Report: Obama, DOJ considering siding with gay-marriage supporters in Supreme Court’s Prop 8 case

posted at 10:41 am on February 21, 2013 by Allahpundit

At this point, after that ringing endorsement of gay equality in his inaugural, it’d be news if he wasn’t considering it. Still worth noting, though, partly because he has just one more week to make a decision and partly because, if he does wade in against Prop 8, it’ll mark the final stage of his phony, carefully choreographed “evolution” on gay marriage:

The Obama administration is quietly considering urging the Supreme Court to overturn California’s ban on gay marriage, a step that would mark a political victory for advocates of same-sex unions and a deepening commitment by President Barack Obama to rights for gay couples…

A final decision on whether to file a brief has not been made, a senior administration official said. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli is consulting with the White House on the matter, said the official, speaking only on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to address the private deliberations publicly…

Last month, Theodore Olson and David Boies, lawyers arguing for gay marriage, met with Verrilli and other government lawyers to urge the administration to file a brief in the case. A few days later, Charles Cooper, the lawyer defending Proposition 8, met with the solicitor general to ask the government to stay out of the case. Those kinds of meetings are typical in a high court case when the government is not a party and is not asked by the court to make its views known.

I wrote about this more extensively two months ago, after Greg Sargent reported that Boies and Olson were set to pitch the White House on filing a “friend of the court” brief with the Supremes arguing against Prop 8. Why would it be significant if O did that? Because, as recently as late last month, Jay Carney was still telling reporters that Obama thinks this issue should be left to the states. He is, almost uniquely given his big-government program, a federalist on this subject. And of course, he’s a federalist of convenience: Endorsing states’ rights in this area was his way of hedging against a political backlash to his announcement last year that he was now officially pro-gay-marriage. No need to panic if you disagreed with him about that; your state legislature, not the federal government, would still get to decide the rules on this where you live. Except now maybe it won’t. If O ends up intervening in this case and arguing that the Equal Protection Clause protects the rights of gays to marry, he’d be explicitly supporting the idea that SSM should be legal from coast to coast and beyond the power of even Congress, let alone your home state, to prohibit it.

Realistically, though, there’s no way he won’t intervene. His base would be appalled that he refused to lend the authority of the presidency to what may be the biggest gay-rights decision in American history. He’ll have to file a brief and he’ll have to side with Olson and Boies. Maybe he’ll hedge a bit by arguing, as the Ninth Circuit did, that the Court’s ultimate ruling should apply only to California and not to the entire United States. I frankly don’t understand that argument — if Prop 8 is unconstitutional, how are similar bans on gay marriage in other states not unconstitutional also? — but it’d allow O to pretend for low-information voters that he’s not calling for a sweeping national solution to this issue, which he could spin as being kinda sorta federalist-ish (even though in reality an equal protection ruling here would torpedo California’s right to set its own marriage laws). I think his base would be okay with that too; once there’s a SCOTUS ruling on the books vis-a-vis California, lower federal courts could get to work extending it to their own jurisdictions. You won’t get nationalized gay marriage in one fell swoop, but you’ll get it over time piece by piece. And O knows that, of course. This reminds me a bit, in fact, of the Democrats’ strategy on immigration reform, where they’re willing to take a more moderate position because they know the courts will eventually help erode the more conservative elements of the deal. So that’s my prediction — that O will side with Olson and Boies, but that he’ll also ask the Supremes to limit the consequences of their ruling to California. We’ll know in a week if I’m right.

Here he is yesterday talking about this very subject with KGO in San Francisco. Skip to 5:25 for the key bit. Exit quotation: “I have to make sure that I’m not interjecting myself too much into this process, particularly when we’re not a party to the case.” Hmmmm.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Sure I’m sure we have an extra couple million dollars laying around to do this…

sandee on February 21, 2013 at 10:44 AM

John Roberts will do as he is told to do (paid to do) by ‘team obama’.

Pork-Chop on February 21, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Of course they are.

BigGator5 on February 21, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Lucifer has a very special place set aside for Boies and Olson.

SWalker on February 21, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Had his golfing trip with Reggie Love have anything to do with that decision?

Archivarix on February 21, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Duh. Who would think otherwise?

Dingbat63 on February 21, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Roe v Wade Redux?

What good are direct-ballot measures when the Feds can intervene either way? Might as well just say initiatives are unconstitutional be be done with it.

Liam on February 21, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Finally, a solution to the crumbling economy.

Fore!

fogw on February 21, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Had his golfing trip with Reggie Love have anything to do with that decision?

Archivarix on February 21, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Meh, maybe Obama wants to come out of the Closet…

SWalker on February 21, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Had his golfing trip with Reggie Love have anything to do with that decision?

Archivarix on February 21, 2013 at 10:46 AM

And now they’re just puttering about the garage …

M240H on February 21, 2013 at 10:49 AM

How…sweet.

kingsjester on February 21, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Might as well just say initiatives are unconstitutional be be done with it.

Liam on February 21, 2013 at 10:47 AM

They are like farting in the wind – not unconstitutional per se, just inconsequential.

Archivarix on February 21, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Exit quotation: “I have to make sure that I’m not interjecting myself too much into this process, particularly when we’re not a party to the case.”

The busy – body in chief does not want to get too involved in something?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…………………..LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO!

VegasRick on February 21, 2013 at 10:50 AM

What good are direct-ballot measures when the Feds can intervene either way? Might as well just say initiatives are unconstitutional be be done with it.

Liam on February 21, 2013 at 10:47 AM

That is a very precarious line to walk, wouldn’t want to have it bare it’s fruit’s before they amend the Constitution repealing the 2nd Amendment.

SWalker on February 21, 2013 at 10:50 AM

John Roberts will do as he is told to do (paid to do) by ‘team obama’.

Pork-Chop on February 21, 2013 at 10:44 AM

More likely something along the lines of how Obama got general petraeus to betrayus. Funny how that add eventually became reality. Before he was outed, he was all for Obama, the moment after he wasw outed he was finally willing to be honest.

astonerii on February 21, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Oh, FFS. Of course DOJ will file. And I’ll bet they won’t limit it to California either. That just doesn’t make any sense. The entire basis of the challenge is that Prop 8 violates the Equal Protection clause. The plaintiffs sure as hell don’t intend that it be limited to California. I could see SCOTUS coming down that way in deference to the other states that have voted against SSM, especially if some or all of them file briefs on behalf of Prop 8. But I honestly can’t see this Administration giving a damn about that.

rockmom on February 21, 2013 at 10:50 AM

“I have to make sure that I’m not interjecting myself too much into this process, particularly when we’re not a party to the case.” Hmmmm.

You mean like interjecting on Trayvon…..Cambridge police….etc…

hillsoftx on February 21, 2013 at 10:51 AM

Related post:

The Dictatorship of Moral Relativism

StubbleSpark on February 21, 2013 at 10:51 AM

it’ll mark the final stage of his phony, carefully choreographed “evolution” on gay marriage:
============================

And,just like Bill Clinton!!

canopfor on February 21, 2013 at 10:53 AM

He is just pulling the Republican’t wedgie tighter. I can see the word ‘uncle’ forming on Rep faces now.

Limerick on February 21, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Might as well just say initiatives are unconstitutional be be done with it.

Liam on February 21, 2013 at 10:47 AM

They are like farting in the wind – not unconstitutional per se, just inconsequential.

Archivarix on February 21, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Well, to be totally fair, California amended it’s Constitution via the initiative process, and then a Gay Activist Judge ruled the Amended Constitution unconstitutional because it personally impacted him, then reached into thin air and created a Constitutional Right to SSM where none had previously existed.

SWalker on February 21, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Report: Obama, DOJ considering siding with gay-marriage supporters in Supreme Court’s Prop 8 case
===============================

I think Obama is acting Stupidly,
maybe a Beer/Gay Summit is needed
to straighten this out!!
(snark)

canopfor on February 21, 2013 at 10:55 AM

You mean like interjecting on Trayvon…..Cambridge police….etc…

hillsoftx on February 21, 2013 at 10:51 AM

Yep. But Bengazai…………………….

VegasRick on February 21, 2013 at 10:56 AM

If the Campaign can have it both ways on the sequester, or whether Benghazi was a “terror attack”, and on the issue of gay marriage itself, then why shouldn’t they flip-flop on getting involved in this case?

Let me be clear, the Campaign checks their polling and focus groups and then does principled flip flops on these important issues. Make no mistake, the Camapign’s ‘deepening commitment’ to its most recent positions shall not be called into question.

forest on February 21, 2013 at 10:58 AM

I think Obama is acting Stupidly,
maybe a Beer/Gay Summit is needed
to straighten this out!!
(snark)

canopfor on February 21, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Word is that Obama just had one of those with Reggie Love, they were reputedly helping each other put their balls into little holes (get your mind out of the gutter, they were playing Golf).

SWalker on February 21, 2013 at 10:59 AM

Well, to be totally fair, California amended it’s Constitution via the initiative process, and then a Gay Activist Judge ruled the Amended Constitution unconstitutional because it personally impacted him, then reached into thin air and created a Constitutional Right to SSM where none had previously existed.

SWalker on February 21, 2013 at 10:54 AM

They do have a right to SSM. What they do not have is the right to impose recognition of SSM onto other people. Particularly state sanctioned imposition onto others of recognition of SSM. Effectively, they need the state to impose their views onto others. Employers would be forced to treat same sex partners the same as they do married couples regardless of their views and religion. Marriage existed long before government. SSM on the other hand, its a new invention, they need to prove out its benefits to society. Since they know they cannot, they will use tyranny to do so.

astonerii on February 21, 2013 at 10:59 AM

So how will this end up? 5-4?

Flapjackmaka on February 21, 2013 at 11:01 AM

SWalker on February 21, 2013 at 10:54 AM

They do have a right to SSM. What they do not have is the right to impose recognition of SSM onto other people. Particularly state sanctioned imposition onto others of recognition of SSM. Effectively, they need the state to impose their views onto others. Employers would be forced to treat same sex partners the same as they do married couples regardless of their views and religion. Marriage existed long before government. SSM on the other hand, its a new invention, they need to prove out its benefits to society. Since they know they cannot, they will use tyranny to do so.

astonerii on February 21, 2013 at 10:59 AM

There is actually a far more important, basic and fundamental principal at stake here. Do the citizens of the Several States have the right to Amend their State Constitutions in accordance with the provisions of those States Constitutions if the proposed Amendment’s offend special privileged minority groups.

That is what is really at stake here, not Gay Marriage, but whether the citizens of California have the right to amend their state constitution according to the will of the majority of the states population.

SWalker on February 21, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Obama injecting himself in a state matter. I can’t believe it.

( Do I need a sarc tag?)

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 11:05 AM

SWalker on February 21, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Exactly! This is not the federal government’s business AT all. The only reason it is SCOTUS is that it can not be resolved on the state level, but the Executive branch and the DOJ have no business getting involved.

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 11:07 AM

UnF’ingBelievable.

I was really wondering how long it would take Barry to distract everyone from the sequester, and how big of a distraction he would need.

How any state marriage cannot be ruled as violating the separation of church and state, is beyond me.

budfox on February 21, 2013 at 11:08 AM

canopfor on February 21, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Word is that Obama just had one of those with Reggie Love, they were reputedly helping each other put their balls into little holes (get your mind out of the gutter, they were playing Golf).

SWalker on February 21, 2013 at 10:59 AM

SWalker:

I just read your comment to my Canadian Beavers,and they
paused,gave me a stupid look,then went back to tree Gnawing!!:)
(sarc)

canopfor on February 21, 2013 at 11:09 AM

It will also prove that he’s not doing it because he has the support of the people, since he will be actively fighting against their expressed opinion in voting to pass Proposition 8, as California had done on this issue twice before.

Socratease on February 21, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Hopey,….Gay Warrior in Chief…………………………..

Speaking of Gay Marriage,…Hopey The King wants to….

The Associated Press ‏@AP

Obama considers asking the Supreme Court to overturn California’s gay marriage ban: http://apne.ws/155YEW9 -CC
=============================================

— Feb. 20 6:58 PM EST

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/obama-considers-weighing-gay-marriage-case

canopfor on February 20, 2013 at 8:48 PM

canopfor on February 21, 2013 at 11:11 AM

That is what is really at stake here, not Gay Marriage, but whether the citizens of California have the right to amend their state constitution according to the will of the majority of the states population.

SWalker on February 21, 2013 at 11:05 AM

What if the amendment were to force abortions onto people? Would it end up being something that should be possible for them to put into the constitution.

Checks and Balances are required at all levels of government. It is one reason we no longer have a functioning federal government. All the checks and balances are allied against the American Citizen. The Supreme Court was brought to bear by FDR, the senate is no longer appointed by the many states, the members of the House of Representatives now cover so many people they are hardly really representatives any more.

I have no problem having a check on the whims of the people, particularly when they can get riled up to pass just about any law under the right circumstances and the push of the media. That is why we have a Senate, that is supposed to be more deliberate and less reactive. Supposed to be anyways.

astonerii on February 21, 2013 at 11:11 AM

I object to the money being spent for the DOJ to file amicus curiae on any case before the Supreme Court. The next president should lay off some overpaid DOJ lawyers.

thuja on February 21, 2013 at 11:13 AM

hat if the amendment were to force abortions onto people? Would it end up being something that should be possible for them to put into the constitution.

That would be pretty much what the courts and Obama’s DOJ would be doing if they overturn this. Proposition 8 doesn’t change anything that hasn’t been in place for centuries, but overturning it will. If the people don’t have the power to say they don’t want their society to change radically, but can have radical change force on them by a few unelected and unaccountable radicals, then we are no longer have a government of the people but one imposed on them.

Socratease on February 21, 2013 at 11:14 AM

Obama injecting himself in a state matter. I can’t believe it.

( Do I need a sarc tag?)

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Yes, this issue should be resolved in the states and not by the federal government.

thuja on February 21, 2013 at 11:16 AM

hat if the amendment were to force abortions onto people? Would it end up being something that should be possible for them to put into the constitution.

That would be pretty much what the courts and Obama’s DOJ would be doing if they overturn this. Proposition 8 doesn’t change anything that hasn’t been in place for centuries, but overturning it will. If the people don’t have the power to say they don’t want their society to change radically, but can have radical change force on them by a few unelected and unaccountable radicals, then we are no longer have a government of the people but one imposed on them.

Socratease on February 21, 2013 at 11:14 AM

Moreover, overturning Prop 8 gut’s and filets the 1st Amendment, the objections to SSM are primarily RELIGIOUS objections. Forcing SSM through the courts on the citizens of any state directly violates the 1st amendments guarantee that the Federal Government will not take sides in any religious issue.

SWalker on February 21, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Fascist is as Fascist does.

workingclass artist on February 21, 2013 at 11:22 AM

That would be pretty much what the courts and Obama’s DOJ would be doing if they overturn this. Proposition 8 doesn’t change anything that hasn’t been in place for centuries, but overturning it will. If the people don’t have the power to say they don’t want their society to change radically, but can have radical change force on them by a few unelected and unaccountable radicals, then we are no longer have a government of the people but one imposed on them.

Socratease on February 21, 2013 at 11:14 AM

But you miss the issue here. Should the people have the right to void other people’s right, just simply because they are the majority at the moment?
I agree that the law should be considered constitutional. What I do not agree with is that there should be no check at all on the power of the majority. I think our founders agree with me on this.

astonerii on February 21, 2013 at 11:22 AM

EXPECTED! Obama, DOJ considering siding with gay-marriage supporters in Supreme Court’s Prop 8 case

FIFY

DannoJyd on February 21, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Obama injecting himself in a state matter. I can’t believe it.

( Do I need a sarc tag?)

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Exactly!

When (if) you get your own house (Wash D.C.) in order then we’ll let you weigh in on a State issue.

No we won’t, you need to stay out of it all together. But we all know you can’t keep your nose out of any social issue, damn liberals.

D-fusit on February 21, 2013 at 11:26 AM

It’s another attack on religion. If SCOTUS recognizes gay marriage any person or organization opposing it will be a bight in the eyes of the federal government, a target for the gay mafia, and the inevitable target of lawsuits.

Submit or be bankrupted and shamed. It’s the way of the Left.

Charlemagne on February 21, 2013 at 11:38 AM

But you miss the issue here. Should the people have the right to void other people’s right, just simply because they are the majority at the moment?

astonerii on February 21, 2013 at 11:22 AM

That is about as stupid and anally retentive a supposition as has ever been postulated here. Not only is there no inherent right to SSM, it has been considered a perverted and sexually deviant practice for at least 2 millennium. To suggest that anyone is depriving the homosexual community of their rights is to completely and totally ignore history and write a completely new and fictional history where they had rights that history clearly indicates that they did not.

Society as a whole has always decided what the basic premise of it’s legal structure is. The United States was designed from the ground up as a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. It was designed the way it was specifically to prevent either a tyranny of the majority or of the minority from forcing their will upon the entire Republic.

SWalker on February 21, 2013 at 11:38 AM

astonerii on February 21, 2013 at 11:22 AM

I think you are missing the point. Gay marriage is a moral issue, not one of “rights”.

For those of us opposed to it as immoral government sanction will transform us into bigots in the eyes of our government. The gay Left aren’t satisfied with the right to get married; what they want is to force acceptance and moral equivalence with normal, biologically viable marriage.

If we refuse on moral grounds to recognize them as they demand, they will attack us via the media, the courts, blogs, et al.

The Left does not rest until you accept their view. They are incapable of compromise.

Charlemagne on February 21, 2013 at 11:43 AM

John Roberts will rule marriage is a tax, thus legal in all forms.

ButterflyDragon on February 21, 2013 at 11:43 AM

And if this is overturned we no longer live in a Republic or even a Democracy.

Government will be in the position of granting rights… And we will be forced to petition the government for them.

And from henceforth, government will turn the screws on us to demand more and more out of us to purchase our rights to further ingratiate the political class.

It’s already happening.

Skywise on February 21, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Moreover, overturning Prop 8 gut’s and filets the 1st Amendment, the objections to SSM are primarily RELIGIOUS objections. Forcing SSM through the courts on the citizens of any state directly violates the 1st amendments guarantee that the Federal Government will not take sides in any religious issue.

SWalker on February 21, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Why do people keep falling into this ridiculous trap set by the left?

NO, objections to redefining marriage are NOT primarily Religious. If they were this issue would be long dead already. Prop 8 does only 1 thing, reserve the use of the word marriage to a union of a man and a woman. The primary objection to calling same sex unions marriage is they are not marriage. No other objection is needed.

This is like saying the objections to not calling copper gold is that gold was made by God. It’s irrelevant where it came from. Copper isn’t gold.

Rocks on February 21, 2013 at 11:47 AM

The Left does not rest until you accept their view. They are incapable of compromise.

Charlemagne on February 21, 2013 at 11:43 AM

There will always be suspicion, however, in the vein of, “What took you so long?”

Liam on February 21, 2013 at 11:48 AM

Charlemagne on February 21, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Before you moan about me missing the point, you should read up further and notice I made exactly that same argument in this thread.

They do have a right to SSM. What they do not have is the right to impose recognition of SSM onto other people. Particularly state sanctioned imposition onto others of recognition of SSM. Effectively, they need the state to impose their views onto others. Employers would be forced to treat same sex partners the same as they do married couples regardless of their views and religion. Marriage existed long before government. SSM on the other hand, its a new invention, they need to prove out its benefits to society. Since they know they cannot, they will use tyranny to do so.

astonerii on February 21, 2013 at 10:59 AM

The people are arguing that these propositions should be immune from any review process and I am arguing that there should be a check and balance to propositions. Somehow, I thought MOB RULE was the territory of the left. Somehow, I figure our adoption of MOB RULE will not be a long term benefit to us.

astonerii on February 21, 2013 at 11:48 AM

Do the citizens of the Several States have the right to Amend their State Constitutions in accordance with the provisions of those States Constitutions if the proposed Amendment’s offend special privileged minority groups.

SWalker on February 21, 2013 at 11:05 AM

This is key. In backing the fight against Prop 8, Obama’s DOJ is violating the Consitutional guarantee of a “republican form of government” to the states.

GWB on February 21, 2013 at 11:49 AM

But you miss the issue here. Should the people have the right to void other people’s right, just simply because they are the majority at the moment?
I agree that the law should be considered constitutional. What I do not agree with is that there should be no check at all on the power of the majority. I think our founders agree with me on this.
astonerii on February 21, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Marriage has never been a right.

Skywise on February 21, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Uh. Shocking no one. This would be filed in the “no sh*t, Sherlock” category.

besser tot als rot on February 21, 2013 at 11:50 AM

This is key. In backing the fight against Prop 8, Obama’s DOJ is violating the Consitutional guarantee of a “republican form of government” to the states.

GWB on February 21, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Oh, please. Obama violates the Constitution on a daily basis. That’s not going to stop him.

besser tot als rot on February 21, 2013 at 11:52 AM

How any state marriage cannot be ruled as violating the separation of church and state, is beyond me.

budfox on February 21, 2013 at 11:08 AM

WHAT separation of Church and State??

Please understand, this is a Frankfurt School Special. Marxists have repeated “Separation of church and state” so many times people really think that it is in the Constitution. IT IS NOT. It is used as a club to beat the White religious into submission. When a White church wants to teach its children bible stories or pray before a football game, Liberals scream “Separation of church and state!”. When Bill Clinton or Obama goes to a black church and accepts campaign donation or builds a fundraising drive or organizes to ship people to the polls, it is just all in good fun.

There is no “Separation of church and State” codified in any law or guiding documents of the FUSA.

“A lie repeated often enough becomes the Truth”
-Lenin-

Bulletchaser on February 21, 2013 at 11:52 AM

When (if) you get your own house (Wash D.C.) in order then we’ll let you weigh in on a State issue.

No we won’t, you need to stay out of it all together.

D-fusit on February 21, 2013 at 11:26 AM

I’m sure you could sing it if you tried:

He can’t even run his own life
I’ll be damned if he’ll run mine, sunshine

GWB on February 21, 2013 at 11:52 AM

it’ll mark the final stage of his phony, carefully choreographed “evolution” on gay marriage: lying character.

Fixed.

HiJack on February 21, 2013 at 11:52 AM

This is key. In backing the fight against Prop 8, Obama’s DOJ is violating the Consitutional guarantee of a “republican form of government” to the states.

GWB on February 21, 2013 at 11:49 AM

I think that was stripped by the 14th Amendment. This is why the Supreme Court could tell Illinois that its ban on guns was unconstitutional.

astonerii on February 21, 2013 at 11:54 AM

The people are arguing that these propositions should be immune from any review process and I am arguing that there should be a check and balance to propositions. Somehow, I thought MOB RULE was the territory of the left. Somehow, I figure our adoption of MOB RULE will not be a long term benefit to us.
astonerii on February 21, 2013 at 11:48 AM

You’re making his point.

It make the whole proposition system nothing more than a suggestion box. You can get the proposition on the ballot it can be voted on and passed with a super majority…
But if ze state does not wants you to hev it citizen zen you vil not hev it.

We no longer live in a limited government. We live in a country were the government tells us what we get to do.

Skywise on February 21, 2013 at 11:56 AM

EXPECTED! Obama, DOJ considering siding with gay-marriage supporters in Supreme Court’s Prop 8 case

Up next after the forced normalization of gay marriage…..support of and normalization of polygamy! After all if it’s good to have same sex marriage, it’s got to be even better to have more than one spouse!!

hawkeye54 on February 21, 2013 at 11:58 AM

Oh, please. Obama violates the Constitution on a daily basis. That’s not going to stop him.

besser tot als rot on February 21, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Well, duh. I was pointing out a fact, not claiming that it had any sway over his course of action. There’s only one way to ensure that the current crop of pols respects the Constitution, and it involves tar and feathers and pitchforks in the early stages. (And, no, that’s not hyperbole.)

GWB on February 21, 2013 at 12:02 PM

I think that was stripped by the 14th Amendment. This is why the Supreme Court could tell Illinois that its ban on guns was unconstitutional.

astonerii on February 21, 2013 at 11:54 AM

Well, it wasn’t stripped. But the courts have interpreted the 14th as applying most of the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the Feds. And the 14th Amendment was specifically designed to apply to the states – which is where the equal protection clause is. If I recall correctly, that is what the crackerjack lawyers (including Ted Olson) are arguing Prop 8 violates, right?

besser tot als rot on February 21, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Up next after the forced normalization of gay marriage…..support of and normalization of polygamy! After all if it’s good to have same sex marriage, it’s got to be even better to have more than one spouse!!

hawkeye54 on February 21, 2013 at 11:58 AM

And reducing the age of consent to 13. There are all those born to really ‘love’ younger people.

Liam on February 21, 2013 at 12:03 PM

Yes, this issue should be resolved in the states and not by the federal government.

thuja on February 21, 2013 at 11:16 AM

LOL– You know what is funny? We fight, and I am what you consider a socon, but you would be surprised how close we probably are on are views on gay marriage.

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 12:03 PM

besser tot als rot on February 21, 2013 at 12:02 PM

The bill of rights are not our ONLY rights. They are just the important ones the founders decided to explicitly defend citizens from being infringed upon by the federal government.

astonerii on February 21, 2013 at 12:06 PM

I think that was stripped by the 14th Amendment. This is why the Supreme Court could tell Illinois that its ban on guns was unconstitutional.

astonerii on February 21, 2013 at 11:54 AM

It wasn’t stripped out by the 14th Amendment, though it might look that way with current “jurisprudence”. You are right above when you imply there are limits to an initiative process. It still has to comply with that “republican form of government” requirement, and not violate the US Constitution.

The difficulty here is that all those hurdles were passed by Prop 8, and the anti-Prop 8 movement has violated the law, judicial precedent, and the Constitution to bring it down.

GWB on February 21, 2013 at 12:08 PM

And reducing the age of consent to 13. There are all those born to really ‘love’ younger people.

Sure….there are some parents that’d be eager to rid themselves of an economic burden, especially if a good “bride price” can be agreed to.

hawkeye54 on February 21, 2013 at 12:11 PM

It still has to comply with that “republican form of government” requirement, and not violate the US Constitution.

GWB on February 21, 2013 at 12:08 PM

Who is vested with the power to make that decision?

I do not like how our government works these days, probably less so than most people on Hot Air in fact.

If things stand as they do now, the constitutional amendment is stricken from law.

The state is at an impasse and there is nothing that can be done there since the state supreme court decided.

Arguing that the federal government has no role in this, while stating that there is a constitutional hurdle in place that must be met seems to be contradictory.

I dunno. I think we need to be given more leeway with the ability of the people to tar and feather political entities.

astonerii on February 21, 2013 at 12:14 PM

It will be Kennedy that screws this one up. He has already written some troubling dicta on the issue that shows where he is leaning.

cdog0613 on February 21, 2013 at 12:20 PM

I dunno. I think we need to be given more leeway with the ability of the people to tar and feather political entities.

Sounds good to me. Starter kits could be made available on Amazon.com.

Politician. Tar. Feathers. Rail. Map of best route out of DC. Assembly required.

hawkeye54 on February 21, 2013 at 12:23 PM

Marriage has never been a right.

Skywise on February 21, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Actually, it has always been a right. It is part of the freedom of religion that the first amendment provides.
Marriage special privileges and encumbrances set out by local, state and federal law are not rights.

astonerii on February 21, 2013 at 12:27 PM

If this happens, can the administration be put on trial for violating the DOMA?

sadatoni on February 21, 2013 at 12:32 PM

Maybe he’ll hedge a bit by arguing, as the Ninth Circuit did, that the Court’s ultimate ruling should apply only to California and not to the entire United States. I frankly don’t understand that argument — if Prop 8 is unconstitutional, how are similar bans on gay marriage in other states not unconstitutional also?

The problem is that the lawyers argueing against Prop 8 are NOT argueing in regards to the 14th ammendment! Those who have bothered to actually read the arguements made in court are surprised to find that THERE IS NO DESCRIMINATION CHARGE in this case! This case is about the California constitutional ammendment process.

The msm has failed to read the brief and has instead injected their own fantasy as to what this lawsuit is about. The ninth circuit realizes they are likely to be overturned and that the media was miss-reporting the actual lawsuit, so they pointed their ruling to only ‘the UNIQUE situation in California’.

I have no idea what the federal government could even interject in a brief that would be relevant to the California state constitutional ammendment process.

Freddy on February 21, 2013 at 12:32 PM

It’s instructive to remember how we got here. A gay activist judge who himself had an “intimate partner” pulled this ruling out of the same orifice that characterizes the sort of relationship he champions.

Mason on February 21, 2013 at 12:39 PM

The bill of rights are not our ONLY rights. They are just the important ones the founders decided to explicitly defend citizens from being infringed upon by the federal government.

astonerii on February 21, 2013 at 12:06 PM

Eh? Yes. I know. In fact, the Ninth Amendment explicitly says so.

besser tot als rot on February 21, 2013 at 12:47 PM

It’s instructive to remember how we got here. A gay activist judge who himself had an “intimate partner” pulled this ruling out of the same orifice that characterizes the sort of relationship he champions.

Mason on February 21, 2013 at 12:39 PM

This fact is not lost on those of us from California, as I pointed out up thread.

SWalker on February 21, 2013 at 12:49 PM

That is a very precarious line to walk, wouldn’t want to have it bare it’s fruit’s before they amend the Constitution repealing the 2nd Amendment.

SWalker on February 21, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Not even close. One is a direct right protected by the Constitution and the other one would be made up through penumbras and emanations. No matter how many people pretend otherwise, the 10th Amendment gives the States explicit rights to govern as they see fit when they aren’t restricted to do so by the Constitution.

njrob on February 21, 2013 at 1:33 PM

I keep seeing this referred to as “gay-rights,” and you fools have fallen into the trap as surely as if you started talking about “undocumented citizens.” Gays already have a religious right to marry each-other. All they have to do in order to exercise this right is believe they are married to their partner. It is impossible to regulate a belief out of someone’s head.

No, this fight is over “gay-special-privileges.” They want to be exempted from a state licensing requirement. The license exists so as to normalize the legal binding of individuals into stable households for the benefit of any potential children a.k.a. future citizens that may arise from such arrangement, without mandating their production. Liberals have already done enough damage to that system with the disaster of no-fault divorce. Gays just want the entitlements that were intended to incentive taking on that legal obligation. Opening up marriage licenses to gays makes as much sense as drivers’ licenses to the blind. If everyone qualifies for a license without requirements, wtf is the point of licensing?

I feel sorry for anyone of any persuasion who feels a rubber stamp from a government bureaucrat is a requisite for their relationship, as such a weak bond is certainly not a marriage.

CapnObvious on February 21, 2013 at 3:11 PM

Either it would be ruled narrowly, in which the California Constitutional Amendment was erroneously invalidated by the Courts.

Or the Equal Protection Clause (unlimited version), will be brought back to where it should be.

John Kettlewell on February 21, 2013 at 10:13 PM