Leave a Comment Sagesse
A round-up of views on the Supreme Court’s decision to review challenges to Prop 8 and DOMA
December 11, 2012
By Scottie Thomaston
Since the Court’s announcement that it will review the constitutionality of Prop 8 and Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, legal scholars and law professors as well as commentators have commented on what the Court’s decision could mean. Here is a round-up of some of their thoughts.
- At SCOTUSBlog, William Eskridge and Hans Johnson discuss the progression of the LGBT rights movement especially at the Court, writing:
The very institution that ruled in 1967 that “homosexuals” were, as a matter of law, “persons afflicted with psychopathic personality” could by June 2013 restore marriage equality in the nation’s largest state and could strike down the DOMA provision barring federal rights and benefits for lesbian and gay couples validly married under state law.
- Neal Devins and Tara Grove discuss the issues of Article III standing that the Court will rule on, but they also suggest that those issues won’t affect a decision on the case:
At the same time, we suspect that the Court will rule on the merits of both cases – something it can still do if it rules against the BLAG; something it cannot do if it finds the Proposition 8 proponents are without standing.
- Kenji Yoshino discusses a few different ways in which the Court could decide to strike down Prop 8.
- Ari Ezra Waldman will post a series at Towleroad on the Court’s decision. In his first post he argues that taking up Prop 8 “is a lower risk today than it was in 2008 for at least three reasons, one of which is a little legalistic and arcane.”
- Richard Socarides discusses the possible outcomes.
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
20 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
TomTallis | December 11, 2012 at 8:45 pm
I'm beginning to think that the court's granting cert. to these two cases has less to do with the issue of equal marriage than a desire to clarify just what one must do to have Article III standing.
2.
MNBob | December 11, 2012 at 9:47 pm
That is completely ridiculous but something I wouldn't put past this ridiculous Court
3.
Stefan | December 11, 2012 at 10:29 pm
As long as we get the results we need/want then it's okay with me!
4.
Sammy | December 12, 2012 at 5:57 am
O/T the Uruguay lower house just voted for marriage equality 81-6!!! And will easily clear the senate and be signed by the president early 2013!
Latin America is on the fast march to marriage equality, while America unfortunately lags behind…
5.
Nick | December 12, 2012 at 7:14 am
Why is this homophobic SCOTUS BLOG referred to like GOD! Please!
Also: This Prop8 case is GOING NOWHERE, mark my words! Olson and Boies Screwed UP!
"But my guess—just a guess, of course, because who knows—is that Chief Justice John Roberts will nudge the court toward a broad consensus around narrow decisions, rather than vice versa. I can even imagine him getting unanimity for a ruling, in the Proposition 8 case, that tells everyone to come back with another case at some point in the future—when, not incidentally, the country will be closer to a consensus."
–from The Brookings Institute website
6.
Eric | December 12, 2012 at 7:52 am
SCOTUSBlog may be heterocentric, but I wouldn't call them homophobic.
7.
MightyAcorn | December 12, 2012 at 8:23 am
Eric, he's a troll who recently signed up here just to rag on our cause (check his comment history.) As a homophobe himself, he's just projecting…as they do. I guess he doesn't understand what his gay-bashing obsession says about him; maybe some day he'll figure it out.
8.
Scottie Thomaston | December 12, 2012 at 11:24 am
The what?
SCOTUSBlog homophobic? That is completely inaccurate. There's literally zero evidence for that in existence. They have been covering the Prop 8 and DOMA cases almost as much as we have.
9.
nick | December 12, 2012 at 11:29 am
I posted a few links to anti gay commentaries on here from Scotusblog. I have to dig them up , but the anti gay essays are on its website.
10.
Scottie Thomaston | December 12, 2012 at 11:36 am
They held a symposium with both supporters and opponents of same sex marriage yes. Some contributions provided legal argument against same-sex marriage there.
11.
Nick | December 12, 2012 at 11:39 am
Thank you! I am very gay! Not a troll! LOL!
12.
Nick | December 12, 2012 at 11:41 am
Ah, I am openly gay, and I support full equality for us, but I am not happy about Olson and Boies! They fumbled!
13.
MightyAcorn | December 12, 2012 at 11:49 am
So perhaps you'd like to reinstate the link to your comment history? Because your previous comments seem to indicate you've only been here about six weeks, and you're here to bash. Link please.
14.
Nick | December 12, 2012 at 11:54 am
How do you post a link to all of my comments? i dont know how to do that. I am registered with WordPress, so I guess you can see my comments/profile there. Let me know how to post my history. i certainly will.
15.
nicksternet | December 12, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Here is my comment history: http://intensedebate.com/profiles/nicksternet
16.
MightyAcorn | December 12, 2012 at 12:07 pm
Thank you. I apologize if I misunderstood. However, comments that accuse our attorneys of deliberately sabotaging our cause can be construed as troll-y:
"When Olson said he would take Prop8, I was skeptical! I had my suspicions, and now I see they are coming to fruition. A backdoor way to scuttle our rights. I knew it!"
You're entitled to your negative attitude and commentary, of course, and we're entitled to call you out when your cross the line into defamation. Once again, sorry for any crossed wires here.
17.
Eric | December 12, 2012 at 7:04 pm
There are two sides to every case, or the case wouldn't be in court. Personally, I find it enlightening to see just how poorly reasoned the best legal arguments are from the anti-gay. I can usually figure out what tier law school the author went to within two paragraphs.
18.
Mike in Baltimore | December 12, 2012 at 11:34 pm
So if the Prop H8 case is kicked back to the Ninth Circuit Court and it's decision, or even to the District Court decision, both of which were in favor of GLBT rights and marriage equality in California, that's not good?
19.
Fluffyskunk | December 12, 2012 at 11:57 pm
You are part of the reason I don't post as often as I could. I'm a devil's advocate by nature, and people like you are quick to accuse people like me of concern trolling or whatever.
I do so hate groupthink.
20.
MightyAcorn | December 13, 2012 at 7:21 am
Devil's advocates are fine–that means having some sort of well-reasoned arguments from a contrary point of view. It's people who come and name-call and make accusations that are utterly unfounded that destroy the conversation on this board. I understand that people get angry and say unreasonable things. However, when they do so constantly and get called out on it, that's not "groupthink"….that's being asked to take responsibility for what they're bringing to the conversation.
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.