America does the right thing

Oct 06 2014 Published by under Day in the life of DrugMonkey

At first you might think it a negative that the US Supreme Court refused to hear five gay marriage cases this term.

The Supreme Court on Monday turned away appeals from five states looking to prohibit gay marriage, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in those states and likely others -- but also leaving the issue unresolved nationally.

The justices rejected appeals from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin. The court's order immediately ends delays on gay marriage in those states.

Couples in six other states -- Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming -- also should be able to get married in short order. Those states would be bound by the same appellate rulings that were put on hold pending the Supreme Court's review. That would make same-sex marriage legal in 30 states and the District of Columbia.

So they haven't "finished the job". So what. The nationwide trend on this is clear and we will have only the smallest bumps ahead as more lower courts find that what SCOTUS did in the Federal decisions applies in their jurisdictions as well. More than half the population now lives in a jurisdiction that permits same-sex marriage. Or as more States decide to legalize same-sex marriage and nobody complains (at the legal level).

This is what happened with Loving v. Virginia too. Perhaps Roe v. Wade as well?

SCOTUS waiting for tides to turn in a particular direction within the country has precedent. And today, they announced they will not try to move that tide, they will watch it. And that is a good thing.

Today was a win for civil rights and I'm going to celebrate it as such.

12 responses so far

  • Comradde PhysioProffe says:

    You are fucken high on Roe. There's a tide, but at least right now it's moving in the opposite direction.

  • drugmonkey says:

    There wasn't a gradual change in state laws on abortion leading up to the Roe decision? SCOTUS bucked tide on that one? Huh.

  • Davis Sharp says:

    This is a majority conservative Supreme Court that decided the conservative appeals of state fairness in marriage laws were not worth considering. That's a good thing. OTOH, abortion rights, not specifically Roe v. Wade, are on shakier ground as anti-choice groups find creative ways to restrict abortions with requirements for counseling, ultrasounds, admitting privileges for providers, etc.

    But yeah, today was definitely a win for civil rights and common sense.

  • Grumble says:

    Justice Bader Ginsburg's negative view of Roe vs Wade is informative:

    "Ginsburg has also said that the ruling damaged the growing movement for abortion rights by going 'too far, too fast' and catalyzing the conservative pro-life community, which considers Roe a monumental act of judicial overreach. Her words ring truer than ever today as the movement that was then on the decline has since has been successful at unwinding Roe protections in the Supreme Court and at dramatically curtailing abortion rights in red states, potentially nudging the issue back to the justices in the foreseeable future.

    " 'That was my concern, that the court had given opponents of access to abortion a target to aim at relentlessly,' she told students at the University of Chicago Law School, as reported by The Associated Press. 'My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum that was on the side of change.' "

    The Supremes seem to be going slower on gay marriage, which, from Bader Ginsburg's point of view, might be a good thing. Slow acceptance = broad acceptance.

  • Grumble says:

    ...and right on cue:

    "On a panel at VVS titled 'The Future of Marriage,' Frank Schubert, the mastermind strategist of the Proposition 8 campaign and other marriage ban campaigns across the country, said that if by chance marriage equality opponents lost at the high court, as pretty much happened yesterday, they would have to go the route they did with abortion after Roe v. Wade. They'd have to seek 'incremental' wins, he said, as they did then, chipping away slowly at abortion rights, which of course has been very successful. Schubert then said they'd have to the find the gay 'version' of 'partial birth abortion.' "

    Clearly, the fight isn't over.

  • drugmonkey says:

    back to sodomy laws? good luck with that, bucko.

  • becca says:

    DM- we're one election away from a Ugandan type death penalty for LGBT people. Always. The gay version of partial birth abortion is "think of the children" slander re: pedophilia. See what's happening in Russia.

  • dsks says:

    Meh, I don't see the anti-Roe strategy working out in this instance. With abortion, the issue of personhood supplies enough of a moral and philosophical crack to get one's crowbar into and start pulling. But gay marriage involves two people entering into a thoroughly mutual agreement that does not materially disadvantage anybody else. There's nothing to work on except subjective prejudice and religion, neither of which tend to carry a lot of weight in secular law.

  • drugmonkey says:

    My concern in this case is only that we're one bad Supreme Court Justice away from disaster. I am going to be even angrier with RBG when the Senate turns over, we get a Republican President next election and then she dies in office. She should have stepped down last year so that Obama could have nominated someone and there would have been an entire year for the country to tire of any showboating on the part of Senate Repubs.

  • My concern in this case is only that we're one bad Supreme Court Justice away from disaster. I am going to be even angrier with RBG when the Senate turns over, we get a Republican President next election and then she dies in office. She should have stepped down last year so that Obama could have nominated someone and there would have been an entire year for the country to tire of any showboating on the part of Senate Repubs.

    Dude, that is a whole lotta fucken political delusion packed into a single paragraph!!!!

  • drugmonkey says:

    how is that "delusion". It's likely.

  • becca says:

    DM- you know somebody had to have done this math, right? data here: http://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-death-calculator-2013-1

Leave a Reply