First fallout of anti-marriage amendments?

[villa]

@John Mace

I think you are mixing two things-- statutes and constitional amendments. Yes, statutes should be open to judicial scrutiny. But consituational amendments aren’t and shouldn’t be. The danger to SSM (in the long run) is not statutory laws being enacted, but constitutional amendments. And that’s what IS happening left and right. This is NOT going to come down to courts ruling on DOMA type laws. That’s chump change in this whole process. It’s going to come down to “the people” and/or state legislatures passing constutional amendments and making judical srutiny a moot point.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. State constitutional amendments ARE and SHOULD BE open to federal judicial scrutiny. When states chose to play the Union game, they chose to play by the rules (the Consitution of the United States). No state may pass an amendment banning free speech, for example. Nor may they reinstate slavery.

[villa]

Ooooops. Saw you accepted the error of your earlier post. I did not intend to pile on to it.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

@Gorsnak

This just goes to show how ridiculous this understanding of the rational basis test is. So long as you have a history of oppressing people, you can continue to do so. It’s only novel forms of oppression that are unconstitutional. Quite the lovely system.

As I noted in the other thread, the Supreme Court does not adhere to truth-in-advertising when naming their constitutional tests. “Rational basis” is just Supreme Courtspeak for “the equal protection clause does not apply to this kind of governmental distinction,” a couple of notable exceptions notwithstanding.

More fun with rational basis: Railway Express Agency v. New York and Kotch v. Bd. of River Port Pilot Commissioners. Go, look, and see how utterly stupid an argument can be and still satisfy the rational basis test.

[villa]

@Bricker

To be upheld under Rational Basis, a law must merely have a rational relation to some legitimate end. (Heller v. Doe)

In Romer, the state argued that the “legitimate ends” were: respect for other citizens’ freedom of association, especially landlords or employers who have personal or religious objections to homosexuality; and the state interest in conserving resources to fight discrimination against other groups.

The Court found that the wording of Amendment 2 was so borad that it went well beyond simply meeting those needs. Had Colorado fashioned a law that simply accomplished those ends, it would have been sustained under Rational Basis. Instead, Colorado’s law forbid “…all legislative, executive, or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the status of persons based on their ‘homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships.’” The law, in other words, had such a far-reaching impact that it did NOT bear a rational relationship to the legitimate end the state claimed.

I am not convinced you are reading enoug into the opinion. I think the undercurrent of the opinion is that there is an attempt to raise the level of scrutiny for homosexuals without bringng it into the open. The rationales advanced by Colorado had been successful in similar situations for other forms of discrimination.

@Bricker

Not strict scrutiny, but I agree that sexual orientation is probably deserving of Craig v. Bore’s “intermediate scrutiny.”

Why not strict scrutiny out of interest? My personal view is that the whole system is a bogus one, that there should only be one test, a true rational basis one, that recognizes that a state action that discriminates against drug users, for example, is far easier to justify than one that discrimiantes against skin color.

@Bricker

So what does “self-governance” mean? Does it mean that ultimately, though we may elect legislators and executives, we are ruled by unelected, robed masters?

Self governance is written into the system. The ‘unelected, robed masters’ are appointed by the democratically elected (supposedly ) President, with the advice and consent of the democratically elected Senate. And if they do something that the people really find objectionable, then they can change the Constitution. As they have done three times when Supreme Court decisions are unacceptable. Or don’t you accept that a central role of the federal judiciary and the constitution is to protect the rights of minorities against the danger of the tyrrany of the majority?

[Blalron]

@Bricker

So what does “self-governance” mean? Does it mean that ultimately, though we may elect legislators and executives, we are ruled by unelected, robed masters?

You can use all the fiery rhetoric you want about self-governance, but ultimately what you’re talking about is governance of the majority over any minority they please for any reason whatsoever, including “I just don’t like you” and “The Bible says so.” John Geddes Lawrence and Tyrone Garner were unfortunately excluded from the legal right to govern their own sex lives, until the Supreme Court intervened.

[John_Mace]

@villa

Ooooops. Saw you accepted the error of your earlier post. I did not intend to pile on to it.

It wasn’t an error-- it was a clarification. You misread my post.

I thought I had been clear that I was speaking about state action at the state level. Of course no state can violate the Federal Constitution.

[Otto]

@Portia

I’d throw a ‘fuck you’ right back, Otto, but for the fact that I don’t feel it appropriate to hurl such vitriol at a complete stranger you happen to disagree with but who doesn’t directly affect you.

Far too lady-like to come right out and say “fuck you,” so instead you pull this passive aggressive shit. How cute.

@Portia

You don’t live in MI, do you? You won’t have to worry about her ever being your president, she’s a born Canadian.

So what? A wrong thing is a wrong thing even if it will never affect me personally.

@Portia

She’s not just trying to follow the letter of the law as the majority of MI voters asked her to, (though I voted against Prop 2), she’s trying to save some money. See, MI has an enormous budget shortfall, to such an extent that she’s agreed to take a pay cut. Schools are losing money, infrastructure is suffering big cuts, and ugly as it is, this is a way to save a lot of money.

Oh please. Did this budget shortfall just materialize after the election? Granholm is not AFAIK using the budget shortfall as an excuse; your offer of it is pathetic.

Besides, DP benefits don’t cost that much, because there just aren’t that many people who take advantage of them, especially when you’re talking about an insurance pool the size of a state government’s. If Granholm wants to save money, then let her cut benefits to married partners. No law says spouses of married partners are entiled to coverage and spouses cost the state a hell of a lot more than domestic partners ever would.

@Portia

So consider that maybe she doesn’t hate gay people, hmmm?

Did I say she hates gay people, hmmm?

@Portia

If our governor told us it was okay not to follow a law we didn’t agree with, it would send a wrong and dangerous message.

She could certainly take a stand that she believes that the amendment as written doesn’t apply to the situation at hand. Let a court sort it out.

[iampunha]

@Bricker

I have great difficulty imagining ANY race-based classification that could survive a rational basis test, but I’d want to hear the specifics before I bit. Perhaps some regulation creating classifications based on sickle-cell anemia, or something of that nature. I’m reaching, here…

Unless I’m acting on (well-meant though it be) ignorance here, sickle-cell anemia is not restricted to black people. FWIW and one could certainly find more complete information. That was one out of 500+ results on google for very specific search requirements.

(I know you were very far from offering that as a zealously-researched position:))

[look_ninjas]

Actually, according to my last HRC update, Granholm hasn’t decided to cut the benefits yet. She’s pulled them out of the contract to wait on a court ruling - if the court says they’re legal, they’re going back in again. They wouldn’t have taken effect until October 2005 anyway, so it isn’t as though anyone’s being stripped of their rights anyway. I can’t seem to find a link to her open letter (even on the HRC site), but I’ll keep looking for one.

I’ll chime right on in with the “Fuck you” to Michigan voters, though. I’ve never been so disappointed in my state.

[Clothahump]

@Miller

Interesting. In the thread about Texas textbooks, you say:

I take it, therefore, that you’re a secular bigot asshole?

No. I’m an agnostic. I am not bigoted, nor am I an asshole.

Quite unlike you, I might add.

[Guinastasia]

@Clothahump

No. I’m an agnostic. I am not bigoted, nor am I an asshole.

Quite unlike you, I might add.

If comparing homosexuality and beastiality and pedophilia isn’t a bigoted and asshole thing to do, what is?

[Miller]

@Clothahump

No. I’m an agnostic. I am not bigoted, nor am I an asshole.

Quite unlike you, I might add.

Fascinating. Whom, pray tell, am I bigoted against?

[GSV_Consolation_of_Dreams]

Heh, bigots and assholes like Clothahump I guess.

[js_africanus]

@Otto

Fuck you to Governor Granholm (a Democrat) for exploiting bigotry to get out of the negotiations.

Right, because it makes more sense to make the amendment as painless as possible to everybody except those who wish to engage in SSM. Keep fightin’ the good fight.

[Otto]

@js_africanus

Right, because it makes more sense to make the amendment as painless as possible to everybody except those who wish to engage in SSM.

This makes absolutely no sense.

[Velma]

@Excalibre

No offense, but you must have been asleep before the election. That or our (small) army of volunteers didn’t give you any literature on Prop 2. I don’t remember the text precisely, but it was widely known that this was the inevitable result of it, and at least the group I was working with made that point a centerpiece of our argument against Prop 2. Perhaps the proponents promised not to act on the power they were granting themselves (this is my interpretation of what you said in the quote) but I would think that was clearly disingenuous.

But c’est la vie. I guess a lot of people felt like the one woman did who told me, “We don’t support the gays.” Anything to stop the homos, I guess, for some people.

I was fully aware of the implications of the proposal and the wording, but the way it was widely marketed was a way of preventing gay marriage, not at taking away benefits for same sex couples and that is the way I heard most people talking about it. Actually I did not receive any literature about the proposal that explained that it could be used to take away same sex benefits, but I took the time to research exactly what the proposal could and could not do if passed so I was aware of that possibility. Unfortunately most people I know didn’t. They got all their info about the proposal off a few tv commercials and they think voting no means suddenly Michigan will allow gay marriage. You’re right when you say many people voted yes simply because ‘we don’t support the gays.’

I didn’t mean that I was suprised that this is happening, in fact it is what I was afraid of, but I am disgusted with it because I read quotes over and over that the proposal was not intended to take away insurance or benefits to those who had them. Then bam, it’s the first thing that happened. It’s just so blatantly opposite of what was promised. I was holding out on the slim hope that the proponents would just take their victory and keep their word, and I’m ticked at Granholm for rolling over on this.

Most people I talked to had no idea what the proposal even was or what it really did. My brother in law voted no, because he thought that meant no on gay marriage. When he told me he voted no, because he didn’t think gay people should get married, I pointed and laughed at him. Unfortunately later that day I found out my mother in law voted yes, because she thought it meant Yes, I support gay marriage. :smack: So they both voted the opposite of what they intended, cancelling each other out. But I think that is just a sample of how much people bother to find out what proposals mean before they vote on them.

[Muffin]

When a law is put in place specifically to discriminate against a group of people, it is not surprising that that same law is used to further discriminate against those people beyond the level that those supporting it originally envisioned. Slippery slope in action.