Andrew Sullivan agrees, and brings numbers: And Suddenly, The Door Just Gives Way
That matches the Canadian experience ten years ago. There was strong opposition to same-sex marriage until it actually started happening. Then, as it became legal and there was no apocalypse, it became a non-issue.
As are homosexuals. It’s certainly true that in most instances there is no way to tell a gay person from a non-gay person. That doesn’t mean they aren’t “discrete and insular”, though; an employer is almost certainly going to know an employee’s orientation based on applications for partner benefits and the like. A landlord is probably going to put two and two together if two women show up asking to rent a studio. And so on.
Virginia’s certainly done a complete 180 on this, from a sex-obsessed conservative AG who wanted to criminalize oral sex to a Democratic AG who won’t fight to uphold the ban on gay marriage in his state.
I read an article that its up to the AG to determine the Constitutionality of the laws in his state and Mark Herring has used that standard to justify not defending the state ban on gay marriage. Just curious, but how much leeway does he get? Can he decide to not prosecute other crimes? I’d support him regardless because the Cooch seemed to have run the AG’s office as his private church with its own morals and rules so I’m glad a Democrat is working the system in the other direction.
Ideally, I would want the AG of any state to defend the laws of his state but I’m no Rand Paul, I’m perfectly fine with people breaking the law if its a bad law, and yes, good people can sometimes determine what’s a bad law and break it morally. Since I see gay rights as the civil rights fight of our era, if it takes breaking the law to defend it, then I’m all for it. Those who give no leeway to the letter of the law can completely miss the spirit of the law
However much leeway the author of the article wants to give him, since nobody really knows if such authority exists.
Well, both of your examples are private actors, so beside the point (we can have non discrimination laws that protect things that would not be subject to strict scrutiny as a constitutional principle).
I’m not sure I’m able to articulate the distinction I see very well (so maybe it’s not real). But it seems to me that the concern of Carolene is an outright exclusion from the political process that homosexuals simply have not suffered (as evidenced by their success in the political process). And that one factor is the way the discrimination manifests itself.
Do you have a link to this article? I would like read it. I have yet to see any substantiation for that claim other than ipse dixit and tu quoque.
Best name ever for a sex-obsessed politician.
What success? Only two states legalized same-sex marriage either by popular referendum or act of the legislature, IIRC (though some legislatures have passed bills that essentially implemented existing judicial precedent.)
We’ve had one gay governor, who had to resign when he came out; four representatives were “out” when elected; one senator; and about a dozen state legislators.
ETA: The only way your distinction makes sense is if you mean gays have not been excluded from voting. That’s true, but gays are also much more of a “minority” than blacks in the sense that there is nowhere that they are a majority.
I don’t mean success as politicians (although McGreevey had to resign becuase he put his lover on the payroll, not for being gay). And access to the political process doesn’t mean winning.
But look at the trend on opinion on gay marriage over the years; look at the speed at which members of one political party are required to “evolve” to maintain their political potential. I don’t look at that and think: “these people need judicial intervention becuase they can’t advocate for their political positions in the conventional manner.”
They need judicial intervention because their civil rights are a political position that they have to advocate for. Anyway, that’s one political party. The other one is still getting legislation and state constitutional amendments passed restricting their rights.
That argument only works if the policies they “have to advocate for” are of some unique importance.
The way it’s supposed to work is that a group turns to the political process for what they want. The fact that they’re doing so (and wining or losing) is not evidence of being excluded from the political process and that judicial intervention is necessary.
But, I guess, that all hinges on the fact that I’m not convinced that having the government reognize and validate your personal relationships is as fundamental a right as you do. And, that’s a whole different debate that is probably a waste of time. Because, if this was about voting or criminal prosecutions or something like that, I would be more inclined to agree with you (but even then, I don’t know; people who advocate for things that are crimes not to be crimes don’t need judicial intervention just becuase they don’t win).
I am firmly in the “government should get out of the marriage business” camp. However, to the extend that much of our law is based on the institution of marriage, it is a fundamental right and should be equally available to The Gays (is my take).
Unfortunately I don’t. I’ve read several news stories since the news broke yesterday. Might have been on Slate.com or Yahoo, or one of the many links they provided. I might be getting the exact wording wrong too but that was my impression, sorry
In reality, the AG’s veto power comes from the age-old legal principle of “Whaddya gonna do? Impeach me?”
It happens in practice, it’s fairly rare. AGs claim authority from the practice of earlier AGs. And it tends to happen either in situations that no one cares about so no one knows about it (for example, the first I was aware that the previous AG had declined to defend a law was when the current one made his announcement) or (like here) they do it in situations that are sufficiently controversial that a substantial percentage of the political public is going to support it and not care at all whether he has the authority.
It’s the same basic principle that allows executives to engage in all sorts of illegal exercises of power.
You’re welcome. 
From the Times
Reading through the Ninth Court decision, it takes it step-by-step to show how they read Windsor and concluded that SCOTUS treated gays and lesbians as a class with heightened level of scrutiny, and why it was not a rational basis analysis.
A number of blogs have pointed out the significance of this. This argument will certainly be copied in other cases and appeals. One blog from a legal adviser to one of the gay and lesbian groups pointed out the number of cases working they way through the different states.
While SCOTUS was undoubtedly hoping for some more time before having to decided on the states’ right to ban SSM, it does not look like they will have to look at it soon. As the Times said in an editorial,
Might as well add this here:
A new pollshows that a sizable majority of Pennsylvanians are in favor of SSM:
…and a HUGE majority favor outlawing discrimination against homosexuals and transgender people:
Given that this is the same state that elected this guy, that’s a pretty solid shift in the right (or, rather, left) direction. I suspect a Pennsylvania SSM bill or referendum will come by or in 2016 if the Supremes haven’t already made it the law of the land.
Wow, that is quite the ruling. The one thing that bugged me was a couple typos. 4 times it has bases instead of basis.
Bases is the plural form of basis and is used as such in the 9th Circuit’s opinion.
I didn’t know that. Strange how I never came across that before with as much reading as I do.