The left’s gay-marriage challenge at the Supreme Court could backfire
Maybe the California case will be the gay Brown. Certainly, the momentum of social change has shifted since the controversial filing in 2009 and the establishment critics have greatly softened their stand. For the first time in American history in November, not one, but all the states to consider gay nuptial issues at the ballot box broke in favor of gay rights. One could argue that the gay run-up cases have already been won. In 1996 Justice Anthony Kennedy, still rumored to be the swing vote this time, wrote a groundbreaking opinion in favor of the political rights of gays. In 2003, the Supreme Court threw out the remaining state laws making sodomy criminal.
But the Court is so conservative and so evenly divided. Justice Kennedy has delivered an almost unbroken series of conservative votes in the last several years, swinging almost not at all between the factions. It pays to remember that even after a series of cautious moves led to victory, when the women’s movement asked for inclusion of pregnancy in disability benefits – they lost decisively. The closest case to the Boies-Olson litigation in the women’s movement – Roe v. Wade — triggered a four decade backlash. Once before the gay movement overplayed its hand ever so slightly with the Court and got a terrible decision upholding the criminal sodomy laws. Gays almost won the first sodomy case; the decision in Bowers v. Hardwick was only 5-4, so it was hardly a foolhardy risk. And yet, it does make you shiver.
Of course, certiorari is not destiny. The Court could still weasel out of the Prop 8 decision by ruling that the case had technical problems with who can defend a law when the govern and attorney general have bailed. And then it could affirm the conservative premise of the DOMA case that Congress can’t withhold federal benefits from marriages some states have blessed. A direct constitutional challenge is coming anyway, But in constitutional litigation, as in marriage proposals, sometimes timing is everything.











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
Anything is possible but not everything is likely.
MelonCollie on December 10, 2012 at 8:16 PM
Gay marriage is not about marriage. Gay marriage is about federally decreed and enforced moral equivalence with normal, biologically natural marriage.
If the courts normalize homosexuality anyone opposed will be accused of bigotry. Worse than today because it will have legal sanction.
Charlemagne on December 10, 2012 at 8:20 PM
Don’t worry.
John Roberts will find a way to make it work.
NeoKong on December 10, 2012 at 8:22 PM
It’s not a marriage. It’s a tax.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on December 10, 2012 at 8:29 PM
As Cole Porter might put it:
How can the SCOTUS forbid pure love?
Polygamous, pederastic, or fantastic?
If two or ten are hot in lust
The government’s rules must turn to dust.
profitsbeard on December 10, 2012 at 8:57 PM
I posted this the other day. It bears repeating (from 2005).
Not only did Roberts give significant pro bono help to the lawyers representing the homosexual rights activists in Romer v. Evans, and not only was his advice substantive (relating to 14th Amendment equal-protection arguments) as well as technical, and not only did the chief lawyer for the homosexual activists describe Roberts’s assistance as “absolutely crucial” in the case, and not only has another gay rights activists called the decision the “single most important positive ruling in the history of the gay rights movement,” but, in addition to all these things, Roberts failed to include his role in Romer v. Evans in a 67-page list of his legal activities requested by the Senate Judiciary Committee, a list that included detailed accounts of his other pro bono work.
TxAnn56 on December 10, 2012 at 9:26 PM
Apparently, in the mind of the author, the Court must be evenly divided between conservatives and ultraconservatives.
sadarj on December 10, 2012 at 9:30 PM
lifetime, committed relationships. Uh-huh. (Oh, I know, hetero people get divorced, end of discussion. Free love.)
williampeck1958 on December 10, 2012 at 9:38 PM
And no one questioned Kagan about her work in favor of Obamacare.
Like we are conned by celebrities bathed in flashbulbs, to see them as smart and insightful, we are apparently conned by black robes and assume they must be unbiased and impartial.
Funny how that works isn’t it?
Mimzey on December 10, 2012 at 9:49 PM
Thanks for that info. Got it bookmarked.
Mimzey on December 10, 2012 at 9:55 PM
Unbunch your panties, HotAirian Bigot Brigade — and relax.
The fix is already in and has been. Just like Obamacare. SCOTUS shall rule in favor of Homosexual Marriage.
All your bloviating and blustering is for naught.
Get over it. Move on. Live your own life and for God’s sake — quit worrying about how others live theirs when not even one iota of harm is inflicted upon you or anyone else whatsoever.
FlatFoot on December 10, 2012 at 10:18 PM
Oh lookey here, whos using the b word. Lol
tommy71 on December 10, 2012 at 10:46 PM
I’ll remember you when gays start suing churches for not performing their wedding ceremonies and, win or lose, the federal government starts revoking their tax-exempt status.
I’ll also remember you when a religious organization fires an employee after learning that employee is a practicing homosexual.
Beyond that, I’ll remember you when the homosexual agenda is incorporated into the curricula taught to primary schoolers.
BuckeyeSam on December 10, 2012 at 11:13 PM