Gay marriage battle relaunches, challenged in court

[Kulindahr]

I'm saying bias can work both ways, in your favor and not in your favor. I really believe that Walker is biased in favor of gay marriage. It is a gut opinion. He totally slammed the procreation argument. I love it.

My gut opinion is that he's tired of theocrats trying to pretend everyone just ought to fall over to do what they want.

But yeah, he did slam the procreation argument!

This LA times article has even more coverage.

"Just last month," Walker said, "I performed a wedding in which the groom was 95 and the bride was 83. I did not demand that they prove they would engage in procreation."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-marriage15-2009oct15,0,5459107.story?track=rss

It also mentioned something tantalizing. Walker is open to a preliminary injunction suspending proposition 8 if the trial is dragged on by delays.

That line is classic. Now, a Thomist could deal with it, but somehow I doubt that would have much weight with him, either -- nor do I believe that those defending Prop 8 have anyone with them as brilliant as St. Thomas.

He did seem to be open to an injunction.

My question now is this: what happens if the plaintiffs win? Do they really expect the current SCOTUS to even so much as listen to them?

 

[scream4ever]

Everything sounds great! God, all great news from California this week!!!

 

[frankfrank]

Kulindahr and others, I'm glad to see your informative posts! I'm very happy there's a site like this, where I actually CAN be well informed on gay issues, as well as other issues. I'm not sure that The Advocate, for example, would give as much coverage and analysis as this site.

And further, Kulindahr, your arguments some while back in the CE & P Forum (and the idea repeated a few posts above this) gave me my first outside-the-box thinking about the validity of the institution of "marriage" and I've come to agree with your idea thoroughly. Of course there should be some kind of recognition for loving couples who desire an OFFICIAL relationship, but (as you've said) let's have them be CIVIL UNIONS. And on EQUAL footing regardless of the gender of the two people who bind together contractually, along with all the current rights which exist under marriage. Marriage can still exist, but MARRIAGE WOULD BE ENTIRELY OPTIONAL, and in addition to the Civil Union. The marriage would not be a binding contract at all, but instead a ceremonial or religious blessing of the Civil Union, which hopefully would enhance the Civil Union contract. Marriage would be unenforceable and unofficial. (Have I correctly and entirely understood your premise? I really like that idea!!)

It's really great to see the procreation argument blown all to bloody hell, too. "Procreation doesn't require marriage" - and the corollary is that MARRIAGE DOESN'T REQUIRE PROCREATION either.

I've never heard of a couple being asked to file papers proving that they intend to have at least one child, either. After all, non-procreative marriages aren't limited to the elderly. I have known plenty of monogamous, fully-heterosexual married couples who in no way plan to have children.

And as far as him being "BIASED" - yes, he is - a judge is supposed to be biased toward doing the PROPER THING under the law, and that can sometimes involve questioning or even defying existing laws which are defective, faulty or unjust.

Sometimes being "biased" to assure that things actually happen properly, takes massive amounts of courage. He is obviously equal to the task - and he knows what's right and what's just. I think he'd fight for it, even if he didn't "like" the concept of same-sex marriage.

 

[Kulindahr]

And further, Kulindahr, your arguments some while back in the CE & P Forum (and the idea repeated a few posts above this) gave me my first outside-the-box thinking about the validity of the institution of "marriage" and I've come to agree with your idea thoroughly. Of course there should be some kind of recognition for loving couples who desire an OFFICIAL relationship, but (as you've said) let's have them be CIVIL UNIONS. And on EQUAL footing regardless of the gender of the two people who bind together contractually, along with all the current rights which exist under marriage. Marriage can still exist, but MARRIAGE WOULD BE ENTIRELY OPTIONAL, and in addition to the Civil Union. The marriage would not be a binding contract at all, but instead a ceremonial or religious blessing of the Civil Union, which hopefully would enhance the Civil Union contract. Marriage would be unenforceable and unofficial. (Have I correctly and entirely understood your premise? I really like that idea!!)

Other than that I'd call them "registered unions" (for a couple of reasons), you may have actually explained some of it better than I've ever managed.

The couple of reasons are that, first, "civil unions" has come to have bad connotations for both sides of the issue, so we'd do better without it, and, second, the idea would be that citizens tell the government they've gotten "hitched" (or whatever), and the government duly (and meekly) registers that, rather than the government sitting there and deciding who can be in what sort of a relationship.

I just saw a poll that showed that two-thirds of Americans eligible to vote oppose gay marriage -- not a good sign, for gays who want to be married. But when asked if gay couples should have the same standing before the law as straights, three-fifths of Americans said yes!

So in essence, the battle is won... except the gay community won't take the victory.

 

[scream4ever]

"My question now is this: what happens if the plaintiffs win? Do they really expect the current SCOTUS to even so much as listen to them?"

Why wouldn't they? Considering:

1. This is such a hotbutton issue

2. How prominant/familiar Olsen and Boise are to the SCOTUS

 

[scream4ever]

"Now why is that different than say the Loving vs. Virginia case? Because the number of states that prohibited interracial marriages in 1967 was in the teens."

I don't see how that really makes a difference. If something is indeed unconstitutional (and this is) they could overturn it even if it was illegal in all 50 states.

Also, at the time of Loving v Virginia, only 16 states had interracial marriage legal. By the time this reaches the SCOTUS I will bet another 5-8 states will have same sex marriage.

Not to nitpick, but the number is actually 40 states that ban it. New Jersey does not have a statue.

 

[Kulindahr]

If it were anyone but the Olsen and Boies team on this, I'd be terrified of it getting to SCOTUS. It may just be novel enough that they're on the same side that tips the scales and SCOTUS gives them the match.

That's not to say that they won't argue this brilliantly, but a few of the Supremes are dimmer than the light bulb I threw away last night, when it comes to putting the Constitution over their personal morals.

 

[Kulindahr]

BTW, I like the confidence we're all showing, by discussing what will happen with SCOTUS, this early in the game.