Thursday, June 27, 2013

Commentary and Observations on the Court Rulings on Same Sex Marriage

Read ‘Em and Weep, Conservatives

The electronic airwaves will be filled with commentary on the Supreme Court rulings on same sex marriage.  Here are the some observations they will probably overlook.

  1. Justice Scalia in his dissent in DOMA was horrified, horrified that the Court had the temerity to rule an act of Congress unconstitutional.  The previous day Judge Scalia was a deciding vote in ruling that the key element of the Voting Rights Bill, enacted and renewed by Congress was unconstitutional.

  1. The news reports showed large crowds of jubilant supports of equality for marriage.  There may have been large crowds from the opposition, but none were seen or observed.  No massive number of protesters from the opposition were sighted or seen.

  1. The Court showed real cowardice in using a technicality to rule in the California case.  The proponents of Prop. 8 are wrong, completely wrong but they deserved their day in Court.

  1. The key element in the DOMA case was not  that same sex marriage was Constitutional.  It was that the Federal government could not treat legal marriages in the same state differently just because the Feds didn’t like same sex marriages.  Equal protection under the law means equal protection under the law. Period.

  1. Despite massive whining from Conservatives, the Federal government is, for all practical purposes out of the marriage business.  Unless another case goes to the Supreme Court marriage equality will now be fought out in the states.  Mississippi will be the last to legalize same sex marriage.  That’s only right, the state was about last in implement civil rights and equality for African Americans.  In fact Mississippi is last in about every desirable quality in a state, and no one wants them to lose that distinction, it may be all they really have.

  1. Going back to Justice Scalia, one of his points was that in the DOMA case the government had conceded the issue, so what was the point of deciding the case in the first place.  On this issue he had a point, but his dissent then descended into an unintelligible rant, rendering his valid point covered up by the mess of the rest of his commentary.

  1. Decades from now everyone will look back on this battle and say "What the heck it was all about?"

  1. Justice Alito had a dissent in the DOMA case that showed he took lessons from Justice Scalia in how to be totally unable to make an intelligent argument.  he said the DOMA case was about the Constitutionality of same sex marriage.  It wasn't, it was about equal protection.  How did these people get through a law school?

  1. In many cases the rulings will result in large tax benefits for same sex couples. How can Conservatives object to that?

  1. And how can anyone with any feelings whatsoever look at the expressions of pure delight and joy by those who now have equal rights on marriage and not feel that the right thing was done.

  1. Constitutonally, there may be no specific right to same sex marriage, but Constitutionally there certainly is no right to treat different groups differently for no other reason than animus.  In California the defenders of Prop. 8 lost because they could not show they were harmed by same sex marriage.  In fact, no one can show they were harmed by same sex marriage.  So de facto the Court ruled that there is a Constitutional right to same sex marriage.  That is the subtext of the rulings, but most people, and probably the some of the Justices themselves will not understand.

1 comment:

  1. "7.Decades from now everyone will look back on this battle and say "What the heck it was all about?""

    Don't bet on it. We thought we won the voting rights and abortion rights fights back in the day, but the Neanderthals are fighting back, and making painful inroads.

    Eternal vigilance is the price of just about everything. Sigh.