The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto has an interesting analysis of the California appellate ruling striking down Prop. 8’s ban on same-sex marriage in that state.
The appellate ruling is stayed pending appeal to either a larger 9th Circuit panel or directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. In all likelihood, either the Supreme Court won’t hear the anti-gay appeal (which would restore marriage equality in the Golden State), or would hear it and uphold the 9th Circuit ruling in California (given that the appellate ruling is expressively tailored to track Justice Kennedy’s ruling in Romer), but not extend marriage equality throughout the nation. Or the High Court could rule against marriage equality and restore California’s ban.
The fact that the ruling is highly unlikely to result in a Supreme Court declaration of marriage equality throughout the nation is not a bad thing, given that an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment is still a possibility. I’d rather see the Supreme Court first strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, which would result in federal recognition of same-sex marriages in states where such marriages are legal. Then, in just a few more years, the nation will be ready for a ruling striking down anti-gay marriage laws and state amendments, and the backlash will be manageable.
Added. Jon Rauch shares his views in New York’s Daily News, Gay marriage ruling in California is politically shrewd. He explains “Why the 9th Circuit’s decision was so modest — and so clever.”
More. From Politico: “The White House brushed aside questions Tuesday about Obama’s view on the Prop. 8 decision, while also refusing to shed light on the state of Obama’s thinking on the broader issue.”
The president isn’t likely to spend any political capital going out a limb. Why should he, when the left-liberal gay establishment has already pledged its undying fealty (cough, HRC, cough). But it’s worth noting that this profile in noncourage comes after Obama took unpopular positions in favor of killing the jobs producing Keystone pipeline, which would have helped provide energy independence but was hated by Robert Redford and the left-environmentalist crowd, and after his administration interpreted Obamacare as requiring Catholic-affiliated institutions to buy and provide their employees with abortion-inducing drugs, an assault on Constitutional rights that delighted NARAL and the feminist left. But on marriage equality, Obama is still “evolving.”
7 Comments for “Marriage Progression”
posted by Houndentenor on
I’m concerned that Ted Olson was not able to convince the Bush (II) appointee. I don’t blame Olson. If anyone could have, he would have been the one to do it. I’m concerned for what that means for the likelihood that he can convince Scalia and company in this case. I guess we’ll find out soon enough.
posted by Jorge on
The fact that the ruling is highly unlikely to result in a Supreme Court declaration of marriage equality throughout the nation is not a bad thing, given that an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment is still a possibility.
Okay, maybe this is wishful thinking, but at least now I know there’s a rationale behind it.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
But on marriage equality, Obama is still “evolving.”
And, sad to say but truth be told, he’s the only one in the presidential field who is …
posted by Wilberforce1 on
This is great. We win a huge victory in WA state, and you celebrate by blaming Obama for playing politics.
More. I’m guessing you said nothing when corporations were outsourcing, or when George W was working his magic on the national economy, or while Obama presided over months of job growth. But a dirty technology comes along, and all of a sudden, you’re interested in American jobs?
Please Mary. Work out the emotional conflicts before speaking publcly.
posted by another steve on
Oh, Wilberforce, please look in the mirror. Those who accuse others of emotional conflict when they express views they disagree with are admitting how weak their own case is. This isn’t the Soviet Union; we don’t put noncommunists in mental hospitals here for deviating from the party line.
Praising Obama for Washington state is laughable. And I hope you don”t (gasp) drive a car, which uses that “dirty energy” (oil and gas). I’m mean, I’d hatee to think you were a HYPOCRITE or anything.
posted by Wilberforce1 on
It’s a favorite trick if the right to ignore an argument, focus on a minor point, run it to an extreme, and claim that was the argument. It’s also very boring.
I didn’t praise Obama for Washington. I also didn’t slam him for it, as Miller does. He’s irrelevant to the topic.
I also never said I don’t use any gas technology. I don’t need to be perfect to help decide which technologies should be pursued.
But as long as you raised the subject, in educated circles, we have a little something called moderation. I think it comes from those pesky Greeks. And among responsible adults, we try and lay off the gas pedal, take the bus, and generally clean up our act. But of course, that’s for people who actually think of something besides themselves for three seconds.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
1. President Obama has actually spent quite a bit of political capital on gay rights issues. Frankly, he has made more substantive policy progress then any other President . Certainly, more then McCain-Palin Administration would have.
2. President Obama has basically said that he opposes same sex marriage but supports something else, like civil unions and he has pushed for that. Frankly, I doubt very much that the Republican nominee will be big on civil unions at the federal level.
3. A candidate who favors gay marriage is not going to win the presidency, yet. It is something largely supported by left-liberals (Obama is more center-left) and some minor political parties.
4. Honestly, do you just recycle the Fox News and Co spin? The Keystone pipeline program was not killed. Proponents want to basically sidestep the process that something like that has to go through. It would actually do little for energy independence until it was actually, yeah know, built. An engineer I once hooked up with said that would probably take years.
5. Yeah, we generally make some exceptions for faith based groups and that should have happened in this case and, shocking, it did. The problem becomes sorting out how far the exceptions go and applying them to all faiths.