Will Justice Anthony Kennedy Make Gay Marriage Legal Everywhere?

  • metta

    Posts: 39167

    Feb 23, 2014 6:06 AM GMT
    Will This Man Make Gay Marriage Legal Everywhere?

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/22/will-this-man-make-gay-marriage-legal-everywhere.html
  • peterstrong

    Posts: 989

    Feb 23, 2014 3:20 PM GMT
    GOOD NEWS - thanks metta8

    the second article about conservative Christians in Arizona ( and elsewhere ) is very good too


  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Feb 24, 2014 3:19 PM GMT
    The article states:

    “It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s representatives in Congress and the Executive,” wrote Justice Antonin Scalia. “It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government.”

    No, you pseudo-intellectual dope, it envisions a judiciary which the Constitution maintains is a co-EQUAL branch of GOVERNMENT.

    This is the same fool who, in his op striking down sections of the Voting Rights Act last year, clearly betrayed the fact that he did not even know that that Act had vastly increased the rights of poor WHITE people in the south to vote, which by far outweighed the right of poor BLACK people to vote (the operative word being "poor").

    The article states:

    "But the best remedy for the less oppressive injustices to gays that are now being challenged is gradual democratic progress, not instantaneous judicial fiat."

    Really?

    Vermont + Wyoming: Populations = Approx. 1.2 million = 4 senators
    California + Texas: Populations = Approx. 64 million = 4 senators

    Well, that doesn't matter because the House is.... really?

    Like it or not, the Democratic senators on the Finance Committee of Senator Baucus (from that other huge state, Montana), who basically pushed through what would become the Affordable Care Act as we know it, were elected by.... approx. 6% of "The People".

    In order to have "gradual democratic change" you'd need a democracy; we don't have one, we have a republic.

    Mercifully, that republic has a third, co-equal branch of Government... NOT elected by "The People".










  • Whipmagic

    Posts: 1481

    Mar 08, 2014 2:48 AM GMT
    We have just made another big step towards this: A few weeks ago, a three-judge panel of the 9th circuit court ruled in a patent case that it is illegal for an attorney to reject a juror just because he is gay, and today Abbott Laboratories announced that they will not appeal this case to the full court, or the supreme court. On the surface of it, this may seem inconsequential for marriage equality, but it has huge implications for the states covered by the 9th circuit, that is CA, AZ, NV, OR, WA and ID. To reach their conclusion, the court had to find that discrimination based on sexual orientation merits heightened scrutiny, overturning an old precedent that only rational basis is required. Practically, this means whenever an anti-gay law is challenged in those states, the states have to show that that law is substantially related to furthering an important government interest. Up to now, the plaintiffs had to sow that no conceivable rational exists for the law, which is of course way harder. Under the new standard, that all federal court in those states now have to apply, it should be virtually impossible to defend any gay marriage ban, so wins for us at the district court and appellate level in those states are now virtually guaranteed. Those can of course be appealed to the supreme court when the time comes, but in the meantime, important legal decisions in our favor will be made on the ground.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Mar 08, 2014 2:53 AM GMT
    Whipmagic saidWe have just made another big step towards this: A few weeks ago, a three-judge panel of the 9th circuit court ruled in a patent case that it is illegal for an attorney to reject a juror just because he is gay, and today Abbott Laboratories announced that they will not appeal this case to the full court, or the supreme court. On the surface of it, this may seem inconsequential for marriage equality, but it has huge implications for the states covered by the 9th circuit, that is CA, AZ, NV, OR, WA and ID. To reach their conclusion, the court had to find that discrimination based on sexual orientation merits heightened scrutiny, overturning an old precedent that only rational basis is required. Practically, this means whenever an anti-gay law is challenged in those states, the states have to show that that law is substantially related to furthering an important government interest. Up to now, the plaintiffs had to sow that no conceivable rational exists for the law, which is of course way harder. Under the new standard, that all federal court in those states now have to apply, it should be virtually impossible to defend any gay marriage ban, so wins for us at the district court and appellate level in those states are now virtually guaranteed. Those can of course be appealed to the supreme court when the time comes, but in the meantime, important legal decisions in our favor will be made on the ground.


    You are 100% correct. It is exactly the "heightened scrutiny" bar on which these idiots trying to pass anti-SSM state laws will be brought down.

    They simply will not understand that these are the UNITED States of America, and no, Kentucky, you don't get to define the "Union"; we already have a document that does that.
  • Jonny21

    Posts: 199

    Mar 08, 2014 3:18 AM GMT
    Although I agree sexual orientation should enjoy strict scrutiny review, I am confident that anti-gay legislation should not even survive rational basis review. All of these types of laws are irrational! That is, they are not rationally related to a legitimate government end. They are too over-inclusive and under-inclusive in nature. And, they are obviously motivated by animus.
  • Whipmagic

    Posts: 1481

    Mar 21, 2014 9:25 PM GMT
    Big win in Michigan. Federal district courts strikes down state marriage ban after two week trial that delved deeply into all the scientific evidence on gay parenting. No stay for is, but the state AG has put in an emergency petition for one before county clerk offices open on Monday.