The Supreme Court’s non-decision about marriage equality guarantees it’s a done deal. But it also means that we’re in a long round of federal and state court decisions about marriage.
Judging from the ruling striking down marriage bans in Nevada and Idaho, this will be a lot of fun.
We’ve now reached the point where federal judges not only discount the flimsy arguments against marriage equality, but openly make fun of them. In his ruling, Federal Judge Stephen Reinhardt can’t help but twist the knife a little as he basically tells Idaho Gov. Butch Otter (yes, that’s his name) that his defense of traditional marriage is laughable.
Otter and the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, which compared marriage equality to white supremacy, were the only defenders of the law after Nevada officials refused to defend that state’s ban. The governor and the group advanced the usual arguments: save the children, it’s all about procreation, marriage has always been like this.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Reinhardt was, to put it bluntly, unimpressed. At various points, he describes Otter’s arguments as “crass and callous” and “off the rails.” But it’s in a footnote that he really unloads on Otter:
“[Gov. Otter] also states, in conclusory fashion, that allowing same-sex marriage will lead opposite-sex couples to abuse alcohol and drugs, engage in extra marital affairs, take on demanding work schedules, and participate in time-consuming hobbies. We seriously doubt that allowing committed same-sex couples to settle down in legally recognized marriages will drive opposite-sex couples to sex, drugs,and rock-and-roll.”
Ouch.
Reinhardt, a Carter appointee, is well known as one of the most liberal judges on the bench. He wrote the majority opinion upholding Judge Vaughn Walker’s dismissal of Proposition 8. Early in the year, he issued a groundbreaking ruling involving a gay juror being excused from a case involving an HIV drug. Reinhardt made it clear that he felt LGBT cases deserved “heightened scrutiny,” just one step below the highest the court could apply.
Not every judge is Reinhardt, but with cases now pending in all the remaining states where marriage is outlawed, there are bound to be some other fun rulings in the future. As for the anti-marriage forces–when you become a laughing stock in federal court, time to admit the jig is up.
hrnpip
Brian Brown and NOM have been laughing stocks for years yet they plow on with their nonsense.
MacAdvisor
“Reinhardt made it clear that he felt LGBT cases deserved “heightened scrutiny,” just one step below the highest the court could apply.”
Or, just one step above the lowest scrutiny. There are only three levels of scrutiny, so “heightened” or more aptly names, “intermediate” scrutiny isn’t all that far, step wise, from the lowest, rational basis. However, the change that IS significant is going above that lowest level. Any level of scrutiny above rational basis flips the burden of proof. With rational basis, the plaintiff, the person being hurt by the government’s discrimination, must show the policy is irrational. The burden lies with the plaintiff. With any level of heightened scrutiny, even just one step above, the situation flips, and the government must justify the policy by either a “compelling” reason (“strict” scrutiny) or an “important” reason (“intermediate” scrutiny). The government has to show the need for the policy and that the policy is narrowly tailored to that need.
1EqualityUSA
I’m tired of lawsuits. Our community has better ways to use our money. The vector-like lawsuits are burdensome.
benandy
When I read Reinhardt’s ruling, it was much more restrained than Judge Posner’s for the 7th Circuit ruling [WI & IN]. But this particular footnote, I thought was “Posner-esque”.
In fact, I thought he might have edited the phrase, “This is complete bullshit.” out of it.
MacAdvisor
I’ve started a petition on MoveOn.org asking the Supreme Court to do their job and decide a marriage equality case. The time for futzing around on this issue is over and they need to end the matter. If you would like to sign (please, please sign), you may do so at:
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/make-a-decision-already?source=c.em.mt&r_b
SilverRayne
“allowing same-sex marriage will lead opposite-sex couples to abuse alcohol and drugs, engage in extra marital affairs, take on demanding work schedules, and participate in time-consuming hobbies”
But… don’t they already do all of that anyway, even before same-sex marriage was legal? That is the one of the worst defences of so called “traditional” marriage I have yet to hear.
tricky ricky
I watched the hearing. evidently gays getting married will destroy children’s bonding rights with their fathers. the guy seemed to have made that excuse up on the spot.