Comments on: Perry v. Brown’s Logical Quagmire

By: Prop 8 Trial Tracker » Betting the Ranch – Let’s Not

Prop 8 Trial Tracker » Betting the Ranch – Let’s Not — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 16:01:21 +0000

[...] Stoll, senior staff attorney for the National Center for Lesbian Rights. Tuesday’s contribution was from Ari Ezra Waldman, who teaches at Brooklyn Law School and writes at Towleroad. Wednesday, LGBT activist Scott [...]

By: Prop 8 Trial Tracker » The Chief Question

Prop 8 Trial Tracker » The Chief Question — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 16:00:43 +0000

By: Prop 8 Trial Tracker » A Prop 8 Supreme Court decision: The possible outcomes

Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:00:52 +0000

[...] senior staff attorney for the National Center for Lesbian Rights. Tuesday’s contribution was from Ari Ezra Waldman, who teaches at Brooklyn Law School and writes at Towleroad. Wednesday, LGBT activist Scott [...]

By: Prop 8 Trial Tracker » Equality news round-up: Our legal symposium continues, military spousal benefits introduced in Congress, and more

Thu, 28 Jun 2012 19:00:44 +0000

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:37:25 +0000

Oh yeah. Which is why it's all the more silly that BLAG and other Republicans are so butthurt in claiming that the courts said that they passed DOMA because they hate gay people. That's what happened, but the courts went out of the way to say that it wasn't so and went to great length to ascribe valid motives to them.

By: Mike in Baltimore

Mike in Baltimore — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 03:17:24 +0000

I agree with the egotistical judge comment you gave, but especially for courts lower than SCOTUS.

Several years ago, I was in the jury pool for a case in Baltimore City Superior Court. The judge CLEARLY let it be known that the case would not last more than two weeks. The reason she gave was that she had non-refundable tickets to China, and she was going to take that trip to China, come hell or high water. (Fortunately for me, I was dismissed from the jury pool, so I don't know how long the trial actually took.)

A couple of years later, she was dismissed from the bench (for other reasons, but I'd be extremely surprised if her 'trip to China' comments didn't enter the minds of those who dismissed her).

By: Jay Jonson

Jay Jonson — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:30:02 +0000

Both Perry and the First Circuit opinions in Massachusetts and Gill were decided on narrow grounds. Interestingly, however, whereas Judge Rheinhardts relied on Romer, the unanimous three-judge panel in Massachusetts and Gill went out of their way to say that Romer was not applicable to DOMA because they were eager to deny that there was any animus involved. Despite the overwhelming evidence of the Congressional history, they said that just because a few congressmen said disparaging things about gay people, that did not mean that Congress as whole (which passed DOMA overwhelmingly) was acting out of impermissible bias. Interestingly, the dissenters in the Perry case (inlcuding the three who wanted to grant en banc review as well as Smith) said the same thing about the voters of California. Just because the campaign attempted to stir up prejudice and bias, they said, did not mean that the voters cast their votes out of bias. In any case, whichever case the Supreme Court decides to review, it will not be bound by the terms in which the cases were decided.

By: Straight Dave

Straight Dave — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 21:15:24 +0000

The problem isn't changing our minds about what rights to grant to people, since laws are being changed all the time. The problem in both the Perry and Romer cases is that rights were taken away from only a select group of people who were singled out for no legitimate reason. If a state took away alcohol purchase rights for 18-20 year olds (which NY once did), that is legitimate for public safety reasons. If the right to drive faster than 55 MPH was take away from the entire country (which it once was), at least it applied equally to all residents. The Perry and Romer amendments failed because they were not applied uniformly to everyone, or have a good reason for their selectivity. The facially-neutral "marriage definition" BS is just a smokescreen for "we know this really only harms one group of people and that's exactly why we're doing it".

By: Scott Wooledge

Scott Wooledge — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 21:08:13 +0000

I can't make any sense of how that analogy relates to the state of California granting the right to marry, then rescinding the right to marry.

By: Scottie Thomaston

Scottie Thomaston — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 20:50:01 +0000

Apologies if the language was harsh, but I've definitely read a lot of writing on Justice Kennedy that backs me up, whether I may have been a little too harsh in the language or not.