Leave a Comment Sagesse
Archives – July, 2011
NOM’s New York response
By Adam Bink
The National Organization for Marriage sent out one of their insanely long e-mails and published it on NOMBlog. The topic was how an estimated 10,000 (what a nice round number) turned out at their “let the people vote” rallies on Sunday. Some notes, starting with Fox News:
And on Fox News it was as if the massive rallies simply did not exist. We note with growing concern how rarely Fox News reports in a balanced way on the gay marriage issue—with a few shining exceptions like Bill O’Reilly.
All Brian has to do is take a stroll through DropFox to see same-sex marriage being compared to marrying ducks, as one simple example, to see that, well, Fox doesn’t report in a balanced way — their coverage consistently slants against equality. Clearly, Brian is upset his rallies didn’t get coverage, but let’s not go overboard, here.
On Rick Perry:
We got a very troubling, albeit only preliminary, warning sign from Gov. Rick Perry. We love Gov. Perry, who has a very strong record on life and marriage—but on the other hand, this just happened.
It happened at the Aspen Institute, a very upscale, insider gathering, where people from both sides of the aisle comes together to share ideas, rub elbows, and confirm one another as members of the cosmopolitan elite.
It was at this venue that Gov. Perry was asked about New York’s gay marriage bill, and according to multiple reports he said he was “fine” with it because such decisions should be left up to the states.
Fine? Fine with gay marriage?
Perry quickly walked it back.
On primaries:
We don’t have to argue with mainstream media types. In 2012 New York will have an election. These senators will face their voters, in primaries and in general elections. We will find out if New Yorkers in Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Long Island, and New York City really like electing politicians who lie, flip-flop and then brag about how noble it was to sell out their base and their constituents.
Will GOP elites nationally be misled by this absurd new meme that it’s safe for Republicans to vote for gay marriage—not to mention abandoning the other social issues?
NOM does their best to ignore the fact that you can’t find a lawmaker who’s been defeated in a general election in which marriage played a leading role. I think we’ll see that trend continue, by and large, in 2012. It’s a long way until 2012, and everything will just keep moving in favor of equality when people see the sky hasn’t fallen and their lawmaker did the right thing.
31 Comments July 31, 2011
Windsor v. USA: Judge orders Clement’s team to answer key questions
By Adam Bink
Via AMERICABlog Gay, Windsor’s lawyers previously asked the judge to order Clement’s team to answer some questions about the case. On Thursday, the judge issued such an order, excerpted as follows:
The two interrogatories pressed by the plaintiff ask “What, if anything, do you contend are the compelling justifications for section 3 of DOMA, 1 U.S.C. § 77″ (Interrogatory no. 1) and “What, if anything, do you assert are the legitimate government interests rationally advanced by section 3 of DOMA, 1 U.S.C. § 7?” (Interrogatory no. 3). BLAG objects to both on the ground that, to the extent they are construed as contention interrogatories, they are premature. That argument is disingenuous; at the time BLAG responded, the discovery deadline was three days away, and it is now closed. (emphasis added)
BLAG also objects to Interrogatory no. 1 because “it assumes the legal conclusion that Congress required a compelling justification to enact Section 3 of DOMA.” In fact, the interrogatory assumes only that, if the Court finds st ct scrutiny to be the appropriate standard of review, BLAG may wish to proffer compelling justifications for DOMA. The plaintiff is entitled to know what those justifications are, and BLAG is there directed to answer Interrogatory 1.
In response to Interrogatory no. 3, BLAG sets forth authority for the proposition that under rational basis analysis, there is no need to demonstrate the basis on which the legislature actually chose to create classifications. That may be an accurate summary of the law, but it misses the point. BLAG will presumably suggest to the Court potentially rational grounds for the enactment of DOMA, and it must disclose those to the plaintiff in response to a proper contention interrogatory. Accordingly, BLAG shall answer Interrogatory no. 3 as well.
Joe at AMERICABlog notes how the judge’s use of the word “disingenuous” is interesting. It certainly is.
28 Comments July 30, 2011
Open afternoon thread
By Adam Bink
Not a ton going on, though we’re prepping to launch some new efforts here at Courage, so not a ton of time to write. More on that over the weekend.
What are you reading, and what are your weekend plans?
18 Comments July 29, 2011
