One of the most progressive states in the nation disgraces itself

Jack McCoy, "Let them be miserable like the rest of us."

Anywho, I'm disgusted. I may have to write my congressman on this one.

 

Laws change all the time with the tide of society's beliefs. Your statement is patently false. Our standards for what constitute cruel and unusual punishment have noticeably changed with the times as public hangings and firing squads have gone by the wayside. Laws concerning race, religion, ethnicity and gender have changed as society has evolved. The logical end point of your argument is in favor of slavery if all we want is the law to remain static regardless of changing beliefs. What this court is saying is, "We are going to let society decide when it has evolved to the point that it wants gay marriage." Advocates of gay marriage may not like it, but they should learn from the abortion debate that this ruling is in their long-term best interest.

When these hot-button issues are decided by legislatures, we come to lasting political compromises and there is a feeling that everyone gets their voice heard. When SCOTUS decided Roe, it created a flashpoint for an evolving debate. Now, instead of fighting losing battles across the nation as states loosened their abortion laws, they are focused on merely getting five pro-life SCOTUS justices, torpedoes be damned. It also left pro-life advocates feeling like they didn't have a voice on one of the largest moral issues of our time. By comparison, look at women's suffrage. Women didn't earn the right to vote overnight, but when they did earn it through the political process, you didn't have a flood of candidates rushing to run for office pledging to keep women from voting. It didn't become a long-term hot button issue because a judge decided they should vote. Because they won through established political processes, everyone had their voice heard and there was a finality to the decision. Are the anti-gay marriage state constitutional amendments a cynical voting ploy? To the Karl Roves of the world, yes. But people are voting for them in response to the Massachusetts' court decision because voters are afraid of losing their voice in these matters to the rulings of an out-of-state judge.

 

I think the Supremes will choose not to hear it. This is a states' rights issue, and conservative, liberal or otherwise, SCOTUS is unlikely to do anything with it but kick it back to the state.

What New York - and other states seeking to legalize same-sex marriage - needs to do is build some legislative momentum toward amending the law at the state level. This is, of course, much harder than simply getting a favorable constitutional ruling from the bench. (Especially in light of all those homophobic referendums that appeared on so many state ballots two years ago).

But that's really the only way to ensure getting a marriage law that won't itself be rolled over by the judicial process in the future.

 

jgmacg - I think you're right, but I guess I was given a glimmer of hope with the Gitmo case. If you read b'tween the lines of the majority opinions - they think Bush has gone too far. It's as if the moderates like Souter see something dangerous happening. I think SCOTUS would LOVE to hear a case on the NSA spying program, where he sidestepped the FISA court. I think they're chomping at the bit to rule against him on that one.

If Bush continues to push (unsuccessfully) for a Constitutional Ammendment on gay marriage, it might change a moderate's feeling on the issue.

If a Democrat is elected president in 2008, a moderate could be replaced with a liberal. This court isn't lost yet.

--------------------------------------------------

Pope:

The Mass. ruling really wasn't that different than the N.Y. ruling.

The Mass. judges upheld a law that was in place -- stating gays and lesbians could marry.

The N.Y. judges upheld a law that was in place -- stating gays and lesbians could not marry.

 

Sorry, Luggie, but the Mass. court recognized that the Mass. laws traditionally recognized marriage as only being between a man and a woman and then struck down those laws on the grounds of the equal protection clauses of the Mass. Constitution.

I believe the current SCOTUS definitely punts on any gay marriage challenge. The challenge would have to come on federal equal protection grounds (because the Mass. decision was based on state law, SCOTUS couldn't take it). It takes four justices to grant cert and if the lower court ruling doesn't create a federal right to gay marriage, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts definitely aren't going to vote to hear the case. I think Ginsburg joins them (she has basically said that while she agrees with legalized abortion, she thinks the court made a mistake in deciding Roe). And I think they get Kennedy too -- I actually wouldn't be surprised if the anti-cert vote was 9-0.

 

Pope, while I agree that laws have changed with the tides of time, I disagree over whether they should. What is the moral duty of the court, to uphold the laws, should stay that way.

I do not advocate rolling back to slavery, obviously. Slavery would not stand as it is an issue involving civil rights.

As new information comes out, beliefs can change and with them, laws can change. In the case of gay marriage, it was believed that this was merely some sort of freakish behavior or desire. It is currently pretty well understood that this is an issue of birth. In that case, how do you limit the rights of someone born one way while acting the opposite in the other?

Either "Joe" is entitled to the same rights as you, or "Joe" is not. If you say he is not, then don't ever claim that we as a society are for freedom and liberty for all.

Additionally, you cannot always go off the whim of society. Were that the case, the borders might be closed up and no one would be allowed in.

Sometimes change needs to be made before the majority accepts it. Once in place, they can hardly make the argument about its degradation of society.

 

The NY court seems to be arguing that fundamental liberties -- including equal protection under the law -- should be in some sense subject to plebiscite, which is exactly why a lot of the powdered-wig set insisted we have a Bill of Rights. This is a very bad decision with, as near as I can tell, more grounding in "tradition" than in law. Spitzer should answer some hard questions about it in the campaign, just as Reilly in Massachusetts is.