Comments on: Gay groups back federal challenge to marriage ban

By: Stonewaller

Stonewaller — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 05:59:12 +0000

I am an activist who has participated in
every major & virtually every minor
human rights struggle of the past 50
years. This includes the civil rights
movement before the 1963 March as well as “3 Days of Rage” following Stonewall.

CHRIS
In the Civil Rights Movement, we chose not to make interracial marriage issue for three reasons: 1) we did not think it would energize existing activists; 2) we did not think it would activate non-
participants; 3) we did think it would mobilize our adversaries on every other issue of concern. This is precisely what has happened with Same Sex Marriage.
Virginia versus Loving was individual lawsuit not the product of Movement.
Elected representatives of 30 states have amended constitutions to prohibit SSM. Is it your contention that they have all “wandered off the reservation”?
In case nobody told you, Martin Luther King was a “pacifist,” albeit a militant pacifist like Einstein and myself.

DREWSKI
Under the US Constitution, the federal government is delegated few powers; marriage is not one of them. Marriage has always been a state issues which is why a civil liberties lawyer such as myself believes DOMA to be not only wrong but unconstitutional. However, the subject lawsuit is not about DOMA, it is about state marriage laws which are more than likely to be held constitutional by this Supreme Court.

MELISSA
Personally, I believe that the Full, Faith and Credit Clause means that the laws of each and every state are to be respected by each and every other state.
But when one reviews judicial history,
one finds that the courts have never interpreted that way. Furthermore, this lawsuit is about overruling a California Supreme Court decision interpreting the initiative clause in that state’s constitution — it is not about giving CA giving FFC to SSM of other states.

By: RJLigier

RJLigier — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:49:22 +0000

“Morgan Said: June 29th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Oh, it’s you again, RJLIgier. How charming of you to make our reacquaintance. How we suffered so without your brilliant erudition and profound learning. And of course, your expert powers of observation”

It’s difficult when you’re neurotic, isn’t it, Morgan.

By: Morgan

Morgan — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:08:26 +0000

Oh, it’s you again, RJLIgier. How charming of you to make our reacquaintance. How we suffered so without your brilliant erudition and profound learning. And of course, your expert powers of observation.

By: RJLigier

RJLigier — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:25:56 +0000

Agree with Jon JM, except for timing. Proposition 8 was the right time. Now we see whether feelings or objectivity is the rule of law. It will be interesting observing the collusion amongst neurotic legal and medical professionals within the executive, legislative, and judicial bodies.

By: MelissaG

MelissaG — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:56:27 +0000

The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution is not nearly as broad or vague thus open to subjective interpretation as civil rights guaranteed in the amendments of the constitution are.

Even a conservative supreme court cannot maneuver around the fact that other states have legally allowed same sex couples to marry. The Full faith and Credit Clause forces other states that do not allow same sex marriage to at least recognize marriages performed in other states.

By: drewski

drewski — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:14:26 +0000

If we wait for a “friendlier” Supreme Court, chances are everybody over 40 will either be dead or wearing a diaper before there’s a challenge. The worst that can happen is that DOMA is laid down at the state level, and even some of the court’s wingnuts see the disastrous messy violation of state’s rights that would be. (Based on that alone, try to picture Dick Cheney begging to file an amicus brief for the homo side.) DOMA is wrong, wrong, wrong, and the only way it’s ever been justified has been to agree that bigotry is OK. Another thought, and it’s not on-point, but consider some of the personal dynamics in this. Ted Olson’s wife was killed on 9/11, and he’s still Republican as far as I know. Or remember what Scalia himself said in his fit over Lawrence v Texas: short version is that voiding sodomy laws because there is no public interest in having them is essentially arguing for gays to get married. Go back and check it.

By: John

John — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:10:04 +0000

Better late than never.

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:08:14 +0000

I don’t think it is a significant shift at all. I doubt these groups support bringing such a lawsuit, but once it is out there they have to do all they can to make sure the record is as strong as it can be.

By: FlexSF

FlexSF — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:38:33 +0000

We may resume our practice of marriage equality, in California, on Thursday, July 2, 09′, if a preliminary injunction is granted against proposition 8. Conversely, no matter what happens, we need to shift our resources to our brothers and sisters in the state of Maine. We must do our best to prevent the hateful bigots walk away with another proposition 8!

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:14:05 +0000

we have far more support for our marriages now then people did for interracial marriage back in 1961. When Virginia lost its case against the Lovings there was no sufficient backlash. Its time we stop with the “what if ‘negative thing’ happens” and start thinking “We have been patient enough and nearly half of the US is with us, no more waiting give us our damn rights.”

People… you have to stop thinking time will cure these ills of discrimination and ignorance. Even Martin Luther King Jr. knew that time is a neutral entity. We should know by now that time is not something that can save us, because those of ill will have been using time more efficiently and effectively than those of good will.

Even today there are still racist, does that mean we should forgo those laws that allow interracial marriage and ban housing and employment discrimination, until 99 percent of the US is pro integration? That is a pipe dream. Believing that one day there will be total acceptance is a logical fallacy as well as a pipe dream.

If we keep sidelining and preaching pacifism instead of being more militant we will never achieve our goals for legal equality. We must stop trying to please people and make them understand us. Sure we can change minds and that is important, but what is more important first; making the world love us, or getting our long delayed and denied rights?