Calif. Supreme Court to take up gay marriage ban. Gay couples should be entitled to equal justice under the law. The fear, however, is that if the court does overturn the popular vote to ban gays from marrying, what would the voters do next? Recall state justices? Eventually, the popular will has to be confronted. As Jon Rauch, John Corvino and other have eloquently explained, you have to win the moral argument (and a majority of hearts and minds) at some point, or keep facing an ever worsening backlash to unpopular judicial decrees.
Of course, the court could nullify the vote for Prop. 8 - thus restoring marriage equality in the Golden State - and everything might work out well in the end. But let's not pretend that there's no risk here.
More. From The Advocate:
People from both inside and outside the [No on Prop 8] campaign are pointing fingers at the small clique of California LGBT leaders who directed the campaign - Lorri Jean of the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center, Geoff Kors of Equality California, the National Center for Lesbian Rights' Kate Kendell, Delores Jacobs of the San Diego LGBT Community Center, and Michael Fleming of the David Bohnett Foundation - charging that their insularity and inexperience with the humongous task at hand turned what should have been a difficult victory into a painful loss.
"They just didn't want to hear from people," says one Democratic Party insider, whose repeated offers to connect the campaign with powerful donors went ignored. "They just were asleep, and they were talking [only] to each other."
Meanwhile, national LGBT fundraising fronts were to a great extent missing in action, consumed with the all important task of getting out the vote for Obama.
Another observation: Nurtured on campus leftwing politics, it's my personal experience that many career LGBT activists are absurdly focused on process, not prgamatism. They wouldn't last long in the business world, which is perhaps why they're not there.
17 Comments for “The Judicial Strategy, on Steroids”
posted by Attmay on
6 of the 7 justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage to begin with were Republicans. And alleged conservatives would recall them over gay marriage. Have you seen my baby? I haven’t seen him since I threw out the bathwater.
But the big question on everyone’s mind is: in the event of a recall, is Gary Coleman going to run for the judiciary?
posted by Jason on
There is no “popular will” — we’re talking a 52% majority, probably of which less then half are motivated to do anything about the issue other then vote “yes” on Prop 8.
This is an issue in which things are essentially even in California. Neither side can get more then a bit over 50% — so if the vote is overturned, you’ll get some angry screeching (similar to what anti Pro-8 folks have already done) and nothing else.
posted by Phil on
There was no popular outcry in response to the overturning of Prop 22 so why should this be any different? Prop 22 passed by a wider margin and imo represented true majority opinion at the time where as Prop 8 was the result of a superior campaign by the Yes on 8 people, not some anti-gay marriage response from “the people”.
If h8 is overturned, the right will have little recourse. Even if they manage to recall some of the justices the only result, as Attmay pointed out, will be probably be a net more liberal court.
They could try to pass a revision banning marriage through the legislature but that would fail miserably.
As time passes and more gays marry in the state, opinion will catch up to the law as it has in Mass.
posted by Jorge on
If the justices were to overturn gay marriage in California, it would be a symbolic victory, of course, and make it much harder for a gay marriage ban to stick in that state. It would be one blip on the radar screen: a 1/30 record. The judicial strategy in the near-term will at best lead to a split result, because not all state courts are ordering gay marriage. The best outcome is that the US Supreme Court will order recognition of gay marriage–and many of us fear they will not do that, handing us a severe defeat. In other words, taking this strategy to its logical conclusion will lead to a draw at best.
Oh, and that’s not taking into account the backlash. There is no question a favorable decision in California would motivate continued attempts to pass constitutional amendments banning gay marriage in other states and nationally. I suppose by this point there isn’t much more damage we can take that would actually be noticable, except for a federal constitutional amendment. I think that is actually remotely possible. Get an effective national campaign against activist judges–it will be very credible if the judges in California overturn even a constitutional amendment–and you can flip Congress again with a bit of luck. I can’t see an amendment passing among the popular vote–but wait, amendments go state by state. Yeah, that could screw us.
posted by Attmay on
Meanwhile, national LGBT fundraising fronts were to a great extent missing in action, consumed with the all important task of getting out the vote for Obama.
Meanwhile, The One says he has no intention of repealing DADT any time soon. You sure can pick ’em, GayLefties.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Attmay wrote, “Meanwhile, The One says he has no intention of repealing DADT any time soon. You sure can pick ’em, GayLefties.”
Spare me the snide faux-disillusion. Many of us who supported and still support Obama did so with eyes open, not out of some naive sense that he would magically solve all of our problems but because we thought he would be a strong leader generally, would repair some of the damage done to our country by GWB, and was much better on gay issues than the alternative. That doesn’t mean that we don’t have work left to do, including on DADT (speaking of which, I hope you’re doing your part instead of just sitting back and taking potshots at others). But go ahead and keep knocking down straw men.
posted by Attmay on
You can stop campaigning, the election’s over. Obama is a politician, not a statesman. He’s not even taken the Oath of Office yet and he’s already backtracking on his promises. Or have you forgotten the fact that he welcomed homophobic ex-gay pastors on his South Carolina bus tour? I intend to judge his presidency by what he does, not by what he says he’s going to do. So far I have heard plenty of talk.
posted by Douglas Holley on
Attmay, why don’t you extol us with the gay virtues of your choice for president and vice president.
posted by Bobby on
“He’s not even taken the Oath of Office yet and he’s already backtracking on his promises.”
—In more ways than one. He says he believes in the second amendment, yet if you want to work for him, not only does he want to know if you have a gun, he wants to know if anyone in your family has a gun.
If that wasn’t bad enough, he wants to know if you keep a diary, he wants to see every resume you’ve ever written, and even your annonymous online screenames among 64 other incredibly invasive questions that you coudln’t dare to ask in the private sector without inviting a lawsuit.
He’s not even president yet, but he’s already acting like a fascist. Oh well, change we need, right?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Amen, Douglas.
Attmay, of course Obama is a politician. Who in the world has claimed otherwise? He is a particularly smart and capable politician. As I have repeatedly said, Obama is better on gay issues than the leading alternatives, not perfect. Surely I who am willing to admit his flaws am more reasonable than those who refuse to admit his virtues.
As to Bobby’s charge of fascism: so now Obama’s been called both a communist and a fascist. I am not sure how the criticism that prompted the name-calling is enhanced by the name-calling. Personally, the degree of vetting seems excessive to me.
Obama is not yet President, yet some of you seem to have already decided it a failure. An awful lot of people across the spectrum have underestimated the guy. One doesn’t have to like him or approve of him at all to recognize the foolishness of continuing to underestimate him. As to the reflexive, thoroughgoing contempt that seems to be the only weapon some of you possess, he has survived months and months of character assassination and emerged unscathed. By his magnanimity in victory he has even raised his stature. One of his detractors he forgave and even helped keep his powerful Senate committee chair; another he has invited to become Secretary of State. So do your worst; it only sullies you.
As to his imperfection on gay issues: I wonder how much gay activist work you poor-mouthers have actually done. As someone who has worked productively in local activism for decades, I have long noted how readily some people pronounce judgment on those of us in the trenches, without lifting a finger themselves.
posted by Bobby on
“so now Obama’s been called both a communist and a fascist.”
—That’s because those of us who have studied communism and fascism knows how it starts. Did you know that the Nuremberg Laws of 1933 banned jews from owning firearms? Freedom-loving people are always on the lookout for fascism.
“Personally, the degree of vetting seems excessive to me.”
—He rarely got any vetting during the election, not from CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN. So he might as well be vetted now.
“One doesn’t have to like him or approve of him at all to recognize the foolishness of continuing to underestimate him.”
—Please, even the hard left is starting to underestimate him. Look at all the people from the Clinton administration that he’s appointing to cabinet positions. I saw some guy on MSNBC say “well, you wouldn’t want someone without experience in the government to be appointed.” Hello? Obama’s entire platform is change, how much change are you gonna get with expert politicians like Hillary Clinton and her friends?
“he has survived months and months of character assassination and emerged unscathed.”
—No, it was Hillary Clinton who was called a bitch by Keith Olbermna. It’s Sara Pallin that was criticized for having a large family and wanting to be vice-president. The Los Angeles Times wouldn’t even air the video of Obama giving an award to a very controversial palestinean professor. Telling the truth about somebody is not character assasination.
“By his magnanimity in victory he has even raised his stature. One of his detractors he forgave and even helped keep his powerful Senate committee chair; another he has invited to become Secretary of State. So do your worst; it only sullies you.”
—That’s not change! That’s playing politics, that’s keeping your friends close and your enemies closer.
And by the way, don’t tell us not to criticize him. If McCain had won, all the liberals would be screaming that this is a racist country, that Sara Pallin is a dummy, that McCain is a stupid old fuck. Republican anger is nowhere near the vitriolic of democrats in defeat.
posted by John on
Richard, could you kiss Obama’s behind more than you did in your latest article? If you want to believe that he is The One, that’s fine, but don’t get pissy when others don’t follow along. Let’s see some good results from Obama and then perhaps you’ll see some more positive reviews. The back-tracking he’s been doing lately has been almost comical and pretty much what I expected.
posted by Attmay on
Don’t argue with Richard. He’s too busy breaking through brick walls and shouting “Oh yeah!”
posted by HeadShakingVisitor on
“There was no popular outcry in response to the overturning of Prop 22…”
Are you nuts? Or just silly? What do you think Prop 8 was? Prop 8, which the voters btw PASSED, WAS the popular outcry in response to the overturning of Prop 22.
posted by HeadShakingVistor on
And further to that – Prop 8 passed in record turnout, and was voted for by one heck of a lot of Obama supporters – “the people”. To overcome an obstacle, first you must admit reality.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Bobby wrote, “Did you know that the Nuremberg Laws of 1933 banned jews from owning firearms?”
Obama has stated his support for gun ownership. How is that negated by the question on gun ownership in the Obama transition’s questionnaire for potential appointees? (I think the questionnaire is too invasive, BTW.) In any case, most Democrats have been running away from the gun control issue for years because it was a losing issue. There is about zero chance of a major new gun control law, or of Obama pushing one. This is a complete red herring.
“He rarely got any vetting during the election, not from CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN. So he might as well be vetted now.”
First, how could someone who was paying attention have thought I was referring to the vetting of Obama when I wrote that the degree of vetting seemed excessive? The comment I was responding to was about the ultra-detailed vetting of potential Obama appointees, and that’s what I was talking about. In other words, I was criticizing Obama. What a surprise that you managed not to notice.
Second, by “vetting” you seem to mean negative coverage. The notion that the news coverage of Obama was fawning is at odds with the facts. As I wrote in my Aug. 28 column: George Mason University?s Center for Media and Public Affairs contradicted one such narrative last month when it reported “Barack Obama is getting more negative coverage than John McCain on TV network evening news shows. …” Since the end of the primaries, coverage of Obama has been 72 percent negative, while McCain?s coverage has been 57 percent negative, according to the report. So the fact that Obama has been the subject of 50 percent more stories has not helped him.
“Obama’s entire platform is change, how much change are you gonna get with expert politicians like Hillary Clinton and her friends?”
I am sure that you’d have preferred that he appoint a bunch of Washington neophytes who’d have been eaten alive the way Carter’s people were. What matter are the policies of the person in charge. Obama is aiming for changes rather more important than mere personnel changes, and to accomplish them he needs experienced hands. At the Democratic debate last winter in Dartmouth, Tim Russert asked Obama how he could talk about a new approach to foreign policy when he had so many former Clinton staffers advising him. Sen. Clinton immediately started cackling and said, “I want to hear this one.” Obama shot back without skipping a beat, “Hillary, I look forward to having you advise me as well.”
“Telling the truth about somebody is not character assasination.”
Um, Bobby, Obama was called a terrorist. What would it really cost you simply to admit that such absurd charges were slanders? Would anyone really confuse such an admission for a statement that all criticisms of him were wrong? Incidentally, I noted the other day that E.D. Hill, who speculated that Obama’s fist-bump with Michelle might be a “terrorist fist jab,” and whose own program was canceled about ten days later, has not had her contract renewed by Fox News. If even Fox has its limits, maybe there’s hope for conservatives yet.
“That’s not change! That’s playing politics, that’s keeping your friends close and your enemies closer.”
So “change” meant we were going to abolish politics altogether? Oh, brother.
After James McNeill Whistler completed a painting that he titled “Symphony in White,” one art critic complained that it was not precisely a symphony in white, because it included other colors. Whistler replied, “Does he then believe that a Symphony in F contains no other note, but shall be a continued repetition of F, F, F…? Fool.”
“And by the way, don’t tell us not to criticize him.”
I haven’t. I have criticized him myself, which you refuse to notice because it conflicts with your cartoonish portrayal of me.
“Republican anger is nowhere near the vitriolic of democrats in defeat.”
What an inspiring competition you seem to be in. I am glad that some of us across the political spectrum are aiming a bit higher.
John wrote, “If you want to believe that he is The One….”
Not only have I never stated that he is “the One,” I have repeatedly disassociated myself from it. Apparently what I actually write is not sufficient for your purpose of mockery, so you have to draw a caricature.
John wrote, “The back-tracking he’s been doing lately has been almost comical and pretty much what I expected.”
Would you care to be specific? What I have seen so far is just the kind of centrism that I expected. I am aware, of course, that some people jumped on early reports about a delay in repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell until 2010 as a sign of betrayal, but (A) an Obama transition source was quoted today as saying no such decision has yet been made, and (2) it is silly to act as if not doing something in the first 100 days constitutes betrayal. I have also pointed out previously that serious advocates do not just sit back and wait for their winning candidate to do everything for them. We still have our part to play. This surprises you?
posted by Bobby on
“Obama has stated his support for gun ownership. How is that negated by the question on gun ownership in the Obama transition’s questionnaire for potential appointees?”
—He also stated support for abortion yet he’s not asking women “have you ever had an abortion?” If Obama wants to do a background check, fine, all employers do that, but asking people if they or anyone in their families have guns is beyond the pale.
Actions speak louder than words, Richard.
“” Since the end of the primaries, coverage of Obama has been 72 percent negative, while McCain?s coverage has been 57 percent negative, according to the report.”
—I’ve seen opposite reports.