|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
< BACK TO Fresh Intelligence  Lavender Legal Mafia Begs Newly Married Gays Not To Go Nuts
The sneaky gays say they'll win the war over gay marriage by gaining hearts and minds. Eww, organ theft! • We need to lay the groundwork by changing the climate—convincing community leaders, moving public opinion—before we rush into court. They also don't you want to return home to Nebraska and South Dakota—and why do you live there anyway, gay?—and sue your boss: • And in a state with a law against honoring the marriages of same-sex couples, suing a private employer or other institution that isn't part of the government over its refusal to honor your marriage is almost always a really bad idea. And they really, really don't want to go up against the top court. Even though it'd be fun to watch Antonin Scalia flip his wig. • The history is pretty clear: The U.S. Supreme Court typically does not get too far ahead of either public opinion or the law in the majority of states. For example, few states still had laws requiring segregation or outlawing interracial marriage by the time the Court struck those laws down. Most states had already struck down or repealed their own laws against same-sex intimacy when the Supreme Court invalidated Texas's law. [...] Let's not forget: it took 17 years to undo Bowers v. Hardwick, the 1986 Supreme Court case that upheld Georgia's sodomy law. And that was fast for the Supreme Court. And they describe exactly how the gay agenda has worked in one instance. • The win in California was no accident. Cities in California started adopting Domestic Partnership policies in the mid 80s. The state adopted its first law in 1999, and expanded it over the next six years. Courts in California have been deciding important cases about discrimination since the 70s. With the victories in Massachusetts and California, we should be able to win marriage more quickly in other states. 
I think the lavender legal mafia sounds lovely. Also, I remember an article by Dan Savage - at least five years ago - when he told the gay community not to push for marriage, but rather other civil rights. His theory, at least as I understood it at the time, was that the gay community needed to push for core civil rights and protections (employment, housing, etc.), which most people could understand were fundamental to every person, and not scare the straighties with the word marriage. I am going to paint my office lavender. Posted by: karion on June 11, 2008 3:01 PM "and why do you live there anyway, gay?" Sublime, pet. Just... lyrical. Posted by: jolie on June 11, 2008 3:27 PM Reading the California opinion, the thrust of it appeared to be that although gays were "de facto" married in the state, the state must CALL IT marriage because to call it anything less results in a stigma. That is 120 pages boiled down to a sentence, I realize. Under the Privileges and Immunities clause, you could make a case that the citizen must establish himself as a citizen in the state--THEN exercise his right to interstate migration and assert his privileges and immunities in another state. But regardless--this will employ a lot of lawyers and nobody will get killed in the end like in a capital case, so I say bring it on! Posted by: Bill Gahammer on June 11, 2008 3:42 PM There's still a chance that the bigots in this state will overturn the ruling in November. Hopefully, Obama will galavanize enough young voters so that won't happen. Are there any out, gay judges who might be up for Supreme Court appointment? I'd love to see Scalia deal with that. BTW, the contextual ad on my screen right now is for gaychubbydating.com. Posted by: brilliantmistake on June 11, 2008 4:20 PM Advertisement |
    
 |
|
 |
|
 | ||||
Back
In Britain, Information REALLY Wants To Be Free