Let's put freedom of the press up for a vote

Yes, there's been a lot of noise since the overturn of the gay marriage ban about courts overturning the will of the people. However, there is precedent already created. Back in the early 1960s Calif. voters amended their constitution (sound familiar?) to say homeowners and apartment renters are allowed to refuse to sell or rent to anyone for any reason at all. The Supremes ruled in 1964 that it didn't matter if 100% of Californians voted for the state amendment, it was in conflict with the 14th Amendment.

Ted Olson, one of the lead lawyers working to overturn the gay marriage ban in Calif., went toe-to-toe with Christ Wallace of Fox News. Wallace lobbed several of the anti-gay legal talking points at Olson, who popped them rather easily. That judge is guilty of judicial activism! No, he fulfilled judicial responsibility. But 7 million voters approved it! Would you like it if we put your free speech and Fox's freedom of press up for a vote? No, some things are fundamental and should not be put up for a vote.

Here's a longer excerpt which includes a transcript of the part about judicial activism/responsibility.

There's a new wrinkle in the Calif. gay marriage case. Apparently, to appeal to the 9th Circuit Court one of the parties in the case must be a government entity. Arnold the Governator and Jerry Brown Attorney General very early on refused to defend the ban. Both of them have filed requests that Judge Walker, the one who just issued the ruling, not issue a stay, saying gay couples are being harmed by the ban and if the ban is reinstated we'll gladly deal with the mess of unmarrying them.

California's Imperial County saw that the anti-gay side needed a government sugar-daddy, so tried to get in on the case. Walker said no. Their reason for being included was lame and besides they were past the deadline.

Which means an appeal, even to the 9th Circuit, can't happen. And this ruling can only apply to Calif.

There's a lot of discussion now about whether that's a good thing or not. Some were hoping that such a thorough ruling would get applied to their state too. Others are saying the Supremes are too iffy in this particular case, there are better cases on the way.

One of those is out of Massachusetts and is a challenge to parts of the federal Defense of Marriage law. It's a smaller burden on the Supremes, asking them to overturn the federal position in states where marriage is already legal. Obama has about a month to decide if it should be appealed. This one puts the squeeze on him. Appeal it and he's seen as anti-gay. Don't appeal it and the decision is confined to Mass (then again, Obama could push for overturning the law, which is unlikely for him).

Washington state has Domestic Partnerships "everything but the word marriage" that survived a voter overturn last November. If the Dems in the state legislature maintain their hefty majorities it's likely they'll go for gay marriage. A challenge to that could be another route to the Supremes.

No matter the route, last week's decision sets a precedent that will be quoted in future cases.

And final word on the issue today goes to Stephen Colbert and his satire. If gays are going to ruin straight marriage it is up to straights to ruin gay marriage. He explains how that could be done. The video is under 9 minutes.