|
Comments:
raymond - 2004-10-01 10:04:09 You do wish the tables were turned for a year so that straight people, once they were slapped upside the face by being denied hospital visitation rights--my God, that's so sad!--and the usual raft of spouse benefits might actually get a clue on how totally wrong and immoral such discrimination is. * * * * * * * * * * * * Dave D. - 2004-10-01 10:56:29 Don't worry. When that piece-of-shit proposal passes in MI, the Supreme Court is going to strike it down handily, and legalize same-sex marriage in one fell swoop. I want it to pass just so this very thing will happen. * * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-10-01 11:01:41 I'd love to see that. I do have to respectfully say, Dave D., that you sound more confident than I feel about that happening, I'm afraid. * * * * * * * * * * * * Dave D. - 2004-10-01 11:09:29 There's just no way it can be upheld. The language is way too vague, and it violates equal protection in a multitude of ways. And, really, there's no the way the courts could uphold it considering the previous ruling on anti-sodomy laws. * * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-10-01 11:12:09 It violates equal protection, all right--it could hardly violate it more! Dave, forgive my ignorance, please--was there a Supreme Court decision about sodomy laws? For some reason I thought that was still on the books. That hospital visitation thing is sticking with me. I'm imagining a man who has been with his partner for 25 years being stopped at a hospital desk by a divorced nurse (and the divorced/adulterous/abusive lawmakers backing her up) who tells him that spousal hospital visitation is not allowed for gay couples. While his partner is dying upstairs. The sadness and moral wrongness of this picture is mind-boggling.* * * * * * * * * * * * Dave D. - 2004-10-01 11:20:34 The anti-sodomy law ruling was last year, Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, which reversed an earlier ruling they had made in 1986, Bowers v. Hardwick, in which they upheld anti-sodomy laws. And like you pointed out, the Michigan proposal is ridiculously vague and overbearing. I don't it's overconfident to expect this to be overturned, although I feel a bit ashamed to live in a state where I think it's going to pass decisively. * * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-10-01 11:26:34 Dave D., that is very interesting, thank you. I didn't know the Supremes had made that decision to strike down anti-sodomy law. Now I'm extremely curious to read the decision--I bet there's language in there that could be used against this hideous Michigan proposal. * * * * * * * * * * * * Murph - 2004-10-01 11:35:33 Laura, the case was Lawrence v. Texas, case 02-102, decided 26 June 2003. Yes, not only did the Supreme Court strike down anti-sodomy laws, but they used Texas' law to do it. Full Supreme Court opinion (52 page pdf) is at http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26jun20031200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-102.pdf Slate's much shorter coverage is at http://slate.msn.com/id/2080746/ Looks like it failed the "rational basis" test--"Is there a governmental purpose that provides a rational basis for this law?" In my law class (just on Monday!), we were discussing rational basis--nearly always, said my professor, when the justices start talking "rational basis" in regards to an equal protection case, they're getting ready to uphold the law. The only time they apply a stricter standard than rational basis is when the case has to do with race, national origin, or gender. If the justices applied rational basis to the anti-sodomy law, and struck down the law, it means to me that they're on a course to establish sexual orientation as a protected class, like race or gender. So some precedent has been set for striking down a gay marriage prohibition, and reason to believe that if a case like that comes to the Supreme Court, sexual orientation might make it to a protected class. I especially like Justice Breyer's line, "During World War I, people thought it was immoral to teach German in schools. . .immoral is a hard line to draw."* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-10-01 11:51:05 Bless you, Murph, I was hoping some kind soul would dig up the link and will read it during lunch, if I can pry open the pdf. Your analysis is fascinating to read, the "rational basis" principle. I am rather amazed to see such a spot-on comment, by someone who just attended a law class where the very principle was being discussed. You made the legal issue in question much clearer to me with your good explanation; thanks Murph. DaveD., it looks as though I was wrong--sorry--to doubt your suggestion that a Michigan marriage ban might flip over at the Supreme Court level and result in turning sexual orientation into a protected class. Murph addresses the reasons why it might happen--it's quite interesting. And fairly encouraging--I'm actually much more hopeful than I was earlier this morning.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura again - 2004-10-01 12:38:46 Reading the ruling [slow-loading, html version--sorry Murph, I hate pdfs] is really fascinating. Much encouraging language in it that seems as though it could be used against the MI marriage ban if it passes.* * * * * * * * * * * * tom - 2004-10-01 13:29:01 The US House of Reps yesterday failed to approve a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The vote was 227 in favor, 186 against, 49 votes short of the 2/3 majority needed to send it to the states for ratification. Washington Post coverage * * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-10-01 13:33:18 Yikes, Tom. I am sad to see a majority of BIGOTS, let's just call it like it is, voted for it, although not the 2/3 majority, thank God. But it's way too close for comfort. * * * * * * * * * * * * tom - 2004-10-01 13:42:30 Sorry about the messed up link. The Wash Post article is here * * * * * * * * * * * * lynne - 2004-10-01 17:27:25 I dont think any of those US representatives actually expected that bill to pass. I think they are pandering to the bigots in their districts which is just as bad, imho. The good news is that slowly people in this country, for the most part, are starting to accept that there is some diversity here in the US and that it isnt really such a bad thing. I think as more and more people realize that some of their neighbors, friends, brothers, sisters, cousins, etc are gay and always have been, people might become more accepting. Actually, I kind of think that some groups see this happening so they are trying to get laws in place now while they still can to prevent this cultural change. * * * * * * * * * * * * Eric * - 2004-10-01 18:43:18 What if a representative's district was heavily in favor of such a bill. Are you suggesting the elected official shouldn't represent his constituents and should be imperialistic? Instead of calling people names, there needs to be a stronger effort to sway opinion. The problem is, name-calling is a lot easier to do.* * * * * * * * * * * * raymond - 2004-10-01 19:07:04 Name-calling through practice proves effective. e.g.: Fag. Queer. Degenerate. Pervert. Dyke. Sissy. Homo. Abomination. Imperialist. To name a few.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-10-01 19:23:09 Eric *: What if a majority of constituents in a district wanted a return to black-white segregation, with "White" and "Colored" drinking fountains/restaurants/residential areas? If you were their representative, would you pander to racism?* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-10-01 19:26:30 Lynne: I agree with you. I think some of those people are probably pandering to bigots in their districts without necessarily having those beliefs themselves. Which means they lack integrity. And, since "by their actions shall ye know them," are themselves in practice bigots making fundamental changes in peoples' lives through their bigotry.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura again - 2004-10-02 10:47:21 Meanwhile, on the state level, Proposal 2, amending the state constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, is supported by a clear majority of Michiganders, a front-page story in today's Free Press details. Missouri and Louisiana have already thus successfully amended their constitutions, so Ypsidixit is drumming her fingers waiting for someone to file that suit any day now. But how? It seems likely Prop 2 will pass. Then what? Could anyone file suit? Where and how would one do so? Would it be at the state-level Supreme Court, or a local court, or the national-level Supreme Court? Not the latter, I think--other than that I'm ignorant as usual.* * * * * * * * * * * * Eric * - 2004-10-04 10:30:41 I was trying to ask a general question. It's not a question of what I would do, but what do I want my elected officials to do. I still think it's a very interesting question. In answer to your question, it's most likely that a district that favored segregation would elect someone who would vote against it, so it's not a reasonable hypothetical question.* * * * * * * * * * * * add your comment: |