I wish I could be as overjoyed by the California Supreme Court's ruling for same-sex marriage as the rest of the gay world is. Politically, the ruling merely tees up an initiative battle, to be decided by simple majority vote. Backlash against the Court may make that battle harder to win. Affirmation of the Court's decision by plebescite would be tremendous, but it's too early to celebrate.
As for the ruling itself, my reading of it leads to a reaction I wish I didn't have: the majority opinion here is an example of judicial overreach.
Caveat: That's a flash reaction subject to change as I learn more. But, as I understand the opinion, here's what the court did.
In Massachusetts, the state Supreme Court had a stark choice before it: SSM, or throw gays out the window (TGOW). TGOW was a clear denial of equal protection, not remotely justified by the state's arguments, so the court went with SSM.
California offers a very different situation. Gay couples already have available all the substantive state rights of marriage, under the state's domestic-partner program. The state Supreme Court was merely deciding whether the legislature could withhold the word "marriage" in deference to tradition and public preference.
No, said the court. Gays are a "suspect class" and no differentiation of any kind is tolerable. The Court acknowledges that in California "marriage" has always, until now, meant opposite-sex marriage. Nonetheless, it holds that marriage definitionally includes same-sex couples.
Wait a minute. If the state constitution never even contemplated SSM before, why does it mandate SSM now? Because, says the Court, social mores and state policies (including the state's domestic-partner law) have, in the past 30 years, recognized the fundamental importance of equal rights for gays. The state has implicitly repudiated its tradition of discriminating against gays, and marriage law must reflect this change.
What the Court seems to be saying, then, is that California can have SSM. And California can have TGOW, provided throwing gays out the window reflects a broad consensus against gay equality. The one thing California cannot have is compromise en route to gay equality. Once the state has decided to treat gay people equally, it must go all the way. No half-measures, or even 90-percent measures. No experiments, transitions, interim steps, or concessions to politics. All or nothing, now!
This kind of legal totalism, it seems to me, is tailor-made to rule out any kind of accommodation, even if that accommodation gives gay couples most of what we need with the promise of more to come (soon). As one of the dissents points out (PDF), it also may make legislators reluctant to even start down the road toward civil rights.
I think SSM is a better policy than civil unions (at least one of the dissenters agrees). And I think denial of marriage to gay couples is discriminatory. But to make even a well-intentioned compromise ILLEGAL strikes me as a step too far, and a good example of how culture wars escalate.
43 Comments for “Hold the Champagne”
posted by Michael M. on
Actually what the court said was that, because “no differentiation” is tolerable (which is just another way of saying no discrimination based on sexual orientation is tolerable), the state can’t create separate categories. They also said the state could stop using the term “marriage” for everyone; Californina could do exactly what it does now with regard to heterosexual couples and call it “civil unions” or “domestic partners” and if it did so there would be no problem applying those terms to same-sex unions as well. Contrary to your misinformed characterization, the court didn’t make these things “illegal” nor did it “mandate SSM,” it made discrimination based upon sexual orientation illegal. The decision is, at heart, a reaffirmation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s contention in Brown v. Board of Education that “separate but equal” is inherently unconstitutional. If that’s the kind of thing that will make “legislators reluctant to even start down the road toward civil rights,” then we would need new legislators. Above all, we need legislators who are going to respect and uphold the Constitution.
posted by Larry Sanders on
Surely Mr. Rauch knows that the California legislature has already passed marriage equality legislation. Twice! This decision by the California Supreme Court is not forcing the legislature to do anything that they haven’t already done. Twice!! The California legislators are far from being “reluctant to even start down the road toward civil rights”. They should immediately pass the legislation again and send it back to Governor Schwarzenegger, who said that he would respect the court’s decision. So, presumably he would sign it this time.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Mr. Rauch has blatantly misrepresented the CA ruling, which does nothing more than require equal treatment under the law.
posted by Mark on
I wonder if Mr. Rauch would have approved of the U.S. Supreme Court declaring in Loving v. Virginia that Virginia could set up a seperate but equal system of “transracial civil unions,” while maintaining marriage exclusively for couples of the same race?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Jonathan, well said, well written, fairly and rightly said.
Good job.
I like this portion: “Politically, the ruling merely tees up an initiative battle, to be decided by simple majority vote. Backlash against the Court may make that battle harder to win. Affirmation of the Court’s decision by plebescite would be tremendous, but it’s too early to celebrate.”
I made that exact point, less eloquently, in the prior thread.
Moreover, in DOMA states like Michigan, I think if the CA DOMA initiative passes, this “celebration in time” will be a passing moment for gay civil rights in other states and make it virtually impossible in the next 10-15 years to advance the ball farther.
Of course, our gay brethern in the few states that allow gay marriage haven’t been too honest with gay intendeds… if you’re from another state and get hitched in one of those more progressive and moderate states… and, worst of all, your marriage goes south and divorce rears it’s ugly head, you probably won’t be able to secure a dissolution of your union because DOMA states don’t recognize them… and you need to be a resident so you can’t take another trip and complete the divorce in your gay marriage granting state.
Tough problems to work out yet.
You’re absolutely right: a tad bit early to be popping those corks, yet.
We have to beat the Nov initiative first.
posted by Tony on
Jonathan, I’m a huge fan of your gay marriage book and I’ve recommended it to tons of people, but a couple of things you say here don’t make sense to me.
First, I think your comparing Massachusetts to California is not completely accurate. If I remember correctly, after the Massachusetts ruling, the legislature there asked the court if they could create civil unions instead of marriage, and the court said no. So, in that regard, the Massachusetts court also did not tolerate any “differentiation,” as you put it. It had to be marriage in Massachusetts, just as it has to be marriage in California.
Secondly, by describing the state constitution as something that has “never contemplated” SSM, you make it sounds as if the court was ruling somehow that the constitution had changed. Instead, the court has ruled that OUR concept and understanding of homosexuality is what has changed. In times past, WE wouldn’t have thought the equal protection clause applied to homosexuals, because in times past, homosexuals were really sick heterosexuals.
Lastly, the amendment battle would have occurred whether we’d won this case or not. And the majority of people who are planning to vote for it, planned on it even before this positive ruling. While it’s natural to fear a backlash, I see instead three positives that will help us defeat the amendment in Novemeber:
1. For people in the middle, the ruling helps to legitimize SSM. It would be easier for a reasonable person to support an amendment that the highest court in the state seemed to also support, in concept.
2. Thousands of gays will get the chance to marry in California (provided our opponents don’t get a stay) in front of many reasonable people who might have otherwise supported the amendment. It will be much more difficult for reasonable people to cast a vote that would take away the actual marriages of their neighbors, co-workers, cousins, etc. I anticipate most people in the state will know someone who marries.
3. It has fired up gays, our families, our friends, our co-workers, and everyone who supports us. Why do you assume our opponents will be more fired up by this than we are? We have more to lose now than we did two days ago. We are going to fight harder and stronger.
Your gay marriage book is THE best book on the topic I’ve ever read. So I’m surprised to see you be so hesitant by our good fortune.
posted by Craig Nelson on
Although the judicial route has its limitations I don’t agree with the tenor of the article.
Each State has a different Constitution and a different jurisprudence.
The Californian system is inclusive of initiative and amendment, so the legislative branch (including legislature, governor and popular initiative) are intimately bound up in this debate and decision.
Important to remember the initiative to amend the consitution was already there for November.
The voters of California in their popular democratic sovereignty have two options-
1)marriage equality under the current constitution
2)defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman under the amended constitution
after the judges (who are part and parcel of the legislative system and process) have given a ruling and the legislature its opinion (twice).
Actually California seems an incredibly balanced political system in this regard abnd the ruling gives the measure its best chance before the popular vote (far easier to vote in favour of something that’s already in practice than otherwise).
It is of course all down to the voters now and the political democratic sphere will be the final arbiter.
It would be a bit odd to say that gay people can’t appear before the Courts to argue their case, or that they can appear but that the judges can only rule in the same way (against them) – we’d be back to sodomy statutes after all.
posted by Richard on
If we really wanted ‘the people’ and not ‘activist judges’ deciding these things then we would be a bit more interested in a constitutional right to vote, be a candidate, hold public office and establish political organizations.
posted by Throbert McGee on
I wonder if Mr. Rauch would have approved of the U.S. Supreme Court declaring in Loving v. Virginia that Virginia could set up a seperate but equal system of “transracial civil unions,” while maintaining marriage exclusively for couples of the same race?
Since Richard and Mildred Loving were initially placed under arrest upon returning to Virginia, after obtaining a legal marriage in D.C., I’d think any sane person would have to concede that “transracial civil unions” would actually have been a RATHER GIGANTIC IMPROVEMENT over the status quo.
“Separate is not equal” is a slogan that comes from the fight over school segregation — but access to public-school funding is intrinsically a zero-sum game, while access to couplehood benefits is intrinsically NOT zero-sum.
posted by Charles Wilson on
The ruling doesn’t require same-sex marriage. It requires equal treatment. As I noted in the other thread, equal treatment can (and in my view, should) consist of separating domestic partnership contacts from marriage.
The state shouldn’t have a role in marriage. That’s a private affair, open to numerous interpretations based on religion, conscience, and belief. Domestic partnership contracts are a civil matter, and as they are concerned the state should treat them equally without regard to the gender of those involved.
As for why the California constitution requires it now and didn’t require it 30 years ago, that’s because times have changed. As times change, so does the law.
posted by Charles Wilson on
A footnote from the opinion: “This court?s 1948 decision in Perez, supra, 32 Cal.2d 711, was the first judicial decision to hold that a statute prohibiting interracial marriage was unconstitutional. It was not until nearly 20 years later, in 1967, that the United States Supreme Court reached the same conclusion in Loving v. Virginia, supra, 388 U.S. 1, striking down a comparable Virginia statute.”
It would seem that the CA Supreme Court has a long track record of being bolder than “Independent” gays, including those of them writing from the timid precincts of Washington, D.C. think tanks. The West Coast has always been a little funny that way.
posted by Jorge on
I didn’t like the Massachussets ruling, and from what I can tell I like this one even less. I didn’t have the stamina to read the decision (or even reach the first page), but from the synopsis it sounded like the court was saying gays have a fundamental right to have a marriage that’s called “m-a-r-r-i-a-g-e.” Otherwise everyone knows they’re different, even if the benefits are the same.
That does not compare at all to the groundbreaking victories in the Loving (interracial marriage) and Lawrence cases, which were about people who were actually arrested for their marital choices.
I believe in the right to marriage–and I believe we have it already. Under this ruling that right becomes reduced to nothing more than a right to be praised by the government. I don’t understand how people can allow their self esteem to be controlled by an outside force in this way.
What really gives me pause is learning that there are twenty six states that have passed constitutional amendments banning the government from recognizing gay marriages… it’s reached that high already! Most of it is a direct result of people’s reactions to the Massachussets ruling. I’m sure that’s had the side effect of increasing hostility toward gays overall.
posted by Bobby on
The people of California already voted in a defense of marriage thing, prop-22 I think it was called. So the judges basically told the people to fuck off, “we know better than you.” But then again, if the people in Washington DC wanted gun control and the judges told them “wait a minute, you can’t mess with the second amendment” I would like that decision as well, while others would refer to it as “judicial activism.”
However, hopefully most oponents of gay marriage will get used to the idea once it has been implemented.
posted by Amicus on
I hear what you say, but *sometimes* courts have to judge the severity of the ills when protecting minority rights. It would be foolish to think that every Constitution was written to envision every future possible valid claim and similarly foolish to think that every minority group would need to pass an Amendment to achieve equalities not explicitly foreseen. [In fact, some countries eschew “Constitutional Law” altogether…]
In these situations, sometimes two “wrongs” makes a right. In Arizona, the course that you envision as the most stalwart one is not being trampled by the courts, but by groups seeking to keep a harmony between civil and religious marriage. More broadly, in these states that go for “super-DOMA”, how is that not “overreach” itself? Isn’t that democracy at its worst, an appeal to the prejudice(s) of the mob?
If one honestly believes in the substance of the claim, in the equal dignity of gay relationships (as most of us do), then it’s really hard to find an injustice done, by the CA court’s decision. Afterall, non-gays can continue without any burden whatsoever (it’s far less intrusive a ‘social engineering’ than say school busing ever was or even the voting rights act).
As for cutting out the ‘middle ground’, I’d hearken you back to your own points about Federalism. California could go a step further, and use the reasoning they did, because they have already had middle ground. I’ll bet that other states stick with their rational basis review, although it is a betting issue. All told, there may be less a chance of a chilling effect *in the courts*, and more likelihood of a rukus in the political sphere, feed to the Henney Penneys fighting gay relationship rights.
Purely from gaging the backlash perspective, a quick look at the map shows that there isn’t too much more “punishment” that can be passed out. So many states are *already* “locked up” under mobocracy Constitutional Amendments, right? If we have the last filing of the wording of the proposed California amendment (i.e. the final version), then it does no more than bring back the status quo to CA, as it existed before the Court’s deicions, and gay-rights groups would have had to mount a ballot initiative to counter Prop 22 eventually, anyway, so they just have a “new 22” to counter. The hurdle is slightly higher, in terms of signatures required, not majority of votes needed for passage.
posted by Charles Wilson on
The California Legislature twice passed gay marriage, but the state’s Republican governor vetoed it. The self-hating gays of the “Independent” gay forum doubtlessly applauded the move.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Amicus opines: “Purely from gaging (sic) the backlash perspective, a quick look at the map shows that there isn’t too much more “punishment” that can be passed out. So many states are *already* “locked up” under mobocracy Constitutional Amendments, right?”
Living in one of those states, Michigan, that suffers under a DOMA (we’ll leave the perjoriative of “mobocracy” for another day) I can tell you Amicus there’s a ton of punishment that can still be meted out by the proponents of DOMA and gay civil rights restrictions.
For instance, in Michigan, I helped draft a series of bills that would provide partners equal protection under the state tax code, the adoption code, partners’ hospital bill of rights, etc.
Guess what? The coalition that pushed for DOMA told us those bills are dead-on-arrival in their view.
So when you say not much more adverse could happen beyond prohibiting gays from marrying… well, yeah there are UNLESS your one of the gay activists who think the right to marry is paramount to all other gay agenda items.
That’s why it’s critically important the CA gays absolutely and resoundingly defeat the Nov initiative… if they don’t, they’ll embolden opponents of gay civil rights in countless states across the land and, once again, our gay community will have allowed the few to press so hard that they ruin the opportuntites for the many.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
“UNLESS your one of the gay activists”
Should have been “you’re”.
posted by Charles Wilson on
That’s why it’s critically important the CA gays absolutely and resoundingly defeat the Nov initiative
I suppose we should appreciate our victories, among them being that Michigan-Matt apparently has decided that it’s no longer in his interest to be out there has mocking gay marriage as an idea that comes “from the far radical Left?”
How long will it be until you declare that it was your idea all along? This is something of a pattern over the years with Republicans. They fight something tooth and nail — sort of like General Motors, which opposed every single automobile safety feature ever invented — and once it gets implemented anyway then they both claim the credit for it while exploiting whatever residual bitterness there is about the change. Ha!
posted by tavdy on
Here’s one question that’s got me thinking: if a person already in a same-sex marriage enters a opposite-sex (and therefore federally-recognised) marriage in a US or foreign DOMA state what would the legal status of the two marriage be in either CA or MA? Would the federally-recognised one take precedence? Because the opposite is true in countries like the UK, which recognises American gay marriages & civil unions and so would not recognise the second, bigamous marriage.
posted by Amicus on
MM, My spreadsheet shows Michigan is among the States with the worst, mean-spirited of Constitutional Amendments, the “super-DOMA” variety. There is not too much more that they can do legally, because they cannot bring back the criminal sodomy statutes…
Personally, I don’t think that the Supremes in states like Minnesota (who haven’t looked at it) or Arizona (who have) are going to follow the California court’s lead. I can think of only one place where that might happen (and we should talk to people like Evan Wolfson, not me, who know the terrain backwards and forwards), and my hunch is that the Justices are going to … put off a decision. It’s no more than a hunch, based on how I think the court views its own self-interest in those cases.
posted by Patrick on
KingCharles, look… everyone who reads or comments more than once in this site knows you have a stalker/sicko obsession with both Michigan-Matt and others.
Could you please refrain from these ancillary rants and try to keep at least one thread on-topic?
You have to be the MOST annoying pain in the ass village idiots anyone could ever find. But, I guess, you’ve been told that more than a few times in the past.
Grow up you little spoiled brat; it’s not always ALL about you. We don’t care what you’re obsessive stalker personality thinks about MM… stay on the topic or get on your meds.
posted by Charles Wilson on
stay on the topic or get on your meds
The topic is gay marriage. It’s of interest that someone who only two years ago mocked the idea should now be purporting to support it. Maybe that doesn’t matter to you, given that hypocrisy and deceit is the coin of the realm in your world. Elsewhere, it matters.
posted by Joel on
I dont see how gay couples affect anyone,unless you let it bother you. I guess their all too afraid of kids being raised by parents that dont let them watch while they sodomize.(maybe since their gay, their morality is flawed and thus very probably can let their kids watch) Afraid that they might actually feed their(the gay couple’s) kids with food and even take them to school. Or worst of all, to teach them that homosexuality is normal and not at all contundently death destined individuals.
Maybe the real problem is the widely perceived slippery slope notion. Let gay couples marry and THE WORLD will start going downhill. BEASTIALS WILL FRUK COWS as normal and a human right. KIDS WILL CONSENTUALLY FRUK PEADOPHILES as normal and a human right. Age consent will be lowered and then PEADOPHILES WILL MARRY KIDS, completely normal. As slippery far fetched as it sounds… i ask myself, why not? COWS=objects, like masturbating with a toy. As for peodophiles, i guess it all spins depending on the age that humans can actually consent. Since kids actually start experimentin on each other at around(wild guess) 14, then what would be the distinctive and substantial difference between a non-abusive peadophile consenting with the 14 yr old and the 14yr old to the 14yr old?
posted by NYU 3L on
Rauch seems to criticize the ruling because it may backfire, doesn’t allow for “compromise,” etc. Neither of these should be any concern for a State Supreme Court that is trying to apply the State Constitution to the issue at hand. In fact, it would be serious “overreaching” if the Court were to consider whether a more moderate ruling might be more palatable to the general population or helpful to gay rights in the long run. Rauch needs to read the California Constitution, particularly the equal protection clause, and notice that it is written in fairly stark terms, terms that necessarily lead to rulings that are either “TGOW” or “SSM” in nature. Certain groups either qualify for equal protection or they do not.
The Majority in this ruling was merely being faithful to the text. The equal protection clause of the California Constitution has no footnote allowing for “half-measures, or even 90-percent measures … experiments, transitions, interim steps, or concessions to politics.” Rauch would have them insert one so as to avoid a “culture war.” Now that would be some serious judicial overreach.
posted by Patrick on
KingCharles the racist stalker lies when claiming
“The topic is gay marriage. It’s of interest that someone who only two years ago mocked the idea should now be purporting to support it. Maybe that doesn’t matter to you, given that hypocrisy and deceit is the coin of the realm in your world. Elsewhere, it matters.”
Of interest only to you. It seems you are the lying hypocrite, Charles Wilson.
I looked at the site you “claim” proves your point and it appears that MM is saying something entirely consistent with what he’s written here, at GayPatriot, at Macontent, at BfT and elsewhere. He says that the radicalized left in our community are pushing the issue of gay marriage at the possible (or probable) expense of broader gay civil rights that would end up helping more gays, not just the radicalized secularized left. And no, he isn’t saying that “only” the gay left is pushing gay marriage or that if you push gay marriage, you’re a gay leftist (lefty?). And he isn’t mocking gay marriage either. In fact, as you well know but care to ignore repeatedly, he fought his own State’s DOMA in 2004 when you were still sitting in your pj’s in your Mom’s basement pumping out hate from your keyboard and getting blocked at even radical LeftWing sites you frequented.
MM says in that thread “… gay marriage is important to the few that clearly want the sanction of society in being married but that affects only a small segement of our entire gay community. It would be exactly if all the political resources of the gay community and its voice were directed towards opening adoption for gays; that would appeal to a small segment of our world also…. that’s what’s happening now with gay marriage and it will lead to a blacklash against ALL gays like it has in Michigan with passage of our restrictive, Constitutionally-codified DOMA….”
Later, MM writes: “… gay marriage and the pressure for that societal validation presses our strongest opponents to succeed at blocking ALL gay civil rights short of marriage. It’s insane that we’re allowing a small segment to kill progress on other issues because they want/need a right of marriage”.
Doesn’t exactly sound like the onerous opinion you’d like to project. In fact, you’re deceitful and misleading on this like you been on your racist comments about deaths from tropical storms being easily dismissed as “just a little asian stir fry”. You said you never said those things even 6 days after you had said them on a site you hoped didn’t archive your racist commentaries.
And the deceits and lies about all the blogs you’ve been kicked off, barred, banned and blocked for the same lying, stalking, deceitful behavior going back to 2002 and up to just last week. But let’s not go there to demonstrate your long career of lying, deceit, stakling and creepiness.
In short, Charles Wilson, it seems you are the liar and pornographer of truth -not MM on gay marriage.
In fact, MM said on GayPatriot (another site you’ve been banned, barred, blocked and kicked off in at least 7 different sockpuppet identities) “…look JC, MMpartner and I are lucky. We’ve been able to use legal resources not available to all to secure the privileges in our partnership we think we need to protect each other, our assets and our family. Not every gay can do that and that is why civil unions with parallel rights and privileges to conventional marriage need to be secured for all gays. Gay marriage isn’t needed if all those other gay civil rights can be secured in other venues. More importantly, to press for the atomic bomb of gay marriage in the culture war will only hurt and hinder gay civil rights on other fronts. We gays aren’t in the majority view on gay marriage because state after state after state in 2004 passed DOMAs to stop the push for gay marriage.”
Your lies follow you, Charles Wilson. You have a pattern of deceit well established on these issues. If you had any capacity for shame, you’d be hiding your face from the truth.
Knowing you, you’ll just keep on going no matter who or how many times your deceits and lies are exposed.
posted by AWESOME on
BEASTIALS WILL FRUK COWS
I love IGF so much…
posted by Michigan-Matt on
BTW Patrick, as you rightly point out, Charles Wilson is incorrect and misleading when he says I mocked gay marriage.
That won’t stop him from portraying my 16 years of leadership in fighting for gay civil rights in Michigan, my attendance at the wedding of the very first gay civil union partnership in the US and many since, nor my leadership in fighting Michigan’s DOMA initiative in 2004.
He’ll lie to suit his short termed angry ends and then move on to another broadside on some other topic.
Like dragging up dirt on my deceased and discredited uncle who committed crimes in 1929. LOL. What a loser that Charles Wilson can be when left to his own keyboard and stalking talents!
posted by Charles Wilson on
This is funny. There is Patrick, who has been always been there to back up Michigan Matt. In the thread in question, he was there. And now he’s here. Sockpuppet, anyone?
And then there is the Michigan Matt character, who is no longer even claiming to ignore me and is now back to tell more lies.
In that particular thread, Michigan Matt warmed up by attacking the comedian, Stephen Colbert, who he called “dumber than a sponge.” Patrick chimed in soon after to back him up.
On the mocking of gay marriage, here is what Michigan Matt wrote in that thread:
It’s also why “gay marriage” advocates from the far radical Left continue to misserve our interests…
The quotation marks are Michigan Matt’s, and in that usage they connote the writer’s disdain for what’s inside them. And Michigan Matt connected gay marriage to what he called the “far radical Left.” My use of quotation marks connotes my disdain for Michigan Matt, the Republican liar with a murderer in his family: “My uncle served 57 yrs in Alcatraz for multiple prison breaks, robbery, pistol whipping and killing a guard, and countless crimes in the 9 adult yrs he wasn’t in prison.”
posted by Charles Wilson on
… murderer in the family: “My uncle served 57 yrs in Alcatraz for multiple prison breaks, robbery, pistol whipping and killing a guard, and countless crimes in the 9 adult yrs he wasn’t in prison.”
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Well, Patrick, thanks for pointing out to wet willy the truth… I predicted he wouldn’t listen, eh?
The quotes around the phrase were to differentiate from the earlier use of the phrase marriage equality… it wasn’t meant as wet willy would HOPE he reads it through his cracked, rose-colored glasses.
Wet willy is caught lying again and he doesn’t like it… it’s why he’s started to now stalk Patrick as well as dozens of other targets in the blogosphere… sick, creepy and scarey is quite a trick to pull off even for the ultimate creepster, wet willy.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Patrick, now you’ve agnered wet willy again and he’s resorting to his perfect imitation of Joe McCarthy, his idol.
Smearing people by association with discredited family members… not to mention the troll-like stalker effort finding those references suggests of wet willy.
Gosh, I wonder if wet willy knows those crimes occured in 1929?
What a freakish, troll wet willy has become.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Patrick, I think wet willy is on to us! Did you see this?
“This is funny. There is Patrick, who has been always been there to back up Michigan Matt. In the thread in question, he was there. And now he’s here. Sockpuppet, anyone?”
Sort of like when I was helping to defend North Dallas 30 over at Malcontent and all wet willy could to was cry about people gaining up on HIM and had they no decency for a sick, demented troll?
Or how about here when Bobby told wet willy that I’m a moderate… I loathe the farRight and what it’s done to the GOP… wet willy claimed “sock puppet” again.
Or how about… well, nevermind. Wet willy has his angry, bitter life keyboarding against the religionists, against the Bushies, against the GOP, agains the LogCabinRebpulicans, against Moms with kids that have MS, against the faimilies of troops who have injured or dead soldiers, against people who think gays shouldn’t be slaves on the Democrat plantation, etc.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Wait, stop the presses Patrick… because i responded after wet willy, does that make me his sockpuppet too?
LOL. What a freak that guy is… vast right wing conspiracy countdown in… 5, 4, 3, 2, go wet willy.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Oh and just for the record, who exactly has been rushing to Charles Wilson’s side to defend his sick, creepy stalking conduct?
No one.
It’s because for Charles, loyalty isn’t a family value… sleeping around, alcoholism, addiction, petty personal attacks and lying are his values.
It’s why people say this:
“WW is most likely Willysnout, a sad, angry little man from Seattle who has been trolling Milblogs for a year or two. Before the milblogs, he trolled travel sites and who knows what…” Patterico’s blog
or from one of those travel sites…
“My nominee for the most obnoxious post of the month… it’s a tossup between OP’s profile or willysnout -who is the most pretentious wanker… nope, willysnout wins” -those quotes from a collection of longtime readers of a site wet willy likes to frequent and bore and abuse people.
It’s gotta hurt wet willy when he sees good people rising to the defense of other good people.
It destroys his angry construct of the world outside his Mom’s basement… on the positive side, it does reinforce his paranoia that there’s a vast RightWing LogCabin conspiracy against him… and only him.
posted by Craig Nelson on
Just a few points by way of recap.
1)The US is federal in nature and (so far as I am aware) all States have supreme courts that may strike down legislation if found to be unconstitutional as well.
If people in one State (let’s say California) don’t like this they can amend the State Constitution to prevent any law being struck down.
In the UK, when the Human Rights Act was enacted , there was debate about the power of judges to strike down laws. It was decided that (a) judges interpret laws so as to be consistent with the Human Rights Act and (b) if unable to do so, they are able to make a declaration of incompatibility leaving it to the Government and Parliament to rectify the matter.
Similarly in Canada, judges can make rulings but this is subject to a ‘notwithstanding clause’.
All of these options are open to the citizens of California if they want to use their power of initiative to amend the Constitution.
The judges therefore have only so much power as given them under a Constitution, which can be amended if the people so wish it.
The legislature as popularly constituted representatives can of course also put an amendment to the constitution to the people.
(The US Supreme Court is much less responsive to considerations of popular views than are State Supreme Courts and should accordingly be much more conservative – and is – in its rulings).
2) This is a matter for the people as a constitutional amendment is before them in November. California therefore has a democratic choice between marriage (word and all) and merely a functional (separate but ‘equal’) parity that already obtains.
3) Finally I would see any ruling on removing a long standing statute is going to raise issues of ‘over-reach’ and debate of the role the supreme court. Such rulings have in recent years been closely divided rulings on whichever side the ruling comes.
Mass 4-3 in favour
NJ 4-3 against but instituting civil unions
NY 4-2 against
Wash 5-4 against
Calif. 4-3 in favour
posted by Tim on
The court decision will have consequences my friends!! I was watching a local Sunday round table discussion from one of the Philadelphia television stations, and one of the topics was this California Supreme Court decision. Pennsylvania is one of many states debating the issue of gay marriage, like California. Well, not to long ago there was the proposal of an amendment to our state’s constitution to effectively ban gay marriage, more specifically to define marriage exclusively as between a man and a woman. Now, this is already the legal definition in Pennsylvania, but a constitutional amendment would strip the courts of any power to change that law. The idea of a constitutional change had been shelved, but now in light of the California Supreme Court decision, it is being revived. Expect to see similar discussions in many other states. Using the courts to force gay marriage will only create a backlash. There must be a change in the hearts and minds of people, and the courts creating law, and usurping the democratic process, only creates resentment and retaliation.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Tim, you’re absolutely right… and it’s why we all need to work to see the CA initiative fail –if it isn’t defeated in what most Americans see as a very, very liberal and progressive state– the initiative’s unfortunate success (with even long court battles) would harm gays in state’s like my own Michigan where we are just now, 4 years after the adoption of a state DOMA, just getting around to being able to discuss legislation that would give Michigan gays some of the litany of rights enjoyed by CA gays before the decision.
There’s a lot at stake outside of CA and you’re absolutely right… gays need to mobilize in other states where DOMAs may have been tried in the past… because is CA passes an initiative and overturns the CA SupCt decision, it’ll be nanoseconds until other groups in other states go at the proverbial brass ring to “protect” marriage.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Hey Michigan-Matt, do you just kinda-sorta think that there might be the tiniest bit of a credibility issue for Republican gays who have attacked their own community and belittled gay marriage in the past, now calling everyone to the defense of an idea that they’ve attacked as coming “from the far radical Left?”
Why should anyone take such a spokesman seriously?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Charles, let me applaud you for holding your tongue and acting moderately civil for a change. It’s a welcome and much overdue change.
As for your question, I’m sorry to say Charles but you’re wrong again.
I didn’t mock marriage or gay marriage, recently or at any other time on the campaign trail going back to December 2003.
You claim that’s the case but you continue to ignore reasonable explanation of what was said and prefer to misquote, distort and reduce my words to a non-contextual blather against me, instead of you trying to comprehend.
I have made it point here and in the quotes you use (out of context) that gay marriage as an issue is indeed an issue used by the gayLeft in order to manipulate gay contributions to gayLeft groups just like DOMA was used by the farRight to solicit contributions and volunteers for their groups.
But you aren’t listening to reasonable explanations because you want to hate, discredit and distort.
I can’t help you with that personal agenda, but I can defend myself when you deliberately misconstrue –and this is the 11th time on IGF you’ve done it on this single issue.
The simple truth is that I worked very hard to defeat Michigan’s DOMA effort -first in the House, then on the ballot drive, then on the ballot and within my Party. I’m head of a group of 37 statewide groups working behind the scenes to move forward on a litany of gay civil rights bills.
I’ll have to leave you to your own devices on why you continue to choose hate over reason.
posted by Charles Wilson on
I’ll have to leave you to your own devices on why you continue to choose hate over reason.
It’s not “hate” to question the credibility of someone who once mocked gay marriage as a radical, leftist idea, and now purports to be its defender. I frankly don’t see what good you or whatever “behind the scenes” group you claim to “lead” can or will do.
What is this group you claim to lead? What is its membership? What is your “leadership” role there? Surely this should be something that you’re proud of, right?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Charles offers “It’s not “hate” to question the credibility of someone who once mocked gay marriage as a radical, leftist idea….”
Sure it is, Charles. It is hate that drives you here and elsewhere and that’s abundantly evident.
Directly above these words of yours I carefully explain to you what has now been repeated 12 times to you and you still stick with your hateful perception.
Why do I say that, aside from the fact that it’s taken 12 times of repeating a simple idea and you still don’t get it?
Because it’s that very hate which confounds your capacity to learn or think beyond your blindered, narrow view.
But I’m beginning to think it’s not that you don’t “get it”… you just can’t get it because you’d have to leave behind the emotion of hate… and having all those negative emotions you share here is probably better than having nothing.
posted by Craig2 on
Actually, this is a lesson for diehard same-sex marriage or bust proponents. Approving incremental measures like civil unions can pay later dividends, which is the impression I got from reading the California Supreme Court’s decision on this issue…
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by RIchard on
Minnesota has already looked at gay marriage in the 1970s and, btw, so has the United States Supreme Court…