Gay Marriage Causes No Harm

That's been the opinion of many of us for a long time; now we know it's the opinion of the--gasp!--Supreme Court of the United States:

The Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped a dispute over gay marriages, rejecting a challenge to the nation's only law sanctioning such unions.

Justices had been asked by conservative groups to overturn the year-old decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage. They declined, without comment...

Critics of the November 2003 ruling by the highest court in Massachusetts argue that it violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of a republican form of government in each state. They lost at the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.

Their attorney, Mathew Staver, said in a Supreme Court filing that the Constitution should "protect the citizens of Massachusetts from their own state supreme court's usurpation of power."

Federal courts, he said, should defend people's right "to live in a republican form of government free from tyranny, whether that comes at the barrel of a gun or by the decree of a court."

Merita Hopkins, a city attorney in Boston, had told justices in court papers that the people who filed the suit have not shown they suffered an injury and could not bring a challenge to the Supreme Court. "Deeply felt interest in the outcome of a case does not constitute an actual injury," she said.

Let's see what Bush's reaction will be to the reactions of the reactionary religious right.  Will Bush criticize the court?  Will he stay silent, thus eliciting criticism from the religious right for not "leading" on protecting "the sanctity of marriage?"  

At some point you would think these people would expect some results, but with abortion still legal, schools with evolution but no prayer, abortion still legal--and with Americans favoring appointment of Supreme Court Justices who would uphold Roe v Wade by a margin of 2 to 1--and marriage "under attack," it's hard to see how they've won on any of their fundametal(ist), bedrock issues.  

•  so, uh

  who is harmed by medicinal marijuana exactly?

  by ignu on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 08:07:19 AM PDT

  •  Oh the people

    Lungs, children, insurance companies, doctors, pharmaceutical companies--you know the constituents.

    by garfield on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 08:23:18 AM PDT

    •  I'm surprised

      the pharma companies haven't jumped in to produce their own "medical marijuana" products...

      by JMS on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 08:24:38 AM PDT

      •  I think they did

        Up in Canada and it sucked. All I heard about the stuff they were making was that it blew.

        There have been pharma companies that have made the best stuff ever though--not for public consumption however. In his book The Kid Stays in the Picture uber Producer and friend of Henry Kissenger, Robert Evans talks about the Merck produced cocaine which was supposedly the best stuff ever. Of course he was busted for it and it ruined his life for the next 20 some years.

        by garfield on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 08:30:21 AM PDT

        •  It blew....

          Because patients lost all control over the dosage.  They put 300 milligrams of THC in each tablet and when a patient took it it

          1. took a long, long time to go into effect versus smoking.
             
          2. when it finally did the does was so heavy is just smashed the minds of the patients--so stoned they could barely get up.

          Smoking is a much, much better way to deliver a finely tuned dosage.  Patients get used to what they need and can expect from toking.  Just in case anyone wondered.

          by paradox on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 09:43:33 AM PDT

          •  Canadian pot

            The gov't. now licenses growers to provide the smoke-able version to patients, and its just working out dandy.  Moreover, the gov't. plans to decriminalize for personal useduring the current session of Parliament.

            by fishhead on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 02:09:39 PM PDT

        •  You mean

          Kid Notorious? One and the same? That show was hilarious!

          by Adrock on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 01:13:08 PM PDT

          •  One

            and the same--the documentary and the book are worth checking out. If you revel in Hollywood values much like I do, then you will be quite jealous.

            by garfield on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 01:24:12 PM PDT

      •  I don't think you can patent marijuana and so

        it may not be possible to acquire a monopoly.  
        Therefore this is useless as a source of revenue
        for the pharmaceutical corporation.  

        by object16 on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 09:27:51 AM PDT

        •  oh...

          but what if you concocted something based on marijuana, but with other goodies included. What if you formulated something with the benefits of marijuana, but it could be ingested, injected, or something else?

          Also, when marijuana is illegal, isn't it then difficult to hold the product to any standard? What's to prevent someone from getting a "bad batch"?

          Just not being creative enough...

          But watch--if it becomes legal in enough places we might see some action on this front...

          by JMS on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 09:31:16 AM PDT

          •  I believe

             you are refering to "Sativex" a sublingual spray developed in Britian . Sativex is a whole cannabis extract and is being distributed by Bayer, the same company who brought us Heroin and death gases used by the germans in the 40's.
             As for a " bad batch" , if grown without chemical intervention "organically" there is no such thing.

            by lazbumm on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 10:03:41 AM PDT

  •  That's going to be

    the decision to watch. Nina Totenberg did her usual bang-up job of covering the case on "Morning Edition" this morning. But the whole time I was listening to it I kept thinking to myself, "You know, this should easily fly on the states' rights doctrine the Felonious Four have been pushing for the last few years."

    But I'll bet that's not what happens. They'll let their "war on drugs" props get in the way of consistency, and they'll deny that California has any right to pass its own laws on this subject. F***ing hypocrites.

    by musing85 on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 08:51:14 AM PDT

    •  Be careful

      I was thinking the same thing, but someone pointed out to me that if they rule for medical marijuana, and shrink the range of the Commerce Clause, then for a trade off of medical marijuana, they will get a bunch of things across the boards.
      According to the Waashington Post article
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18420-2004Nov28.html
      A number of New Deal Economic policies and civil rights laws were based on the Commerce Clause.

      It might be better if this were discussed in Congress or the FDA (though I doubt that will happen any time soon)

      by Chrisfs on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 11:15:12 AM PDT

      •  aoeu

        Could those be reargued as "promoting the general welfare"?  Seems to me protecting americans from bogus drugs which kill does this.

        by TealVeal on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 11:50:15 AM PDT

        •  That's the Preamble

          That's the Preamble to the Constituion(I can still hear the School House Rock version in my head, We the People, In order to form a more perfect Union...)
          which I think has no legal effect

          by Chrisfs on Sat Dec 04, 2004 at 01:14:08 AM PDT

      •  be careful indeed

        There is no "general welfare" clause in the US constitution.

        Thus, the entire edifice of public health and safety laws, environmental laws, FDA regulation, securities regulation, and many civil rights laws are built on the federal Commerce Clause.

        This case is extremely dangerous, because if the Court rules in favor of the medical marijuana user on Commerce Clause grounds, this will establish the legal conditions which threaten to unravel the entire regulatory New Deal...and fulfill a sometimes expressed desire of the right wing to take us back to 1890s America.  Some very progressive groups have lined up on the federal side in this case because of just this problem.

        by walden on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 01:14:26 PM PDT

        •  aoeu

          What's a better angle?  10th amendment?

          by TealVeal on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 02:30:18 PM PDT

  •  But!

    Who is harmed by smoking a spliff for enjoyment? Or indeed the use of any drug for pleasure. Here's the rub, why are alcohol and nicotine freely available when other drugs aren't? Either we're all adults and should be free to polute our bodies in any way we deem fit (given an informed choice), or the Government is our protector from ourselves and has the right to dictate to us what we can and can't inhale/consume. Either way we now have a hypocritical situation where drugs like nicotine and alcohol, which are much more addictive than cannabis are legal, whereas much less dangerous drugs are criminal.

    by parsons on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 10:08:44 PM PDT

    •  Public Health

      If you extend your argument, it would point to the legaiization of all drugs, including cocaine and heroine.

      Who is harmed: the other people in society, who have to bear the cost of caring for and curing an addicted person.

      by Chrisfs on Sat Dec 04, 2004 at 01:21:40 AM PDT

      •  Missed my point completely

        As it happens I don't think it's a bad idea to completely decriminalise all recreational drugs.
        

        Who is harmed: the other people in society, who have to bear the cost of caring for and curing an addicted person.
        

        
        So the same people who are harmed by addiction to nicotine and alcohol then.

        My point was not that all drugs should be decriminalised, but that the current law alows some drugs to be legally abused (nicotine and alcohol) but not others. The hypocracy is that it can't be claimed that these drugs are socially or physically less dangerous.

        My point was that the law should be logical and rational. Therefore either criminalise all drugs including alcohol or nicotine (the nanny state route) OR decriminalise all drugs (you're all adults so what you do is your business route).
        You may have discerned my personal position about this but it was not my actual argument to decriminalise all drugs, just to argue the hypocracy of differentiating between drugs for no apparent reason. The social and health costs of alcohol abuse are thousands of times greater than the costs of abuse of all illegal drugs combined.

        by parsons on Sat Dec 04, 2004 at 10:04:33 AM PDT

•  Naw

  At some point you would think these people would expect some results, but with abortion still legal, schools with evolution but no prayer, and marriage "under attack," it's hard to see how they've won on any of their fundametal(ist), bedrock issues.

  They'll keep right on believing, despite the fact that they get the same results each and every time--the Repuglicans screw them over. For all the talk about liberal Democrats being like battered spouses, I have to say I think the fundagelicals qualify as well, given the way the Goopers treat them on a consistent basis.

  by musing85 on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 08:07:29 AM PDT

  •  "But George Bush...

    ...is a good man.  It's just that he's under a lot of pressure--his job is really hard, ya know--and sometimes the religious right makes him mad and he does things that really aren't like who he is inside.  Really, he's a good man..."

    by DHinMI on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 08:10:39 AM PDT

    •  He doesn't mean to

      "...He's sorry.  He'll stop.  It's hard work being president.  Hard work.  I know he'll change, he'll bring home the bacon, protect us from the libruls..."

      by Cathy on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 08:15:54 AM PDT

    •  No he's not

      Bush is an asshole . . . looks like a monkey too.

      by ljb on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 08:45:50 AM PDT

      •  Um, Didn't The Quotation Marks...

        ...tip you off that maybe that was a bit of satire?

        by DHinMI on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 08:47:43 AM PDT

        •  There must be something

          going around today.  The weather, the tides, something.  People are way too testy and literal.  A double dose of Cheers and Jeers for that man, stat!

          by jsmdlawyer on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 09:09:21 AM PDT

          •  LFPs

            A mailing list I'm on uses the idea of "LFPs"...
            "Literalist Fxxkhead Pills", and it looks like people here took a double dose this morning.

            by drobnox on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 09:22:17 AM PDT

        •  Sarcasm tags

          I found that the best way to indicate sarcasm is with tags:

          <sarcasm>George Bush has done a terrific job in a tough situation.</sarcasm>

          Unfortunately, on some blogs, such as matthew yglesias' blog, it deletes the tags.

          by blank on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 11:23:33 AM PDT

      •  Irony bypass surgery

        It's still in the experimental stage, and considered medically risky.

        by Don Quixote on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 12:14:46 PM PDT

  •  agreed

    I agree with this statement.  I think the GOP generally completely ignores it's base, mostly out of necessity.  Bush and the rest will give them little token victories here and there, but when it comes to actually sealing the deal and passing legislation their implements their wingnut ajenda, they just never quite get it done.  

    My theory is that this is for basically two reasons.  One, they know these issues are not what the vast majority of American's care about and that these stances on issues are not in line with most people.  They make a political decision to sit the fence.  Secondly, and perhaps more important, the re-thugs (the smart ones at least) know they can't win without these issues hanging out there to keep people fired up.  So they let these issues hang out there and never really act on them, they just talk a lot about them.

    I truly believe that the Repub party is on the verge of imploding on itself.  Once Bush is gone, there will be a vacuum there that is going to be really hard to fill.  He is in some ways the perfect GOP candidate.  He has an uncanny ability to keep all sides of their base happy and to pick off enough centrist, moderate, independent and democratic votes to win... by small margins.  With him gone, where do they go?  I think they will be, and probably are right now, in real trouble of tearing apart at the seams.

    by Nathan in MN on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 09:30:30 AM PDT

    •  I third that

      Secondly, and perhaps more important, the re-thugs (the smart ones at least) know they can't win without these issues hanging out there to keep people fired up.

      I think you're absolutely right here.  Just look at the number of social issue bills that come before congress; it's pitiful.  The Pharisees (that's what I prefer to call them) may eventually get something, but their agenda will never be fulfilled because that's what drives them to polls.

      by blank on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 11:31:35 AM PDT

•  true

  but I'm not ready to get cocky. & really - does logic infiltrate their thinking...ever? Hopefully they will realize that their love of criminalizing everything is lost and they might as well bunker down for the long cold winter of the next 4 years.

  by shelly vander on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 08:10:14 AM PDT

  •  Logic

    The overlords have access to enough logic to turn this country Hard Right, and to guide the outrage of the Bible-thumpers their way.  It's the difference between being a geek and selling tickets to watch the geek bite off chicken heads.  The only problem with their logic is that it's divorced from morals.

    I think they're going to go for the gold now, and pray for Arnie to rewrite the Constitution in time for a REAL Fascist majority in 2008.

    Falwell, Sharpton, Land and a "moderate" were on Meet the Press.  General agreement that repealing Roe v. Wade would "only put the abortion decision on each state," but Falwell let slip that "it'll take years of fighting it in the states," i.e., no let up until there's no safe havens at all in the US.  They have a plan, and it's probably been in place for quite some time, and it probably takes in more than you'd guess.

    by moltar on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 09:42:42 AM PDT

    •  yeah

      I read that transcript...very interesting stuff - I agree with Jim Wallis and hope that moderates of both sides can work together and in effect garner much of the right's support and voters as it relates to abortion and beyond.

      by shelly vander on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 11:17:09 AM PDT

    •  The right will never win...

      a nationwide ban on abortion by fighting in the states.

      Instead they will push for a federal law to ban it everywhere.

      As for gay marriage, today's decision just gives them more ammunition to shoot for a constitutional ban.

      by coldeye on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 11:21:16 AM PDT

•  Um, No.

  Denial of cert means that the Court reached no opinion on the merits, and since the Mass SJC ruled entirely on state constitutional grounds, not the federal Bill of Rights, there was no jurisdiction for the Court to intervene.

  This means nothing.

  by Adam B on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 08:10:19 AM PDT

  •  While I Haven't Seen the Petition,

    
     you and I both know a that the Pharisees couched it in Constitutional terms (some kind of Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection [irony alert!] or Due Process thing no doubt) and b hypocrites Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas (at least) will do whatever the hell they want to do (or try to, at least) notwithstanding their "states rights," "let the legislature legislate," and "strict construction" b.s. rhetoric.

     So, this is, if not "significant," at least interesting.  It's not a "yawner" to me by any stretch.  

     BenGoshi
    ________________
    

    by BenGoshi on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 08:18:04 AM PDT

    •  Republican Government Guarantee

      The article makes it sound as if the claim was based on the guarantee of republican government in the U.S. Constitution.  However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that that guarantee is nonjusticiable.

      by lysias on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 08:45:51 AM PDT

      •  Yes

        Thats what they argued, and the only time that I know of that the SCOTUS ever used that clause to decide a case was when they ruled that all seats in a state legislature must be apportioned proportionally.

        by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 08:52:09 AM PDT

        •  Do you remember

          If that apportionment case discussed the RPG or actually based its holding on it?  I recall a discussion but only in support of a Civil Rights Amendment decision. no lexis ;-(

          by Myrkury on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 08:59:22 AM PDT

        •  Equal Protection Cases, I Believe

          The two main legislative apportionment cases under which the Supreme Court adopted the one-man-one-vote doctrine, REYNOLDS v. SIMS, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) and BAKER v. CARR, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) , seem to have been decided on the basis of equal protection, not the guarantee of a republican form of government.  That guarantee is mentioned only because it could be argued that the court's previous decisions under the republican guarantee, holding it to be nonjusticiable, precluded the court's deciding the new apportionment cases.

          by lysias on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 11:41:03 AM PDT

      •  Ah. If that's the case . . .

        
         then it just goes to show (once again) what incredible boobs these people are.  That is, while they scream and rant about those activist (again, Republican) State Court Justices and how "obviously wrong-headed" they are, the best they can come up with is some dog-turd, already-been-discredited, black helicopter-esque, Lyndon LaRouchian, squirrel nuts & cabbage, b.s. "legal theory" that ought to get whoever drew the crayon-drawing Petition for Cert disbarred for stupidity.  Sheesh.

         And it also shows (once again) what a moron Bush is:  deigning to lecture the Mass Supreme Court (or Ct of App, whatever it's called) on the law, a dolt who couldn't get into law school.  Sheesh, Part II.

         BenGoshi
        ________________

         

        by BenGoshi on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 09:04:34 AM PDT

        •  Tell us how you really feel Ben Goshi

          jeez, I always put a </rant off> tag on a post like this, now people can only rant on this thread...

          by TheGryphon on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 09:35:48 AM PDT

          •  Oh, get me going about --

            
             Roy Moore; insurance adjusters; judges taking their sweet, effing time to enter orders; or, say, The "Christian" Coalition sometime.

             Then I'll show you what a rant is, my friend.

             Cheers.

             BenGoshi
            ________________
            

            by BenGoshi on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 10:23:32 AM PDT

            •  I read your post

              and my wife called up to find out what was wrong- just seeing that list left me grunting and stamping my feet.

              by Myrkury on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 04:53:23 PM PDT

              •  Our chairs --

                
                 -- are almost touching.

                 BenGoshi
                _______________

                by BenGoshi on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 05:23:51 PM PDT

                •  I'd say

                  there's a very good chance of that being true.

                  by Myrkury on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 05:29:17 PM PDT

                  •  Touche.

                    
                     Or, whatever that is in Russian.

                     BenGoshi
                    _______________

                    by BenGoshi on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 06:42:52 PM PDT

        •  But it stirs up the activists

          This is just another example of the great framing that Republicans do. They know that they don't have a legal leg to stand on, but that doesn't matter to the cristian right dunces and other average americans who do not know the law. It is truly using populism to its maximum afftect.

          Previously Republicans have accused trial lawyers of single handedly bringing down our medical system and businesses due to supposed frivolous lawsuits. Now the latest framing is liberal activist judges even if the facts do not support them in either case.

          We need to figure out how to break that framing with this ruling or non-ruling.

          by shark on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 11:25:51 AM PDT

    •  Speaking of Stupid...

      
       I should give myself a "1" for not bothering to read the article...

       All red-faced am I.

       BenGoshi
      _________________
      

      by BenGoshi on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 09:11:10 AM PDT

  •  This means less than

    nothing.  It was a stupid, ridiculous argument that attempted to create a federal constitutional question where none existed.

    What is interesting, and has been missed completely by the media, is the increasing trend, represented by the Massachusetts decision, of some states to ground their decisions completely in state constitutional law.  When they do this, it obliterates any jurisdictional right of the Supreme Court to step in and overrule the decision.  The SC only has jurisdiction in cases involving federal questions, not purely state law issues.

    What's even more ironic is that this doctrine, known as independent and adequate state ground for decision, was originally created by none other than Sandra Day O'Connor, back in a 1983 case called Michigan v. Long.  Initially, it was believed that conservative state courts would run roughshod over basic constitutional rights using this doctrine.  What has happened instead is that more progressive state courts such as Massachusetts have chosen to use the doctrine to expand rather than contract constitutional rights in their states.

    This principle has more than arcane legal significance.  For example, there is a lawsuit right now in my state, Maryland, seeking to have the courts hold that barring gay marriage is a constitutional violation.  As I understand it, the suit is being handled in such a way as to try to persuade our Court of Appeals to go off on an "independent and adequate state ground" for decision, namely, the fact that Maryland has an Equal Rights Amendment where the federal government does not.  Our courts have been extremely reluctant to depart from federal precedent in deciding constitutional rights, but the state ERA means they have to look this issue squarely in the face.  And if Maryland's Court of Appeals decides the issue in favor of gay marriage, there won't be a goddamn thing the Supreme Court can do about it.

    by jsmdlawyer on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 08:38:10 AM PDT

    •  states rights

      I think whats most interesting is that this shows once again that states rights isn't particularly a liberal or conservative issue, but just one that people who are not in control of the federal government will support.  As someone who beleives in states rights this is a really depressing thought but with trends like this I just don't know how else to read it.

      by Damon on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 08:51:06 AM PDT

      •  There is no tool

        which cannot be abused.

        When "States Rights" is being used to cloak and justify discrimination, that has conflicts with other constitutional goods.  It's perfectly legitimate (if dicey) for SCOTUS to weigh and decide how two or more constitutional rights conflict and should be resolved.  States rights are simply one of those rights, as affirmed both in the positive, by the 10th Amendment, and in the negative, in the Constitution itself (Article II, Sec. 10, for example).

        States rights is not, and cannot be, a good sufficient unto the argument in itself.  The phrase "merely" argues -- correctly -- that the federalization of all authority is not legal or constitutional.

        Thinking about it, the Court has been far more approving of states rights when they are used to expand the interests of the people (as a whole) as in the higher standards for personal privacy enshrined in some state constitutions.  It's when the argument has been made that the states have the right to selectively abuse or disadvantage a part of their population that states rights have fallen afoul of the Court.

        And I think that's both ethically and legally correct.  The federalization by the 14th Amendment of the rights of citizens means that the Court has a legitimate interest in ensuring that the states do not violate the rights of US citizens--which include equal protection.  The state would have to show a hell of a good reason to justify infringing equal protection.

        I suspect that Article IV, Section 1 and Section 2 (first sentence) lie in wait to give SCOTUS heartburn and to infuriate the gay-haters.  Either the Court will affirm that the first sentence of Section 2 really means that the second sentence of the 14th Amendment was really redundant and unnecessary -- and that the Court erred in not so reading it that way in the past -- or it's going to have to deal with its interesting implications.  Coming as it does right after Section 1's full faith clause, I think a good lawyer could have a fine time with it.

        by ogre on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 09:20:37 AM PDT

    •  Aw, c'mon- there was a Fed Q

      I've been saving a brief arguing that the Rupublican Form of Government clause is actually justicable.  Now it looks like I'll have to get around an 11b motion just to have fun with the damn thing. (If you have lexis you can find out that similar claims under the RFG clause failed to be held justicable in challenges to I&R (calling it prohibited direct democracy), a variety of freaky state separation of power arrangements, and the power of a state court to impose intra state tax schemes as part of a state constitutional law remedy (the last being most closely analogous to the case at hand).)  I do vaguely recall seeing a footnote somewhere that suggested that the RFG clause might require states to provide some minimal level of public education.
      Anyway that was the Fed Q- whether an unelected body can take a public policy decision that is so profound that it violates the US Con's guarnatee that the states have "republican" governments. (Contra, the MA s. ct. is a regular part of MA's scheme of constitutional republicanism and its decisions can be changed via MA constitutional process)

      by Myrkury on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 08:54:38 AM PDT

    •  California Supreme Court

      I think it is older than that.  The CA Supreme Court was using independent state grounds in the 1970s to justify a plethora of decisions that were more liberal than the US Const would support.  The CA Constitution has many provisions, such as an explicit right to privacy passed by iniitative, that support such decisions.

      by Mimikatz on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 09:38:41 AM PDT

      •  You are correct

        however, prior to Michigan v. Long, the Supreme Court would sometimes take cases that presented both a federal and a state question.  Now, assuming the state question is both "adequate" and "independent" of the federal question, the Supreme Court won't take the case -- period.

        My point is that federalism is uniformly assumed to be bad by liberals and progressives.  I don't agree.  Let's find good blue states and try out new ideas -- legal and otherwise -- and when they work, take them to the federal level.  When they don't work, get rid of them.  In sort, federalism runs both ways, and we have missed that point for too long.

        by jsmdlawyer on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 09:42:50 AM PDT

        •  There are great articles by Brennan, J.

          On this very subject where he argues that state constitutional law will be the best means of expanding and preserving liberty.
          Brief article for lay readers on this principle here
          The actual cite is: WILLIAM J. BRENNAN, JR., THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE STATES:
          THE REVIVAL OF STATE CONSTITUTIONS AS GUARDIANS
          OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, 61 N.Y.U. L. REV. 535 (1986).  See also: William J. Brennan, Jr., State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights,
          90 Harv. L. Rev. 489 (1977).

          by Myrkury on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 05:04:51 PM PDT

  •  Denial of Cert

    I'm not a lawyer, so I'm trying to interpet what the decision says.

    Would it be fair to say that it implies that the argument by the Liberty Counsel that the decision to legalize gay marriages was a usurpation of the Republican form of government guaranteed to Americans in the US Constitution was not persuasive to the federal high court?

    That would be my guess. They are presumably stating that no federal Constitutional issue worthy of their time is involved. Unfortunately, that is not the same as agreeing with Merita Hopkins that the Liberty Counsel had not shown that anyone was injured by the decision.

    by Rick B on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 09:44:30 AM PDT

    •  Yes

      That's the fairest interpretation.  No one was harmed by the SJC interpreting the Massachusetts constitution, that being its primary job.

      by Steve Brady on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 10:16:02 AM PDT

    •  All It Means

      Is that there were not four justices who believed this case was worthy of review and decision by the Court.  Period.

      by Adam B on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 10:36:36 AM PDT

      •  That's correct.

        The SCOTUS denies cert every day in wrongly decided cases where someone was harmed.  Denial of cert doesn't mean "no harm no foul" or "if we had granted cert we would have affirmed."  It just means "we decline to review this case."

        by yella dawg dem on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 10:53:04 AM PDT

        •  Implications of Denial of Cert

          Thanks. I was trying to determine what logic was implied in the decision to deny cert.

          From what you have said, I would conclude that no logic is implied at all. The only thing that decision says is that the issue is not going to be reviewed at the federal level.

          by Rick B on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 11:14:40 AM PDT

          •  Not Even That

            Just that this case is not going to be reviewed by SCOTUS on the grounds presented.

            by Adam B on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 12:25:43 PM PDT

            •  . . . is right

              was the rest of that title.

              by yella dawg dem on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 06:25:11 AM PDT

            •  Well, in this case

              "no federal review" is right, because only the SCOTUS would have jurisdiction to review it.  Your statement gives the more complete general rule, of course.

              (If this comes out with several other wierd posts, it's because I couldn't figure out how to correct an earlier mispost.)

              by yella dawg dem on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 06:27:08 AM PDT

        •  You're right

          But despite the generally accepted rules of legal precedent one all too frequently finds Circuit Court decisions that adress issues of first impression in the Circuit by giving more weight to a sister circuit's decision denied cert than to a sister circuit decision that has not been appealed.  Never overtly, but far too often a cite string that ends in "cert denied..." is preferred over one that does no so end.  Please don't take away from this that there is any meaning to denial of cert- just that misapprehension about its meaning is more widespread than should be the case.  On a tangentially related matter, I beleive a Circuit Court opinion was thrown out (RI?) because the Circuit Court implied deference to the District Court's familiarity with state law- another "unofficial" source of law.  I point this out to show that a decision which took a denial of cert into account, even indirectly, as having legal meaning might very well be error per se.

          by Myrkury on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 05:13:54 PM PDT

          •  Really?

            That used to be the law!  I mean, it used to be accepted doctrine that a circuit court would give some (not a great deal, but some) deference to interpretations of state law by a district court sitting in that state.  I had heard that it was no longer the norm, but I didn't know it could be reversible error.  Thanks for the tip -- I'll look for that case.

            Apologies to non-lawyers for the shop talk.

            by yella dawg dem on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 06:18:44 AM PDT

            •  No apologies necessary

              Some of us like to see the reasoning that goes into legal decisions.

              by Rick B on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 11:25:41 AM PDT

•  Now it's all about the referenda.

  With the Supreme Court doing its job and staying out of the gay marriage issue, we must now create a principled strategy to counter the referenda for state constitutional amendments, which have gone the way of the gay-bashers in every state that has put it to a vote. Through education and other outreach, we can counter the fundamentalists and turn the tide.

  It's going to take work, but this will be the good fight if I've ever seen it.

  by kosmologist on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 08:10:57 AM PDT

  •  Part of that

    will be language and part of it timing. I think national polling shows Americans about 60% in favor of civil unions, yet in 8 of the 11 anti-gay marriage provisions that passed, the language included actually prohibited civil unions. So why was that? Was it because the language didn't expressly say that it was anti-civil union? They use phrases like "or anything that resembles such a bond" and I can see how people might not realize the distinction. Then the other part of it probably was that they were held during the national election, which by itself drives more people to the polls, i.e. timing.

    Which now reminds me, if we are going to fight the good fight, we ought frame and define the terms of this issue before the right does, in terms of pro/anti/quasi. I haven't seen anyone do this yet.  E.g. Is anti-gay marriage actually "Pro-Family" (we all know this is bullshit.) What about pro-gay marriage? "Pro-Choice?" Or is it just where it stands? Anti-Gay Marriage and Pro-Gay Marriage?  Personally, this has nothing to do with gays as far as I'm concerned and simply has to do with equal rights under the law for all Americans. Hence, I'm not sure that using the term Pro-Gay Marriage is sufficient.

    by Adrock on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 01:44:42 PM PDT

  •  A cynical (conspiracy theory) view?

    I agree that the fight now moves to the states.  Sadly, as the resident of a Red state that passed an amendment to the Georgia constitution overwhelmingly, I wonder if education can help.

    Do you think it's possible the Supremes decided to deny Cert to the Massacuhsetts case as a means of avoiding a repeat of what many have seen as a damaging effect of  the court's decision to take up Roe v. Wade?  By that I mean, many critics have faulted the court for having foreshortened the nationwide debate on abortion, imposing a high court decision prematurely, before a consensus had formed.

    I do not agree with this view, of course; I am solidly in favor or Roe.  But I can't help wondering if the justices were keeping hands off to allow the national debate on the constitutional amendment to continue.  

    Maybe I'm seeing a logic where none exists.  Maybe  they simply saw no reason to give the case a hearing.

    by bookdude53 on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 05:01:32 PM PDT

  •  This parallels the gay civil rights movement

    Back in the 1970s when some municipalities and states were starting to grant job & housing protections to gay people there was a backlash against it (Anita Bryant's 'Save the Children' campaign, for example).

    Many states and municipalities repealed gay rights protections in the ensuing decades.  Eventually, though, lots of those juristictions ended up restoring them.

    This, I think, reflects a process of social change.  Though not always smooth, it does move forward over time.

    The Bowers v. Harwick SCOTUS sodomy decision of the late 1980's being overturned in 2003 is another good example of how challenging social issues go through an initial backlash phase before gaining enough consensus to become realized.

    I suspect that these challenges, their reactions, and counter-reactions are just part of the education and adjustment period sociologically for major changes like this.

    Does anyone have any serious doubt that gay marriage will be a widespread reality by 2030?  I sure don't.

    by drsantos on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 06:35:06 PM PDT

    •  Change DOES Come

      I agree that the overall trend is toward change.  I marched in Chicago against the Anita Bryant initiatives.  I stayed up all night to be at the Court when the Bowers decision came down.  Change does come.  We will see it.

      by bookdude53 on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 07:45:45 PM PDT

•  To paraphrase the abortion movement

  "If you're against gay marriage...don't marry
  a gay person"

  A highly complex solution to the whole thing, I know, but one worth repeating.

  by Jank2112 on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 08:11:03 AM PDT

  •  and

    If you're against abortion, don't have one.

    by nupstateny on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 08:17:20 AM PDT

    •  And

      instead of "pray for an end to abortion," please "pray for increased contraception."

      by moltar on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 09:45:47 AM PDT

      •  FREEDOM !!

        What a concept, Someone should form a country based on that.

        by lazbumm on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 10:24:06 AM PDT

      •  Pray that all children will be welcomed n/t

        by Pam in MA on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 01:14:45 PM PDT

  •  I now pronounce you...

    That's the problem darling, they do marry gay people, 'cause if you're married you're not gay, right?

    by debraz on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 09:26:01 AM PDT

•  Damn, activist USSC!

  
   Allowing those activist Republican Mass. Justices to have their activist way!  Can't wait to get some of those Liberty [sic] University [sic] Law [sic] School [sic] grads on the Supreme Court!

   BenGoshi
  ________________

  by BenGoshi on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 08:12:33 AM PDT

  •  I went up against one of those guys

    Made me regret having a flat fee arrangement with my client.  If I'd had a contingency arrangement I would've sponsored some scholarships at Liberty- I need all the help I can get.
    (and BTW I only litigate as a personal favor to friends and family and then only after a dilligent attempt to convince the client that he would be better represented by any other atty, including dead ones.)

    by Myrkury on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 09:04:15 AM PDT

    •  Tell more

      Without giving away privilged info, can you tell us more about the circumstances?

      by drobnox on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 09:29:45 AM PDT

      •  Once redacted, barely amusing

        Basically there was a single finding of fact which, as a preliminary, would establish the burden of proof.  Such burden was initially on my client.  Prior to the hearing we did a courtesy exchange of documents- one of his was an affadavit from one of the defendant's agents asserting the very fact which would shift the burden of proof to the defendant.  Almost tounge in cheek I opened the hearing by telling the tribunal that I beleived the parties could save the tribunal a little time and was willing to stipulate that the Defendant had the burden of proof.  Our good friend from Liberty U. jumped up with a sneer and agreed with my stipulation.  To be honest it threw me for a bit of a loop- I hadn't prepared for such a catastrophic success.  Additionally, the dude had no idea what the business records exemption from the hearsay rule was all about- drawing multiple rebukes from the tribunal.  And he presented documentary evidence that contained an encoded time stamp but were dated as having been filled out two days before they were printed (the tribunal noticed this sua sponte, BTW).  Candidly, my head nearly exploded.  As good as it was for my client that this guy was opposing counsel- I really prefer not to be up against an atty that grossly unprepared- especially in a flat fee case.

        by Myrkury on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 04:43:13 PM PDT

        •  Good Lord.

          
           I just read this.

           Why can't I get someone like this on the other side?  Well, I do know the "sneer" thing.  Get that all the time.  Do they actually think that that's gonna make me back down or something?  Idiots.  Lots of "smart" ones.  But still idiots.

           My jealously overfloweth.

           Good for you.  Good for your client.

           BenGoshi
          ______________

           

          by BenGoshi on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 05:32:17 PM PDT

          •  Don't be too jealous of my involvement

            As a result of this joker's behavior, pending the 'effin late order, I had to:
            Research several theories for how to turn his misbehaviour to my clent's advantage= 3 unbilled hours.
            Call a more experienced atty to discuss my responsibility under my state's disciplinary rules= 1 unbilled hour for me and 1 unbilled hour for a guy who had better things to do.
            Research to determine my ethical duties= 2 unbilled hours.
            Write a memo to my files laying out the misbehaviour, just in case= 2 unbilled hours.
            I'm a sole practitioner just getting started with a general practice so my time is money- as far as I'm concerned that S.O.B. rooked my kids out of a trip to Florida to see my in-laws (and me out of a free week of babysitting).  So if I ever see this guy's name on an adverse pleading again, you're qualified in my state, and my client is okay with it (you being both a lawyer and not dead, they should be) he is all yours.
            Can you tell I hate bad lawyers?  Without looking, I'll bet that you had some choice words in the thread about disbarrng the SwiftBoatFraudsters.

            by Myrkury on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 06:05:09 PM PDT

            •  Unbilled (or billable) hours...

              
               ...welcome to my world.  I won't play "one-up" with you, cause it sounds like we could both swap some good 'uns, then call it a draw.

               I empathize with you, friend.

               Haven't seen the "Swift Boater" thing.  Will look for it.  Yes.  They should be either suspended from practice (not for political activity, for lying under oath) or disbarred.

               BenGoshi
              _______________

              by BenGoshi on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 07:13:38 PM PDT

              •  Nah, you got me beat

                that is by far my biggest horror story, and in most of the rest of my war stories- I'm the goat.
                For all the headaches I do love being a sole prac. though, what other job lets you swap a will for a tub of meatballs and gravy?  That and never having to find out that one of my partners represents Satan during a conflicts search.

                by Myrkury on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 07:28:55 PM PDT

                •  winding down.

                  
                   I'm solo, too.  Grave doubts about its efficacy these days (been doing it for 10 years, mind you). . .

                   Before I pack it in, must recommend Evelyn Waugh's "Scoop" to you.  No, it's not about lawyers, it's about journalists.  Written in the late 30s, its observations on journalists' psyches are timeless.

                   But, what made me think of it was your little bon mot on "might."  When you get towards the end of the middle part ("Stones . . . L20"  that's "pounds" as in Pounds Sterling) and read "Baldwin's" little discourse on "might" vs. "force," when The Swede kicks the motorcyle into compliant quietude, you'll know you've gotten there.

                   Later.  Here's to hoping for growth in the springtime . . .

                   BenGoshi
                  ________________
                   

                  by BenGoshi on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 07:46:39 PM PDT

        •  When Jesus said turn the other cheek

          he didn't mean that cheek.

          by yella dawg dem on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 06:36:23 AM PDT

    •  liberty law school grads

      now it's easy, but it may get scarier later, when some go one in years and get to be judges

      by Chrisfs on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 11:23:03 AM PDT

  •  Right on, Ben!

    No doubt, we'll hear similar thoughts -- without a trace of sarcasm -- from the Reverend Jerry F*well and that schmuck from the ACLJ.  Mark my words, we'll see one of Jerry's Kids on SCOTUS in my lifetime.
    

    by bookdude53 on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 04:49:19 PM PDT

    •  Don't make a weird day worse --

      
       -- with threats like that!  ;-)

       BenGoshi
      ________________

      by BenGoshi on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 05:33:59 PM PDT

    •  The weird schmuck is named

      Jay Sekulow
      Warning- the link is to a site that has an emetic effect.

      by Myrkury on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 06:52:02 PM PDT

      •  OK, I knew it...

        I knew the schmuck has a name.  I see Sekulow in my nightmares.

        Glad to see someone else knows how to name the demons.  That's why I come here.

        by bookdude53 on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 07:50:36 PM PDT

•  maybe Bush will say

  it's proof of the need for a federal constitutional amendment

  by Hprof on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 08:12:39 AM PDT

  •  Exactly

    This is precisely the move for Bush to make if he wants to continue to placate his hard-right base.  

    by SVDem on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 08:21:06 AM PDT

    •  Make the move, yes...

      but not successfully. Otherwise, the republics might have to run on real issues next time around.

      by RonV on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 09:08:53 AM PDT

•  Results Would Be Counter-Productive

  The whole point is get people riled up, so that they vote against their interests. Actually winning real victories would reduce the pressure, and they might start thinking about realworld issues. Can't have that!

  No, it's much better to have them worshipping George Bush as a good man resolutely fighting against the forces of darkness. The more he loses, the more he wins. Tested by God and all that.

  Hey, you know, his brother could run a bang-up campaign for prez along these same lines next time around: Jeb and Job in 2008! Plagues of locusts! Bring it on!

  by Paul Rosenberg on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 08:18:52 AM PDT

•  This essentially means

  that the SCOTUS thinks that this is a states rights issue that they have no business butting in on, and could actually be an arguement against a constitutional amendment since the Supreme Court apparently holds this view.

  If they really wanted to be as activist as some of these right wingers think they wanted to be, they could have grabbed this case and declared that it was legal everywhere...but they didn't. Neither did they grab it and say it was illegal everywhere either.

  by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 08:20:07 AM PDT

  •  YES!

    The most insightful piece in the article is the opinion itself, which states that intense interest in the matter doesn't constitute injury.  That's something I don't think I've even heard with regard to this issue, and I've been following it.  It's a very compelling argument and one I think we'll begin to hear even more as gay marriage cases continue to be tried in higher courts.

    In other words -- how are you hurt by gay people choosing to wed?  How is anyone hurt?  This will force the homophobes into the corner of having to explain what things like "the sanctity of marriage" really mean.  Not a job I'd volunteer for...

    by The Termite on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 08:30:47 AM PDT

    •  Well yeah

      But that's mostly an arguement for banning it after it's been legalized.

      The arguement for legalizing it while it is currently banned has to have a part in it showing how it isn't harmful, but it primarily centers around the arguement that it is somehow an inherent right which no legislature can take away.

      That is the hard part.

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 08:34:16 AM PDT

      •  Spelling, Bro

        Don't know why I care that the word "argument" would be mis-spelled as "arguement."  Doesn't diminish your position.  Spelling Bees are Fascists!

        by bookdude53 on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 07:40:09 PM PDT

    •  oops

      Realized that the "injury" quote wasn't the Court's but the attorney's.  Still a beautiful argument.

      by The Termite on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 08:50:38 AM PDT

    •  MA SJC

      This sentiment echos that of the Massachusetts SJC decision, which is essentially that the power of the state to regulate marriage licensing may only be predicated on rational (health and welfare) concerns... and that the evidence does not support the assertion that same-sex marriage leads to injury.  Indeed, the SJC specifically suggests that "that permitting same-sex couples to marry 'will not diminish the validity or dignity of opposite-sex marriage'".

      At any rate, regardless of one's perspective, MA is certainly now an experiment-in-progress.  If there is any negative societal impact of same-sex marriage, we ought to be able to see it.  If not, then it will be increasingly difficult for the naysayers to demonstrate any rational basis for continuing a national ban.

      by mik on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 10:02:31 AM PDT

      •  impact

        Indeed, the SJC specifically suggests that "that permitting same-sex couples to marry 'will not diminish the validity or dignity of opposite-sex marriage'".

        It could be argued that it diminishes the validity and dignity of opposite-sex marriage in the eyes of people biased against same-sex marriages, by association. Of course, the real problem is their own bias, so tough shit.

        At any rate, regardless of one's perspective, MA is certainly now an experiment-in-progress. If there is any negative societal impact of same-sex marriage, we ought to be able to see it.

        Aside from a slight increase in the number of people suffering emotional damage from bad poetry and lame wedding DJs, I haven't seen any negative societal impact so far.

        by Bearpaw on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 02:07:52 PM PDT

•  It's not about winning substantively

  on any of the fundamentalist bedrock issues.

  It's all about making enough hardcore and borderline hardcore Christians--especially lower and lower-middle class blue collar Christians who swould otherwise be solidly in the Dem base--constantly feel as though their values are being threatened, so that they continue to vote against their economic interests.

  As the guy who wrote "What's the Matter With Kansas?" states, it's not about winning for the people who pull the strings. They don't really believe in the fundie stuff. For the people who pull the strings in the Republican Party, it's about losing on issue after issue, and then using the resulting sense of fear of the counterculture and coastal elite moral bankruptcy to retain power so that they can continue to plunder the nation.

  by tameszu on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 08:22:32 AM PDT

  •  Bullseye

    I was thinking about "What's the Matter With Kansas?" as well.  Most of the extremes we will see over the next few years will be more about losing than winning.  It spreads the fear.  It ought be obvious that they are being played, but for some reason, open manipulation like this works very well.

    Along these same lines will be/are: extremist possisitions on abortion will be shot down.  Teaching creationism will be shot down.  Overturning all gun control will be shot down.  And all by 'narrow' legislative losses, defeated amendments, and even the conservative SCOTUS.

    We will trumpet all of these as dramatic victories, not realizing that the intent is not to win, but to lose.  And by losing spread fear and resentment.  Firing up the red state base (and the red base within blue states) with fear, mistrust, and lothing of all things liberal and modern, the GOP can run even further right, and raid the national treasury in 'boring' legislative sessions filled with proceedural moves thier base doesn't understand and will likely ignore.

    We've been down this road before.  The question is: what do we do about it?

    by nullspace on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 11:49:29 AM PDT

•  I agree with Staver

  Federal courts, he said, should defend people's right "to live in a republican form of government free from tyranny, whether that comes at the barrel of a gun or by the decree of a court."

  Indeed -- no court, nor law, nor constitutional amendment should prevent my church from marrying a gay couple, if it should desire to do so.

  Yet the religous right seems pretty intent in using the government to tell churches what they can and cannot sanctify.  Why aren't gay marrage-banning amendments framed like this more often?  Why isn't this an issue of the government intruding on the church?

  by ccarollo on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 08:23:05 AM PDT

  •  But...

    having a court interpret the law is required to have a republican form of government.

    Just because you disagree with a ruling doesn't mean it's wrong (as most people seem to think) and the SCOTUS can't tell a state supreme court that they're interpreting their state constitution wrong.  Sorry anti-gay marriage people who brought up this suit...it doesn't work that way.

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 08:25:26 AM PDT

    •  nono, you missed my point

      I'm not agreeing with Staver in the "pro-gay marriage ban" sense, I'm agreeing with him in the sense that the courts should stay out of the church.

      The gay marriage-banning amendments are clearly telling the churches who they can and cannot marry, which SHOULD be outraging the church-going public.

      by ccarollo on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 10:34:07 AM PDT

  •  No, no, no

    Indeed -- no court, nor law, nor constitutional amendment should prevent my church from marrying a gay couple, if it should desire to do so.

    No court, law, nor constitutional amendment can prevent your church from marrying a same-sex couple should it choose to do so, any more than it can force your church to marry a same-sex couple if it doesn't want to. The legal fight only has to do with whether or not same-sex marriages can/should be legally recognized by the state. It has absolutely nothing to do with church recognition, either way.

    Some righties have intentionally confused the issue as a manipulative scare tactic, but recognition of marriages by churches and recognition of marriages by states are two separate things. Whether or not a same-sex couple can be married in a church always has been entirely up to the church and -- absent really really big changes that are far beyond even this administration -- will continue to be up to the church.

    by Bearpaw on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 02:24:42 PM PDT

    •  Not quite

      No court, law, nor constitutional amendment can prevent your church from marrying a same-sex couple should it choose to do so, any more than it can force your church to marry a same-sex couple if it doesn't want to.

      Because marriage is regulated by the state, no religious community can marry a same-sex couple if the state does not allow same-sex couples to marry.  They may be able to have a blessing ceremony, but it's not a marriage.

      I'm not willing to cede this territory to the right.  Regulating marriage is a state function.  Clergy are only allowed to marry couples via a proxy granted by the state.  The state does not allow those clergy to marry same-sex couples (except in MA).

      by MAJeff on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 02:30:50 PM PDT

      •  sure it is

        Because marriage is regulated by the state, no religious community can marry a same-sex couple if the state does not allow same-sex couples to marry. They may be able to have a blessing ceremony, but it's not a marriage.

        It's not legally recognized as a marriage, and therefore doesn't get the legal rights and responsibilities. But it sure as hell is a marriage as far as the couple, their church, and I am concerned.

        by Bearpaw on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 02:38:55 PM PDT

•  Barring Gay marriage may affect hetero couples

  As it did on 8 states...

  Voters barred ANY CIVIL CONTRACT between partners, even hetero partners

  The states that used marriage as a cover to mount an assault on contractual relationships of all kinds were Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Utah.

  Great catch by grammydidi on Common Ground Common Sense

  OH voters got scammed, told one thing by TV, something else was on the ballot

  They most definitely were not 'protecting' marriage; they were attacking gay people

  That is why the political and business establishment [in OH], including Republicans, opposed the measure.

  The evidence is that the voters who approved it also opposed its actual contents. In the official exit poll Tuesday night, 27 percent of the voters said they support full marriage rights, 35 percent supported civil unions, and only 27 percent oppose any legal rights for same-sex couples.
  
  PA and news coverage of ballots in other states mentioned which states' referendums applied to all of these type of unions.

  (in the churches where politics instead of religion was coming from the pulpits, any one who asked about the effect on heterosexual couples was [probably] answered with "they're living in sin, if they want these rights they can get married")

  
  Ohio Ammendment
  

  Issue 1 Election 2004� State Issue
  
  Section 11 of Article XV thereof, to read as follows:Article XV Section 11. Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage            
  

  Issue 1 would amend the Ohio Constitution so that the state recognizes as valid only those marriages between a man and a woman. This definition of marriage would extend to all local government entities, such as municipalities and institutions of higher education. The amendment further states that no legal status, such as a civil union, may be devised by state or local government that would carry the weight of marriage or confer any benefits or obligations of marriage on unmarried individuals As such, it would revoke actions already taken by some cities and universities, and would test the validity of adoptions, custody orders, wills, powers of attorney, and other legal arrangements between both same-sex and unmarried opposite-sex couples
  

  by lawnorder on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 08:23:30 AM PDT

  •  seniors should have thought about this one

    Supposing, despite the fact that you are widowed, you cannot find it in your heart to remarry.

    But you meet someone, and, well...

    A civil union allows you to preserve a vow to which you continue to feel psychologically bound despite the fact that its terms do, in fact, unbind you.

    by seriously blown cue on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 09:18:44 AM PDT

  •  Agreed

    I pointed this out to friends and collegues here in Oklahoma.  Oklahoma is a common law marriage state -- meaning that two individuals could come to an agreement to be married, and receivei all the benefits of marriage w/o any type of ceremony.  The amendement that was just passed prohibits any couple who are not married from receiving the benefits of marriage.  The goal was to prevent gay marriage and civil unions.  The result will be, I feel, that couples who have considered themselves to be in a common law marriage will suddenly discover that they can no longer receive the benefits that they have come to expect.

    by ArkieOkie on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 11:04:51 AM PDT

  •  I'm not so sure about that

    I wouldn't be so quick to use their theoretical support for civil unions as evidence they were somehow "tricked." Maybe some of them were; however, I find it far more likely that, all other things being equal, civil unions may very well have been "okay" with them. But when it came down to banning them entirely in order to "preserve" the Sacred Institution of Marriage, I doubt they had any qualms whatsoever about throwing the whole shebang - marriage, civil unions, employment rights, housing rights, gay people themselves - under the bus, backing up, and running them over a couple dozen more times.

    by SingularExistence on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 01:57:29 PM PDT

    •  Good pt

      The "Support" for civil unions that polls keep telling us about isn't all that useful.  It might be the same kind of "support" W expressed, the "I suppose I could live with it" type of support.

      by MAJeff on Mon Nov 29, 2004 at 02:15:52 PM PDT

•  Get ready

  For two-three weeks of "judicial activisits" put on the bench by the liberals. This is exactly what President Bush was talking about. We need a Constitutional Amendment now. Change the rules to stop filibustering immediately. Hollywood values, hollywood values,