Subscribe to Breaking NewsRuby-Sachs: Can the Prop 8 Case Win With Scalia on the Court?
He is just one justice. And the legallogic seems to be on our side. But what do you think, readers?
Food for thought: A quote from Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texes
“Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. The Court views it as “discrimination” which it is the function of our judgments to deter. So imbued is the Court with the law profession’s anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously “mainstream”; that in most States what the Court calls “discrimination” against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal; that proposals to ban such “discrimination” under Title VII have repeatedly been rejected by Congress, see Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1994, S. 2238, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. (1994); Civil Rights Amendments, H. R. 5452, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975); that in some cases such “discrimination” is mandated by federal statute, see 10 U. S. C. s654(b)(1) (mandating discharge from the armed forces of any service member who engages in or intends to engage in homosexual acts); and that in some cases such “discrimination” is a constitutional right, see Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U. S. 640 (2000).”
Is this an impartial observation or the legitimization of American homophobia?
What I take from this is that it’s very, very important to get gay rights legislation passed at the Federal level before this case reaches the Supreme Court.
“Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home.”
Scalia is defending blatant bigotry. In my view, his reasoning is so biased that it has no place on the Supreme Court or any court. I recall at least one county judge who was rightly removed from the bench for similar sentiments.
I agree with Rob. Prop 8 will be a squeaker, by the most optimistic predictions. Congress and the president are certainly not perfect, but they’re our best bet right now.
Do you even have to ask the question? Of course, it is homophobia. There are 5 catholics on the court–including Scalia. I believe Sotomayer will make it 6. Most of the catholics will vote their religion–that is they will vote how the pope tells them to vote. That’s why now is not the time to be taking the Gay Marriage issue to the Supreme Court.
Separation of church and state? I don’t think so. Canada and Spain told the pope to butt out when Gay Marriage was legalized–that both countries had separation of church and state. We here in the US have the words enshrined in the Constitution, but the words are rarely put into action.
This is simply an unrepentant homophobe trying to justify his sin of homophobia.
I do recall in that same ruling he also said that it would lead to the legalization of gay marriage under the Constitution’s equal protection clause. So if he’s not an activist judge (promoting the anti-gay agenda) and he rules according to the facts and Constitution, we will be okay. If instead, he decides to promote and justify homophobia to make himself feel better about his own sin, then he will vote no.
“They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.”
Hmm… could someone please tell me what the heterosexual “lifestyle” is? How about the “white” lifestyle? Or the “female” lifestyle? What about the “50-yr.-old” lifestyle?
Scalia is a perpetual embarassment to the U.S. judiciary. His arrogance is exceeded only by his ignorance.
Scalia views himself as an overwhelmed defender of the traditional family. He has a victim complex. While aspects of his position might resonate with at least four other justices, I think they’re too embarrassing to lay out in a Supreme Court case. Thomas would likely go along, because he’s an Uncle Tom who’s so self-deceiving that he thinks his conservatism makes him a bird of the same feather as Pat Robertson or Jesse Helms. No white sheet can conceal that truth, Clarence. Alito and/or Roberts might, but it’s a stretch. Kennedy? Doubt it. Nobody else is a solid candidate for endorsing the full-face bigotry from Scalia-world. And if it does happen, then it’s an inevitability in the eyes of those who say that we should wait for a more favorable court. You think an antigay group hasn’t thought of rolling the dice now to see if they can’t keep us in legal limbo?
Scalia is irrelevant, as are Thomas and Alito. Be concerned about Kennedy and Roberts. If we pick up either one of them, we win.
Scalia is merely giving an accurate description of the law and the national psyche of the majority in 2003 and prior. Just like Justice Taney correctly understood our nation’s past when he ruled against Dred Scott in 1857. Scalia, like Taney, will never change his outdated viewpoints, which he regards as infallible.
With the majority of five conservative Catholic justices, I see no possibility of a SC ruling that prohibits marriage discrimination against gays. The court never moves progressively on a social issue until the public viewpoint in a substantial number of states has already moved in that direction.
The Olsen-Boies case is so unwise that I find it hard to see it as anything but a Trojan Horse at our doorstep. How can we rationally believe that a case brought by two elite Republican lawyers with no record of support for gays is truly intended for our benefit?
This will take 2-4 years or so to reach the SC, if that.
so what we do is try our damn hardest to got marriage equality in at least 5 more states. By then, if the polls continue in their current trends, the majority opinion will be in favor of gay marriage.
IF we get a referendum on the ballot for California in 2010 and it passes (which it will), then will this case be null and void? If so, then focus almost all of our efforts on getting that on the ballot PRONTO. Every single member of the LGBT community and their families & friends should turn out there; the majority of people who are against gay marriage are only casually against it and will likely not turn out to vote against it. We’ll win.
Pogovio,
Please get your facts straight before you go off ranting.
You wrote: ” How can we rationally believe that a case brought by two elite Republican lawyers with no record of support for gays…”
And therein lies your error. David Boies is a Democrat. In fact, he defended Al Gore in Bush v. Gore. And he has been very supportive of gay rights for many years.
That’s where the legitimacy of this pairing comes from: Ted Olsen, a dyed-in-the-wool conservative who is also an unquestioned defender of the Constitution and David Boies, a liberal Democratic attorney and one of the best in America.
Please rethink your stand now that you know the facts.
Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, a case which threw out the sodomy laws in the United States. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion in Romer v. Evans, a Colorado case which held that you can’t amend the state constitution to take rights away from gays just because you don’t like gays. Chief Justice Roberts worked on behalf of gays in the Romer case. See the cite below for all the work he did on this case. (That doesn’t mean he would vote for gay marriage, but at least he’s not anti-gay).
http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=611&Itemid=118
So, it’s possible we could have a 5-4 case in favor of gay marriage, or we could even have a 6-3 case for gay marriage. Unfortunately, it could also be 5-4 against, depending on how Justice Kennedy votes.
I was amazed Lawrence had a dissent. The facts are just so plain, how can the government tell us who to have sex with and not run afoul of our basic civil liberties?
How can anyone see it as destructive to society?
If the debate was “open” marriages, it would be even more clear to these people that it is none of government’s business, but with homosexuality, they leave logic at the door.
With so many justices so obviously following their theology and beliefs vs. strict reading of the law, I don’t have high hopes for the Mass cases or Prop 8 until we get the old catholic bigots off the bench.