Gay Marriage!

[Kevin Slater]

The Jews, and the cyclists.

 

Kevin Slater

[Steven_Draker]

http://media.boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/cagle.png

[tyro]

NICE cartoon, Steven!

T

[uwsman2]

The Jews, and the cyclists.

 

Kevin Slater

The Supreme Court at present consists of 6 Catholics and 3 Jews. The majority behind the marriage ruling consists of 2 Catholics and 3 Jews; all the dissenters are Catholics. In his dissent, Scalia called out the Court as "unrepresentative" of the county because it consists of just Catholics and Jews. Well, that's OK. The Supreme Court is supposed to make decisions based on law, not religion, so the religion of the justices shouldn't "count" - and, remember, for all those "blaming the Jews," that the opinion was written by a Catholic.

[+ Gar1eth]

Jindal may want a final ruling from Feldman, but Jefferson Parish issued a license on Monday, and the couple has already gotten married in New Orleans.

5th Circuit to courts in Texas: Allow gay marriage because Supreme Court says so

 

 

The Associated Press

 

Published: 01 July 2015 06:33 PM

Updated: 01 July 2015 08:19 PM

JACKSON, Miss. — A federal appeals court Wednesday instructed judges in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas to wrap up gay marriage cases in their states in line with last week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

 

The order Wednesday from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals clears one of the final procedural roadblocks in the three cases, which had been pending before the New Orleans-based court. The 5th Circuit had heard arguments in the appeals but hadn’t ruled.

 

Circuit Judge Jerry Smith, writing for the three-judge panel that had heard arguments in the case, told federal district judges to issue final rulings by July 17 at the latest. The appeals court told U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman in New Orleans that he, in particular, needed to hurry because of the declining health of one of the Louisiana plaintiffs, Robert Welles. Feldman’s attorney, Scott Spivey, declined to comment.

 

Smith wrote in three separate opinions that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that marriage is a constitutional right equally held by all Americans “is the law of the land and, consequently, the law of this circuit, and should not be taken lightly by actors within jurisdiction of this court,” Smith wrote.

 

People seeking legalization of same-sex marriage had won cases at the district level in Mississippi and Texas but lost in Louisiana. Public officials in all three states had opposed any change, but had conceded in letters to the court in recent days that the proper course was to conclude the cases with final orders from the district judges legalizing same-sex marriage. The 5th Circuit dissolved its stay blocking lower court orders in Mississippi and Texas.

 

U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves in Jackson quickly issued a final order overturning Mississippi’s constitutional and legal bans on same-sex marriage. U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia in San Antonio had lifted the stay blocking his injunction last week.

 

Mike Reed, a spokesman for Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, wrote in an email that the governor still wanted a final ruling from Feldman.

 

“Our agencies will follow the Louisiana Constitution until the district court orders us otherwise,” Reed wrote.

 

Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant said he was cheered by Smith’s decision to include language from the Supreme Court opinion saying that people remained free to disagree with same-sex marriage for religious or other reasons.

 

“While I still deeply disagree with the decision of five U.S. Supreme Court justices to remove the authority to regulate marriage from states, I am heartened by the 5th Circuit’s implication that it recognizes the rights of people of faith as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution,” Bryant said in a statement. “As governor, I will my continue efforts to protect the religious liberties of Mississippians.”

 

Chris Otten, chair of the Forum for Equality Louisiana, which filed Louisiana’s lawsuit, said officials should act at once.

 

“The state made it very clear that it would follow the Supreme Court decision once the 5th Circuit ruled. We call on Gov. Jindal and all state officials to honor the 5th Circuit’s command,” he said in a statement.

 

Roberta Kaplan, who represented the Mississippi plaintiffs, was more succinct.

 

“It’s over,” she told The Associated Press by telephone.

 

Spokespeople for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

 

All parishes in Louisiana now say they are willing to issue licenses to same-sex couples, and holdouts among Mississippi counties dwindled sharply Wednesday after a group of seven circuit clerks met with Gov. Phil Bryant and representatives of Attorney General Jim Hood.

 

Gman

[Samfoslom]

I finally got around to reading the dissents today. Largely, they disagree with the idea of same sex marriage as a fundamental right, arguing that the majority is creating a new right and telling the majority that supreme court identification of fundamental rights under the 14 Amendment must be very limited and confined to deeply historical and traditional rights , Here, they say, the idea of legal same sex marriages did not arise until the Mass Supreme Court acted in 2003 (or 2005) invalidated a state opposite sex only law. In general, the dissenting justices find fault with majority identifying any fundamental rights beyond those expressly stated in the Bill of Rights (freedom of speech, religion, etc.) and assert that, by going beyond that, the majority essentially turns the court, improperly into a policy making forum where the justices are legislating-- by setting out as constitutional rights those policies that they like.

 

Justices Alito and Thomas make a distinction between rights and benefits, saying that what the petitioners wanted was to have the government bestow benefits of marriage (arising out of state and federal law), when the true test should only be whether the government is preventing them from doing something. And they say the government is not preventing anything--gays can still cohabitate and raise children and make contractual/estate planning decisions to carry our their desired domestic arrangements. Justice Thomas comes right out and says that "liberty" protected under the 14th and 5th amendments is merely freedom from confinement (i.e. jail). And all the dissenters reiterate that the states have the right to define marriage as between a man and a woman. They say that it's all up to the voting public in those states to change that.

 

My recollection is that the Supreme Court has previously articulated that a state cannot avoid constitutional scrutiny of its law by arguing a distinction between a right and a benefit and saying that, for example "we can bestow benefits as we see fit." I don't think the dissenting justices are abandoning that. I think that they are making the distinction only to attack the idea of a substantive 14th amendment right.

[+ Gar1eth]

From only 5 years ago.

 

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/ippmoa/the-colbert-coalition-s-anti-gay-marriage-ad

 

Gman

[+ poolboy48220]

The Detroit Free Press letters to the editors section had a half-page devoted to the decision. Quite a range, including one from someone in favor of same-sex marriage, but opposed to the fact that this came from the Supreme Court, not legislation.

[+ deej]

My recollection is that the Supreme Court has previously articulated that a state cannot avoid constitutional scrutiny of its law by arguing a distinction between a right and a benefit and saying that, for example "we can bestow benefits as we see fit." I don't think the dissenting justices are abandoning that. I think that they are making the distinction only to attack the idea of a substantive 14th amendment right.

 

I have to think that at least a small part of the dissents come from the Justices wanting to maintain street cred with conservatives.

 

Scalia has spent his judicial career crusading for strict literalism in interpreting the constitution, a battle he has resoundingly lost. The fundamental underpinnings of his entire judicial legacy is in the shit can. No wonder he's grumpy!

 

Ironically, Scalia's strict reading of the constitution would nullify Justice Thomas' marriage which is legal only because of the Loving v. VA decision.

 

With Obergefell, SCOTUS has now ruled in fifteen decisions that marriage is a fundamental right. That's consistency.

[+ quoththeraven]

This seemed as good a place as any for the following links about the Supreme Court per the Notorious RBG:

 

Ginsburg: Liberal Justices Make A Point to Speak With One Voice (NPR)

 

Excerpt:

 

Ginsburg said people sometimes characterize her opinions as "dull" because she doesn't use splashy language. But, she added, "I think some of my colleagues' spicier lines are distracting. They draw attention away from what the justice is trying to say."

 

And she observed that although several of the court's conservatives went to great lengths to denounce Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide, Kennedy simply didn't respond, letting the criticism roll off his back, and the opinion to "speak for itself."

 

Indeed, if any of the other four justices in the majority were tempted to write something additional, they stayed their hand and spoke with one voice — the Kennedy opinion.

 

That, she said, is "more effective." Of course, she added, you do have to answer some of the main points in a dissent, but you don't have to answer every little argument or swipe.

 

(emphasis added)

 

From 'rage aria' to 'lovely duet.' opera does justice to Court, Ginsburg says (WaPo) - about the opera Scalia/Ginsburg, whose premiere she is attending (Scalia's name goes first because he's been on the Court longer; tenure matters), which attests to the friendships and collegiality on the Court. Ginsburg and Scalia are personal friends. And at a party after the release of Obergefell (possibly an annual end-of-term party), Justice Scalia took part in a singalong of Dylan's "The Times The Are A-Changin'."

 

Excerpt:

 

A conservative Supreme Court justice, fuming after losing a dramatic debate on same-sex marriage, heads to a party and before you can say “Summer of Love,” has jumped into a singalong of Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are A-Changin’.”

 

Don’t believe it? Well, she told us!

 

"He sang with great verve,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said of Justice Antonin Scalia in a phone interview with The Washington Post last week.

 

“Nino,” as she calls him, is her philosophical opposite and great friend.

 

A former clerk for Justices O'Connor and Kennedy has characterized Scalia's off-bench demeanor as "avuncular." Not mean and nasty. He gets that out of his system in his opinions. (My characterization, not hers.) And the justice who knows everyone by name, from Chief Justice on down to the lowliest maintenance person? Justice Thomas, per Jeffrey Toobin's book on the Court, who has welcomed and chitchatted with his gay clerks' partners when they've stopped by for a visit just as he would any other clerk's significant other who dropped by. And these are both men whose nominations I would not have confirmed if I had had a voice in them.

[+ Gar1eth]

This seemed as good a place as any for the following links about the Supreme Court per the Notorious RBG:

 

Ginsburg: Liberal Justices Make A Point to Speak With One Voice (NPR)

 

Excerpt:

 

Ginsburg said people sometimes characterize her opinions as "dull" because she doesn't use splashy language. But, she added, "I think some of my colleagues' spicier lines are distracting. They draw attention away from what the justice is trying to say."

 

And she observed that although several of the court's conservatives went to great lengths to denounce Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide, Kennedy simply didn't respond, letting the criticism roll off his back, and the opinion to "speak for itself."

 

Indeed, if any of the other four justices in the majority were tempted to write something additional, they stayed their hand and spoke with one voice — the Kennedy opinion.

 

That, she said, is "more effective." Of course, she added, you do have to answer some of the main points in a dissent, but you don't have to answer every little argument or swipe.

 

(emphasis added)

 

From 'rage aria' to 'lovely duet.' opera does justice to Court, Ginsburg says (WaPo) - about the opera Scalia/Ginsburg, whose premiere she is attending (Scalia's name goes first because he's been on the Court longer; tenure matters), which attests to the friendships and collegiality on the Court. Ginsburg and Scalia are personal friends. And at a party after the release of Obergefell (possibly an annual end-of-term party), Justice Scalia took part in a singalong of Dylan's "The Times The Are A-Changin'."

 

Excerpt:

 

A conservative Supreme Court justice, fuming after losing a dramatic debate on same-sex marriage, heads to a party and before you can say “Summer of Love,” has jumped into a singalong of Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are A-Changin’.”

 

Don’t believe it? Well, she told us!

 

"He sang with great verve,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said of Justice Antonin Scalia in a phone interview with The Washington Post last week.

 

“Nino,” as she calls him, is her philosophical opposite and great friend.

 

A former clerk for Justices O'Connor and Kennedy has characterized Scalia's off-bench demeanor as "avuncular." Not mean and nasty. He gets that out of his system in his opinions. (My characterization, not hers.) And the justice who knows everyone by name, from Chief Justice on down to the lowliest maintenance person? Justice Thomas, per Jeffrey Toobin's book on the Court, who has welcomed and chitchatted with his gay clerks' partners when they've stopped by for a visit just as he would any other clerk's significant other who dropped by. And these are both men whose nominations I would not have confirmed if I had had a voice in them.

 

 

It's nice to know that Scalia is avuncular outside of his opinions, otherwise I'd fear for how he treats his wife. He can argue for strict interpretation all he wants. I still think in this case he is using it to justify his dislike of gays.

 

The other think I want to know about a strictly literal reading of the Constitution is how can anyone expect a document written over 200 years ago with a few more modern amendments added cover the complexity of our present world. The document has to be able to live and breathe somewhat if it's to stay relevant. Look at Shakespeare. There are passages that even a large number of intelligent people don't understand because the language itself has changed so much. And I didn't see Scalia using a literal meaning of the Constitution when he gave corporations the rights of a person. I sincerely doubt the Founders would have countenanced that-well they might have as many of them were wealthy. But I'd like to think not.

 

Gman

[Kevin Slater]

From today's NY Times: (Justice Ginsburg) suggested that she would have written last month’s same-sex marriage decision differently than Justice Anthony M. Kennedy had, and would have expanded its cursory treatment of equal protection principles. But she decided not to write separately, she said, because “it was more powerful to have a single opinion.”

 

http://nyti.ms/1KALfgC

 

Kevin Slater