Finally... a Conservative Unitarian Universalist Member Blogging As You Asked! After so many years of singing around the campfire, the call has been answered!
Friday, November 14, 2008
Emotions still rising over Prop 8
Now there's a new blacklist . The sooner this goes to SCOTUS, the better.
"McDonald’s has notified the organization that McDonald’s Vice President Richard Ellis has resigned from the board of directors of NGLCC and that his seat on the board will not be replaced by McDonald’s. McDonald’s also said that the company has no plans to renew their membership in NGLCC when it expires in December."
This is going to the CA Supreme Court for a decision about whether the kind of subject Prop 8 represents (taking away fundamental rights from a select group of citizens who are recognized as a suspect class subject to discrimination) is legally permissible by amendment, rather than a more cumbersome process that requires a supermajority in each house of the CA Legislature as well as a popular vote.
SCOTUS has no imaginable jurisdiction that I can see. Nor is there any case that's been presented to it that I'm aware of that it could use to rule on the matter.
But other than imagining that SCOTUS would rule in favor of equal rights, what makes you think that the boycotting and protesting will end if SCOTUS rules on this?
SCOTUS has no jurisdiction, but that's never stopped them before when they really wanted to rule on something- look at the medical marijuana case. Purely a 10th amendment case if anyone ever saw one- what gives the feds the right to overrule state laws about medicines? But SCOTUS found a way... they said that since the marijuana physically exists, there exists the possibility that someone could carry it across state lines... once there, that person might sell it... which makes it an interstate commerce case! Surely they can find the emination of the penumbra of something or other to cover it.
As to why the protesting would end, once the SCOTUS has ruled, then a state vote would no longer matter, leaving nothing to spark a protest. Absent something like an amendment to vote on, and absent the motivation the pro-lifers have, (nobody dies in a gay wedding), few would have the energy to organize a meaningless protest.
I can imagine a Supreme Court ruling consistent with Loving. But the kind of ruling that the Court is imagined to be handing down--a swift kick in the teeth to the GLBT community--would arrogate an entirely new authority to the federal government.
An anti-same-sex-marriage ruling would be a final and fatal wound to any semblance of limited federal power.
The matter is legally simple; some states have determined that certain marriages are legal. The Constitution obliges and requires EVERY state to recognize that public act (DOMA is a dead letter if it's ever tested by a court with a judge with any respect for the Constitution).
If the states don't like that, then the ONLY corrective for it is an amendment to the Constitution. The judges have no legitimate authority to carve a loophole in the full faith and credit clause, just as Congress didn't with DOMA. Respect for the law means that you insist on things being done within the law--or not done at all.
But neither I, nor many others, believe that the conservative plurality of the Court would adhere to the Constitution in this matter, but would rule from their own biases, and to hell with constructionism. Kind of like the deep attachment to fiscal responsibility displayed by conservatives in the legislative and executive branches....
5 comments:
And this is different from AFA's announcing of its boycotts of various "gay friendly" companies... how?
http://media.afa.net/newdesign/ReleaseDetail.asp?id=3608
"McDonald’s has notified the organization that McDonald’s Vice President Richard Ellis has resigned from the board of directors of NGLCC and that his seat on the board will not be replaced by McDonald’s. McDonald’s also said that the company has no plans to renew their membership in NGLCC when it expires in December."
No difference at all. Such political donations SHOULD be public- I merely note the rising emotions, and hope the Supreme Court acts quickly.
Joel, I'm missing something.
This is going to the CA Supreme Court for a decision about whether the kind of subject Prop 8 represents (taking away fundamental rights from a select group of citizens who are recognized as a suspect class subject to discrimination) is legally permissible by amendment, rather than a more cumbersome process that requires a supermajority in each house of the CA Legislature as well as a popular vote.
SCOTUS has no imaginable jurisdiction that I can see. Nor is there any case that's been presented to it that I'm aware of that it could use to rule on the matter.
But other than imagining that SCOTUS would rule in favor of equal rights, what makes you think that the boycotting and protesting will end if SCOTUS rules on this?
SCOTUS has no jurisdiction, but that's never stopped them before when they really wanted to rule on something- look at the medical marijuana case. Purely a 10th amendment case if anyone ever saw one- what gives the feds the right to overrule state laws about medicines? But SCOTUS found a way... they said that since the marijuana physically exists, there exists the possibility that someone could carry it across state lines... once there, that person might sell it... which makes it an interstate commerce case! Surely they can find the emination of the penumbra of something or other to cover it.
As to why the protesting would end, once the SCOTUS has ruled, then a state vote would no longer matter, leaving nothing to spark a protest. Absent something like an amendment to vote on, and absent the motivation the pro-lifers have, (nobody dies in a gay wedding), few would have the energy to organize a meaningless protest.
I can imagine a Supreme Court ruling consistent with Loving. But the kind of ruling that the Court is imagined to be handing down--a swift kick in the teeth to the GLBT community--would arrogate an entirely new authority to the federal government.
An anti-same-sex-marriage ruling would be a final and fatal wound to any semblance of limited federal power.
The matter is legally simple; some states have determined that certain marriages are legal. The Constitution obliges and requires EVERY state to recognize that public act (DOMA is a dead letter if it's ever tested by a court with a judge with any respect for the Constitution).
If the states don't like that, then the ONLY corrective for it is an amendment to the Constitution. The judges have no legitimate authority to carve a loophole in the full faith and credit clause, just as Congress didn't with DOMA. Respect for the law means that you insist on things being done within the law--or not done at all.
But neither I, nor many others, believe that the conservative plurality of the Court would adhere to the Constitution in this matter, but would rule from their own biases, and to hell with constructionism. Kind of like the deep attachment to fiscal responsibility displayed by conservatives in the legislative and executive branches....
Post a Comment