Don't turn their parents into outcasts

The gay marriage trial in Detroit so far has been about whether gay couples are fit parents -- whether allowing them to raise children will result in poorly adjusted children, whether gay parents are too risky. That prompted some musings from Detroit Free Press columnist Brian Dickerson.

Want to minimize risks to kids by limiting who can get married? Perhaps we should ban marriage to those who are poor, who make less than $30,000 a year. Maybe we should withhold marriage licenses from those who didn't finish high school. What about those with substance abuse? Perhaps those with a genetic predisposition to violence?

Um, that last one… would ban all men from marriage.

If we don't like keeping the poor, those not well educated, and alcoholics from the wedding chapel it is just as silly to deny marriage to same-sex couples. But these less than optimal parents are still going to continue having children and will still raise them to adulthood.

So if you are interested in the well-being of kids, don't turn their parents into outcasts.



Yesterday I said Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed the license to discriminate bill after hearing from lots of people and companies. Jim Burroway of Box Turtle Bulletin has the lengthy list.

Of course, there are some, such as Rush Limbaugh, who are convince that for Brewer to veto the bill she must have been bullied by gay people and their allies.

Now that Arizona (or at least the governor) has come to its senses, we're done with this nonsense, right? Um, no. A similar bill has just been introduced in Missouri. Sigh. Thankfully, matching bills in Georgia, Ohio, Indiana, Kansas, South Dakota, Tennessee, Maine, and Idaho have already been tossed out. And it seems a bill in Mississippi has been so watered down that nobody is interested in it anymore.



In keeping track of all these cases about marriage equality I'm learning a lot about legal jargon. I now know what a "stay" is. I've seen the Circuit Court map a few times. I've learned about "summary judgment" (everyone agrees on the facts so no trial is necessary).

Yesterday's marriage equality ruling in Texas has a new term, "preliminary injunction." This is issued before a trial to stop the state from enforcing a bad law. To get an injunction the plaintiffs must (1) show they are likely to succeed at the following trial, (2) the damage being done by the law is irreparable, (3) such damage outweighs the damage to defendants, and (4) the injunction is good for everyone.

Which makes me wonder, if the damage is irreparable and outweighs the damage to defendants, why does it make sense to stay an injunction?

Most of Judge Orlando Garcia's ruling is now ordinary and routine (and only four years ago it was groundbreaking!). Even so, there are a couple things to mention as analyzed by Ari Ezra Waldman.

First is that Garcia thinks the case is strong enough and the consequences bad enough that denying same-sex couples to marry warrants an injunction.

Then there is an elaboration of the irreparable harm. Waldman wrote:

Every day without the opportunity to marry and every day with a law on the books that says gay love is illegal is demeaning, a threat to dignity, and an erosion of freedom and personhood.

The usual stuff is the Equal Protection violation… Waldman wrote:

Banning gays from marrying does not encourage heterosexuals to marry. And gays are amazing parents. All the traditional arguments fail to explain why anyone would want to prevent gays from marrying. The only thing left is hatred, and that doesn't fly.

… and Due Process:

Judge Garcia noted that all the plaintiffs want to do is exercise their right to choose whom to marry. They are not, as the State of Texas argued, trying to create a "new" right to "get gay married." Marriage is marriage.

From the reactions of several Texans, including Gov. Rick Perry, they still haven't come around to the idea that the federal constitution trumps state law and that there is such a thing as tyranny of the majority.



The discussion in Kentucky has been going something like this:
Federal judge: That ruling earlier this month that said the state must recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages is now final and you must comply.

State AG: Wait! Please give us 60 days to file an appeal. You must issue a stay!

Federal judge: No. I said you must comply now! And you gay couples that want to get married in the state I grant your request to join this case.

So same-sex couples in Kentucky may go elsewhere to get married and have their home state recognize it -- at least until the AG can find someone to issue a stay.



According to US Attorney General Eric Holder it is appropriate for state AGs to refuse to defend same-sex marriage bans in their states. He's extending to them what he is doing himself.



The growing acceptance of gay people allows Free Press cartoonist Mike Thompson to turn a well-known gay scene on its head.