Bye Bye Blog

That sound is the slamming of the bloggy door. Yesterday's SCOTUS decision pronouncing marriage equality as the Constitutional law of the land makes this blog unnecessary.

Yes, yes, the nasties and anti-gay types will still try every devious way they can to hurt homosexuals. I won't be railing against their impotent cruelty here.

If you have been a follower and regular reader, you can catch my panting and ranting at Harrumph, Left Ahead, and on occasion BlueMassGroup. I am delighted that as the Brits might say this blog was made redundant.

A self-absorbed good-bye podcast on the subject is a short 19 minutes here.

SCOTUS logic and lunacy on same-sex marriage

You won't believe what the SCOTUS justices wrote...alas, maybe you will. The 100-plus page majority and triple dissent decision clearly and cleanly illustrates the bifurcation of the Supreme Court into a logical side and an emotional one. On the five-member Spock side sit Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The usual suspects are on the loony end — Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia.

With the Supremes' huge white space borders, each page is only half filled, so you're looking at only about 50 pages. Plus the majority's greatest hits are in the five-page syllabus, so you are left with the various crazy comments in three dissents (29 for Roberts, 9 for Scalia, and 8 for Thomas; they pig pile by joining each other's dissents).

Majority highlights

Do read every delicious, reasoned word of the decision syllabus, only five pages. It covers all the key points and major legal citations of the 33-page majority decision, which includes several pages of appendices.

Despite anti-gay claims that marriage has been immutable since prehistory, the majority eviscerates that with a quick overview of major changes just in American history (syllabus, p. 2).

A clear historic, legal parallel between gay rights and same-sex marriage led to this majority decision (syllabus, p. 2).

The groundwork for the decision, as in others such as Loving, reside in the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause — "...certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy...including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs." Also, "(h)istory and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries." In the same section, citations for how the SCOTUS "has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution (syllabus, p. 2). Note that the latter is key to the dissenters, who pretend there is no legal background for this major conclusion.

On pages 3 and 4 of the syllabus, the majority set out the four principles and traditions "that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples. Do read these, which include case-law citations.  Very briefly:

1. "(T)he right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy."
2. "(T)he right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals."
3. "(T)he right to marry...safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childbearing, procreation, and education." This has the corollary that (p)recedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate."
4. (M)arriage is a keystone of the Nation's social order." "It is demeaning to lock same-sex couples out of a central institution of the Nation's society, for they too may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage."

"Respondents' argument that allowing same-sex couples to wed will harm marriage as an institution rests on a counterintuitive view of opposite-sex couples' decisions about marriage and parenthood." (syllabus p. 5). Note that the majority decision, pp. 26-27, has a great time tearing apart this red herring.

The comity/full-faith-and-credit issue of states' recognizing SS marriages legal elsewhere is on the same page and dealt with fully on pages 27-28 of the main decision. "The Fourteenth Amendment requires States to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed out of State. Since same-sex couples may now exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States, there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character."

For brevity, I won't break out the majority decision in detail. It's well written and worth reading. It does offer many specific citations in support of their finding. It also anticipates most of the dissents and puts the lie to them, although that does not stop the four loons from hooting. However, note that from page 6, there are long passages detailing the transformations and evolution of marriage from Colonial to recent times, from when marriages were about property transfer and women were property too...key background that snorts at the myth that marriage has been fixed for hundreds or thousands of years.

Also, check the majority, page 18, on debunking "tradition" as the abiding rule of rights. "If rights were defined by who exercised them in the past, then received practices could serve as their own continued justification and new groups could not invoke rights once denied. This Court has rejected that approach, both with respect to the right to marry and the rights of gays and lesbians."

The next page features an extremely generous nod to the anti-gay bigots. "Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied. Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right." I would not have been so kind to such cruel folk, but the Kennedy, sane, wing of the court has reconciliation in mind apparently.

Page 22 includes exposition on how from Lawrence, homosexuals legally have the same right as heterosexuals to intimacy (see marriage).

Page 23 deals neatly with reasons why to finally act. Instead of waiting indefinitely for yet more court case, more state legislature actions and more plebiscites. A keen punchline comes on page 24 — "The dynamic of our constitutional system is that individuals need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right."

Dissenting Lowlights

The three separate, but incestuous in co-support, dissents show deceit and emotion over reason. Roberts' big, honking 29 pager is a states rights screed. If you read the majority syllabus and then just the Roberts intro you'd think he didn't pay any attention orally or on paper to the majority. Yet if you wade through it all, you find he outright lies and contorts.

The 18-page Thomas dissent is terribly embarrassing for both him and the Court. He clearly is the only truly stupid member of the SCOTUS. He pounds away repeatedly at 18th Century definitions of liberty, as though life and law froze then. He pretneds that the old trumps all development in society and law. You can sense why he doesn't speak from the bench or ask questions. He is too ignorant to make decent points.

Finally, the Alito 8 pager is puerile. He revels in cheap insults of the majority and what he sees as their legal and even moral shortcomings. He's the nasty kid catcalling from the back of the auditorium.

If you only read one dissent, slog through the Roberts one. It represents the loony SCOTUS wing at its most illogical and emotional. More telling though, he starts on page 2 and repeats in several places that judges, even at his level, have to know their place. He uses winger terms and depicts SCOTUS justices who would do their job of interpreting law as activists, as unelected and unaccountable, and as pseudo-legislators.

Note on page 2 that he views public pleading with state legislatures and courts is OK in his book. Again, know your place. He seems unclear on the SCOTUS as a co-equal branch of the government with duties.

He spreads out a series of red herrings, starting on page 3 with "The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent." You see later if you have the patience that he has in fact read the majority decision, and that he has to know that they are very plain in why the five ruled on the constitutionality.

Likewise, from page 4, he uses other anti-gay and winger concepts, such as marriage being immutable for millennia. That is legally and historically inaccurate, and there has never been a universal definition of marriage, as the majority decision so clearly stated and cited.Yet, he panders to SSM opponents.

Furthermore, he slings the procreation canard around repeatedly, starting on page 5. Forget what an insult that is to those who cannot or choose not to reproduce as well as the IVF and adoptive millions. There is no legal support for requiring having children to marry or stay married. Not relevant, Johnny. He ends the page with a quote, "Marriage is a socially arranged solution for the problem of getting people to stay together and care for children that the mere desire for children, and the sex that makes children possible, does not solve." He seems oblivious that this pertains as much to two homosexuals as to two straights. In fact, the pro-family, pro-marriage position encourages SS marriages, parenting and adoptions.

So bereft of facts, he frequently turns to 19th Century writings including a dictionary to bolster his antediluvian marriage view (as on pages 6 and 7).

He is at his worst though in avoiding his duty as not only a member but the chief justice of the SCOTUS. He seems to fear interpreting law and the Constitution. Consider on page 10, "Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, the majority’s argument is that the Due Process Clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry because it will be good for them and for society. If I were a legislator, I would certainly consider that view as a matter of social policy. But as a judge, I find the majority’s position indefensible as a matter of constitutional law." He attempts to set himself up as superior to the other justices when the effect is to say he is hiding from the hard judgment.

In numerous places in his dissent, Robert worries the 1905 Lochner v. New York, which overruled a state law to limit oppressive work hours in bakeries. He could have it (starting on page 13) that the case epitomizes the SCOTUS' excesses. "But to avoid repeating Lochner’s error of converting personal preferences into constitutional mandates, our modern substantive due process cases have stressed the need for 'judicial self-restraint.'" This repreent his main forum for calling out states rights!

On page 16 among other places, he tries and fails to draw distinctions with Loving v. Virginia as well as segregated schools and the SS marriage issues at hand. He too glibly writes, "Removing racial barriers to marriage therefore did not change what a marriage was any more than integrating schools changed what a school was." That is wrong on many levels, not the least of which is ignoring the evil intents and effects of the related state laws.

He can't stop himself from bigoted cliché. He even turns to the specter of plural marriage as the next logical, perhaps inevitable step (pages 20-21). He mires himself in the lingo of anti-gay wingers on he next page in passages that pile on the stereotypes, as in, "The purpose of insisting that implied fundamental rights have roots in the history and tradition of our people is to ensure that when unelected judges strike down democratically enacted laws, they do so based on something more than their own beliefs. The Court today not only overlooks our country’s entire history and tradition but actively repudiates it, preferring to live only in the heady days of the here and now."

Throughout, he also conflates religious rituals and civil ceremonies (look at p. 27 for examples). He surely knows better and surely doesn't care. He doubles and triples down on that on the next page. He poo-poos the harm and hindrance gay couples experienced for decades, as he plays Chicken Little by pretending that religious institutions and clerics are not thoroughly protected in speech and action by Constitution and statute. Shameless

Lesser dissents

Scalia is far too clever for other humans. He must have a real lickspittle clerk to write up his drivel. He uses loaded terms throughout, such as "today's decree," in multiple places.He gets into it on page 2 with "This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves." He shows no subtlety or legal basis.

He asserts wildly. For example, on page 4, he writes, "But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law." Unlike his rant, the majority decision is full of citations and reasoning for each of its points.

He may have been at his weakest on page 6, when he implies that the right way to get to marriage equality is through Constitutional amendment. Yes, that onerous process that is both unsure and that takes decades, if it ever finishes. At the bottom of the same page, he shows he is unclear that the judiciary is a co-equal branch of government with clear duties to interpret the law.

Let us leave aside his two offenses on page 7. One is a deep slur on California and how it does not count. Another makes a Nazi reference to "today's judicial Putsch." Alas, Scalia thinking he is too, too clever doesn't play well.

Least is Thomas' dull-witted display of ignorance and obfuscation. He spends much of his dissent with a straw man of his view of liberty as defined in the 18th Century. Honestly, and it starts on his page 1.

Like Roberts, he too falls on states rights as a prime virtue. Consider page 3 where he points to 30 states that passed DOMA-style laws to preclude SS marriage. In other words, a majority of states, if you use his lingo redefined or really defined for political aims marriage. He says the majority decision " wiping out with a stroke of the keyboard the results of the political process in over 30 States, based on a provision that guarantees only 'due process' is but further evidence of the danger of substantive due process." Yet, even as dull a human as Thomas, or at least his clerk, had to know there was a great deal of solid evidence behind the majority ruling.

Thomas returned several times to the Locke and 18th and 19th Century definitions of liberty. See pages 9-11 for examples. Unless someone is held captive and deprived of locomotion, there's no problem, writes he. Instead, he (page 10) claims those who brought the suit in this case want "government entitlements" not liberty.

He even tries (pages 14 and 15) to delve into our Colonial past. He cites those who came for religious freedom, seeming to overlook that religious freedom for others, such as Roman Catholics, was meaningless and could instead lead to banishment or even death.

Thomas' dullness may be at its worst when he tries to ridicule the finding of the majority that same-sex couples are due dignity. He pulls the literal, left-brained routine. That word does not appear in the Constitution, therefore it is not relevant here (pages 16 and 17). Then he shows want an ass he is by gross historical slanders — "Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away." Legally, historically and morally, he could hardly be more wrong.

The majority decision is clear, clean, well reasoned and well cited. The dissents are not and show the loony wing of the Court at its basest and dumbest.

SCOTUS finds SSM right

Cue the songs of praise...and relief, as the SCOTUS rules five-to-four that same-sex marriage is a right. (Good immediate and obviously prepared NYT coverage here. and some analysis at Yahoo news here.)

[It's getting to be about time to shut down this marriage-equality blog.]

I'll pour through the pro and con decisions.

Meanwhile, let's listen for more absurd claims that anti-gay clerics will be censored, censured and then forced to perform weddings for homosexual couples. That has never been true, will never be and there are Constitutional protections as well as statutes and case law. That has not kept wingers and loons from doing their best Chicken Little. Sigh.

Irish Gay Marriages by Fall

We can forgive a short pun period following the Irish plebiscite putting marriage equality in the constitution. I've heard the likes of sods on the auld sod. I do not hear anti-gay meanness, just spill-over giddiness.

[By the bye, all constituencies but one, Roscommon–South Leitrim, voted in favor of equality. That exurban area was close, 51.42% to 48.58% against. Surprisingly, there was little difference by age, but as a rule, the more urban, the more in favor.]

Now implementation turns out to be trivial. After all, the constitution did not forbid same-sex marriage. Instead, the vote this weekend added only, "Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex."

Putting that into reality, likely by September, seems to require:

1. President Michael D. HIggins signing the Marriage Equality Bill into law.
2. Legal genuflection to religious lobbyists to put in unnecessary religious-protection redundancies as has happened throughout the United States.
3. Similarly even though same-sex marriages will have equal footing and requirements, the new law will also state specifically that the same consanguinity (incest) strictures apply to gay couples.
4. Civil forms and the resulting ceremonies will allow couples to be husband and wife or spouses of each other.
5. And...and...nothing. Done and done.

In that very Catholic nation, that church got support from Protestants and Muslims for its literal demand that the law state explicitly that no cleric will have to perform a same-sex wedding. That red herring is so tiresome and so irrational and so unnecessary. Yet, it seems to make the anti-gay types feel better about their other tradition, that of harming, hampering and hindering homosexuals.

With this false and silly "victory," will they shut up about this? Probably not.

As we have seen and heard in the socially slow United States and even in spots in Canada, anti-gay sorts fixate on religious oppression certain to befall clerics and laity. It doesn't happen and won't happen. It is forbidden by law. The mere passage of marriage-equality does not clear out the statutes and case law protecting the, nominally at least, religious. They can continue to be nasty, spiteful and slanderous. How very sad that must be.

Ireland's Newest Beacon

Less than a year ago, we headed to Ireland for two weeks, arriving on the Dublin leg coincidentally on Pride Day. While most of the marchers and those at the Pride concerts were young, it's no exaggeration to note that the city was delighted.

I can't say I was surprised that the country voted strongly to put marriage equality in its constitution. It's the first nation to do so, putting yet another rock on the trash can filled with anti-gay sorts.

When this country or that state legalized same-sex marriage, the anti sorts did their damnedest to qualify it. Oh, that was a court of unelected activist judges. Then, oh, well the legislature forced this on the voters. And the ever serviceable, let the people vote!

Now thanks to Ireland, it's all ways now, including plebiscite.

On Dublin Pride 2014, they out-Boston-ed us. It seemed every private and public building and business had the banners, flags and posters. Meanwhile, here there were still loud debates about whether gay groups would be able to march in the St. Patrick's Day parade. Well, in all Irish cities, that had long been settled in favor on inclusion.

Sure there are things that are public business and others that affect only those directly involved. Ireland is in the camp of marriage between two adults is their business and not yours or mine. Good on 'em.

I was wrong on gay marriage; thank heavens

With two common dumb comments we humans often make, one is from the jejune and the other from the lazy. The first is truly stupid and really inexcusable. That is to respond to a concept or fact in the air with, "I wasn't even born yet!" That, of course, is absolutely no excuse for ignorance, History does not start with your birth. When you discover an idea, event or technology you don't know, your job is to learn about that and be ready...and smarter than you were before.

The other even more of us succumb to using — "It's only common sense," or "Let's not reinvent the wheel." This is for when we are too lazy to think or analyze.

Almost invariably, when the words are, "It's only common sense," the real message is, "I have nothing. I'm making wild, unsupported assertions and don't want to be corrected or challenged."

The latest poll on same-sex marriage (NBC/Wall Street Journal) continues the findings of the seemingly inexorable trend toward national support for marriage equality. It also reminds me of the frailty of my judgment and forecasting on the whole matter.

The gist is that 59% of us favor same-sex marriage, 33% oppose and 8% waffle. Only Republicans who identify with the Tea Party are strongly opposed. The WSJ video heads discussing this reckoned that this has been the fastest, most decisive cultural shift ever, much more so than changing attitudes about interracial marriage.

The personal messages here for me are not in any shifting support. Long before MA's Goodridge decision, I was a champion for marriage equality. Instead, I had it dreadfully wrong — in two ways — about how fast we'd get there as a nation.

First, I fell into that common-sense trap. When VT allowed civil unions and then MA full marriage, it was patently obvious to me that the Chicken Little doomsayers would have to reverse themselves quickly. The anti-gay sillies went on about such unions "redefining marriage," a misinformed concept. With great confidence, many of them predicted chaos at city halls, draconian prosecution and persecution of the clergy, and wholesale abandonment of the institution by straight couples.

One would think when absolutely none of those occurred in the first two years, five years, decade of marriage equality here would first admit their errors, perhaps with relief and empathy. Second, we might suppose they would work with the new reality. After all, virtually all religions, including all flavors of Christianity, have a version of the golden rule. As the Talmud so perfectly puts it, "That which is hateful to you, do not do to another. That is all the law. The rest is commentary."

I can slap my forehead. I honestly believed that the success of MA and then this state or that with same-sex marriage would convert the haters or at the very least stifle them. Of course, that didn't happen. Even though their numbers dwindle, the anti-gay/anti-same-sex marriage minions snarl and howl. They have been reduced to saying, "Well, it hasn't happened yet, but just you wait." Claudicated reasoning.

On the other hand, after I finally accepted that the march toward marriage equality would be slow and fitful, I fell into a pit limbo. I said and wrote, here, at Left Ahead, and elsewhere that the U.S. was 10 or even 20 years away from equality.

Well, the obvious to me was wrong, very wrong, again. Progress has been extremely fast. I now expect a favorable SCOTUS ruling this spring or summer, wiping the legal restrictions if not cleansing the evil hearts of all Americans.

I don't have to get into how wong I was on both counts. My record is on the tubes. I simply revel in where we have arrived.

Hillary Hovers and Hedges

Hillary Clinton will surely have a states-rights problem come the campaign for Prez. The clearest evidence of that is in — of all subjects — same-sex marriage.

This should certainly be a Dem gimme. Many GOP pols, including Presidental hopefuls, have chosen to admit defeat here. While the deft and delusional keep at it, half of Republican bigs accept it's  a done deal. On the other side, many Dems pushed for marriage equality and get to claim the high ground with the recent, very recent, sweeping victories. Plus, the SCOTUS seems poised to mandate nationwide marriage equality this summer.

So it's all too obvious that she should join the victory lap, even though she only stepped into the race in the last few yards. Instead, she stupidly clings to her adopted Southern heritage of states rights. That's a bad sign in several ways. Not only is that no longer relevant to this particular issue. It also puts her at odds with most Dem and independent voters, most notably those her daughter's age and younger. Moreover, it reflects poorly on what we might expect in policy should she become President.

You can check for yourself. Start with last June's interview by Terry Gross on NPR. While Gross fairly demanded that Clinton admit she'd been wrong on marriage equality, only changing for expedience, Clinton would have none of it. Much has been made of her continuing defensive posture. 

Yet lost in the personal here, Clinton's statements on states rights are astounding. Consider from that interview:

.... So for me, marriage had always been a matter left to the states. And in many of the conversations that I and my colleagues and supporters had I fully endorsed the efforts by activists to work state by state. And in fact that is what is working.... And then leaving that (Secretary of State) position I was able to very quickly announce that I was fully in support of gay marriage. And that it is now continuing to succeed state by state. I am very hopeful that we will make progress and see even more change and acceptance...

There you have it, politics fans. As late as the middle of last year, she wanted it all ways. Moreover, she based it on states rights. We know historically how incredibly poorly that works for civil rights.

There is, of course, the personal irony here of her upbringing. From Illinois and then to undergrad in MA and law in CT, she didn't get to the states-rights turf until she was nearly 30. While she and future husband Bill Clinton dates at Yale Law, she didn't agree to marry him until she moved with him to Arkansas when she was 28. 

States rights have been and continue to be big in AR. When her hubby was Gov. then President Clinton, he played the let-the-states-decide card many times. She has been in tune.

So there you have it. Come the SCOTUS decision, she'll be able to do the cliché of it's settled law. Yet I suspect she'll continue by adding unnecessarily that she would have preferred if the states individually could continue to legislate marriage to suit each.

We deserve a President with more courage and vision and, well, morality. The correct answer is, "I support this and we are doing this because it is right." If she feels the need to waffle on such important and fundamental issues, she should stifle it. 

Aw, do you need some attention, Roy Moore?

Looking for the dummies and crazies, we invariably find them in the same states — Idaho, Utah, and of course the likes of Mississippi and Alabama. The once and now again Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Stewart Moore is at it and as loony as ever.

Apparently unchasted at having been removed from office in 2003, he's doing pretty much the same. Back then, he had commissioned a Ten Commandments display at a court house and then refused to let it be removed when federal courts ruled it was unconstitutional. Now he's done the same with same-sex marriage.

He ordered judges not to issue licenses to gay couples, in defiance of federal court rulings.

[If you really can't believe his arrogance and stupidity, start with his Wikipedia article. It has about 50 footnotes and external links to let you check truth and knowledge.]]

This time though, in his late Sunday night ruling, Moore showed a glimmer of restraint. He ford not threaten direct punishment to any judges who do issue licenses. Instead, he orders them to obey Alabama one-man/one-woman law, despite the federal overrides, and writes that seeing they do so falls on the governor of the state.

To ensure the orderly administration of justice
within the State of Alabama, to alleviate a situation
adversely affecting the administration of justice within
the State, and to harmonize the administration of justice
between the Alabama judicial branch and the federal
courts in Alabama: 

Effective immediately, no Probate Judge of the State
of Alabama nor any agent or employee of any Alabama
Probate Judge shall issue or recognize a marriage license
that is inconsistent with Article 1, Section 36.03, of
the Alabama Constitution or § 30-1-19, Ala. Code 1975. 

Should any Probate Judge of this state fail to
follow the Constitution and statutes of Alabama as
stated, it would be the responsibility of the Chief
Executive Officer of the State of Alabama, Governor
Robert Bentley, in whom the Constitution vests "the
supreme executive power of this state," Art. V, § 113,
Ala. Const. 1901, to ensure the execution of the law.
"The Governor shall take care that the laws be faithfully
executed."

As has been his wont, he plays political cards. He's showing he will take a lowest-common-denominator position as he perceives it. He also shows he no respect for law or the legal process.

This has served him both poorly and well. He was removed from office for his previous shenanigans. Undeterred, he tried running for higher office. He failed in several attempts to become governor and once tried with no public interest in running for POTUS.

However, the people did re-elect him as head of the state's high court. That surely is proof we should judges for their experience, expertise and integrity, and not elect them.

We have the intertwined issues of anti-gay sentiment, anti-federalism and of course the rawer states rights ones. As in so many other states that passed one-man/one-woman laws or amendments, Alabama seems to enjoy the sentiment that outsiders can't tell them what to do.

While it's true that outsiders, even federal courts and Congress can't tell tell them what to think, what to do can be another matter.

Monday AM: MSNBC has been doing legwork here. It reports most probate judges will follow federal ruling, not Moore's caprice. Plus the anti-gay Liberty Counsel folk are stirring the pot, representing judges who follow Moore and claiming those judges don't have to follow federal rulings.

At long last, the Supremes will speak

Okay, kiddies, the SCOTUS seems to be tired of hiding. It shall hear arguments in multiple cases simultaneously to settle the right to same-sex marriage, in April. A months later, likely the end of June, their decision will emerge.

There are many, many new stories on this. The NYT has a good and not too long recap here.

The gist is that as we have noted here before and many others have commented on, one rogue US District court (the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit) bucked their many peers. The other courts found bans on marriage equality unconstitutional. The Sixth's judge pulled ye olde states' rights routine, ruling it was up to state legislatures and voters to decide.

All the observers I've read immediately state that one can never predict the SCOTUS rulings. So, I'll ignore that. I say here and now that the four SCOTUS justices who lean anti-gay rights will listen carefully to arguments, interspersing their disdain for marriage equality during questioning. Afterward by a five-to-four or six-to-three vote, they'll declare marriage as a fundamental right and that denying it to a class of citizen is unconstitutional.

The SCOTUS has proven too many times in recent decades that when public sentiment finally is undeniable, they'll go with it, despite their preference to avoid controversy.

There will be weeping, gnashing of teeth and prophesies of doom for the nation in and out of court. The dissenting opinions will be vile and illogical. The dwindling parties of anti-gay groups will swear vengeance through the magical thinking that they will totally flip public opinion. Ho hum

Warming in Scandinavia

Finland doesn't seem to be in any hurry. It did get around to legislating marriage equality at last, today.

Over 10,000 years ago, it was the last place to get ready for the Stone Age as the last ice sheets receded. Then nomads began settling. It has since nudged its way to over five million residents (about the same as Houston or Madrid). With its empty spaces and sparse population, it has a high percentage of internet and cellphone use, but no leading modernity. Even in its atavism, it is not very political and so low key in that way it doesn't even have a national motto.

Let it be written though that on 28 November 2014, its unicameral parliament approved same-sex marriage 105 to 92. They had registered partnerships of homosexual couples for 12 years and were the only Scandinavian country without marriage equality.

So, the deal is done but not the details. Finland is never rushed. The Grand Committee of parliament gets the decision for a pro forma approval and then the whole parliament reapproves it also pro forma. Then as in other backwaters like Massachusetts many forms, regulations and enabling lawn need tweaking. Couples there may have to wait though next year or as long as March 2017 for everything to be in place after all the approval. Finland is not to be rushed.

Another oddity is that the head of the official church is on board. It's good for the country and in line with the church's values said Archbishop Kari Mäkinen of the Evangelical Lutheran church, About three quarters of Finns belong.

However, Finland became a focal point for anti-gay/anti-equality types there and even our own MassResistance bozos. In Finland, audible complaining came from the likes of Interior Minister Päivi Räsänen. It remains to be seen whether she'll be obstructionist n helping implement parliament's marriage decision. However she promises to be a sore loser, saying, "I believe that in the future a large group of Finns will continue to consider marriage to be a bond between a man and a woman, and that they will not consider relationships between people of the same gender to be marriages."

Regardless, she can sit in a corner and spew. Like New England, Scandinavia is now a marriage-equality bloc. Happy holidays.

Marc Solomon on the long battles for SSM

Marc Solomon is justifiably flogging his newly published Winning Marriage: The Inside Story of how Same-Sex Couples took on the Politicians and Pundits — and Won. He is national campaign director for Freedom to Marry and has been a key player in several rights groups for 13 years.

Eager-Reader Note: You can order his book through his website. Click on the title above to go there.

In fundamentally another stop on his book tour, Solomon came on to answer past, present and future questions about marriage equality in the U.S., as well as describing what's in WMTISOHSSCTOTPAPAW. We're not huge on promoting books. That's for the likes of The Daily Show. However, I think this is one is really timely, very important, and with a strong local angle.

Solomon admits we aren't quite to full marriage equality yet, but expects it soon. He figures that with or without Chief Justice John Roberts' vote, the Supreme Court will expand it to the nation, likely this term, by the end of June 2015.

Getting there has not been easy nor linear. Click the player below to hear some of the road blocks and struggles. He recounts the anguish of California's Prop 8, which stripped legislated equality away, only to have it restored in another initiative. There, then Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger "punted" as Solomon put it, after vetoing SSM twice and claiming the courts should decide. In the end though, Schwarzenegger aided the cause by not fighting the result.

Solomon also recalled the struggle to keep marriage equality alive in MA, the first state to legalize it, with the Goodridge decision of our Supreme Judicial Court. Efforts to overturn that pivoted on a ballot initiative that would require only 25% of the combined bicameral legislature to put to a risky vote. Listen in as Solomon describes what worked in MA and later elsewhere. Convincing lawmakers to support equality required gay couples, many with children, to visit their Reps and Senators to simultaneously present themselves and plead the case. That made the difference here and elsewhere.

While that campaign went on, Solomon said the pro-marriage-equality forces often felt the whole world opposed them — leadership in the Vatican, the commonwealth's Republican party, local pols like Sen. John Kerry, and national ones like Karl Rove. He talks about how their strategy won the day, even with legislators from rural and more conservative urban areas.

Now, Solomon says, the anti- forces have pretty much lost their strength. The Catholic Church has shifted its position, the Mormon Church has backed away, and the professional anti-gay groups have much less support as the nation favors SSM by 60% or more.

For one point, Solomon is much kinder to President Barack Obama than I on the issue. Many political insiders hold that Obama was always pro-SSM but cynically held off saying so before his first election. I am incredulous that he and his wife, both lawyers with him also a former law professor, certainly knew the distinction between religious ritual and civil marriage.Solomon, who was privy to White House thinking, phrases the process leading to Obama's support for equality differently. Solomon sees a very narrow range where politicians feel comfortable making definitive statement on controversial issues. "It's simply the way the political process works," he said.

---

---

Cross-post note: This appears at Left Ahead.

Marriage Fight on a Platter to the Supremes

No more hiding from marriage-equality for the US Supreme Court, as the 6th Court of Appeals ruled 2 to 1 to uphold same-sex marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. This stands alone after the 4th, 7th, 9th and 10th Courts rejected the bans and upheld lower-court rulings.

Despite the jive rhetoric of right wingers, has seldom been "activist" or "legislators from the bench." That's what wingers have called it when the Supremes or state high courts do their jobs but don't find as conservatives want.

Instead, the Supremes have largely waited until pushed hard and often enough. Every so rarely, they do something wacky, illogical and spitting in precedence, such as Citizen's United. Normally our highest court only goes into huge battles when there is a direct conflict between Courts of Appeal.

Ta da.

Observers figured this was eventually going to happen, even after a long, thick string of victories for equality. The 6th Circuit is very conservative and was the likely catalyst. Simply put, come out, come out. You guys have to decide. Suddenly equal protection is up against states' rights.

Today's ruling was about more than just marriage of homosexual couples. Among the cases the three-judge panel considered were whether same-sex couples could adopt, whether they had such rights as being on each other's death certificates (with all those ramifications), and whether states had to offer comity — recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states where they are legal (i.e. most of the nation).

There is no legal option for the Supremes. They likely won't rush into this one, but will have to decide it.

Friday Update: LGBTQNation reports that the lesbian couple who sued Michigan for the right to jointly adopt their three kids are preparing an appeal to the SCOTUS. This likely will hasten the schedule for taking up the big question at the top.

Huck Has Hissy...Yawn

Après moi,...

In the case of Mike Huckabee, the threat is le déluge. But far more realistically, it would be just sans moi.

It was big yucks from Huck last Tuesday on winger radio, American Family Radio's Today's Issues. He was on with a couple of other loonies, including Rick Santorum. Huckabee's false prophesy starts around 22:18.

The short of it is that he said that if Republicans accept same-sex marriage, the GOP will lose all elections going forward. Setting aside that the opposite has been the case and getting more so, bigotry and discrimination don't cut it.

Moreover, the Huck says obey him, GOP, or see a wholesale desertion.

I am utterly exasperated with Republicans and the so-called leadership of the Republicans, who have abdicated on this issue, If the Republicans want to lose guys like me and a whole bunch of still God-fearing and Bible-believing people just go ahead and abdicate on this issue. And while you are at it, go ahead and say abortion doesn't matter either because at that point you lose me.
I'll become an independent and I'll start finding people that have guts to stand," he said. "I am tired of this.

He's going to take his Bible and go away, but not go home. He seems to figure he'll call out, "Over here, y'all true Christians," and millions will do it.

Alas, his record of leading and harvesting voters suggests, very strongly, otherwise.

Vanity and ego, behold yourself in Mike Huckabee.

SCOTUS turns back on marriage bans

SCOTUS shocks must be good for me, at least keeping me alert and flexible. They did it again today, refusing without comment the requests by five states to review federal courts overturning their gay-marriage bans.

WaPo has its usual thorough coverage of this here. Also, The NYTimes has deeper history here.

Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin are in this batch. In Virginia, for example, that commonwealth will begin issuing licenses this afternoon and will recognize the same-sex marriages from other states where they are legal already.

It is almost certain that this will quickly expand to six more states — Colorado,  Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia — where federal appeals courts have ruled such bans unconstitutional. That would bring to 30 the number of states with marriage equality.

States that has piled on both constitutional amendments and laws banning marriage equality are the legal equivalent of oldsters whose Depend diapers fail them, with lots of soiled clothing involved.

How now what they manage to hurt, harm, hamper and hinder homosexuals? We can be sure the plug nasties will keep at it. They've done that with abortion and contraception rights, voting laws and more. When they hate a group, they plug away.

Meanwhile, this morning's SCOTUS announcement hints strongly that the high court will duck nationwide case this term to settle this. Despite the crazy conservative decisions of late, it seems the justices can't deny that marriage is a fundamental right, hence worthy of legal protection.

A clear case or set of cases would almost certainly come down favoring marriage equality. The justices are particularly loath to mandate where individual states have traditionally set their rules. Of course, they did just that in Loving v. Virginia, but that was 57 years ago.

I say it's time to do it again.

HI equality warrior retired by voters

Hawaiian Gov. Neil Abercrombie, 76, was swamped in his primary over the weekend. A state senator, David Ige, 57, will be the Dem against the GOP's Duke Aiona for the general election.

Seriously progressive in a conservative state, Abercromie had already riled the locals as a long-term legislator. He annoyed many of them more in four-year governorship. We noted his relentless push for same-sex marriage (successful in large part due to his efforts).  In a stat chockablock with very loud, very anti-gay religious fundamentals. was wisdom and compassion to offset them.

He stood for numerous lefty positions, most of which he won. I had to wonder if the marriage issue was big in his defeat. 

Not so, according to numerous local accounts, like here. Instead it seems voters  could forgive him the equality thing but not the pension one.
In 2011, he proposed raising revenue by adding retirees' pension income to state tax liability. In a state knee-to-knee with oldsters, that seems to have been his worst idea. The legislature soundly defeated it.

In a real sense, it's good that pushing for marriage equality was not the problem. Plus he's plenty old enough to relax. I bet he doesn't though and while he likely won't run for office again, he can mettle around and find good causes to champion.

Liberty Belles and Beaux

Well, there you have it. Pennsylvania finally straggles in behind the rest of the U.S. Northeast in marriage equality. A federal judge today joined the great wind of marriage equality today.

Among the several intriguing aspects is the per-state decisions as well as the court-driven conversion.

It was only a couple of years ago that equality advocates feared the state-by-state process. They figured it too risky, too likely to see differing results, and too likely arouse negative reaction by locals. Instead, it has become the accepted norm. The MSNBC article linked above notes that "Just three states – North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana – currently have no marriage equality lawsuits pending in either state or federal court. "

In the childish and paranoid preemptive panic following VT's civil unions, then MA's same-sex marriage, that U.S. map was foreboding and very anti-gay. Old times.

Now we face the whining and duplicity. Wingers and anti-LGBT folk are in high activist-judges mode. That is, when the co-equal third of democracy, the courts, rules in ways they don't like, they are evil and immoral. In contrast, when they go for Citizens United approving unlimited money-as-speech or OK guns in schools and bars, they are stewards of America.

We lefties have much to carp about in the court system, particularly the Supremes. Yet, in marriage equality, life is good.

Fully Baked Charlie Baker on Gay Folk

There's a disarming, charming big-lug quality to Charlie Baker, candidate for MA Gov. You see him, as well as his brother Alex mirroring him, in the new ad off his campaign site.

Click below for a worthwhile two minutes. It's not going to make you cry or touch you deeply. Both guys are stiff, but hell, they're from New England. Yet, regardless of what you think of Charlie, you are likely to feel more positive about him...unless you hate and disrespect gay folk.

The head on his site page featuring the video is Charlie Releases New Video, "Brothers" To Mark 10 Year Anniversary Of Marriage Equality. That shows at least a bit of guts for an otherwise personally timid Charlie. It has not been news to Charlie that Alex is gay for quite some time. Alex married a man 10 years ago when MA was just gearing up for same-sex marriage.

Nevertheless, even in blue MA where SSM has been the law of the land for a decade, being openly LGBT friendly takes a bit of courage for a Republican. After all, the official state GOP platform claims on the one hand to " reject all forms of discrimination, intolerance and exploitation" and right below that " We believe the institution of traditional marriage strengthens our society." That passive-aggressive crap is just barely shy of overt anti-gay lingo.

So Charlie lets the exchange with Alex humanize him, in a big-lug, fraternal way. The arch conservatives and anti-homosexual types weren't going to vote for him anyway. As a political ploy, this can only help, In particular, unenrolled voters and wishy-washy Dems, particularly those who buy into the fantasy that we just have to have a Republican governor to keep balance in our government, are likely to feel good about the socially liberal Baker. That puts him in the mold of his mentor and former boss, GOP Gov. Bill Weld. That's good company around here.

Many around here though also know that the state house is full of registered Democratic legislators who are fiscally conservative, may also be somewhat socially conservative, and really were they honest and not afraid of losing their seats would swap registration to Republican. I've long held that most Republican pols in MA are Dems.

This ad can only help Baker get more undecided voters liking him. Nicely done at low risk, Charlie.

---

---

Kissy Kissy in Boise

Surely it's only coincidence that Idaho is one of two states shaped like a handgun. It is extreme — extremely gun rights, Republican, socially conservative, and no pathfinder in LGBT rights.

Now reduced to quivering yet angry wingers, the folk in the land of potatoes hear that they can't even delay homosexual couples marrying there. Yesterday, U.S.Magistrate Candy (yes, Candy) W. Dale rejected the state's request to delay implementation of marriage equality. (This link is to the Idaho Statesman, which has the best coverage of the issue. Click around there for more.)

This truly is the state of the art of same-sex marriage law.

It's been five or more years since anti-SSM/anti-gay types began admitting that the other side had one, that it was just a short time until marriage equality was the norm and the law. As Idaho and other recent cases have shown, you can't have federal and state laws that forbid discrimination while allowing discrimination in marriage. That conflict only resolves one way, in fairness and honesty.

Following the paranoia and panic from Vermont's civil; unions and Massachusetts gay marriages, the states with the dumbest legislators and most easily swayed voters did their worst. One-man/one-woman marriage laws and amendments sprung up like spring dandelions. They have delayed the inevitable but were a fool's fantasy, as useful as a picket fence in keeping out the winds of change.

So Magistrate Dale provided the bad news, news no petitioning bigot wants to hear. She rejected the request to stay the implementation of marriage equality in Idaho saying it "is not likely to succeed." She had previously noted that the state could not show damages if the marriages were allowed. Moreover, denying same-sex couples marriage "irreparably harms" them. Take that Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter (yes, Butch and Otter) and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden.

The state GOP spokesfolk iterate that this decision will cause further disintegration of its society. Over a decade of refuting evidence in the U.S. and worldwide makes little difference to little minds. At least Idaho law still lets bigots fire any homosexuals who work for them. So there.

All around the country, judges federal and state agreed with the winger seers who foretold this trend. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim you don't discriminate and then discriminate against a whole class of people. Meanwhile, a few states have gotten ahead of this, enabling marriage equality by law. Collectively, they remove themselves from the little-brain group.

Idaho is in fact the way it works. Standing at a podium or sitting in a bar screaming about how unfair it is to have to be fair may give you a self-righteousness fix, Otherwise, it's like urinating in a Depend diaper. It gives you a nice, warm feeling but doesn't do anything meaningful.

Scotland Joins the Equality Party

Are you happy to see me or is your sporran just full?

Scotland becomes the 17 nation to legalize marriage equality yesterday. By a vote of 105 to 18, its parliament approved same-sex marriage, to begin in October.

While there are a few Muslims there, the two major churches — the majority Church of Scotland (the Kirk) and the minority Scottish Catholic Church — made the usual weak and unsupportable arguments. In the debate though, the prevailing argument was that there were plenty of protections for religious sorts and no church or cleric would have to host or officiate in SSM. Anti-gay types know that's a red herring, but they can't seem to stop themselves from emotional indulgence.

Those unhappy types put forth a variety of unnecessary amendments, which failed. This law ended up slightly differing from many others in countries and U.S. states. It requires religious organizations who want to let their clergy perform SS ceremonies to first opt in to doing that.

England and Wales had previously approved SSM. Their citizens can marry under that as of March 29th.

Utah Clerks, Gov. Pouting

There seems to be a lot of chest thumping and petulance in Utah. The Christian Science Monitor has a nice piece of analysis of the disbelief, denial and disobedience following the federal court declaration mandating marriage equality...and the refusal of the judge to stay same-sex marriages.

While over 1000 gay couples have married there, clerks in some counties refuse to issue licenses. The state AG told them they risked contempt of federal court. The Governor said he's had the AG appeal to the full 10th District Circuit Court and will go to the Supremes if that fails. [Here's betting the SCOTUS wouldn't take it and if it did, do the same as it did with the appeal of the California post-Prop 8 case.]

In his 53-page ruling, District Judge Robert J. Shelby was very specific about how Utah's ban was unconstitutional. Then in rejecting a plea for a temporary order blocking implementation, he made it plain the arguments the state used were all in the original trial and findings. Nothing to see. Nothing to do. Move on.

Utah pols seemed determined to be real asses about it though.

Check and maybe Mate: In an update, the 10th Circuit Court did not wait until its Tuesday session next week. It quashed the request for a stay. The ruling is here. It denies both a stay pending appeal and a temporary stay, writing that the request did not meet the criteria — (1) the likelihood of success on appeal; (2) the threat of irreparable harm if the stay is not granted; (3) the absence of harm to opposing parties if the stay is granted; and (4) any risk of harm to the public interest.