Comments

  1. Jim Stone says

    If the court had left interracial marriage “up to the states” I am sure even in 2012 there would be states in the Deep South that would forbid it. The courts must step in! This “patchwork quilt” of states does not work…

  2. Jesse says

    Scalia with certainly not voting for any gay rights, regardless of the facts presented. And if Romney wins the election, the conservative members will be emboldened to rule with Scalia, too.

  3. mikenola says

    @ Jim Stone, Here in Louisiana in 2009 a Justice of the Peace refused to marry an interracial couple because the children would be stupid and made fun of by society.

    Keith Bardwell, former justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, has resigned. Oddly most of the newspapers did not report his worst comments and most of them did not report on the OVERWHELMING support he had from residents of Tangipahoa Parish and other nearby parishes.

  4. mikenola says

    @jesse

    Roberts, Alito, Scalia or Thomas voting for the good guys is all that is needed.

    Odds are good that Kennedy will vote with the Good Guys, mainly because he always vote for the liberalest interpretation when it comes to “rights” issues. Business issues not so much, but personal rights he is solidly on the left.

    Interestingly Scalia, in his dissent of Lawrence said that (paraphrase here) allowing gay sex to be an intrinsic civil right means that nothing can stop gay marriage.

    What makes that even more interesting is that he recently told a conservative interviewer that in his opinion deciding issues like abortion and SSM wee ‘constitutionally’ easy.

    This of course after framing himself as some one who reads the constitution as the founders did, and “knows” the minds of the writers and founders.

    that statement can go either way in meaning, as Scalia has often tacitly admitted that his Catholic point of view colors his judgements on the Court.

  5. mikenola says

    I should clarify something from above.

    We want at least a 6-3 or 7-2 court decision in our favor. A 5-4 will give us the win but just adds fuel to all the bogus whining about ‘activist’ judges.

    6-3 or 7-2 shuts down a whole lot of that.

    As for Thomas there is not a possibility in HELL that Thomas will ever vote for anybody’s rights but his own and his wifes. Remember she is a power player in the Tea Party and he even refuse to recuse himself in a case she was involved directly in.

  6. gregory brown says

    Oh, Clarence Thomas and his White wife. What a thing! It’s likely good that he seldom says anything because it would probably be heinous if not stupid. He got himself a lifetime appointment with good pay and benefits, so why rock any boats? Makes one yearn for the days when Earl Butz could make crude jokes.

  7. FAEN says

    If it’s left up to the states, gay and lesbian Americans in the South will be in for a long fight.

    How ridiculous will this be-get married in NY and then move back home to AL. You are federally protected but not at the state level?

  8. joe says

    If they want so badly to undo this pain, why were they working so closely with Mitt Romney to coach him on his debate when he is on the polar opposite side of the fence?

  9. Diogenes Arktos says

    @MikeNola: At least he allowed for the possibility of progeny. Before Loving, there was a campaign against miscegination whose points exactly echo reasons to deny marriage equality for us. Seriously, one point was that interracial couples could not have children!

  10. Andy Humm says

    I haven’t yet watched this all the way to the end, but did Rachel ask Olson why he is wholeheartedly supporting Romney-Ryan who want to ban same-sex marriage in the federal constitution and who is Ryan’s chief debate prepper? Does he care so little about this issue that he will install the Republithugs who will suppress LGBT rights for a generation, especially through their judicial appointments?

  11. Andy Humm says

    OK. I did watch to the end. Rachel did ask Olson about his support for Romney-Ryan and what it will do to LGBT rights. Olson’s answer was not very compelling, but the issue was dealt with.

  12. Rich says

    @FAEN

    The most important marital rights — taxation, inheritance and immigration — are given or withheld by the Federal Government. So long as the Statue of Liberty guards New York Harbor and Fort Sumter guards Charleston Harbor, your essential rights should be safe. (but I’d suggest you get a competent legal opinion, just in case)

  13. Russ says

    @RICH: I believe you are partly mistaken. The federal government sets immigration policy and federal taxes, true. But inheritance law, especially for people who die without a will, is a matter of state law, which varies among the various states rather widely. Unlike in Canada and other countries, here the states, not the national government have always regulated marriage, and most of the legal details are up to the states. For example, it might be that even if DOMA is overruled by the Supremes, the federal government that a married couple could not be forced to testify one against the other in a federal court; but they just might be compelled to do so in a case before a state court. And there are many other examples like that where state and federal laws would vary. So merely getting federal recongition by itself is not enough.

  14. Russ says

    …sorry, a line dropped out somehow. corrected copy:

    @RICH: I believe you are partly mistaken. The federal government sets immigration policy and federal taxes, true. But inheritance law, especially for people who die without a will, is a matter of state law, which varies among the various states rather widely. Unlike in Canada and other countries, here the states, not the national government have always regulated marriage, and most of the legal details are up to the states. For example, it might be that even if DOMA is overruled by the Supremes, the federal government might say that a same-sex married couple could not be forced to testify one against the other in a federal court; but they just might be compelled to do so in a case before a state court which does not recognize same-sex unions. And there are many other examples like that where state and federal laws would vary. So just getting DOMA overturned by itself is not enough.

Leave A Reply