In a breathtaking exercise in ill-natured illogic, a divided Ninth Circuit ruled 2–1 that because Prop 8 does not take away civil-union benefits for same-sex couples, it’s an unconstitutional exercise in irrational animus towards gay people.
Dishonestly, the court claimed it did not require any heightened scrutiny to reach this result.
The very timid dissent (“please don’t go after me!”) points out that Baker v. Nelson is ruling precedent and that the differences between same-sex and opposite sex couples in terms of the state’s interest in responsible procreation could be rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
Back in 2004, when we fought about a Federal Marriage Amendment, gay rights advocates said we were alarmists for claiming that they would go to federal court seeking a right to impose gay marriage on all 50 states.
That was so last decade.
As people may know I'm no particular fan of Maggie Gallagher, but I do find this a shoddy and dishonest legal exercise. Surely there is a "rational" basis for distinguishing between gay and straight marriage. Whether gay marriage should be allowed is a policy matter that should be left up for decision to the people of each individual state, or the legislators they have chosen to represent them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut that means we ask the government to enforce a test based on gender when handing out licenses. I'm not comfortable relying on the government to decide whether two citizens' marriage is sexually diverse enough to "earn" a license.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRest easy, because in this particular case it was the people of California through a referendum that decided it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd if we let the people decide whether or not to let people of different races marry, interracial marriage would have been illegal for much longer. If we wanted to allow the religious majority to decide what everyone else can and cannot do, we'd convert our government into a theocracy. Until that happens, no thanks. Our representative government needs to do what's right for all of us, not just some of us.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI thought the whole point of representative government was to do the will of the majority, with an eye on not trampling the minority. How is creating civil unions out of whole-cloth while defending the definition of marriage NOT that?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseClose. The point of a representative government is to enact legislation that is the best for everyone, but appeal to majority vote when there is no clear answer as to what is best. Civil unions would be fine if it afforded all the rights and responsibilities of marriage (and it never does, even when it's supposed to) but even if we somehow found a way to give civil unions the same federal and local rights as marriage, the government is still making an implicit statement that gay couples are less deserving than straight couples when that isn't what they're supposed to be able to do.
Separate is not, nor will it ever be equal. One would think that people might have learned that by now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBecause sometimes the will of the majority is also the tyranny of the majority, when it comes to misguided social customs such as slavery or bigotry. Civil unions were a step in the right direction, but still fail to meet the equality threshold.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusebecause that would effectively would be separate but equal and the Supreme Court ruled that unconstitutional.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou're asking the government to endorse a separate-but-equal regime, with no governmental or state or public policy benefit, purely to satisfy a religious sensibility. That's pretty much trampling on the minority.
On a side note, it's excellent to see more acknowledgement, even in conservative circles, that same-sex couples need legal protection / that civil unions are a good idea.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy don't YOU have a civil union if it is so equal?
I'll tell you why: they ain't equal.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo you're saying that if we allowed inter-racial couples all the rights of marriage without calling it marriage, but rather relegating it to civil union terminology, that would be okay with you?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh, there's nothing I'd love more than to get a bunch of conservative justices in, and then have them stomp all over every liberal law and legislate from the bench. Just to show the liberals why it's smart to respect democracy rather than hand off your power to the gov't. It's all well and good so long as the gov't does what you want, but the minute the other side takes power . . .
Unfortunately, we conservatives are too principled to do such a thing even if we gained such control. On the issue of interracial marriage, it's not the same thing. Making distinctions on race is both foolish and immoral. However, one's sexuality is a choice, as even some gays have noted, and as the number of former homosexuals also makes clear. One isn't losing a right to marriage when your relationship ISN'T A MARRIAGE. Example, if a 30 year old man wanted to marry his 25 year old sister, they can't, IT'S NOT A MARRIAGE. No one's rights are being violated.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusehahahahaha! Conservative Justices wouldn't be activist judges?
HELLO! Citizen's United?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere are an awful lot of homosexuals claiming that it is not a choice, and that they were born that way, as well. Certainly all of the ones I have met.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSexual orientation is like left-handedness: biological, unchangeable, innocent. We used to think left-handed was evil (Latin for left is “sinister”), force lefties to use their right hand, even though they never really changed handedness. Research reveals variable hormonal levels in pregnancy permanently affect child’s neural circuitry for sexual orientation and gender identity to express on a spectrum between straight and gay, same or opposite gender: a little more testosterone in fetal girls’ brains from the adrenals causes <50% to be lesbian, 10% to be transgender. Sharing the womb with a boy co-twin (amniotic fluid has some of his testosterone) causes <15% of girl co-twins to be lesbian. These girls also have the bone structure and physical coordination of boys, so they are good in sports, thus the stereotype.
If a boy's mother has carried many older brothers that caused her to make blocking antibody to their male proteins, the lower levels of testosterone result in <15% of boys being gay. These boys have the physiology/verbal skills more like girls, and excel in language and visual arts, thus the stereotype.
Most homosexuals and most heterosexuals will say that they had no choice to be how they are because they were born on the far ends of the spectrum. Some straight and gay folks feel it was a choice for them because they were born closer to the middle of the biological spectrum between straight and gay. All are hard-wired to how they are and none can change. It is all innocent, and not contagious.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"...basing distinctions on race is both foolish and immoral. However ones sexuality is a choice..."
Really Cypher20? So you are saying you could "choose" to be straight? I don't think so. It's like saying you could choose to actually be educated on what you are talking about instead of spouting nonsense.
Gay people do not choose to be gay anymore than straight people choose to be straight. And yes, there are"programs" out there that claim to help people "change" their orientation, but suppression and denial are not change.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe intent of the 14th Amendment is to ban racial discrimination, not other forms of it. So, yes, the state legislatures traditionally have been allowed larger leeway in other areas.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusethe LANGUAGE of the 14th amendment is prevent discrimination between people. period. If writers of an amendment wanted to make the amendment about race alone, they should be more explicit. Doesn't the TEXT of our constitution count more than what "intent"might have been?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat would be a fine argument Ellie, were it not for the fact that race and sex are not the same; the have no releationship to each other. A black man and white man are both men. A white woman and black woman are the same.
What would you do about the "classes" of people the judge left out of his ruling? Only 2 people can enter into marriage? Family members can't marry? Are you really that biggoted?
You see the point? "Equal protection" means EQUAL - accross the board with NO ONE's preference left out. Anything less is "discrimination." Marriage is NOT a right-but you know that, I'm sure.
This judge to tossed the ballot box into the fire due to his bias in this case. If it can happen with same-sex marriage, it can happen with anything the people vote on; governor, senators, the president...be careful what you wish for and support.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseProblem is, Prop 8 only passed with 52% of the vote. Hold the same vote now, and gay marriage is probably the winner by the same margin.
Is you solution then for California hold an annual vote, with gay marriage permissible only in the years it tops 50%?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse