(Crossposted on Alas and on TADA. Arguments in against recognizing SSM legally should be taken to TADA, not posted on Alas.)
1) First reaction: HELL fuzzy yes!
2) As nice as this feels now, like Scott Lemieux, I’m not optimistic about where this case is going. In the end, the Supreme Court will decide, and the Court historically tends to be a follower rather than a leader on civil rights. (For example, interracial marriages were already legal in most of the US when the Court ruled on Loving vs Virginia).
3) Speaking of the Court, Dahlia Lithwick argues persuasively that Judge Walker wrote his opinion primarily for an audience of one person, Anthony Kennedy. The rest of us are all just sort of reading over Kennedy’s shoulder. “I count—in [Walker’s] opinion today—seven citations to Justice Kennedy’s 1996 opinion in Romer v. Evans (striking down an anti-gay Colorado ballot initiative) and eight citations to his 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas (striking down Texas’ gay-sodomy law).”
4) Speaking of Judge Walker, right-wingers are saying that Walker only ruled against prop 8 because he’s gay. (Walker, who was nominated to the bench by Ronald Reagan and then by George Bush sr., was at the time opposed by Democrats who believed Walker was anti-gay.)
5) The award for least reality-based reaction goes, not for the first time, to Maggie Gallagher, who predicts this result: “Parents will find that, almost Soviet-style, their own children will be re-educated using their own tax dollars to disrespect their parents’ views and values.”
6) Speaking of stupidheads ((I’m using the term “stupidhead” in honor of my niece and nephew. Also, I don’t want to use either “douche” or “dick,” and I can’t really think of a satisfying substitute term.)) without coherent positions, President Obama is still acting like a stupidhead without a coherent position. (Not exactly a shock, I know.)
7) The cliff notes versions: A Quick And Easy Summary of Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Or, for a more detailed nutshelling of the ruling, try Prop 8: The facts vs. the fears. And in either case, I’d recommend reading the take on it at Hunter of Justice, as well.
8) I entirely agree with the legal basis of this ruling. The opponents of SSM marriage have failed, once again, to establish a rational basis for barring same-sex couples from equal treatment by their government.
In the end, it always comes down to one question: “How will straight, married couples be harmed if same-sex couples can also marry?” And in the end, opponents of equality are unable to come up with any reasonable, fact-based answer to that question. Because they are so unable to make a reasoned argument, in the long run equality will win.
Unfortunately, that may still be a decade or two away. And a loss in the Supreme Court at this point could push that eventually victory further down the road. I desperately hope I’m wrong, but I think that a few years from now we’ll be wishing that this particular lawsuit hadn’t been brought.
On the bright side — as Scott said, I think — even if the Supreme Court strikes this decision down, all that really means is that we’ll be doing this fight state by state, instead of in Federal courts. And that’s where we are right now, anyway.
Comment moved to TADA by moderator. –Amp
Comment moved to TADA by moderator. –Amp
Comment moved to TADA by moderator. –Amp
Comment moved to TADA by moderator. –Amp
On second thought, I think that folks who are going to present arguments against same-sex marriage should take their comments to the cross-post on TADA. Sorry for the inconvenience, Bob; I hope you’ll cut-and-paste your comments to there.
Everyone else, please don’t reply to Bob’s comments in this thread from now on (but feel free to reply to Bob on TADA).
UPDATE: I moved the comments to TADA.
“Parents will find that, almost Soviet-style, their own children will be re-educated using their own tax dollars to disrespect their parents’ views and values.”
You know, if I lived in Texas and had children, this would be a very good description of the new “social studies” guidelines.
Actually, pretty much everything Christian conservatives think about the gay rights movement can be reflected back on the religious right. “Universal acceptance/recognition of homosexuality”–isn’t what the RR wants, the universal recognition of Christianity (‘merry Christmas’)? The language they use–“practicing homosexual”; “converting children”–aren’t fundagelical Christians the leaders in converting people?
Gay agenda = religious right agenda Mad Libs
I posted this on someone’s livejournal last night:
Speaking of the slippery slope argument–why exactly isn’t “taboo” itself a slippery slope argument? There’s at least one culture wherein het sex is considered totally dangerous and to piss off the gods, and consequently tabooed more often than not. If some cultures and religions get to legislate their illogical taboos, why not that one?
And why exactly is it legal for people to eat ham and shrimp? Or cheeseburgers?
But that’s not even the right question, so arguments against it don’t convince. The question is “How will society as a whole be harmed if same-sex couples can marry?” And the answer is that we don’t really know, but it’s probably worth taking a chance on it because it will add to many individuals’ happiness. But we really don’t know the unintended consequences of this decision, and we may not know for a generation or two.
I’m completely in favor of same sex marriage that is exactly the same as current heterosexual marriage, but that doesn’t mean I am willing to ignore the possibility of detrimental effects. I just think they’re probably going to be worth it.
I live outside the U.S. largely because of my partner, who isn’t a U.S. citizen. I can live in the U.K. because of him, but we have no rights in the States. It’s a sacrifice–the States is much better for my profession than anywhere else, and my working life has been hell ever since I left. This decision doesn’t change our dilemma. But it’s lovely to have a little bit of hope, and to think my native country might, someday, give me equal citizenship.
I love the outcome, but I’m not happy about the process. A) we seem to be throwing the Republicans a lifeline at exactly the wrong time, and even more importantly B) this is like an all-in poker gamble: if it works we won, but if we lose it lose a lot. With legislative marriage seemingly in reach I don’t think I would have chosen such a gamble.
If it pays off, Walker looks brilliant. If not, we’re all screwed.
I’m not sure how it is a huge gamble.
If the Supreme Court decides that states have the freedom to ban same sex marriage, then we are exactly where we are now, with states banning same sex marriage. I can’t imagine any way that the Supreme Court would decide that, for instance, states were not allowed to allow same sex marriage, so the situation isn’t going to get worse as a result of this going to the Supreme Court.
The only way I can see that it is a gamble is that an anti-marriage equality decision will provide precedent against marriage equality. That is bad, but mostly for the extent to which it delays getting a pro-marriage equality decision. But the court has shown a willingness to declare previous anti-gay decisions to be wrongly decided after a very short time, so it doesn’t seem likely that a bad decision here will delay a good decision by very much. What matters more is the composition of the court, and the current right wing justices are mostly pretty young, so it doesn’t seem that likely that any of them will be replaced during an Obama presidency (even a two term Obama presidency). So if we can’t get a positive decision now, we probably won’t be able to get a positive decision for at least another decade in any case.
My bet is that it isn’t that large a gamble in either direction, since I don’t think there is any chance that Kennedy will sign on to a decision that requires marriage equality as the law of the land. I’d guess that at best he may agree that laws that repeal marriage equality are unconstitutional, but that the absence of a law that grants marriage equality is not unconstitutional (similar to the decision on the Colorado anti-anti-discrimination law, where anti-anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional, but the absence of anti-discrimination law and anti-gay discrimination are both constitutional) and at worst he’ll agree that laws that repeal marriage equality are constitutional, which is the status quo.
Personally, I’m sort of hoping that the court rules that the anti-marriage folks don’t have standing to appeal, as I don’t think there is any chance of a SC decision more expansive than one affirming that Measure 8 is invalid. I suppose I can imagine that the SC would rule all anti-marriage equality constitutional amendments invalid, but that strikes me as highly unlikely, far more unlikely than the SC ruling that Measure 8 is valid, and I think getting marriage equality just in California would be a huge victory (although probably better in some ways to have done it at the ballot box 2 years from now).
I share the fears of many concerning the Supreme Court, but I also trust that those making strategic decisions in this matter — the organizations and individuals deeply involved in working for equal rights for gay persons — are much better placed to assess the options than I am. It’s probably no coincidence that this has come up “riskily early” and ended in a decision so clearly crafted toward the Supreme Court’s swing voter. It’s probably a very calculated risk (and perhaps the strategizers are correct in thinking that it could be a long time before the courts get any more liberal)…
Pingback: link hodgepodge « Clare Forstie
Kai @8, if we don’t really know, then all you’re left with is vague, ominous hand-waving. If you can’t even make a plausible argument about what might happen by now, why should those fears have any weight whatsoever?