SCOTUS Rules Constitution Requires Marriage Equality

Decision here.


< Supreme Court Upholds Obama's Health Care Act | Friday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Congratulations, it's a big day (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 01:05:11 PM EST
    for all the divorce lawyers out there :)

    Or, to quote Chris Rock (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by scribe on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 05:17:46 PM EST
    "Go ahead, let 'em get married.  We'll come back in a couple years and see how gay* they still
    are then. ... they got a right to be as miserable as everybody else."
    * as in "happy"

    The cloud ... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 01:47:25 PM EST
    in this silvering lining (beautifully written decision, btw) is in the long run this (and the ACA decision to a lesser degree) are good news for Republican presidential hopefuls.

    Because it kills two wedge issues that they're on the wrong side of.  And it dampens an issue that was key to Democratic grass roots organizing and fundraising.

    This will be especially helpful with suburban voters who became pro gay marriage five seconds ago. (But on Facebook act like they were always for it. Much like the Democratic Party.) Now they can maintain their cocktail party pro gay cred. And vote Republican.

    A few Republicans will double down on constitutional amendment talk. But that's a non starter. And will have little impact on the race ... except maybe in Iowa.

    This is a great day for gay rights.  But it could also turn out to be a pretty good day for Jeb Bush.

    Actually (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 02:26:47 PM EST
    this is bad news for the GOP because instead of just saying "it's settled law" they are now advocating for Jim Crow for gay people i.e. a repeat of the Indiana religious freedom law.

    Those cocktail voters were already voting R because they're all about taxes and really don't care whose rights get stomped on as long as they don't pay too much taxes.

    And if you read Jeb Bush's statement not so much. It's an entire bunch of circular nonsense about how it's decided law and we need to love our neighbors into Jim Crow for gays.


    it depends how the primary plays out (none / 0) (#7)
    by CST on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 02:33:49 PM EST
    You could end up with a Mitt Romney situation where a "moderate" is forced to adopt the more extreme positions to win the nomination, only to have it bite him in the end with the general.

    Or they could've learned from that mistake.

    Or they could actually nominate a full-crazy one.


    Well (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 02:47:27 PM EST
    depends on who it is I guess. The problem for them is the people who vote in primaries no matter who the candidate is. If one of them said it's settled law and let's move past the gay issues they would be toast in the primary.

    Go to anyone of their facebook pages and you'll see nuttiness after nuttiness and bible quotes and how God is going to rain down hell on America and all kinds of BS.

    I think that people like Rence Preibus understand the problem but the voters do not. They have been coddled too long regarding these kinds of issues and anyone who doesn't toe the line is seen as "caving into liberals"

    I just don't see how anyone gets out of the GOP primary without signing onto all their wacko issues.


    First Step... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 03:01:45 PM EST
    ...they need to locate a 'moderate' cause it ain't Jeb Bush.

    People don't want ... (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 03:59:16 PM EST
    want a "moderate".  

    They want their extreme views, and those of the candidate they support, to be called "moderate".


    Well (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 03:06:34 PM EST
    they are now saying it cannot be Jeb because his brother and father were the ones that put Souter and Roberts on the bench. They are definitely taking this out on the Bush family as part of the problem. Somehow they always seem to forget that Reagan was the one that put Kennedy on the bench.

    That is Really Funny (none / 0) (#20)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 03:42:31 PM EST
    I mean seriously, they are gonna flip at whatever person/people Hillary nominates when the time(s) come(s).

    They are basically mad that their people failed them, mad at the justices, mad that they can't attract more voters, mad that they are going to lose to HRC, mad that they won't have a say in the SCOTUS for most likely 16 years.  And it's all one-in-same issue, they want and won't give, and that non-sense in catching up to them, and guess what, they are mad about it and none of it is their fault.


    The terrible (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 03:50:33 PM EST
    Horrible no good very bad week.

    And it ends with gay pride weekend.



    Yep (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 04:19:54 PM EST
    that describes what is going on with red state Republicans to a T. They are mad, very mad, and they are taking it out on the GOP because they've been promising to stop gay marriage and they failed and the majority of the court was picked by Republican presidents.

    You think people will forget who is (none / 0) (#8)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 02:34:09 PM EST
    on the wrong side of the wedge if the GOP candidates stop talking about it? And also that the press and/or the religious right base will let them stop talking abut it?

    OK, guess we shall see....


    The religious (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 02:50:08 PM EST
    base is NOT going to let them stop talking about it I can tell you right now. They want a solution to gay marriage and if you're not offering a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage or at least offering Jim Crow to gay people you are going nowhere.

    Frankly the GOP would have been better off if the supreme court had not decided this issue because they probably wouldn't have to find a "solution" to placate their voters.


    Most Dems ... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 03:22:12 PM EST
    including Obama were against it till five seconds ago.

    This is the first presidential election where it could have been used as a powerful wedge issue.

    But now that's not going to happen. And that helps the GOP.

    As I suggested there will be some who double down.  But that will help those that don't.  And smart pols have already looked at the numbers and realize there's no growth there.  So it will likely only be the marginal candidates that try to hang their candidacy on this.


    I understand your point (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 03:28:49 PM EST
    but I refuse to care

    Understood ... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 03:40:15 PM EST
    just making a marker for later.

    I actually think (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 04:28:37 PM EST
    the issue is far from going away.  In a way it just got turned to 11.
    Especially for the republican primary.  There are already locals yokels you are saying they will refuse to obey.    Huckaberry is kicking off a "Religious Liberty Tent Revival......um I'm mean TOWNHALL Tour". Next week.  Those guys were just given the gift of news coverage.
    As long as there there is stuff going on in the news and the courts it's not going away.

    The Republican-candidate debates (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Jack E Lope on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 04:46:55 PM EST
    ...may be unable to avoid this issue.

    I think the rabid reactionaries will force each candidate to take a stand - maybe to the point that they'll have to support a Constitutional Amendment to survive the primary....


    As I said, some of the marginal ... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 05:05:18 PM EST
    candidates will try to get some mileage out of it.

    But this isn't "Roe v. Wade".  The numbers just aren't there.


    Inside the Republican Party (none / 0) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 05:06:59 PM EST
    I believe they are there.  

    DailyBeast (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 05:10:56 PM EST
    Even before the Supreme Court's ruling, several prominent Republicans had pledged to disobey any high court ruling in favor of marriage equality--and had called on their fellow Republican leaders to do the same.

    For instance, Republican presidential candidates Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee have both signed a pledge that reads, "We will not honor any decision by the Supreme Court which will force us to violate a clear biblical understanding of marriage as solely the union of one man and one woman."

    Huckabee also challenged the authority of our nation's highest court when he said, "The Supreme Court can't overrule God."

    Republican Senator Ted Cruz and Representative Steve King also called for Congress and any future Republican president to flagrantly ignore such a Supreme Court ruling.

    Meanwhile, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker issued one of the more curious formulations. "I call on the president and all governors to join me in reassuring millions of Americans that the government will not force them to participate in activities that violate their deeply held religious beliefs," he said in a press release. "No one wants to live in a country where the government coerces people to act in opposition to their conscience."

    What Walker (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 05:16:13 PM EST
    said is just bizarre. But then I guess he's got a line on the evangelicals being one himself and they're all screeching that they're going to be "forced" to marry gay people.

    Not feeling too sorry for the evangelists... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 06:38:32 PM EST
    ... They'll be extracting a few new G650 Gulfstreams out'a the suckers to fight this battle.

    I am not a biblical scholar but I (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 06:17:59 PM EST
    seem to recall passages in the bible when marriage was not between ONE man and ONE woman. IOW, there is no clear biblical understanding of marriage as SOLELY the Union of one man and one woman.

    It's interesting wording (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 06:31:33 PM EST
    in not saying it violates anything that the bible actually says but rather their understanding of what it says.

    Force them to participate? (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 07:33:51 PM EST
    Did I miss the part of the ruling where straight people will be forced to enter into marriage with persons of the same sex?

    I just don't get it.  I don't understand what all this hysteria over "forcing" is about.  Who's being forced to do anything?


    My theory (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 07:44:43 PM EST
    some of it is projection.  They would happily make us do things we find objectionable.   I believe for them imagining a mind that could not possibly care less what they do, caring as they do so very deeply about what we do,  is for them like understanding the effects of LSD without taking it.

    They have no frame of reference whatsoever.


    Basically (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 07:49:22 PM EST
    they are like the little old lady snoop sisters that look out their window all the time trying to see what the neighbors are doing and then talk about how awful they are.

    Force concientious objectors (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 08:33:11 PM EST
    to sell wedding cakes, photograph weddings, performance marriage ceremonies for same sex couples?  Who knows.

    Let me ask you a practical question (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 08:38:53 PM EST

    If you were planning a wedding for yourself or anyone else for that matter would you knowingly choose a person for any of those services who did not want to do it?

    Never seen a "performance marriage ceremony" but it sounds interesting.


    Maybe that's when you get ... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 08:59:10 PM EST
    CaptHowdy: "Never seen a 'performance marriage ceremony' but it sounds interesting."

    ... Laurie Anderson to officiate.


    Isn't every wedding a performance? (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 09:08:27 PM EST
    They're certainly not cheap. (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 09:34:55 PM EST
    I just saw the estimate for Elder Daughter's wedding in August. I'll pay for the first one. But any others after that, and she's on her own!

    Most of them scripted from start to finish (none / 0) (#74)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 09:09:30 PM EST
    you made me google (none / 0) (#80)
    by sj on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 11:48:06 PM EST
    "have both signed a pledge" (none / 0) (#45)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 06:03:28 PM EST
    - the (old white) He-Man Gay Haters club.

    You know (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 04:16:44 PM EST
    it really was a wedge issue for the GOP it seems to me. Those dems are going to let men get married to each other!!!

    There may be a lessening of activism in the gay community I would imagine but that doesn't mean they aren't going to show up and vote I would think. We had this discussion the other day about how excited they are about Hillary running.


    Got it! (none / 0) (#82)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 03:27:52 AM EST
    Change State law so that every marriage license  issued, automatically, gets a gun permit attached.

    Think of the possibilities.


    Oh, for Heaven's sake, Shooter! (none / 0) (#94)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 05:04:41 PM EST
    Don't give them any ideas! ;-D

    P.S.: Actually, now that I think about it, we really shouldn't be joking about that at all. Very likely, there are wingbats in the NRA who monitor this site, given that the underlying theme of TL is "the politics of crime."

    And all it takes is one of them to slap his forehead with his palm, say "Ooh! Ooh! Why didn't I think of that?" and run to the organization's legislative liaison. The next thing we know, identical bills to that effect are introduced by their allies in the state legislatures across the country next January, just in time for the convening of their 2016 regular sessions.

    While I have every confidence that such an insane measure would never even receive a hearing in either chamber of the Hawaii legislature, all we have to do is look to those states like Iowa, which recently authorized the issuance of gun permits to the legally blind, to -- as you said above -- "think of the possibilities."

    And that scares the daylights out of me. The yahoos we're talking about are not exactly the brightest bulbs in the chandelier, when it comes to basic common sense and public firearms protocols.



    Or (none / 0) (#108)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 30, 2015 at 08:38:08 AM EST
    As the fictional Republican Congressman Skinner said to Deputy White House Chief of Staff Josh Lyman on "The West Wing":

    Congressman Skinner: You know I never understood why you gun control people don't all join the NRA. They've got two million members. You bring three million to the next meeting, call a vote. All those in favor of tossing guns... bam! Move on.

    Josh Lyman: It's a heck of a strategy, Matt. I'll bring that up at a meeting.

    Well, the Republicans (none / 0) (#13)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 02:52:20 PM EST
    can still fall back on Benghazi. The "Aspersions on the Asparagus" party is pretty adept at manufacturing wedge issues.  The Supreme Court decision could take the edge off the Clown Car entrants dilemmas if they are smart.  But, they have never been accused of that attribute.

    Perhaps, after the primary their self-inflicted quandary will abate.  However, at this point, Jeb! is nostalgic for that easy question on Iraq that only took a week to answer--badly.  Of course, for Huckabee, marriage equality is not only cat nip for his followers, but also his own bread and butter.

    Agreed, that the child that was given birth today has a generation of fathers and mothers.  In reality, the gestation period was extensive and the child born is a bouncing adult.

    To me the poignant passage of the beautifully written opinion (I suspect was crafted as a joint venture) was the observation that the recognition of new insights and societal understandings have uncovered unjustified inequality  within the fundamental institution that was passed over unnoticed and unchallenged.  Indeed, easy to pass over when suppressed by anachronistic criminal laws.

    Although the Chief Justice, in his dissent, sees the Court's decision as a cause for celebration for gays as well as other supporters, he says that the constitution is not its basis.  It seems the Chief is trying to span the chasm, but he constructs a bridge to nowhere. It is the Constitution that is celebrated.

    The other dissenters come up with thread-bare traditional arguments on traditional marriage.  Alito hangs his hat on traditional marriage means procreation, not that "thoroughly modern millie" idea of happiness of persons who chose to marry.  It is a wonderment how Alito, that good Catholic, explains traditional marriage for divorcees who want to receive communion need to be chaste, living like brother and sister  (non-Deliverance siblings only).

    Scalia opines that marriage (traditional) abridges rather than expands intimacy.  Just asking for a hippie, he claims.  He needs to loosen up his cilice and move beyond the Haight Ashbury lore he has read about.  The Scalia rant that remains is more targeted at the Court than the issue.  

    Of course, there will be a reaction. After all, we are dealing with reactionaries.  The country may have to suffer from sincerely held beliefs against baking for gays, but that will fall, along with Hobby Lobby's Lincoln's Birthday Confederate Flag sale.


    Uplifted; optimistic (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 03:54:33 PM EST
    You might want to listen to the whole of President Obama's Eulogy for Rev. Pinckney.  Good eulogies have a way of drawing so many aspects of life and community together.  See, for example: Marc Antony's eulogy for Caesar and President Lincoln's renowned Gettysburg Address.

    Don't get me wrong ... I'm not presuming that the President's eulogy for the fallen pastor/statesman today reached the level of unforgettable.  But--as a number of reporters said and even stammered afterward--this Eulogy is remarkable in a week remarkable for expansion of human rights.  The Eulogy did what the best of such statements do: Address the situation with understanding, description, genuine sympathy for survivors, etc. ... then, take the condolence & honor message to a broader level, a higher purpose by intertwining happenings with personal and public events.  When the Eulogy marks a path forward, it moves beyond condolence to cause. It is a spiritual movement from despair to sorrow to renewal ... and more.  

    The reality of love and human dignity could not be missed this week.  So...among other things, let the rightwing squabble with themselves right now; let them shout with hateful faces and voices. The tempo, I think, has been changed at a deeper level.  The fanatics may not know what hit them with the long-delayed backlash of public sentiment.  If anything, recent days may well show even the most cynical that (this time) "the times they are a'changing" ; and, the change will be for the better. It just takes awhile.


    I agree (none / 0) (#83)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 04:45:21 AM EST
    I really love listening to people who know the English language, specifically, know how to utilize a minimum of words, and capture the maximum effect. I doubt you can learn it, it's a gift, I think.

    Just this second, in writing this, the "Gettysburg Address" popped into my head. Talk about getting maximum efficiency out of your words. A thousand years from now the "Address" will still be required reading.

    I watched David Boies on Charlie Rose tonight. Just listening to him explain an issue (The SC Marriage ruling today) I couldn't help fantasizing, "Man, if only I could speak like that guy." It's easy to understand why he is one of the most sought after lawyers in the world. I was mesmerized by Boies the first time I saw him. I don't recall the case he was talking about, but it doesn't matter. If you had the good fortune to hear his explanation of the Bush/Gore case, you knew, unequivocally, that the only way he could lose that verdict was if "the fix was in."

    And, wow, when he teamed up with Theodore Olson, the most "hated" sentry on earth, coming from the most "hated" tribe on earth, and partnering up to work on one of the most divisive issues on earth, it wasn't a question anymore, the man walks on water.

    Listen, I gotta get outta here, or I'll go on all night. What I started out wanting to say was that I was always for same sex, marriage equality, but I never, ever, heard it explained "why" like I did tonight. Boies gave credit to Justice Kennedy, not just for today's ruling, but, today's ruling as a continuation of his prior "swing man" rulings. While it was obvious (to me, anyway) that Boies abhors Kennedy's philosophy, and decisions, most of the time, he is able to separate a specific decision (together with the train of thought leading to it) from the other times. It was fascinating to watch.

    Boies went, so seamlessly, from oozing disgust at the majority of Kennedy's work & philosophy, to one of unfettered amazement, almost worship, in describing the perfect, flawless thinking that ran through the trilogy of decisions he made prior, and that were consummated today. It sounds so corny, even as I'm writing this right now, but, when a lawyer like Boies can make what looks like an epiphany for Kennedy on this topic, into his own, then transfer it to me, so that I understand the meaning of "Fundamental Rights" like I never understood it before, I know what "they" mean to "stand in the presence of greatness."  


    This (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 09:41:13 AM EST
    I really love listening to people who know the English language, specifically, know how to utilize a minimum of words, and capture the maximum effect

    should never be the start of a long response :)


    But at this point, the wedge issues of ... (none / 0) (#25)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 04:11:04 PM EST
    ... gay marriage and the Confederate flag, which once worked to great electoral effect for Republicans as recently as a decade ago, now hold tremendous potential for use as a political cudgel against them.

    Recent events have caught the GOP standing flatfooted, both in the public spotlight and on the wrong side of history. And leading a futile attempt at escape from the Liberal Hell that's enveloping them is none other than Justice Antonin "California does not count" Scalia himself, screaming down the halls while looking in vain for the nearest hippie to punch.

    L. O. L.


    And there is also (none / 0) (#53)
    by Zorba on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 06:53:23 PM EST
    Nino saying:

    "And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation," he writes. "But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today's judicial Putsch."

    Crooks and Liars

    Really, Nino?  Really?  A "Putsch"?  You're comparing this to the Nazis???
    He really needs to step back and take a few deep breaths, learn some relaxation techniques, or maybe take a few hits from a bong.  Otherwise, he's in danger of stroking out. He needs to watch his blood pressure.


    From one of the (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 06:55:19 PM EST
    Citizens United boys.

    You mean the same folks (none / 0) (#69)
    by scribe on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 08:47:36 PM EST
    who brought us Bush v. Gore, minus 2 plus 2 worse than the 2 who left?

    That was a fine piece of Constitutional adjudication - equal protection of people whose votes had been counted for the candidate of their choice meant the votes of others that hadn't yet been counted would never be counted.  Riiiight.


    Sotomayor? Ginsburg? Thomas, even? (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Peter G on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 07:06:23 PM EST
    Patrician?  I think not.

    Well, this is (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Zorba on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 07:32:24 PM EST
    Scalia we're quoting, here.  He seems to have gone even farther around the bend than he used to be, if that's possible.

    Scalia trolls again (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 07:24:16 PM EST
    IMHO, Nino needs to do more than ... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 08:53:52 PM EST
    ... step back, take a few deep breaths and watch his blood pressure. The man is rapidly proving himself to be a judicial embarrassment of the first rank, and he needs to retire.

    This has now gone way above and beyond his own partisan inclinations. Justice Scalia's always been somewhat irascible and prickly, but of late his increasingly nasty temperament is such that he's quickly rendering himself inherently unfit for the bench.

    "Ask the nearest hippie." In a Supreme Court dissenting opinion, no less! Jeez, that sort of childish vitriol, in which he's apparently channeling his inner bitter old queen, would likely be worthy of reprimand and / or sanction from his peers, had he been an appellate or trial judge.



    Activists ... (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 02:00:27 PM EST
    who've championed this issue for close to 30 years, deserve the real credit.

    Politicians, until recently, have been MIA.  The Democratic Party has an embarrassingly spotty record on this issue.

    It's a reminder that if you want to change something politically in this country, you have to start outside the system.

    And the battle will probably take decades.  You will be generally ignored till you get things to a tipping point. And if things actually change, you probably won't get much of the credit.

    But you can change things this way. It's probably the only way. Today is another reminder of that.

    Justice Kennedy must have a wonderful (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 02:41:56 PM EST
    marriage. What did I miss about that institution?!

    It is remarkable that CJ Roberts was roundly criticized in dissent re his ACA majority opinion yesterday, w/the dissent quoting the same portion of The Federalist as the CJ quoted in his dissent in the same sex marriage case today.  

    Today's dissents strongly resonate w/the pre-birth control pill 1950s. Such moralizing.

    Agreed. And, just yesterday (none / 0) (#14)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 03:00:05 PM EST
    in his ACA dissent, Scalia says "words don't mean anything."  In his dissent of today, Scalia says California is not west.

    How the HECK did... (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by sj on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 04:35:52 PM EST
    ... he ever get this reputation as some sort of intellectual giant? I have never understood that.

    He wore hats (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by christinep on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 01:22:16 PM EST
    European hats worn in scholarly procession at university.  Scalia loves to display the hats & robes ... it is all about Oz.

    "(California does not count.)" (none / 0) (#26)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 04:14:35 PM EST
    One day, after Nino has passed on, I hope that someone carves that on the guy's tombstone.

    I hate these (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 03:52:38 PM EST
    slow news days

    Scalia's dissent is juvenile (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 07:04:35 PM EST
    And putrid.

    California does not count as being part of the West.  Just a nasty conservative dig in general at California and at Kennedy in particular because he was from California.

    Marriage does not advance one's liberty--just ask any "hippie."

    Scalia is just a small minded, out of date bigot.

    Thomas's dissent is a very interesting (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Peter G on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 07:10:04 PM EST
    historical essay on Eighteenth Century liberal political theory. The logical dead-ends to which that approach leads him, of course, in terms of the case at hand, faze him not at all.

    Thomas ran his liberty as locomotion meme (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 11:32:50 AM EST
    into a ditch.  IMO.  This version of Liberty got a much better defense from Jack Kerouac (On the Road) and Willie Nelson (On the Road Again).

    I love Justice Kennedy's response (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Peter G on Sun Jun 28, 2015 at 10:10:02 PM EST
    to Scalia's nastiness and rhetorical excess: instead of even addressing it directly, he acknowledges instead the lower court judges who have disagreed with the majority's conclusion, going out of his way to mention (in language that strikes me as unusual) that those judges had "base[d] their decisions on principled reasons and neutral discussions, without scornful or disparaging commentary ...." (p. 9). In contrast with .... (he doesn't explicitly say, and doesn't need to).

    I have (none / 0) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 07:18:02 PM EST
    conservative friends who constantly make digs at California. I said you really love to write off how many electoral votes? It takes a lot of 3 EV square states in the middle of the country to equal one California.

    But this type of thinking has largely marginalized the GOP to the south


    Heck, I have liberal friends (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 07:23:06 PM EST
    (New Yorkers) who make digs at California v

    Kids who grow up here (none / 0) (#62)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 07:33:21 PM EST
    are more and more uninterested in traveling.   Except to Hawaii, San Francisco, and Manhattan.  No other place is worth going to.

    Other places have nothing that is not already here, and more-so, according to this view...

    Not too many here care about digs others make about California in other places of the country--because they do not matter....You can insult us but most of us won't notice....

    And, as a corollary--we don't need, and certainly do not want to use tax dollars for, no stinkin' NFL team in LA.


    Re your last sentence. Same here re (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 09:10:06 PM EST
    San diego. Carson--go for it.

    You don't have to worry about that. (none / 0) (#77)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 09:28:26 PM EST
    MKS: "And, as a corollary--we don't need, and certainly do not want to use tax dollars for, no stinkin' NFL team in LA."

    Rams owner Steve Kroenke has said repeatedly that he plans to self-finance the proposed new stadium in Inglewood, which is to be built on the site of the former Hollywood Park, and that no taxpayer subsidies are required. Inglewood officials have already given him their approval. And since both he and his wife are each worth between $5.5 and $6.0 billion, I think he can probably afford to do that.

    L.A. Rams, baby! You know, even after 20+ years, that name still has a nice, comforting ring to it. I could actually get excited about the NFL again, were my favorite team from childhood to get resurrected.



    Phoeey on Rams... (none / 0) (#79)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 10:16:01 PM EST
    I had season tickets and was gaining seniority and better seats, when they bugged out for St. Louis.

    Best game was when Montana came to town.  Traffic was so horrid, that I did not get there until halftime.....and the 49ers were up by 21....So, I missed the best part of the game...


    Somebody (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 07:52:17 PM EST
    put up a post by Pat Robertson on facebook and he says the state has "taken over marriage" and that marriage is the sole responsiblity of christianity. I'm like huh? Those people who go down to the courthouse and get married should be checking with you first Pat before they get married?

    And of course it was more about how the rights of Christians are being taken away. I guess everything must be a zero sum game

    This may be a really stupid question, but (none / 0) (#86)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 11:40:44 AM EST
    I don't know the answer.  In biblical times was marriage that common?  I'd kind of formed the impression that ceremonies were for the rich.  Public records were kept only by and for the wealthy.

    I found this article, no attestation as to the quality of the material.  Are there any paleo-sociologists in the crowd?


    I have to say that I was disappointed (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Peter G on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 12:06:32 PM EST
    in the quality and depth of the historians' and anthropologists' amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs, for failure to address the good questions like the one you pose about what "marriage" really meant, and what its attributes and public benefits were, "for millenia," as some of the Justices put it, and in a variety of cultures and traditions. Did it have a secular meaning and significance at all, or only a religious one?  When did its essentially secular features (property rights, coverture, control over and right to benefit from children's labor, etc.) come into existence? What was the status of all that, in America, as of the 1790s and as of 1870? I was disappointed not to learn more about those points perusing the amicus briefs.

    I would hazard (none / 0) (#91)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 01:42:30 PM EST
    a guess that marriage predated religion, after all mating for life is not uncommon in the animal kingdom. If there is some kind of biological/Darwinian reason for human mating patterns, it would be surprising if any religion did not seize the chance to codify, control and reinforce this important aspect of human life.  

    The concept of marriage is assumed right of the bat in Genesis, as in "Adam lay with his wife Eve", with no other definition needed. This leads me to believe that marriage was already a thing while the religion was busy being born.

    All just WAG on my part of course.



    From Don Juan In Hell (none / 0) (#93)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 03:41:22 PM EST
    by Bernard Shaw

    ANA. You are a fool, Juan. A young married woman has something else to do than sit at the spinet without any support for her back; so she gets out of the habit of playing.     

    DON JUAN. Not if she loves music. No: believe me, she only throws away the bait when the bird is in the net.     

    ANA [bitterly] And men, I suppose, never throw off the mask when their bird is in the net. The husband never becomes negligent, selfish, brutal--oh, never!     

    DON JUAN. What do these recriminations prove, Ana? Only that the hero is as gross an imposture as the heroine.   

    ANA. It is all nonsense: most marriages are perfectly comfortable.     

    DON JUAN. "Perfectly" is a strong expression, Ana. What you mean is that sensible people make the best of one another. Send me to the galleys and chain me to the felon whose number happens to be next before mine; and I must accept the inevitable and make the best of the companionship. Many such companionships, they tell me, are touchingly affectionate; and most are at least tolerably friendly. But that does not make a chain a desirable ornament nor the galleys an abode of bliss. Those who talk most about the blessings of marriage and the constancy of its vows are the very people who declare that if the chain were broken and the prisoners left free to choose, the whole social fabric would fly asunder. You cannot have the argument both ways. If the prisoner is happy, why lock him in? If he is not, why pretend that he is?   

    The historical and anthropological (none / 0) (#92)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 02:00:19 PM EST
    amicus curiae briefs may have been inadequate, but the use of ancient culture's social units in this case was, in my view, misleading.  And, hence, irrelevant.

    Chief Justice Roberts' statement that "...the Court orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen, the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians, the Aztecs."  presumes an exactness of understanding that is applicable.

    If Roberts' dissent is to rest on scholarship in the study of humans,  it needs to cite a comprehensive and contextual argument for relevance.  One piece of historic background lifted from cultural and biologic anthropology to make an argument is intellectually dishonest. If an ancient family grouping is to serve as the preface for, and basis of,  protection of "traditional" marriage, it requires study of the groups religions, hierarchies, economics,  the extended family structure, and their interconnectedness.

    We need not go back to Aztecan family values, with those traditional human sacrifice rituals and all.  We can find variances around the world in the more recent past or even, today,  in the meanings of marriage (e.g.  Mormons, Saudi Arabia).

    The compelling relevance to Obergefell is the US Constitution.   No offense to the Carthaginians, Bushmen  and other groups cited in the dissent, but the issue for Roberts and his  "lawyers," was that the government confers a bundle of rights on individuals who chose to marry.

     Does the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and  due process permit any state from withholding those rights from a class of individuals who are a sexual minority?  Roberts wonders, "Just who do we think we are?--(to go against anthropologic certainties as known to him).

    The Court answered.  Why, we are Justices of the Supreme Court whose duty it is to ensure equality for all Americans.   As the NYT editorial opines, the minority "groped and scratched" to find reasons to reject marriage equality.  



    Juan Cole on the subject (none / 0) (#109)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jul 02, 2015 at 11:17:51 AM EST
    No, GOP, biblical Marriage was not between one man and one woman

    It's all there.  Polygamy.  Sex slaves.  Dominance and Submission.  Sadism.

    As for getting married biblically, you can do that in all kinds of imaginative ways- take two wives and someone else's sex slave as Abraham did, or 300 sex slaves as Solomon did (not to mention the 700 wives), or your brother's widow in addition to your own wife. And remember, if your sex slave runs away because you're cruel to the person, the Bible (Philemon) says that other people have the duty to return the slave to you, i.e. basically imposes the duty of trafficking slaves back to sadistic sex maniacs who exploit them. But if the owner is nice and a good Christian, he might consider letting the sex slave go. But he doesn't have to.

    Earl Warren v. John Roberts (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 09:01:52 PM EST
    I was just thinking about the contrast of the two. My recollection is there were dissents to Brown v. Board, but the CJ managed to persuade those dissenters to drop their dissents and join the majority opinion to make it unanimous in perhaps false hopes of tamping down resistance.

    Roberts apparently prefers raising the stakes by raising doubts of the legitimacy of the gay rights victory by claiming closing off debates prevents acceptance.

    Warren may have had false hopes and Roberts may have a point, but Warren's example does add perspective to Roberts as CJ


    That was just sour grapes on his part (none / 0) (#76)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 09:12:40 PM EST
    and of course he was wrong, as that didn't happen after Loving v Virginia, which was a ruling that was clearly out of step with the rest of the country when it was issued, but was accepted as legitimate as the CRAs that were passed through Congress around the same time, and nobody thinks the less of the right to interracial marriage even though it wasn't achieved at the ballot box.

    Legal logicians are tearing out their hair... (none / 0) (#88)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 12:20:42 PM EST
    Sooner than later we should accept the role of the Supreme Court as our arbiters of what's right and what's wrong.  Deciding some of these issues exceeds the resolving power of legal reasoning and the firmament of our Constitution.  

    If they lack consensus, so be it.  Roberts isn't responsible for corralling his co-conspirators into a faux agreement.  His objections were legal.  But his final paragraph was welcoming.

    If you are among the many Americans - of whatever sexual orientation - who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision.  Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal.  Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of committment to a partner.  Celebrate the availability of new benefits.  But do not celebrate the Constitution.  It had nothing to do with it.

    The constitution constrains more than one gov (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 01:03:34 PM EST
    Not sure why you or Roberts thinks state police power is unconstrained by the U.S. Constitution. Definitely novel idea in this day and age

    Perhaps I fumbled my expression. (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 08:46:11 PM EST
    I said one thing.  Roberts said the opposite.  When you decide who you want to argue with, do get back to me.

    Your statement (none / 0) (#96)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Jun 28, 2015 at 08:03:54 AM EST
    "his final paragraph was welcoming."

    Perhaps if you elucidate further I would know whether I was arguing with you, Roberts or both.

    I took it at face value. if I was wrong feel free to explain further.


    I understood Mr. Natural to be referring (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Peter G on Sun Jun 28, 2015 at 11:13:08 AM EST
    (as "welcoming") to the welcoming part of Roberts' last paragraph, that is, all but the last two sentences. He didn't say that Roberts' view was "welcome"; he said that part of his opinion was "welcoming." Perhaps that is the source of the confusion.

    I included his last two sentences (none / 0) (#101)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Jun 28, 2015 at 12:05:09 PM EST
    so I wouldn't be accused of taking the welcoming part out of context.  The way I would like to read that last paragraph, Roberts presented his case, wiped his brow, and seemed relieved to see it behind him.

    Years ago a Mathematician named Kurt Godel proved what's called the Incompleteness Theorem.  In any closed system, there are some things that are true, but which cannot be proven true using only the elements, tenets, foundations, and logic of that system.

    The point I tried to make was that some of the Supreme Court decisions seem to me to be (metaphorically) in that territory.  Not everything that is right can be deduced or induced from the Constitution and centuries of laws and precidents comprising the legal system.  

    The right of privacy, the subject of screaming matches since Roe v Wade, doesn't seem to have been previously enshrined anywhere but it sure seems like a good idea.

    I guess my point was that we may be better off having nine very thoughtful people occasionally stepping outside the box, outside the closed legal system, to create new rights.  

    Hopefully, and that's all I've got, the same process doesn't create too many new wrongs.


    Views of the Constitution (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by christinep on Sun Jun 28, 2015 at 01:53:03 PM EST
    My first awakening to the stark difference in two approaches to the Constitution came after reading a 1965 case, Griswold v Connecticut ... that case, of course, dealt with whether a state could prohibit birth control ... and, thanks to the Supreme Court (via Justice Douglas, I recall), the opinion delivered an opinion defining a right to privacy as part of the "penumbra" of rights extrapolated from the 9th Amendment and other Bill of Rights provisions.  The manner of discerning that right--later used as a principal justification in Roe v Wade--has been giving so-called "originalists" and "strict constructionists" apoplexy for years. The antagonism by those who--face it--would limit rights to the circumstances of generations ago does come to the fore whenever the 14th Amendment is invoked for substantive due process and/or equal protection evolution.  Enter the Scalia & Cohort explosion in their Friday dissent.

    Personally, I take a dim view of the obviously contrived "originalism" approach, for the reason that no one in their right mind or reasoned opinion could really adhere to a strict view that would have us believe the Founding Fathers anticipated all the changes of life in the United States that would bring us to the 21st Century.  What the he!! do they think the Founders had to do with Aviation Law or Telecommunications Law, for example ... oops, can't do anything, I suppose, because our hands are tied.  And, on a very serious note, look at how ignoring reality and justice in real life brought that kind of thinking to the Court's nadir with Dred Scott.

    Understandably, related jurisprudence concerning interpretations of Federalism comes in play when questions arise about whose role/responsibility is it to find OR make a Constitutional right.  Here, Chief Justice Roberts aligns with a traditional view--a Justice Frankfurt type view--that the States get to make the call.  While he employed a Constitutional interpretation approach which, imo, is too stringent and somewhat constipated, at least he didn't do the Scalia & Alito empty anger-dance version of pounding-the-table.

    In all this, as a commenter on ABC "This Week"  said very directly on air this a.m.: Remember that when our Supreme Court discerns a Constitutional right, it is exercising it's authority & responsibility to safeguard the rights of the minority in many instances ... and, that is not a matter for a plebiscite or popularity contest ... and so, we need not wait for all the states to arrive at the same conclusion (paraphrasing.) Cokie Roberts succinctly re-stated what Justice Anthony Kennedy forthrightly said in the majority opinion. A perceptive approach to interpretation  and Federalism....


    Yikes ... apologies to a long-ago Justice (none / 0) (#103)
    by christinep on Sun Jun 28, 2015 at 01:59:08 PM EST
    In comment above, correct typo: "Frankfurt" should read "Frankfurter."

    Oh, Rocky! (none / 0) (#104)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Jun 28, 2015 at 02:00:53 PM EST
    Thank you flor the clarification (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Jun 28, 2015 at 02:20:45 PM EST
    It appears I misunderstood your meaning. Mea culpa

    My fault, Molly. (none / 0) (#107)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jun 29, 2015 at 12:05:32 AM EST
    Issues like this, where everyone is on edge, are hard to talk about and harder to write about.  I'm not good enough to do it without editing.  I preview and rewrite my comments, sometimes half a dozen times, or more, but nothing reveals the flaws like hitting the Post button.

    Why my spin on Roberts' opinion?  I didn't feel like piling on.  I almost felt sorry for the dissenters.  An era has passed and they know it.


    marriage and the courts (none / 0) (#2)
    by the capstan on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 01:12:21 PM EST
    When did the 'opinion' of the states get to be Holy Writ?  (I've seen quite a few remarks concerning the blindness and stupidity of confederate-state laws lately  What about them?.)  Not sure all the thoughts of today's various state representatives are worthy of preservation.  I'll take my chances with the Feds, thank you!  

    Do we need another Civil War according to a minority of the Supremes?   Slavery was the worst choice--but sometimes male-female marriage was not far behind.

    Shout out to my home state (none / 0) (#5)
    by CST on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 02:03:31 PM EST
    this week - first to enact gay marriage, first to enact "universal" (I know we're not quite there yet) healthcare.

    Glad we could contribute something beyond cr@ppy presidential candidates.

    Don't be so hard on yourselves... (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 02:40:09 PM EST
    Your state is the OG contributor to liberty, since the 1770's.  Most every state contributes crappy presidential candidates.

    Let me add a shout out to the lgbt rights pioneers of NYC, you could say it all started at a little mafia joint called The Stonewall Inn, with (gasp!) a riot.    


    Before Stonewall, there were (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Peter G on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 04:27:08 PM EST
    the "July 4 Reminder" pickets -- including Frank Kameny and Barbara Gittings -- who stood with signs for gay rights on July 4 beginning in 1965, until the year after Stonewall, in Philadelphia across from Independence Hall. There is a historical marker on that corner now, commemorating it.

    A good friend (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 05:10:15 PM EST
    of mine from the University of Chicago has written a book (The Lavender Scare, Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government), that relies on the records of Henry Hay, founder of the Mattachine Society and oral interviews with Frank Kameny. It is a great history and Cold War era companion to the Red Scare.  

    Giddings (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 05:32:17 PM EST
    she was a friend

    thank you for mentioning her and Frank


    I met Barbara Gittings in 1970 (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Peter G on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 05:51:52 PM EST
    when I was a college senior, and the T.A. for the first openly gay professor at my then-all-male college. He taught, and I assisted, a freshman writing seminar called "Sexual Politics" which assigned readings in feminism and gay rights, including Del Martin and Beth Lyon's Lesbian/Woman. Gittings came to speak to our little class. I can hardly imagine now what those poor freshmen, randomly assigned to this seminar as the introductory college writing class, (or their parents) must have thought!

    In some ways 1970 (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 05:57:47 PM EST
    may have been not such a bad time for such a discussion.  In some ways I remember the 70s as better than now.  After the 60s sexual revolution and before the 80s plague years.

    then you met Barbara Gittings (none / 0) (#81)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jun 27, 2015 at 12:43:42 AM EST
    2 years before i did

    i met Barbara & Kay Tobin at an annual convention of the American Library Association, where (without being a librarian myself) i was in the company of a member of the association's Gay Caucus

    somehow a group of us ended up in Barbara & Kay's suite the night before Barbara was scheduled to deliver a major address - i remember Barbara saying to Kay, "Honey, if you would worry less about my dress and more about my speech . . . "

    i can't say that Barbara taught my 23-year-old self the Lindy Hop - i also can't say that she didn't try

    those were the days - and now today

    thank you, Barbara


    Actually, Hawaii achieved near-universal ... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 06:20:02 PM EST
    CST: "Shout-out to my home state this week - first to enact gay marriage, first to enact 'universal' (I know we're not quite there yet) healthcare."

    ... coverage in the 90%-plus range when its Prepaid Health Care Act of 1974 was enacted by the state legislature and signed into law by Acting Gov. George Ariyoshi, some 32 years before Massachusetts took up the challenge. It was the first state to do so.

    In fact, significant elements of that 2006 Massachusetts plan were based upon already-existing Hawaii law. The most notable example is its employer mandate. Another is its creation of Commonwealth Care Health Insurance -- a subsidized insurance program for those who earn less than 300% of
    the federal poverty Level and are ineligible for  MassHealth (Medicaid) -- which was modeled on AlohaCare, created by Hawaii for the same purpose twelve years prior in 1994.

    Further, Hawaii has managed to achieve and maintain that remarkably high level of coverage without an over-reliance on the state's Medicaid program; the percentage of island residents in need of Medicaid is less than half that of those in Massachusetts.

    Regarding same-sex marriage, it's true that Massachusetts was the first to recognize its legality, and commonwealth residents should take justifiable pride in that singular accomplishment.

    That said, it should also be noted that back in May 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court became the first significant judicial body in the entire nation to rule that unless the government could demonstrate a clear and compelling interest for doing so, its denial of the right of gay men and lesbians to marry whomever they choose constituted a violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. Per Baehr v. Lewin [74 Haw. 645, 852 P.2d 44 (May 5, 1993)]:

    "[W]e are being accused of engaging in judicial legislation. We are not. The result we reach today is in complete harmony with the [the U.S. Supreme Court's observation in Loving v. Virginia] that any state's powers to regulate marriage are subject to the constraints imposed by the constitutional right to the equal protection of the laws. If it should ultimately be determined that the marriage laws of Hawaii impermissibly discriminate against the appellants, based on the suspect category of sex, then that would be the result of the interrelation of existing legislation." (Emphasis is mine.)

    I would further add that it was the conservatives' fear of what liberal Hawaii might do in that regard, which drove the GOP-controlled Congress to enact the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. In fact, the House Judiciary Committee's July 1996 report on the then-pending federal legislation specifically notes that DOMA was being considered as a direct response to the Hawaii Supreme Court's 1993 Baehr ruling:

    "The legal assault against traditional heterosexual marriage laws achieved its greatest breakthrough in the State of Hawaii in 1993. Because H.R. 3396 was motivated by the Hawaiian lawsuit, the Committee thinks it is important to discuss that situation in some detail. [...] It is, of course, no business of Congress how the Hawaiian Supreme
    Court interprets the Hawaiian Constitution, and the Committee expresses no opinion on the propriety of the ruling in Baehr. But the Committee does think it significant that the threat to traditional marriage laws in Hawaii and elsewhere has come about because two judges of one state Supreme Court have given credence to a legal theory being advanced by gay rights lawyers. [...] A redefinition of marriage in Hawaii to include homosexual couples could make such couples eligible for a whole range of federal rights and benefits." (Emphasis is mine.)

    On other issues, I would also note that Hawaii was the very first state in the country to adopt an Equal Rights Amendment in its state constitution, the first to legalize a woman's right to seek an abortion should she so choose (and did so two years before Roe v. Wade), and the first to guarantee constitutionally the right of working people to bargain collectively with employers (Article XII, Sec. 2, Constitution of 1950).

    And lest I forget my late former boss, Congresswoman Patsy Mink of Pa'ia, Maui, she is best remembered today as the woman who authored the landmark federal legislation known as Title IX, which guarantees equal opportunity for women at all levels of Education, and which was renamed the Mink Act by Congress after her death in Sept. 2002.

    I realize that we're often an afterthought to the rest of the country, except perhaps at vacation time, being as remote geographically as we are and five time zones removed from the east coast. But despite what 20%-plus of Republicans might still think, Hawaii has been an integral part of the United States proper since August 1959 and further, American territory since 1898.

    Therefore, credit for my adopted home state's own substantive contributions to progressive innovations and achievements in our country should be recognized, and thus given where it's properly due.



    I may have to lift my embargo (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 04:17:18 PM EST
    on Sunday morning TV this weekend

    You watch (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 04:21:12 PM EST
    it so we don't have to. I probably have not watched one of those sunday morning political shows since Bush v. Gore in 2000 I don't think.

    Captain, we are expecting (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 05:30:02 PM EST
    a full review--including pearls from the clown car.

    "pedals" from the clown car. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 06:46:11 PM EST
    Can't help seeing images of keystone cops, Alfalfa Huckabee running for president of the He Man Librul Haters club...  Society permanently socialized at the level of junior high school cliques.

    Well, I sure won't. (none / 0) (#49)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 06:37:30 PM EST
    CaptHowdy: "I may have to life my embargo on Sunday morning TV this weekend."

    Unless, of course, I'm suddenly interested in witnessing a prolonged bout of right-wing pearl clutching with all its attendant rhetorical excesses, while the shows' resident bobbleheads alternately furrow their brows with looks of concern and nod their heads approvingly in near-unison.



    At least one show (none / 0) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 26, 2015 at 06:49:40 PM EST
    has to have the crackpot who got ejected from the courtroom during the marriage arguments for screaming about fire and brimstone.

    Go ahead. Laugh.  The guys a well known culture warrior.   Who better to get a balanced view from?


    We worked all day Friday and Saturday (none / 0) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 28, 2015 at 09:32:22 AM EST
    So was shocking to come inside and find the world so changed.  I suppose it shouldn't have been because this court has taken a beating on where Citizens United has taken the nation.  I think they managed to scare themselves. I stopped trusting them to make sane and humane decisions though, I think a lot of people did.

    All the yacking and noise against marriage equality is what made the ruling seem so magical even though there is nothing magical about it, it's basic human rights and civil rights.

    Never thought I would live in this world, but here we are.

    Do let us know how the Sunday shows go, it's another work day in this pagan household :)


    Last post of the day probably (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 28, 2015 at 10:33:42 AM EST
    as I am off to participate in dark and hedonistic pagan rites.

    Happy gay pride weekend.

    We are here.   We are queer.  Get over it.


    Listing in the open (none / 0) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 28, 2015 at 10:31:33 AM EST
    i will say I don't think I am the only one really looking forward to seeing Chris Cristi and Donald Trump on a debate stage together.