Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Nobody should think it will be a short battle for equal marriage. I joined the Homosexual Law Reform Society in the UK bak n 1966 before going to university and we don’t have equal marriage here yet. But it will come in more and more nations even if the Supreme Court in the US limits itself in the coming months simply to affirming the Appeal Court. decision as regards California. It will not make sense for the several state each to have different laws relating to what is a marriage. A nation divided against itself cannot stand. It must be the one thing or the other.
What’s this Barney? You got yours so screw the rest of us? Turns out in the end you are just a grubby politician, out to get what you can and to hell with everybody else
No he just knows how the ‘justice’ system works. If the highest Court in the land decides against SSM (which is what he thinks they will do) then it could mean that SSM will not be legalised across the country for even longer than if the issue had never been put before it at all right now.
You’re right, Karen T.
So simple Karen. No nuance or understanding.
I think he’s saying it’s more of a risk than should have been taken. I disagree, we’ve got nothing to lose by trying. There is no way discrimination can stand in California, and if they choose to narrowly-apply the outcome, just to California, then at least California gets equality, and perhaps that judgement can be used to get equality elsewhere, on a state-by-state basis. Here in the UK we have nothing to lose by fighting for equality. The public is on our side, we have many friends in the churches, and most politicians (law-makers) recognise that discrimination is impossible to maintain.
And frankly so many people who are gay have expended so much energy to try to get equal rights, it would be very wrong not to continue on, until we have full, equal rights.
Another reason why the US is broken. A supreme court who’s decisions are based on their personal politics and not the letter of the law.
I am sure the judges would say that their decisions are based on the letter of the law. And that is the problem when people have different views as to what is correct.
Well, in the case of extreme right wing judges such as Scalia, Alito and Thomas, they were more than happy to overturn precedent by allowing corporations to have personhood bestowed upon them so that they would be able to donate whatever vast amounts of money they wanted to republican campaigns. In other words, buying elections. They did not follow the letter of the law in that case. In fact there is growing opposition to have it overturned.
While I agree with him that the Supreme Court is not yet ready to apply same sex marriage to the whole country yet, what exactly does he suggest the gay people of California do, people who had the right to marry cruelly ripped away from them? Sit back and do nothing and hope it changes?
Plus, even if the SC limits the case to California it sets an important precedent. What happens in Washington or Maryland if in two years time opponents get enough signatures to put the issue back on the ballot and this time equal marriage loses? Well the SC may well have said that removing the right to SSM once it has been granted is unconstitutional thus protecting those who live in states where this right has already been granted. It’s not a complete waste of time.
From what I’ve read, if it refused to hear Prop.8, the 9th circuit decision would remain and gay couples could resume marrying. However, it’s hard to tell if it will uphold the decision, not with Scalia, Alito and Thomas, possibly Robert, all catholic. Scalia is an Opus Dei member I might add. His religion already influences his decisions so I would be more than surprised if he ruled to overturn both cases.
That’s true but it would only apply in the area covered by the 9th circuit. So if in Maryland or Maine or New York there was a move to remove the right then it would require yet another round of cases. If, as Frank believes, the result of the court of appeal is upheld by SCOTUS then it will apply nationwide that once the right for gay couples to marry has been granted it cannot then be removed.
The four liberal justices (at least one of whom is also Catholic) will vote to uphold, the three conservatives you mention will vote against. Roberts and Kennedy will represent the swing. Roberts won’t want to be on the wrong side of history – the chief justice who held out against gay marriage even as the rest of the country accepted it – so he may vote to uphold the court’s decision. And Kennedy has shown himself to be supportive of gay rights in the past.
The man is a coward. You can’t win if you don’t play the game Barney. He used the same excuse to throw transgender people under the bus back in 2006, stripping transgender people from ENDA legislation. The man is a dinosaur and I’m glad he’s retiring.
We could make a list of his wrong ideas or failures – including DADT & DOMA which happened under his watch. He works for the DNC and wants our cause to be an endless bride in waiting, always dependent upon him and his party. Every word he utters is designed to keep us beholden as votes and donors to the DNC. Don’t trust his analysis. And stop publishing him. He was never elected by the gay community to represent us, and he definitely doesn’t now.
Um, while I’m sure that he means that the question should be decided by the legislatures, I can take his words in another way as endorsing taking the question to a public vote. Apparently, “let the people decide” is the only language understood by professional anti-gay agitators.
I agree: why this rush? It will be much more better, if Supreme Court make his decision on same-sex marriage after President Obama nominate one, two or maybe even three new liberal justices in upcoming few years. Now its too late for any corrections …