Jump to bottom


1 jaunte  Thu, Jun 27, 2013 9:44:43pm
If discriminating (regarding federal benefits) between a gay couple and a straight couple is prohibited in New York where gay marriage is legal, by what logic is discrimination permitted in Texas, where a gay couple is prevented from marrying in the first place?

Which is exactly where the majority’s second rationale leads — nationalizing gay marriage, the way Roe nationalized abortion. This is certainly why David Boies, the lead attorney in the companion Proposition 8 case, was so jubilant when he came out onto the courthouse steps after the ruling. He understood immediately that once the court finds it unconstitutional to discriminate between gay and straight couples, nationalizing gay marriage is just one step away.

Oh my!
Youtube Video

2 Bulworth  Fri, Jun 28, 2013 3:22:50am

You mean they might nationalize freedom? Terrible. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How the fuck does it work?

3 mr.JA  Fri, Jun 28, 2013 6:54:56am

Scalia already wrote that in his Lawrence v. Texas dissent, so that’s nothing new.
As for why Justice Kennedy didn’t decide about gay marriage in the whole country - that question wasn’t before the Court, simple. They weren’t asked to rule on it (in the DOMA case), so they didn’t.
They had a chance in the Prop 8 case, but they discharged that based on standing.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court can not ‘install’ SSM (only governments can), but they can forbid states from discriminating against gays and lesbians. And that’s what’s going to happen in the foreseeable future, there are a couple of cases before the Circuit Courts now, that’ll make their way to the SC in 2-3 years time.
People like Krauthammer apparently didn’t read the opinion at all, since he calls the equal protection argument the 2nd arguments, while it really is the first. If you read the opinion it’ll be very clear that DOMA invalidates the 5th amendment, while there are also some Federalist concerns.

Here’s the moneyquote, the last coupe of sencens from the decision.

By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.

4 Bulworth  Fri, Jun 28, 2013 7:33:30am
nationalizing gay marriage is just one step away.

He says that like it’s a bad thing.

5 Skip Intro  Fri, Jun 28, 2013 7:46:06am

Did CK really write this? I didn’t read the whole thing, but where’s the weekly attack on Obama? Normally it’s in the first sentence of every article he writes.

6 HappyWarrior  Fri, Jun 28, 2013 10:15:19am

I wouldn’t have complained if he did but Brown Vs the Board of Education did not end all state sanctioned racial discrimination either.

This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2021-06-05 2:51 pm PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Indigenous Americans Ruled Democratically Long Before the U.S. DidDemocracy: it was older and more widespread than we thought. At the Oconee site, called Cold Springs, artifacts were excavated before the valley became an aquatic playground. Now, new older-than-expected radiocarbon dates for those museum-held finds push back the origin ...
2 weeks, 5 days ago
Views: 1,392 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 2
Tweets: 3 •