Today at 10 a.m. is the argument in Hollingsworth v. Perry, also known as the California Proposition 8 case. Tomorrow is argument in the Defense of Marriage Act case.
It’s hard to believe that this day has arrived. We have been covering Prop 8 almost since the beginning of this blog. The early posts were about the boycott movement:
- November 14, 2008 — Will Law Professors Boycott The Inauguration?
- December 4, 2008 — It’s Time To Speak Out Against The “Mormon Boycott”
- December 11, 2008 — Day Without A Gay — A Bad Idea Ends Badly
Boycotts and secondary boycotts continued to be a key part of the campaign in an attempt to delegitimize support for retaining the historical definition of marriage:
- November 10, 2009 — Gay Activists Launch Boycott of Dems
- November 23, 2010 — SPLC Demonizes Supporters of Traditional Marriage
- April 25, 2011 — King & Spalding Says Yes to Gitmo Detainees, No to Congress (DOMA)
- April 26, 2011 — Is There Now A Hostile Environment For Pro-Traditional Marriage Views At King & Spalding?
- July 21, 2012 — When political correctness runs amok, it will look like the Mayor of Boston
- July 25, 2012 — Now Chicago Alderman seeks to ban Chick-fil-A
- July 29, 2012 — Most important legacy of Obama’s gay marriage switch was freeing Dems to play the “bigot card”
But most of our coverage centered on the court cases at the state and then federal level:
- May 26, 2009 — Split Decision on Prop. 8 (California Supreme Court upholds Prop 8)
- May 26, 2009 — Federal Challenge to Prop. 8
- August 4, 2010 — Fed Judge Finds Calif. Prop. 8 Unconstitutional
- November 17, 2011 — California Sup. Ct.: Prop 8 defenders have standing to defend marriage law
- February 7, 2012 — 9th Circuit holds Prop. 8 violates 14th Amendment
In the run-up to today’s argument, the Transparent ref gaming of Sup Ct on gay marriage has gone into hyper-drive, with Democratic politicians jockeying for position on the issue and the media declaring, much as it did with Obamacare, that the Supreme Court will be damaged if it is on “the wrong side of history.” The irony is that the demand that the Supreme Court bow to the emerging popular will is used as a reason why the Supreme Court should not allow the popular will (i.e., voters) to have a say.
The framework of today’s case is at SCOTUSblog. There is no live audio (it will be released later today). Here’s a live Twitter feed:
[Twitter feed removed]
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
What’s most ironic about this issue to me is that the same voters who elected Barack Obama shoved Prop 8 through after he lied to them about his support for it. Since he’s a lame duck now there will be no political ramifications to him but will it affect Hillary?
If it becomes established that the definition of Marriage is between a man and a woman, I hope that it is also argued that NO ONE IS DENYING GAY PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO MARRY. THEY JUST CHOOSE NOT TO EXERCISE THAT RIGHT.
So as far as civil liberties are concerned, I think it is just gay rights activists advocating for special rights for their group. This would not be allowed under the 14th amendment which argues for equal protections for all.
I am most amazed by the whole concept of “right to marry”. I don’t think that I, a straight woman, had any such right. I had to apply for a marriage license and find a rabbi. That’s two sets of authority. Not to mention that parents and friends also weigh in on the decision.
Most lesbians and homosexuals will chose not to marry other lesbians and homosexuals even after they are permitted to do so. What’s funny is that they think that “gay marriage” won’t change their bohemian culture — it will, even if most won’t tie the knot. And all the straight women who support “gay marriage” thinking that will not lead to legalization of polygamy… well, interesting to see what will happen there.
Today’s arguments deal with Prop. 8, which Jerry Brown refused to defend in court. Tomorrow’s arguments deal with DOMA, which Barack Obama and Eric Holder refused to defend in court. Indeed, Obama is sending in his Solicitor General to argue for DOMA to be struck down — and his argument, carried to its logical conclusion, would lead to gay marriage being legalized in all 50 states.
The immediate issue is whether lawyers not representing the State of California (for Prop. 8) or the United States (for DOMA) have standing to defend legislation when the executive has decided they will not. If the Supreme Court ultimately holds that the groups now defending DOMA or Prop. 8 have no standing in court to defend the measures, it would essentially confer a backdoor executive veto on any legislation that an executive doesn’t like. You disagree with a law? Don’t bother engaging in the political process and trying to get it overturned. Just wait until your guy sits in the governor’s office or the Oval Office, and have someone bring a lawsuit. Your guy will refuse to defend the legislation, and BOOM! you’re done. The lawsuit wins, the legislation gets invalidated, and there’s nobody around with any right to complain about it. Easy as pie!
—-Patterico
I agree with this, and note that there are several really important issues balled up in this case, besides the issue of “gay marriage”.
The concept of “nullification” has a lot of costs/benefits, and I’m not sure how they would weigh out in the end. But what Brown and Obama have done sets a very dangerous precedent for “executive nullification”. I don’t see any natural limit to how far down the governmental ladder that goes.
Nor do I see how you have a “law of the land” concept operative under it, since executives in each jurisdiction could readily decide differently which laws they would enforce (i.e., sheriffs).
The fact that the Supreme Court may be about to pass judgment on the age-old definition of marriage is the reductio ad absurdum of American constitutional jurisprudence. That we have reached this point tells us that the Supreme Court has taken some terribly wrong turns.
The fact that, until very recently, marriage has universally been deemed to require an opposite sex component doesn’t mean that this component must be required forevermore. But a decent appreciation of democracy, human history, and the fallibility of the individual means that nine glorified lawyers shouldn’t be the ones who make the change. Nor should they be in a position where they might make it.
—PowerLine
I also agree with this, wholeheartedly.
LAW = Politics
(esp. at S.Ct; cf: Obamacare and Roberts)
Agree also.
“…that nine glorified lawyers shouldn’t be the ones who make the change.”
The conceit is that they and so many others think they will “make the change.” They won’t, not here, and not in so many other places. That conceit is what will bring (is bringing) us down.
If gay marriage is not a matter for States to decide (it is somehow a power ceded by the individauls and states to the Federal government, even though no one ever recognized that federal power for 235 years), and ALL marriage is a civil right, then what can be said of plural marriages?
All the arguments in favor of gay marriage apply equally to plural marriages, except one – the left likes gay marraiges but dislikes plural marriages.
ALSO >>>> The fact that Roberts decided to make a political statement by inviting his gay cousin to sit in a place of honor speaks volumes.
Many of the same people who believe that gay marriage is a human right or an inalienable right, have absolutely no problem placing government restrictions on my 2nd amendment rights.
“Wants” aren’t the same thing as “rights”.
They told us not to talk about “social issues”. They told us that there are priorities. Today, we don’t talk about wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, etc.; we don’t talk about Navy Seals dying on a helicopter; we don’t talk about Benghazi; we don’t talk about the federal government arming a drug cartel in Mexico; we don’t talk about the federal government arming terrorists in Libya or Syria; we don’t talk about the federal government saving GM, paying of the union, and depriving non-union employees of benefits; we don’t talk about “affordable” health care reform, which does not address progressive inflation, and does not increase supply to meet demand; we don’t talk about infantile energy policies, which deprive us of reliable energy, and increase the cost of energy; we don’t talk about trillion dollar account deficits, which are a progressive devaluation of capital and labor; we don’t talk about illegal aliens displacing American men, women, and children; we don’t talk about illegal aliens who don’t care about the conditions which motivated their emigration; we don’t talk about fanatical environmental policies which deprive people of energy and displace them from their land; we don’t talk about “green” technology which cause environmental disruption before manufacturing and while deployed; we don’t talk about Obama’s campaign finance irregularities; we don’t talk about that most most murders with a gun are caused by government agents, gangs and other criminals, and suicides; we don’t talk about elective abortion (i.e. premeditated murder) is a violation of basic human and civil rights, and is the leading (around one million annually in America) cause of preventable deaths.
Let’s instead talk about selective rights and the normalization of dysfunctional behaviors. The homosexual men and women, and their heterosexual patrons, demonstrate a unique prejudice.
Forward to dysfunctional convergence!
The fact is that the voters of California voted overwhelmingly against gay marriage on the ballot. The people even voted to add this ban to the state constitution. One liberal judge who recently showed his prejudice for gays themselves) overturned the will of the people. Gays in California harassed every donor they could find and rioted. This issue should not even have reached the Federal Court of Appeals much less the SC. This is a state issue and the people decided. My first question is: How can one judge overturn a ballot issue on his own with the nebulous reason that Prop i8 not being fair to a certain group of people? My second question is: what is the use of citizens voting if courts can decide the issue was “illegal” and should not have been on the ballot in the first place? Marriage itself is aa religious issue. Government became involved for their own reasons.
Prop 8 was a Constitutional Amendment, making it part of the California Constitution.
If a State’s Constitution can be deemed unconstitutional by the High Court, what prevents them ruling parts of the U.S. Constitution unconstitutional?
A state could amend its constitution to deny a right under the Constitution. The Supremes SHOULD have the ability to strike that down.
And that is the issue here: is there a Constitutional “right” to marry. (I assert there is NOT, as the states have always imposed restrictions on who could marry).