Would it be possible for the Supreme Court to declare Prop 8 unconstitutional because it allows some gays to be married but not others, while not actually ruling on the constitutionality of gay marriage in general?
Politics
{advertisement}
Who will vote how on Prop 8; Supreme Court Justice breakdown
So, I’ve been trying to figure out how I think SCOTUS breaks down for the Prop8 vote. I am going to be fairly optimistic based on the quality of the argument and Olson’s record with SCOTUS up to now. Argued over 50 cases in front of SCOTUS, has won 3/4ths of them, including the decision today that said Corporations have freedom of speech and therefore can spend as much as they want on politics. He’s clearly good at getting SCOTUS to expand rather than deny rights, no matter the public opinion.
Of course, there are 6 Catholics on the bench, and the Catholic Church, along with LDS, was responsible for most of the mobilization in support of Prop 8. Anyway, in my optimism, I think it’s even possible for a 6-3 decision declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional. Of course, 5-4 against is just as possible. No means declaring it unconstitutional, yes is saying prop 8 should stay.
And if anyone has any insight, feel free to post. These are mere conjectures based on what I can find on the interwebs.
JUSTICE ROBERTS
Pros: He donated legal to Romer vs. Evans which demanded equal rights for gays in Colorado. Fairly constructionist approach to Constitution, which is how Olson is making his case.
Cons: Catholic, part of the conservative block (though he has broken with them before), really into states rights
Vote: Likely yes, but some foundation for a surprise no
JUSTICE STEVENS
Pros: Staked out the anti-sodomy laws position in the mid-80s as a dissenting opinion, which eventually became the majority position in 2003. Considered part of the liberal block. Not Catholic.
Cons: None that I can find, though there’s nothing suggesting he’s particularly Pro gay marriage either.
Vote: Probably No
JUSTICE SCALIA
Pros: Just the one, he’s a big fan of the Constitution and Olson is making a very very strong argument.
Cons: He hates gay people. He’s the leader of the conservative block. Catholic. And he really hates gay people.
Vote: Burn all gay people at the stake Definite Yes.
JUSTICE KENNEDY
Pros: Kennedy has often taken a strong stance in favor of expanding Constitutional rights to cover sexual orientation. Though considered conservative, often a swing vote. References foreign law for precedence often.
Cons: Conservative more often than not. Catholic.
Vote: Likely No
JUSTICE THOMAS
Pros: None
Cons: Extremely conservative. Extremely into states rights. Performed a wedding for Rush Limbaugh. Even Scalia thinks he’s way too far to the right, “I am an originalist, but I am not a nut.” Super into religion, and thinks that religion should be allowed to be a lot more involved in public life. He also hates the gays.
Vote: Not just Yes, but a Yes to the RIGHT of Scalia
JUSTICE GINSBURG
Pros: She is awesome and my favorite. (Also liberal, pro-choice, pro-gay)
Cons: None
Vote: No
JUSTICE BREYER
Pros: Liberal. Refers to foreign law. Seems to like the gays.
Cons: None that I’m aware of.
Vote: No
JUSTICE ALITO
Pros: Was against anti-sodomy laws well before the court, but also was a student.
Cons: Conservative. Known as “Scalito”, though definitely to the left of Scalia. Catholic.
Vote: Almost certain Yes… but maybe…
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR
Pros: Some of the anti-Hispanic rhetoric exhibited by the yes on 8ers will probably not make her think highly of them. She lives in Greenwich village. Considered an ally, though little to support this.
Cons: Catholic.
Vote: Likely no, little to go on though.
4 extremely likely nos, 1 probable no
3 almost certain yeses, 1 most likely yes
Excerpt from Prop 8 Trial today
Plaintiffs will call Dr William Tam who is a supporter of Prop 8. David Boies will examine.
Boies: The Netherlands legalized polygamy?
Tam: It shows the moral decay of a liberal country, in their views of sex
B: You say here that the Netherlands legalized polygamy and incest after legalizing same sex marriage?
T: Yes
B: Who told you that?
T: The internet
B: The internet?
T: Yes
B: Somewhere out in the internet, it says the Netherlands legalized polygamy and incest? Did you ever find something that said it was true?
T: Yes
B: So somewhere on the internet it says polygamy and incest were legalized after same sex marriage?
T: Maybe not incest
B: Wait, it says incest here
T: Not in this document
B: But it says that right here
T: No, it says that if a country is so liberal then there will be moral and social decay.
B: Sweden accepted same sex unions in 1994, traditional marriage is no longer valid.
T: Yes
B: But those are civil unions not marriage, and you support civil unions.
T: Well, I said I support domestic partnerships.
B: Two minutes ago you said you support civil unions.
T: Well, I don’t know the difference
B: What is the difference?
T: Seems closer to marriage, Domestic Partnership does.
B: Because of the name?
T: Well, yes.
B: But Domestic Partnerships are the same as marriage except for the name?
T: Yes
B: They are exactly the same as the marriage except for the word?
T: Yes
B: So you believe pedophilia and incest will happen?
T: If this is a civil right, why won’t these other groups ask for marriage for incest or pedophilia?
B: Right now, can people of any age or relationship become domestic partners? A man and a ten year old girl? A man and his sister?
T: No
B: Domestic partnerships are limited to people of a certain age and relationships?
T: Yes, that’s why I support it
B: So having domestic partnerships doesn’t mean incest and pedophilia?
T: Ah, I see your logic now.
(laughter)
B: Yes, do you see what I mean?
T Yes I do
B: But do you think if the name changes to marriage, then we will have all this incest and pedophilia? Just because we change the name from domestic partnership to marriage?
T: No, but children will fantasize who they will marry, about marrying a man or a woman. You may say I am a paranoid Chinese parent. However, if domestic partner is defined as it is now, then we can explain to children, yes: same sex partners want a life commitment and we have domestic partnerships for them. But if you mix up marriages for different kind of sexes, I have parents coming to me asking what shall I tell my children.
Boies: Are you finished?
T: Yes
B: You agree that just because you allow Gays and Lesbians to marry, you don’t have incest, right?
T: Yes
B: Or polygamy?
T: Yes
B: Is it also true that you recognize it is important to Gays and Lesbians that they be able to marry?
T: Yes
B: Just as your children benefit from you and your wife being married, as will children of same sex couples?
T (pause) No.
B: No?
T: No
B: You don’t think children want their parents to be married?
T: Not sure what you are trying to get at
B: This: children of same sex couples want their parents to be married because the word means something.
T: Um
B: But you recognize it’s important? And important to those children, right?
T: I guess so.
Scalia in Lawrence V. Texas
Not that I’ve been reading supreme court opinions or anything but Scalia’s dissenting opinion basically says that the decision in Lawrence V. Texas means that Same Sex Marriage should be legal. Excerpts below, bolding by me.
Justice O’Connor argues that the discrimination in this law which must be justified is not its discrimination with regard to the sex of the partner but its discrimination with regard to the sexual proclivity of the principal actor.
[…] This reasoning leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Justice O’Connor seeks to preserve them by the conclusory statement that “preserving the traditional institution of marriage” is a legitimate state interest. Ante, at 7. But “preserving the traditional institution of marriage” is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same-sex couples.
[…] One of the most revealing statements in today’s opinion is the Court’s grim warning that the criminalization of homosexual conduct is “an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres.”
[…] At the end of its opinion–after having laid waste the foundations of our rational-basis jurisprudence–the Court says that the present case “does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.” Ante, at 17. Do not believe it. More illuminating than this bald, unreasoned disclaimer is the progression of thought displayed by an earlier passage in the Court’s opinion, which notes the constitutional protections afforded to “personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education,” and then declares that “[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.” Ante, at 13 (emphasis added). Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), “[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,” ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,” ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case “does not involve” the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. Many will hope that, as the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so.
Full horrifying opinion here, where he says he’s got nothing against the gays, he just thinks they’re going to hell.
Haiti: Send them Help, not Prayers
I know Pat Robertson is generally certifiable, but I don’t understand why he went all Deal with the Devil on the Haitians. It’s a very Christian country, and one that doesn’t do anything to him politically. Normally you can parse the politics behind his insanity, but he’s just a jerk apparently.
So, instead of blaming the victim or merely praying for Haiti, why not actually chip in whatever you can manage. Even just ten dollars would help, and I think it’s a tax write off, if you’re into that. “Port-au-Prince is devastated, lot of deaths. SOS. SOS… Temporary field hospital by us at UNDP needs supplies, pain meds, bandages. Please help us.”
If you feel the need to pray after that, fine, but actually help them first.
//End Rant
EDIT: Easier: Text ‘HAITI” to “90999” for a $10 donation to the Red Cross from your phone. “YELE” to “501501” will donate $5 to the Yele Earthquake Fund It’ll be on your phone bill.
What I’m doing today
Reading the live blog of the Prop 8 trial: http://prop8trialtracker.com/ It’s fascinating, the arguments are incredibly well-crafted on the pro-gay marriage side. The judge is whip smart and seems to be really curious as to why the state is in the business of marriage in the first place. I’d always sort of been leaning that way, that religions should be in the business of ‘marriage’ and states in ‘civil unions’. They’re making some good arguments as to why the state does do ‘marriage’, I’m almost convinced, even.
God I want to be able to watch the trial. The most amazing argument from the trial is essentially a feminist argument. That the roles in marriage have been made gender neutral and equal, so what marriage is is going to be changed less by gay marriage than it was by equality of the sexes. I’ve always felt that gay rights were a natural extension of women’s rights.
Also following the NBC nonsense. Maybe the entire thing is an attempt to get free publicity and increase viewership. I’ll tell you, I’ve developed a healthy respect for that Conan O’Brien character. And not just because he picks apples with Mr. T.
http://www.tmz.com/2010/01/12/conan-i-want-to-work-for-nbc/
My staff and I have worked unbelievably hard and we are very proud of our contribution to the legacy of The Tonight Show. But I cannot participate in what I honestly believe is its destruction.
Fair enough. Of course, he’s even better on the intro to his show last night, in which he ripped NBC a new one. My favorite line was “NBC announced that they expect to lose $200 million on the Winter Olympics next month. Is it just me or is that story hilarious?”
Movie News; January is Entertainment on Crack
December is a relentlessly slow month in Los Angeles. It can be refreshing or really painful if you need to be working. January, however, makes an attempt at making up for all the hours not worked in December.
Today:
Sarah Palin will have her own show on Fox News. “It’s wonderful to be part of a place that so values fair and balanced news,” Palin said in a written release.
Spiderman 4 is NOT happening anymore. Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire are off the project. They’re going to reboot the franchise, which seems insane considering it’s not even a decade old, but whatevs. This also means no more Kirsten Dunst!!!
All signs point to the Arrested Development movie happening this year.
SNL film MacGruber is looking good from early reviews, apparently as good as Wayne’s World. Which is good, since the SNL movies of late have included The Ladies Man, Superstar, and Night at the Roxbury.
I’m sure you’re all aware of George Lucas on The Daily Show and the horrifically funny youtube review of Phantom Menace.
The 2010 WGA nominations are out. Only 79 scripts were eligible to be nominated, versus last year’s 267. Shockingly, Avatar is nominated for Best Original Screenplay. But thank God! That screenplay has been released online! And it has a deleted sex scene…
NEYTIRI
I am with you now, Jake. We are mated for life.
JAKE
We are?
NEYTIRI
Yes. It is our way.
(innocently)
Oh. I forgot to tell?
He rouses up, making her look at him.
JAKE
Really, we are?
NEYTIRI
We are.
JAKE
It’s cool. I’m there.
Lost Weekend
I had a weekend that was no good for writing. I’ve set myself a deadline of end of Thanksgiving holiday for a rewrite of Bible Con and a Polished first draft of Dyke for a Day. I had time to work on it this weekend because all of my editing projects are floating in nebulous waiting for other people to do things. But I didn’t work because my shoulder is messed up. This didn’t make it impossible to write, but it was really uncomfortable to sit in front of my computer or look down. It’s still killing me. Maybe I should start dictating.
Instead, I just watched a lot of Christopher Hitchens. I try to imagine the God/No God debate from the other point of view and find I just cannot. Cannot imagine it. I suppose I am like Hitchens, I never lost my faith, I just realized I didn’t have it. I was eight, I found all my teeth that I’d lost in my mom’s room (why she kept them, I don’t know). And there it was, proof that there was no tooth fairy. And that meant no Easter Bunny, no Santa Claus, and no Jesus.
I am going back to Columbia, SC this weekend. Doing the red-eye Wednesday night/Thursday morning. I’m seriously considering trying to raise money and film my feature in SC. I think it could be done for a modest budget, and I think the idea of a Native Daughter shooting in SC is something that could raise some money. I have a lot of connections there, including with the university. I hold secret hopes that somehow I could tie it into the university and get a lot of young people involved with the production. There aren’t a lot of opportunities in film in South Carolina.
Maybe I’ll get some writing done on the plane. We’re going to not put odds on this.
I started watching Jeeves and Wooster. I highly recommend it.
Strange Dreams: Zombies, The Civil War, Count Olaf, and Obama’s Nobel Prize
From last night:
1. Zombies were attacking and every time anyone felt under the weather they had to be chained up outside on the roof until it was clear that they were not turning into Zombies. I blame F for showing me Plants vs Zombies.
2. I was writing a paper for a history class in High School where my old student teacher who is now married to my step-cousin, Mary Leslie, was the teacher. I was writing a really long involved thing on how the conflicting policies of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and their actions in divorcing the British Government and forming their own led to the Civil War. If this is in any way true, I have no idea, but it sounds interesting.
3. I shot Count Olaf and planted his fingerprints on the gun to save the Baudelaire children. They came to live with me in California. This is strange because I haven’t even read all those Series of Unfortunate Events books.
4. This turned out not to be a dream, but I thought it was when I woke up. The zombie dream woke me up and I felt really terrible — nauseous — so I looked at my email on my phone. I had an email from HuffPo about Obama winning the peace prize. That didn’t make any sense, because I’ve never gotten email from HuffPo and also what? When I woke up I decided it was a dream that sort of made sense that it would happen some day if he ever managed to end the war on gays, drugs, health, Afghanistan, and/or Iraq. But then it wasn’t a dream, and I was confused, because he hasn’t done any of that.
Actually, I feel a bit sorry for Obama. He already had enough pressure on him, this is just adding to it. It’s politically sort of not that great for him because he’s got nothing he can really point to and be like “Yes, look at what I did!” I think we treat him like a man who can do a lot more than the system allows him to. In reality, decisions are made by a bunch of assholes in Congress who play to their bases instead of the good of the country.
We’re currently occupying and waging wars in two separate Muslim countries and making clear we reserve the “right” to attack a third. Someone who made meaningful changes to those realities would truly be a man of peace. It’s unreasonable to expect that Obama would magically transform all of this in nine months, and he certainly hasn’t. Instead, he presides over it and is continuing much of it. One can reasonably debate how much blame he merits for all of that, but there are simply no meaningful “peace” accomplishment in his record — at least not yet — and there’s plenty of the opposite. That’s what makes this Prize so painfully and self-evidently ludicrous. – Glenn Greenwald
Roman Polanski; No Sympathy
It’s not OK to drug and rape children; sex with a child is rape. People who admit to raping children and flee the country should be brought to justice.
http://jezebel.com/5369395/whoopi-on-roman-polanski-it-wasnt-rape+rape