6) — 2/8/2012 @ 9:52 am180 — Kids are not “potentially involved” in gay marriage without the intervention of the government.
shipwreckedcrew (5b82f6) — 2/8/2012 @ 9:53 amNot in a gay marriage. Outside a gay marriage.
Unless you sit in on a biology class I missed.
Steve (475035) — 2/8/2012 @ 9:55 am> If I believe that a potentially procreative relationship has unique features that don’t exist in other relationships, and that society should in any way acknowledge that relationship, shouldn’t I also believe the name be reserved for only those couples that at least respect the form of those relationships?
So why would you favor limiting *just the name* and not the other parts of the package?
That’s the gist of the court’s argument.
aphrael (5d993c) — 2/8/2012 @ 10:03 amaraphael — because that’s what a majority of California voters decided.
What would be your position if 3/4 of the states and 2/3 of each house of Congress decided to strike the Equal Protection Clause from the 14th Amendment?
Could the Supreme Court say “You can’t do that because the EP Clause has been the basis for conferring rights upon minority groups”??
shipwreckedcrew (5b82f6) — 2/8/2012 @ 10:10 am“180 — Kids are not “potentially involved” in gay marriage without the intervention of the government.”
Just like straight people, one of the people getting married can bring a child into the marriage. Or the couple can proceed to bring a child into the marriage in the same ways that other couples who cannot conceive on their own do, from donation of sperm, eggs, surrogate motherhood, or adoption. Gay people have kids. They have kids in their marriages.
snaps (5cb04e) — 2/8/2012 @ 10:16 amIn particular, it’s not clear that they’re even saying that once SSM exists in a state it couldn’t be abolished.
— And yet, this was exactly the argument made by Ted Olson, and his hairpiece, as he himself recounted last night on the Rachel Maddow show.
Icy (aa68a6) — 2/8/2012 @ 10:25 amIt’s about them being able to lead their lives free of the intrusion of religious authorities and busybodies.
— And when it comes to the rights of faith-based hospitals to lead their lives free of the intrusion of government authorities and busybodies, Mr snaps?
Icy (aa68a6) — 2/8/2012 @ 10:29 amAphrael,
I haven’t been a willing participant in any of this.
Unlike straight people, none of the parties involved in a gay marriage can conceive without outside help.
Can you at least acknowledge reality to that extent?
Steve (475035) — 2/8/2012 @ 10:32 am“Unlike straight people, none of the parties involved in a gay marriage can conceive without outside help.”
That’s true for some straight people too. There are still kids in those marriages, gay or straight.
“Can you at least acknowledge reality to that extent?”
That’s what I said: “the couple can proceed to bring a child into the marriage in the same ways that other couples who cannot conceive on their own do.”
snaps (5cb04e) — 2/8/2012 @ 10:37 amOk. We’re agreed. You can not acknowledge the reality that heterosexual couples can conceive children all by their lonesome, and no gay couples can.
Steve (475035) — 2/8/2012 @ 10:39 am“You can not acknowledge the reality that heterosexual couples can conceive children all by their lonesome, and no gay couples can.”
The world must be cruel and hard to understand for you. I hope you don’t take this out on others.
snaps (5cb04e) — 2/8/2012 @ 10:46 amWhy do SSM proponents demand the name, rather than just the benefits that accompany the name, aphrael?
JD (c32343) — 2/8/2012 @ 10:50 amCondescending, patronizing dismissal. The boy is nothing if not consistent in his douchenozzlery.
Icy (aa68a6) — 2/8/2012 @ 10:57 am“No principles to be found here.”
Except that of stare decisis. Look, you might not like Romer, but this is a straightforward application of precedent. Take it up with the Supreme Court.
“Why do SSM proponents demand the name, rather than just the benefits that accompany the name, aphrael?”
The name is, to a considerable degree, the benefit. Plenty of public and private actors forbid discrimination on the basis of marital status. Without marriage, you don’t get your foot in the door there. This is the law; words matter.
Craig (d12d12) — 2/8/2012 @ 11:19 amI don’t find it hard to understand. I get it.
I find it telling you can’t explain to me how gays can have children inside marriage. But I get it.
I don’t agree with it. Just like I don’t agree with the concept that saying, “Hey, you can’t have kids” is a hurtful thing to say to gay couples.
Can you please explain to me what biology lesson I missed that day I was sick?
Steve (475035) — 2/8/2012 @ 11:26 amThank you for the condescending BS, Craig.
JD (c32343) — 2/8/2012 @ 11:45 amPlenty of public and private actors forbid discrimination on the basis of marital status.
— Enumeration to follow . . .
Icy (aa68a6) — 2/8/2012 @ 11:51 amOk. We’re agreed. You can not acknowledge the reality that heterosexual couples can conceive children all by their lonesome, and no gay couples can.
Comment by Steve
I dunno… a lot of kids fathered by Thomas T. Baster, whoever that dude is.
Colonel Haiku (895552) — 2/8/2012 @ 11:51 amFathered with whom?
Another dude?
Steve (475035) — 2/8/2012 @ 11:59 am“I find it telling you can’t explain to me how gays can have children inside marriage.”
It’s like I didn’t explain it twice already, how they do it just like other couples that don’t conceive on their own, and still have kids in their marriages.
“Just like I don’t agree with the concept that saying, “Hey, you can’t have kids” is a hurtful thing to say to gay couples. ”
It’s not just that its hurtful. It’s that it is untrue, as there are gay couples with kids. You can fail to agree with the truth, but that just leads to the world being hard to understand.
snaps (2acfbe) — 2/8/2012 @ 12:01 pmUmm. No. I freely admit that there are gay people who’ve had kids. Just not with their gay partner.
Which is something you can’t admit.
Steve (475035) — 2/8/2012 @ 12:09 pmsnaps,
I think Steve’s point is that unless you can conceive on your own, your ability to conceive is always going to be at the pleasure of the government because the government can prohibit or impose limits on adoption, fertility clinics and similar services.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 2/8/2012 @ 12:12 pmBye the bye, you haven’t explained how gay people can have kids inside their marriage. Just how gay people can have kids. How is a surrogate mother or the turkey baster method of artificial insemination “inside marriage?”
Steve (475035) — 2/8/2012 @ 12:12 pmRight. And when you’ve seen a few kids move from foster care into adoption, it’s clear this is a tremendously good and valuable thing. I’d say it’s *superior* to having your own child in many ways.
Atavism is healthy, of course, but if every gay couple in America wants to adopt some kid out of foster care, that would be a great thing. And I’m pretty socially conservative.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/8/2012 @ 12:13 pmActually, DRJ, my point was one thing differs from the other. And if one thing differs from the other, is it proper to use the same name for both?
Steve (475035) — 2/8/2012 @ 12:15 pmActually I think foster parents deserve a lot of credit.
It would be a cop out if I left it at that.
Do you actually mean that adoption is superior to having your own kids?
Steve (475035) — 2/8/2012 @ 12:23 pm“Bye the bye, you haven’t explained how gay people can have kids inside their marriage. Just how gay people can have kids. How is a surrogate mother or the turkey baster method of artificial insemination “inside marriage?””
Like I’ve been saying: It’s as inside marriage as when straight people who can’t conceive on their own do it. Thus, kids are “potentially involved” in gay marriage, which was the original point.
snaps (2acfbe) — 2/8/2012 @ 12:31 pmI did not detract from foster parents. That is truly beneficial to society.
Explain how it isn’t.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/8/2012 @ 12:34 pmYou want me to explain a negative?
Steve (475035) — 2/8/2012 @ 12:40 pmAnd I said “in many ways” adoption is better. When you look at how it affects society, I think adoption relieves society of problem, and replaces that with something very good.
Of course, raising kids well is probably one of the greatest contributions you can make as a citizen, but that applies equally to adopted or biological kids.
So when we talk about gay marriage being inferior because of the biological kid issue, I think there’s an easy rebuttal.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/8/2012 @ 12:41 pm(Warning, begging the question smart-aleck comments, Not original):
If “things” don’t matter whether a person is male, female, transgender (does the direction make a difference?), why are sports still segregated? Why men’s tennis and women’s tennis?
If sex makes a difference in who can play in a tennis tournament, does that mean tennis tournaments are more important than other things where the sexual identity of a person is not supposed to make a difference, like marriage?
Serious and substantive (I think) questions:
1. If marriage is not defined by the definition commonly accepted by the vast majority of people throughout recorded history, then by what means is it defined? If the definition is malleable, are there limits to the stretching, and if so, where and why?
2. Is it possible for the same two beliefs to peacefully coexist in society:
a. Marriage is a special relationship between two people of opposite sex, intended to last for the rest of one’s life, involving physical, emotional, spiritual, and social intimacy.
b. Marriage is a special relationship between any two people, intended to last for the rest of one’s life, involving physical, emotional, spiritual, and social intimacy
By “peacefully coexist”, I mean that a person may believe and vocalize either view without rancor or repercussion.
I think the logical answers to those questions are what make the idea of redefining marriage to be very problematic, whether one wants SS couples to have the possibility of a legal equivalent of marriage or not.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/8/2012 @ 12:41 pmThat’s cute, but if you wish to explain your preference for one of two options, that is not proving a negative.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/8/2012 @ 12:43 pmLet me lay this out:
Someone says gay marriage is inferior because of the way gays can’t have kids naturally.
Adoption is not worse than having kids naturally. In fact, maybe it’s better.
Gays can adopt.
Therefore, gays can have kids in a way that is no worse than how straights can.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/8/2012 @ 12:50 pmNot to detract from my post at #212, which contains questions for which I have yet to find satisfactory answers.
It depends on what you mean by “adoption being better”. In one way it may be more laudible to take on the responsibility of raising a child for whom you had no responsibility,
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/8/2012 @ 1:01 pmbut
it appears that children who are adopted are more prone to have difficulty in bonding with parents and seriously acting out as they grow older. Children who were adopted are over-represented by a huge margin at wilderness programs, etc. for teens “out of control”.
It would be interesting to see if there is a financial issue complicating, that people who adopt are more likely to have more money to absorb the cost, hence also have more money to seek expensive help; but in my circles those who have adopted have not been any “better off” than others.
This is true, but it’s also a huge improvement over the same kids never being adopted, at which point they have a staggeringly high incarceration rate.
It’s interesting that you bring that up. I also figured those who adopt were probably wealthier until I met more folks who did adopt. They just wanted a family, though it’s true they planned this out.
Adopting is a net increase in good that is very hard to compete with. The fact that a lot of adopted kids have problems actually bolsters my opinion.
As to MD’s points in 212, I think these are good questions. What is marriage?
I confess I harbor a visceral bigotry against homosexuality and in my gut I think marriage is properly between a man and woman and it’s supposed to be monogamous.
I’ve rationalized out a contradictory view as what seems ethically fair to my mind, but it’s hard to escape what this view that there is something wrong with homosexuality. I mean no disrespect to gays when I say that… it’s a tricky thing to be fair when regarding one’s own visceral impulses, and I think I do a decent job.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/8/2012 @ 1:14 pmbtw, I am explaining one wat I think the views MD compared can coexist, and it seems too fragile to me.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/8/2012 @ 1:23 pmNext think the gays will want to stifle dissent…………..oh wait that was the Prop 8 overturning was all about.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 2/8/2012 @ 1:30 pmI said gay relationships are different because a gay couple can’t have kids naturally.
I can’t even get you or snaps to admit to that. Or, rather, I can, but only if I get accused in a backhanded way of being guilty of a thought crime or something.
Can somebody Puhleese fill me in on the biology class I missed on that day my Mom called in sick for me.
Steve (475035) — 2/8/2012 @ 1:33 pmI’m not approaching it from that angle. At least, I don’t think so. But it’s up to the jury. If marriage has a stabilizing effect on society, is that due only to the fact we call the subject relationship marriage? If not, shouldn’t a marriage have certain attributes? And if so, are these attributes solely up to Judge Vauaghan Walker’s dictates?
Steve (475035) — 2/8/2012 @ 1:43 pmMr. Dustin sir,
I admit to a severe faceplant which you have pointed out. Comparing how adopted children fare compared to how children raised in their home of birth is not the issue, even though the point is valid. Your point, comparing those who were adopted with those who needed to be but were not is far more important. two smacks from Obvious Man on that
I have more comments bearing on the main issue in my discourse/diatribe/running on and on over at the thread Co, Mn, Mo, Zzzz (or whatever). Some people, perhaps many, are like Aphrael who simply want to make marriage for any two people and have no desire to persecute those who disagree (civilly). But the reason we are supposed to be a nation of laws, is that one does not want the “rules” to be dependent on the good will and whim of whoever is in power at the moment. If a company or governmental body wants to allow an arrangement between 2 people of the same sex to have the same legal protections, etc. of marriage, let them. Just don’t ask me to pledge my belief that such an arrangement is identical and equivalent in all ways to a heterosexual marriage. If my failure to be willing to do that makes me a “hater” in one’s opinion, I’m sorry.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/8/2012 @ 1:59 pmIt appears that the public has been much more willing to grant an arrangement “like marriage” than the gay rights community has been willing to accept it. That suggests to me that many do not simply want equal treatment under civil law, but an imprimatur and endorsement. In other words, there is a desire for there to be no difference of opinion where there is. To try to maske it a law would be impossible, and any attempted enforcement a clear violation of the 1st amendment. If one wants to violate the first amendment, change it by amending it first.
That is what courts do all the time with decisions from other states and countries, or from other circuits. If the same clause in another state’s laws has been interpreted by its courts in a certain way, that should influence the way this state’s courts interpret it.
How can an interpretation of a law conflict with that law? Or do you mean that it conflicts with other local laws? If so, then obviously the interpretation must be rejected. That’s why precedents from outside the jurisdiction are not binding. But that’s no reason to reject a priori the very notion of considering such precedents.
Milhouse (d7842d) — 2/8/2012 @ 2:19 pmGinsburg and Scalia on Foreign Constitutions
Milhouse (d7842d) — 2/8/2012 @ 2:20 pmVery rare for you, but you’re human after all.
You’re not being hateful. It’s this twisted orwellian version of ‘tolerance’ that cannot tolerate your natural and honest views that is often hateful (though I’m not speaking of all gay marriage supporters).
That is right and insightful.
I also think it’s interesting that many of these same people do not want to define marriage as monogamous.
I think some people have a lifestyle they are defensive about (perhaps some of the defensiveness is justified by the visceral reactions of folks like me) and they just want that specific lifestyle to be encouraged and even deemed “constitutionally protected” by constitutions that obviously were never enacted to protect their arrangements.
My ideal would be either 1) Marriage law comes with a substantial penalty for adultery and high tax credits for children or 2) no legally recognized marriage at all. Just deal with your church, call yourself what you want, and if you want a property arrangement you make a contract.
My option 1 is probably born of a lot of the same impulses that drives those who want gay marriage to be called marriage and balk at adultery prosecution.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/8/2012 @ 2:23 pmwhat the*
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 2/8/2012 @ 2:23 pmSo, Catch 22.
Milhouse (d7842d) — 2/8/2012 @ 2:30 pmBanning plastic bags?
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 2/8/2012 @ 2:34 pmTo lower costs under ObamaCare, the wearing of plastic bags as headgear will be mandatory following your 75th-birthday.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 2/8/2012 @ 2:44 pmI guess We’re just like Germany with their Berlin Wall and all right?
Which the left condoned.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 2/8/2012 @ 2:45 pmI’d rather write Romer out of the history books. It’s not law. It’s a political manifesto by rogue judges, who had no authority to make it. They were ultra vires, and their work is a nullity. Or has ultra vires itself become a null concept?
Milhouse (d7842d) — 2/8/2012 @ 2:47 pmAnd since when do the people of a state, in amending their constitution, require a rational basis for what they do? Why can’t they make whatever provisions they like for their own governance, subject only to the republican guarantee clause, which the Supreme Court has already declared nonjusticiable?
Milhouse (d7842d) — 2/8/2012 @ 2:48 pmIn fact I’d say that Romer itself violates the republican guarantee clause, which the Supreme Court ruled in the Rhode Island case is up to the political branches of government to enforce.
Milhouse (d7842d) — 2/8/2012 @ 2:58 pmSince Obama’s uncle signed the declaration of independence.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 2/8/2012 @ 2:58 pm“Yet the California Supreme Court DECLARED from on high that there was a right to SSM enshrined in the California Constitution”
Yeah, they lied.
Judges do that a lot.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 2/8/2012 @ 3:10 pm69% of useful idiots trust the teachers union more………………….how predictable.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 2/8/2012 @ 3:11 pmsubject only to the republican guarantee clause,
I’ll believe the courts (SCOTUS) will take this up right after they swat down the abrogation of that clause by the NJ Supremes so many years ago.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 2/8/2012 @ 3:23 pmBradley Manning is a terrorist.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 2/8/2012 @ 3:34 pmRe Dustin’s claim that adoption is better than having your own kids, the question is, better for whom?
For kids who can’t be raised by their own parents, it’s clearly better that they be adopted by some kind family, whether gay or straight, then that they grow up in foster care or an orphanage or on the streets. That’s beyond question. I think it is slightly better for them to be adopted by a straight couple than by a gay one, but given the shortage of couples willing to adopt older children, especially non-white ones or ones with special needs, being adopted by a gay couple is far far far better than being left on the shelf.
But that wasn’t the question we were discussing, or at least I don’t think it was. When discussing what arrangements are best in principle, what matters is not what’s best for the children who already exist and are in need of homes, but what is the ideal way for children to be raised. And I think there can be no question that the ideal must be for children to be raised by their own biological parents, and for parents to raise their own biological children.
Indeed, I’ll make a startling claim here: from society’s point of view it would be better if all children who cannot be raised by their parents, and depend on “society” to find them adoptive homes, were put down. Horrifying as it is, I think society would be better off that way. And if I were a socialist or corporatist, and thus believed that society’s interests are all that matters, I would advocate such a policy, just as I would advocate putting down all defective people and anyone who was a burden on society.
However I am neither a socialist nor a corporatist, indeed I don’t believe that society even exists as an independent entity, but is merely a useful abstraction by which we can refer to the shared interests of many individuals. Putting down parentless children, however good it might be for society, is obviously bad for those children, and their right to life is far more important than any harm that may come to society from their continued existence. And since they do have a right to life, something must be done for them, and they must be found the closest semblance to a normal family upbringing that can be achieved, and adoption is about as close as can be done.
That doesn’t change my opinion that the ideal, the model and expectation around which society ought to be built, the default situation to which all others should be regarded as exceptions, is for a mixed-sex couple to produce and raise their own children. The institution of marriage should be tailored to that expectation, and any deviation from it should be treated as an exception.
Milhouse (d7842d) — 2/8/2012 @ 3:51 pmFor those who bemoan the lack of civility and tolerance towards the same-sex marriage folks, I would reference the on-line mapping of the people who made financial contributions to the Prop 8 effort in California. People who contributed had their names, addresses, place of employment all plotted on maps that were easily accessed by anyone with web-access. Threats on lives were made and intimidation was the order of the day.
People had their eyes opened for them and any sympathy some may have had for the same-sex marriage cause fell by the wayside. The only thing they have going for them is their indoctrination of our youth through the public education system and the media. Unfortunately, that will be enough and it’s only a case of when it will happen.
Colonel Haiku (895552) — 2/8/2012 @ 4:04 pmFor the family of the adopted child, parents who wanted a child and can have one, the rewards of saving someone from a bad situation, and a child getting the family they need… those are all pretty amazing benefits.
However, these are arguably at best equal to having your own child, giving a person life, raising them to be a good part of society.
Which does not seem to contradict the role that premise had in my above argument.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/8/2012 @ 4:22 pmI liked your thoughtful comment, but adopting children should not be treated as an exceptional aberration from the ideal family arrangement.
I do tend to agree with you in spirit, provided the above.
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/8/2012 @ 4:23 pmWhy do Muslims get away with not accepting Contraception?
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 2/8/2012 @ 4:32 pmThe left mock bush’s way of talking
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 2/8/2012 @ 4:42 pmbut yet say nothing when Obama starts off an interview with an umm ahhh hah.
____________________________________________
In honor of all the loving, beautiful, compassionate, generous, tolerant, beautiful, loving, heartfelt, generous, loving — did I say tolerant? — judges (they deserve as many beautiful, loving, wonderful adjectives as possible because they’re such warm, beautiful, wonderful, humane human beings) on the 9th Circuit Court, I hereby post the following:
Mark (31bbb6) — 2/8/2012 @ 6:07 pmThe KKK isn’t as powerful as it is today moronic lefturds.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 2/8/2012 @ 6:14 pmSteve, at 189: it’s a fair point that you haven’t been a willing participant.
I’m merely trying to pose to you the question as the court saw it to see if it helps you understand the answer. 🙂
—–
JD, at 193: I’m not sure. I was content with domestic partnerships *except* insofar as they don’t travel – NY will recognize a CA domestic partnership but WA won’t, even though WA has its own civil unions.
That said, I think a lot of people who consider SSM equivalent to OSM think that not bestowing the name renders the treatment of such “seperate but equal” and therefore inherently bad – as if not granting the name marriage demeans the domestic partnerships.
Dustin, at 216: I’m surprised to hear you say that because I’ve never perceived an *iota* of intolerance from you on the subject. 🙂
Milhouse, i’m not seeing the catch-22.
Maybe the effect for California is that they can’t go either way. Although even there I was unclear: a constitutional amendment to deprive same-sex couples of an incident of marriage would be constitutional in CA and would probably be constitutional under Perry if there were a rational basis for it.
Milhouse, at 230: I doubt you could convince the supreme court to write romer out of the law. At least, not in this generation.
aphrael (d46bb0) — 2/8/2012 @ 6:15 pmYeah, sorry about that. I think everyone comes with some visceral prejudices and I do my best to keep mine in check. I am good friends with a few gay people… more since I moved to Austin.
I think what separates humans from other animals is our capacity to overcome that kind of thing, which allows everyone to enjoy a much better society with other peaceful folks. This isn’t that different from religious tolerance (for me).
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/8/2012 @ 7:26 pmYou have no reason to be apologizing; I’m being earnest. In my dealings with you, I’ve not detected any intolerance, which means you are doing a very good job keeping your visceral reaction in check.
I come here, in this moment, to praise you, not to da** you. 🙂
aphrael (d46bb0) — 2/8/2012 @ 7:36 pmI understand the answer. I also recognize the inevitability of it. I just can’t recognize it as a good thing. I recall reading a sociologist pointing out that gay marriage isn’t so much a victory for society so much as a surrender to to its eventual demise. It’s the equivalent to that scene in “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” where they join hands, yell “F*** it,” and jump off the cliff.
Earl Warren had the good sense to acknowledge that marriage was vital to our existence and survival. Vaughan Walker has decided our existence and survival aren’t that big of a deal.
Marriage is now just some artifact like those empty churches in Europe that exist only as museum pieces.
Steve (475035) — 2/8/2012 @ 7:38 pmI’m going to have to disagree: my marriage to my husband is the central organizing principle of my life. Of course, that would be true whether the state I live in recognizes it or not.
aphrael (d46bb0) — 2/8/2012 @ 7:41 pmto speak in favor of traditional marriage is intolerant, yes that’s a detour into bearded
narciso (87e966) — 2/8/2012 @ 7:41 pmSpock universe, of course that clashed withthe reality with Hispanics and African Americans
even more supportive than other groups, or Prop 8, so they went after the Mormons, the low hanging
fruit. Of course it is the 9th Circus, howeverKennedy is the swing vote, on which all of judicial precedent rests.
Aphrael- I am serious when I say I would like to see your best reasoning as to why my concerns at #212 are unwarranted or unreasonable.
Perhaps you are of the conviction that SSM ought to be seen as equivalent to OSM in every respect, and consider those of us who disagree to be “wrong”, no matter how respectful and friendly we would be to yourself and your partner. In my mind to respect someone does not necessitate being in agreement with the person. I have worked hard and long to see that individual people who would advocate for SSM live healthy and long lives, I bear no ill will towards them as people.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/8/2012 @ 8:31 pmDo you think I am entitled to my opinion, that I should be able to state it in public without fear of reprisal? Would you think I am entitled to it only in the same way that we in America allow someone in public to wear brown shirts and swastikas and hold up signs in praise of Hitler?
___________________________________________
I think everyone comes with some visceral prejudices and I do my best to keep mine in check.
There are scientific reasons — and understandable, legitimate ones at that — for some of that visceral disdain or discomfort. That’s why I believe even a variety of liberals, at least in private, will wince, mock or snipe at homosexuality.
Beyond the following, per below, my greatest cynicism about or even irritation towards the GLBT crowd is that much of it is of the left (approximately at least around 80%). Researchers have cited that origins of homosexuality may be reflected in various internal and external characteristics, including all the stereotypical ones—eg, the guy likes Broadway show tunes, the girl is into sports! But they almost never mention whether a predisposition to leftist ideology is a major factor behind people’s sexuality.
^ And since male homosexuals are known to have high rates of STDs, including HIV and AIDS, is it any surprise that feelings of disgust — or certainly apprehension — exist towards them in the first place?
Mark (31bbb6) — 2/8/2012 @ 8:35 pmcucumbers are also tasty on sandwiches and they even make a refreshing agua fresca
pro-tip: use all natural stevia instead of sugar for so you can drink as much as you like! – here’s a handy sugar – stevia conversion chart
cucumbers!
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 2/8/2012 @ 8:45 pmThat is what courts do all the time with decisions from other states and countries, or from other circuits. If the same clause in another state’s laws has been interpreted by its courts in a certain way, that should influence the way this state’s courts interpret it.
— Not when it’s another country!
How can an interpretation of a law conflict with that law?
— Are you confused about the subject at hand?
Or do you mean that it conflicts with other local laws? If so, then obviously the interpretation must be rejected.
— Right-O.
That’s why precedents from outside the jurisdiction are not binding. But that’s no reason to reject a priori the very notion of considering such precedents.
Icy (aa68a6) — 2/8/2012 @ 8:47 pm— Could you provide us with a ‘for instance’ case where citing a precedent set under the justice system of a foreign nation was necessary, due to some fundamental flaw or inadequacy in our set of laws?
Great news everybody, well you know the drill;
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/world/africa/libyas-new-government-unable-to-control-militias.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
narciso (87e966) — 2/8/2012 @ 9:46 pmΑλλου ο κοσμος καιγετε και το μουνι χτενιζετε.
Gays calling themselves “married” in California — why, there’s no more important thing going on in the world.
It’s de minimis, guys. There just ain’t there many of them. There will be no rip in the fabric of existence.
nk (0498ac) — 2/8/2012 @ 10:20 pmbut but but
the sacred definition
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 2/8/2012 @ 10:33 pmNo, but it seems to me that you may be. To the best of my knowledge no judge has ever proposed that foreign precedents be regarded as binding in US decisions.
Milhouse (9a4c23) — 2/8/2012 @ 11:06 pm*sigh* Watch the Charlie Rose interviews with Stephen Breyer. Start with the one from 2005.
Icy (aa68a6) — 2/9/2012 @ 12:39 amGreat. The definition of marriage isn’t sacred.
So what’s sacred about Judge Vaughan Walker’s view on marriage? If I forum shop and get a willing judge, then we can get an opinion that it’s OK to marry my toaster or Llama?
And how is something we can redefine on a whim supposed to promote stability?
If society is supposed to promote marriage to encourage a stable, governable populace then, call me crazy, the meaning of what’s being described by the term “marriage” ought to be, I don’t know, stable?
And if it’s of any interest to anyone, Judge Walker is whacked out his skull when assuming that gay marriage automatically makes these relationships more stable.
http://www.demogr.mpg.de/Papers/Working/wp-2004-018.pdf
He’s just engaging in magical thinking. And, yes, I do have to concede that these relationships that were tracked in Nordic countries weren’t actually called “marriage.” They were essentially the equivalent of our civil ceremonies and not church weddings. But then data on gay “marriage” that’s actually called “marriage” is notoriously lacking because in the entire history of civilization it’s only been introduced in the last couple of years.
Which somehow doesn’t prevent judges from declaring gay marriage a fundamental right. Who knew? Nobody knew gay marriage was a fundamental right back when they were drafting the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The people who wrote the law were still outlawing the practice of homosexuality.
Thankfully Judge Walker came along to correct the situation. Not only did he declare gay marriage a right, he declared gender irrelevant.
Gender is irrelevant, I suppose, until you need a daddy. Like on the Costa Concordia. Just a couple of weeks back the news was full of stories of the disgraceful behavior of men who displayed an alarming lack of gallantry. If Judge Walker is right, then not only is gender irrelevant in his courtroom but also who gets shoved out of the way so I can force my way onto the lifeboat.
Congrats are in order, I suppose, happyfeet. We’ve eliminated the sacred.
Steve (20a23f) — 2/9/2012 @ 12:53 amSummon SMOD,
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/290622/vice-president-whatshisname
narciso (87e966) — 2/9/2012 @ 6:04 amIf this ruling is allowed to stand at is, it effectively means that homosexuals in California, who wish to “marry” their same-sex partners, can avail themselves of protections of the 14th Amendment to overcome any state barriers to that, while homosexuals in Arizona, Oregon, and Nevada must obtain a favorable constitutional amendment to “marry” their same-sex partners. This places homosexuals in California on superior constitutional footing than homosexuals in other states.
Similarly, California would be in an inferior constitutional footing to other states, as it may not adopt the marriage policies permitted to other states, even if it finds those policies to be superior to recognizing same-sex “marriage”.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 2/11/2012 @ 12:55 ameff policy julie your cruise directory say
love!
exciting and new!
come aboard!
we’re expecting you!
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 2/11/2012 @ 12:57 amAs Justice Thomas explained.
FCC v. Beach Communications, 508 U.S. 307 at 315 (1993)
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 2/11/2012 @ 12:59 amWhatever justifies limiting the whole package justifies limiting just the name.
It is common sense. If a greater burden on equal protection (such as denying the name and the benefits), it follows that a lesser burden (like denying the name only) is justified.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 2/11/2012 @ 1:05 am