Blasting conservative views of gay marriage

More on the various briefs filed with the Supreme Court in the Calif. gay marriage case.

The brief signed by various GOP officials (131 people at last count) looks at the issue from a conservative point of view, tackling various conservative arguments. Jim Burrroway of Box Turtle Bulletin guides us to the important points.

* Marriage equality does not pose a credible threat to religious freedom.

* Gay marriage bans do not rest of legitimate, face-based justifications. The science has been misused.

* Gay marriage is good for families. The choice isn't between kids being raised by gay parents instead of straight parents. The choice is between conferring the benefits of marriage on the kids of gay couples or denying those benefits.

* Sincerely held beliefs are not a justification for laws that discriminate.

* For all you originalists out there, it was James Madison and Alexander Hamilton that wrote to say a purpose of the courts is to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Therefore striking down gay marriage bans is not judicial activism. It's their job.



Ari Ezra Waldman, a lawyer writing for the blog Towleroad, delves into Obama's brief. Lots of people and organizations have submitted briefs. Most will be read by clerks and their main points summarized. Those that merely repeat points made elsewhere won't get much of a look. But Obama's brief, because it comes from another branch of the gov't will likely be studied by the justices themselves. That Obama filed a brief is great news on our side.

A central part of Obama's brief is that it stakes out a middle ground. The gay group before the Supremes argue that gay marriage bans violate equal protection and due process and are unconstitutional across the country. The 9th Circuit issued a ruling that applies only to Calif. because it allowed gay marriage and then took it away. Obama's brief, the "eight state solution," says if a state grants all rights but just not the word marriage there is no justification to withhold the word. Waldman says Obama's brief makes good strategic sense:

* Justice Kennedy is nominally on our side, but doesn't like to get too far ahead, to be accused of overreach. A limited outcome would allow Kennedy to support us without hitting up against states' rights.

* A limited ruling would reduce the backlash and the political capital Obama would have to spend to deal with it.

* The Supremes might not be ready to upend all those state constitutional bans (though this case asks them to do just that in Calif.). Any kind of pro-gay result from the Supremes would nudge the popular view in our direction.



Andrew Belonsky of Towleroad notes the brief with the huge list of corporate signatures is quite the anomaly. Corporations don't like to get out front of civil rights issues. But they sure have on this one. Reason: "LGBT people are employees whose happiness and stable home lives help the business grow."



The National Organization for Marriage has a habit of boycotting any company that supports gay marriage. Now that Microsoft, Apple, Twitter, Facebook, and Google have done so, how is NOM supposed to get its message out? Carrier pigeon? Perhaps appropriate for their early 20th Century message. Follow the link for a graphic.