Gay Marriage: The Risks of Winning in Court (Part I)

  • metta

    Posts: 39077

    Feb 18, 2013 11:59 PM GMT
    Gay Marriage: The Risks of Winning in Court (Part I)

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-goldstein/gay-marriage-and-litigati_b_2302118.html
  • TheBizMan

    Posts: 4091

    Feb 19, 2013 1:31 AM GMT
    For the Tl;DR version:

    A straight man basically argues that if gay marriage is won through the court system rather than at the ballot box, there will be backlash due to the undemocratic nature of pushing laws through courts.

    You can easily tell that he is not in favor of a supreme court decision on gay marriage.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2013 1:34 AM GMT
    TheBizMan saidFor the Tl;DR version:

    A straight man basically argues that if gay marriage is won through the court system rather than at the ballot box, there will be backlash due to the undemocratic nature of pushing laws through courts.

    You can easily tell that he is not in favor of a supreme court decision on gay marriage.
    For the one-liner version:

    A closet fag feels uncomfortable with being in favor for the very thing he keeps trying to hide.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2013 2:59 AM GMT
    The argument in this piece has been put foward by gays/lesbians themselves, claiming that a ballot vote would be more indicative of real popular support for marriage equality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2013 3:00 AM GMT
    Civil rights are never especially popular, and many Americans are quite taken with the idea of a caste system.
  • Whipmagic

    Posts: 1481

    Feb 19, 2013 3:05 AM GMT
    mileshelvetica saidThe argument in this piece has been put foward by gays/lesbians themselves, claiming that a ballot vote would be more indicative of real popular support for marriage equality.


    While this may be true, it is alos unlikely that state like MS or UT would enact marriage equality on their own in the next fifty years or so without court action. If those states had their way, interracial marriage would still be illegal. And I don't think loving couples there should have to wait for enlightenment to strike their lawmakers and citizens, or be forced to move, just to get their basic rights. That's why court action is necessary, even if it may not be the most inspiring and affirming way forward.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2013 3:13 AM GMT
    Whipmagic said
    mileshelvetica saidThe argument in this piece has been put foward by gays/lesbians themselves, claiming that a ballot vote would be more indicative of real popular support for marriage equality.


    While this may be true, it is alos unlikely that state like MS or UT would enact marriage equality on their own in the next fifty years or so without court action. If those states had their way, interracial marriage would still be illegal. And I don't think loving couples there should have to wait for enlightenment to strike their lawmakers and citizens, or be forced to move, just to get their basic rights. That's why court action is necessary, even if it may not be the most inspiring and affirming way forward.

    I agree with the importance now for a court decision (assuming it goes the way we want it to), and yes, some states would take forever to do it, but the idea of other forms of backlash emerging is something to consider.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2013 3:14 AM GMT
    Suppose the Supreme Court decision goes against marriage equality. What will happen in the states where it is already legal?
  • Whipmagic

    Posts: 1481

    Feb 19, 2013 3:17 AM GMT
    mileshelvetica saidSuppose the Supreme Court decision goes against marriage equality. What will happen in the states where it is already legal?


    Absolutely nothing. It is legal in those states because their legislature, their citizenry through referendum, or their state courts, because of state laws, decided to allow it. SCOTUS could, in the worst case, only say that the federal costituton does not mandate same-sex marriage, or that the federal government cannot be required to recognize it, or make other states require to recognize it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2013 3:38 AM GMT
    I'm tired of this reasoning. It doesn't work that way...

    Once people see happily married same-sex couples, and the world doesn't end, they come around. We did see some backlash in Iowa (judges were voted out), but Midwesterners can be notoriously passive-aggressive (I should know, I grew up there!) and it was short-lived anyway. Support for same-sex marriage has increased since then.

    It was the same thing when the military was desegregated.

    Sometimes you have to drag people kicking and screaming into the future, and then they realize it's OK. Not so different from coming out, and the more people have been exposed to gay people, the stronger they support them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2013 3:42 AM GMT
    mileshelvetica saidThe argument in this piece has been put foward by gays/lesbians themselves, claiming that a ballot vote would be more indicative of real popular support for marriage equality.


    Either way a victory is a victory and unlike the race based decisions where support was like in the thirties support for gay issues nationally is doubled that. So I don't think there would be as much of a leeway for the Republicans to pull another Southern Strategy esque takeover.

    And I think a Supreme Court victory is one of the few ways marriage equality will reach most of the Southern and Midwestern states. It would be decades before gays could win by the ballot in states like Georgia or Texas or Oklahoma.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2013 3:56 AM GMT
    Courts were put in the government to protect minority rights from majority rule.

    Why are people arguing that them working as intended is bad?
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Feb 19, 2013 5:49 AM GMT
    i'm still upset we didn't get to vote on ending segregation!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2013 6:02 AM GMT
    http://www.pensitoreview.com/2010/02/19/gay-marriage-support-double-approval-of-mixed-marriage-in-1968-2/

    Excerpt from the article:

    "In 1968, the year after the “activist” Supremes legalized interracial marriage in its decision on Loving vs. Virginia, a Gallup poll found that the vast majority of Americans still opposed the idea that blacks and whites could marry — 72 percent to 20 percent. Just 10 years earlier, in the wake of a California Supreme Court decision that overturned newly minted anti-interracial marriage laws in the state, Gallup found that 94 percent of Americans opposed mixed-race marriages."

    The idea of interracial marriage was less popular than gay marriage is now. Supreme Court still ruled in favor of interracial marriage. I think it is OK for civil rights to be ruled in favor of regardless of public opinion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2013 6:05 AM GMT
    calibro saidi'm still upset we didn't get to vote on ending segregation!


    This. Or overturning internment of Japanese citizens after WWII.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2013 6:13 AM GMT
    calibro saidi'm still upset we didn't get to vote on ending segregation!


    Are you that old.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2013 10:15 AM GMT
    Chainers saidCourts were put in the government to protect minority rights from majority rule.

    Why are people arguing that them working as intended is bad?


    +1. You're a winner.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 19, 2013 10:16 AM GMT
    Civil rights, human rights, need be codified in the constitution of a country as they are in South Africa. This protects minorities from the majority. If California voters were to overturn the present status of gay marriage in another election in the future, what would stop them from reversing that decision in another vote after that one. Civil rights, human rights, should not be up for a vote.

    However, if the Supreme Court should vote against the institution of gay marriage, then it will be all the more difficult to turn over that decision in the future. If they should vote for, then back lash be damned.