Maddow then discusses the case with Kenji Yoshino of New York University Law School. Yoshino notes the evolution of using kids in this debate. It's still about "protect the kids." That used to mean protect the kids because gays will molest them. Then it was about protecting kids from learning about gays because they might become gay. Now since Obama talked about children when he began supporting us, the phrase means lets protect the children of gay couples by allowing their parents to marry. The combination of kids and gays isn't so toxic anymore.
Rachel Maddow's show yesterday was a summary of the second day of gay marriage before the court. There are three videos.
In the first one (17 minutes) Maddow plays the important audio clips of the proceedings with a bit of discussion. She has great admiration for spunky Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who had one of the great lines of the day. Ginsberg mentions many of the ways in which the federal gov't supports straight marriages but doesn't support gay marriages. The result is full (straight) marriage and gays who end up with "skim-milk marriage." You go, girl!
In a second clip Maddow interviews Mary Bonauto. The video is about 6 minutes. I've heard that name quite a bit over the last decade, but hadn't connected it all together. Bonauto was behind the case to get Vermont to create civil unions in 2000 (yeah, a court case prompted the law). She was directly involved in the case the brought gay marriage to Massachusetts, and one of the cases that declared DOMA to be unconstitutional (alas, not the one the Supremes heard). Here's a profile in the New York Times listing the cases I missed. Thank you for your strategy and your work.
In the third clip, 9 minutes long, Maddow discusses why the GOP is getting very quiet on the gay marriage issue. Thanks to the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the military now deals with married gay servicemembers. The military is saying the Defense of Marriage Act requires them to discriminate against our soldiers, sailors, and such and this discrimination is harmful to them and to the military as a whole.
And for a bit of icing on the cake, Jon Stewart discusses the shift in support in the Senate.
Earlier this week I discussed how the Defense of Marriage Act might be tossed out because it interferes with states rights. I had noted how that might prevent overturning the Calif. gay marriage ban. Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo (by way of Box Turtle Bulletin) caught the significance of the states rights argument.
If that’s the case, it would probably be the first time that “states rights” was ever used to vindicate any actual person or group’s rights. It’s almost always been bulwark behind which states hide to deprive citizens of rights. There are likely some marginal examples of the contrary. But the big verdict of history is unmistakable. It would be an ironic first.
About a week ago I noted polls showing a big jump in approval for gay marriage in just the last seven months. Alas, Nate Silver isn't so impressed with the data. He shows the gains have been rather steady since 2004, with no strong upturn in the last couple years.
We also look to Silver for predictions. He has a chart for projected support for gay marriage in 2016 and 2020 compared with support in 2008 and 2012. Conclusions: lawmakers better get cracking in Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Jersey, Delaware, and even Oregon and Nevada. Michigan should get it done by 2016. Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi -- it's gonna be a while, sometime after 2020.
Rob Tisinai of Box Turtle Bulletin discusses the various points made in the Calif. gay marriage case. Tisinai is very good at pointing out absurdities. I'll let you read it on your own. It's in two parts. I mention it because a commenter, Ben in Oakland, has a description of Scalia that made me laugh:
He’s a finger down the throat for the soul, an emetic in the medicine cabinet of life, last year’s unrefrigerated mackerel, a bit of sushi that long since went to its final reward.
Do you think I am biased?
Heather Long of The Guardian reminds us discrimination against us does not end with favorable rulings on these cases. And it isn't just marriage discrimination. It takes a while for attitudes to change -- we're still dealing with racism.
For example, the Kentucky legislature passed a bill to preserve the right for people with "sincerely held beliefs" to discriminate against whomever they want. The governor vetoed it (yay!). The legislature wasted no time in overriding that veto. Commenters note all they've accomplished is a lot of grandstanding and the accumulation of a lot of legal bills.
Noah Feldman of Bloomberg looks at the mess that would result of the Supremes try to go slow by making a narrow ruling. What happens when a gay couple from Massachusetts moves to Louisiana? Do they get federal benefits but not state benefits? That's the reverse of what happens now. Lawsuits will result. We've already had another type of case -- a gay couple moves and find they can't divorce in their new state. Yeah, there is the issue of imposing marriage equality across the country before a lot of people are ready for it (see above). It seems a few justices don't want to get involved (at least not yet). But a narrow decision will keep them involved for a good long time as they hear cases from state after state.
Ari Ezra Waldman (who I've been reading all week) takes a step back and looks at seven broad "takeaways" related to the two cases heard this week. I won't bother with all seven, but two caught my attention.
Let's hear it for the women -- Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsberg who deftly sliced up the flimsy arguments of our opponents, attorney Roberta Kaplan who represented Edie Windsor in the DOMA case, Edie herself who is at the center of one case and Kris Perry and Sandy Stier who are at the center of the other. And especially Mary Bonauto (see above). Yes, of course, there were fine men in there too -- the male couple in the gay marriage case, Jeff Zerillo and Paul Katami, and their lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies.
The Supreme Court matters. Just being in front of the Supremes is a big boost for our cause. Even w lukewarm ruling gives us something to build on. And an adverse ruling would be devastating.
I've heard comments over the last few days about the Supremes ducking the Calif. gay marriage case and waiting for another to come in "five or ten years". I got to be thinking -- it won't take anywhere near that long. I've already reported on a marriage equality case in Michigan where the judge has delayed his ruling until after the Supremes rule in June. If the Supremes don't allow marriage equality in Michigan, this judge could rule our state ban unconstitutional. Give it a couple years in Circuit Court and it will be before the Supremes.
No comments:
Post a Comment