And that would be the Washington Supreme Court, which, falling back on the same cowardly bullshit, upheld the disgusting bigotry of the people of Washington who demanded that all of the special rights that heterosexual marrieds get be reserved for them. I haven’t read the decison all the way through, but it looks like it’s the same old shit that every other cowardly court has fallen back on. Refusing to acknowledge this pervasive discrimination as sex discrimination and reviewing it appropriately, pretending like the state has some legitimate interest in breeders squirting out their issue (like straight people are going to stop spawning if queers get hitched) and just overall giving the great big fuck you to a significant percentage of the population.
What might be the worst aspect of this other than the ridiculous bigoted decision that the court rubber stamped was that they made the people of Washington wait 16 months to get this pile of garbage dumped on them. 16 months of deliberation and the best the majority can come up with is the same tired bullshit, in some cases practically word-for-word, that the bigots on the NY court spewed out. At least if you’re going to sit on your ass that long before dicking people you could come up with some creative new way of phrasing the fuckover.
And yes, we just had this Pitting for New York a few weeks ago and yes all the same stuff from that thread still applies and judicial restraint and deference and the will of the people and blah blah blah. I don’t care, the court can still go fuck itself.
Are we going to have Pit threads for the other 45+ states that come to the same conclusion? I mean, if we’re talking about blah blah blah and all that stuff. Or maybe you like having the same argument over and over again.
Do. It’s far more apologetic than the others have been. Lots of language like “our job is not to decide what the law should be, our job is to decide whether the lawmakers have the right to make the law they’ve made,” with very strong implications that the court believes the law is discriminatory and horrible but not unconstitutionally so. Plus it was a narrow decision, with lots of strongly-worded dissents.
It’s enormously disappointing, but it’s very, very far from being a fuck-you.
Your argument is not with the court, it’s with the legislature. The court here merely decided that the law was constitutional. It’s not their job to determine anything else, and by the sounds of it, they tried very hard to find justification to deem it unconstitutional, and failed.
Do you disagree with their legal arguments, or are you just upset because they didn’t misuse the legal system to advance a cause of yours?
If the latter, I hope you’re prepared to shut the fuck up the next time some activist Republican judge shares your opinion on the role of the judiciary.
The proper way to do it is through legislation, not litigation. The Court basically said, “we don’t like it but it’s not our place to change it” like Cervaise pointed out.
Remember the 2004 elections where voters in 11 states passed ballot initiatives prohibiting gay marriage? Remember why that happened?
Do it right and it’ll stick. Rely on judicial activism and it won’t.
One holds out the faintest of hopes that there will be at least one more state supreme courts that, should it confront the issue, won’t be a pack of pussies and actually take a stand in favor of the rights of the minority. But yes, I do intend, should another pack of pussies in black dresses uphold bigotry in this fashion, to tell them to go fuck themselves.
Sorry, I didn’t realize I’d exceeded my quota for this Pit thread category.
No, this argument is with the court for refusing to apply the correct standard of review and for refusing to acknowledge that the legislature’s so-called reason for fucking over same-sex couples is bullshit.
I disagree with their arguments, and I reject your bullshit claim that a court’s exercising its power to protect the rights of a disadvantaged minority is a misuse of the system.
I don’t believe that I said anything about the political affiliation of any of the justices. Why are you trying to inject false partisanship?
Tried a search but the board failed to respond. If anyone else can get a search to go through, please post the link.
Are you shitting me? The court engaged in what it described as an “exhaustive constitutional inquiry” in a a case consolidated from two separate cases, and with no fewer than 26 amici curie weighing in.
No doubt if they’d handed the decision down in two weeks that would have reflected their knee-jerk homophobia and lack of reasoned thought. :rolleyes:
And since your link is to the Washington courts general website, for everyone’s information the case is Anderson et al. v. King County et al.. It’s a the top of the page now but will drop down as other decisions are issued.
And I can’t think of another case where the judges have telegraphed so broadly their own unhappiness with how they feel compelled to rule. From the opening paragraphs of the opinion, with emphasis added:
But what do I know? I’m just a breeder, even if I haven’t squirted out any offspring yet. :rolleyes:
Otto, I think that point is important. At this point there is precedent saying that state DOMAs are constitutional, part of it (that Godawful SCOTUS denial of cert. case) possibly binding. Much as I disagree with DOMA laws generally and the Federal one in particular, in the absence of state statute law or constitutional guarantees that are clearly denial of due process or equal protection (e.g., as in Massachusetts), the courts may feel that judicial self-restraint calls for deferring to the legislature.
This does not make my opinion that these laws should be abolished, and gay marriages legalized, any weaker. It’s simply recognizing that you’re being told something.
Perhaps identifying a few states where a law has a reasonable chance of passage, and fighting hard to show the discriminatory action of not legalizing gay marriage there, to get the general public supportive, might be the right course, rather than fighting the “constitutional rights/courts” route.
Oh believe me, I understand that I’m being told something. It’s not anything that I haven’t been told hundreds of times before.
But I don’t think the message is as clear as you think it is. Of the IIRC five state supreme courts which have issued final rulings on SSM denial, two of them, Hawaii and Massachusetts, have said that it violates the state constitution (Hawaii’s ruling was overturned by state referendum). Two out of five on an issue this contentious isn’t a terrible record.
And it doesn’t mean that however many times bigots say the same bigoted shit that I’m not gonna tell them to fuck themselves.
So if the remaining state supreme courts issue similar opinions… they are all wrong, and you’re right?
There’s absolutely no room for any reasonabole judge to say, “These laws are constitutional, and it falls to the legislature to correct the issue?” Just ZERO room, eh? And they’d ALL be wrong, and you’d be right?
Otto, the message is quite clear. Same-sex marriage is not going to fly in the courts. Period. Really, no matter how much we complain, it won’t. Accept that, and adopt a new strategy.
For a very brief time (about two weeks), there were a few petition collecters here for a referendum to support gay civil rights. Find someone with bucks who will support more than a few petition collectors for more than a brief time. Collect bucks from all who agree in order to run ads that to sign that petition, and to vote in favor of the referendum is the right thing to do.
Follow the political process to gain your civil rights, not the legal process.
Is there a law “allowing” hetero’s to marry? I’ve never thought of this, but what is the legal foundation of marriage based on a state’s law? I realize there’s a huge difference in state law and US law (hence the Bills introduced in D.C.). Or, that should be, a huge difference in how state and US law applies.
I know this has been covered in many, many threads, but I’m wondering the simplest explanation of DMC’s quoted part that seems to disallow something like marriage being a limited thing.
I suspect there’s something like an amendment to the constitution of Washington state, but don’t have the patience to look for it. Nor, honestly, would I likely recognize it.
Also, isn’t an amendment to a Constitution the same as it being in the Constitution itself?