Supreme Court Denies Anti-Gay Kentucky Clerk’s Stay Request

Kim Davis, the serial monogamist (or serial adulterer if one takes the Bible admonition against divorce literally) Kentucky County Clerk who has defied the orders of a U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit by refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples,  just got drop kicked by the United States Supreme Court which denied her request for a stay of the lower court rulings.  One can only hope that Davis will be quickly hit with contempt of court citation and that her nutcase counsel, Mat Staver, will be hit with sanctions for his frivolous appeals and stay requests.  One can further hope that this will be the end of Davis' ridiculous claims that her "religious freedom" is under attack when she obviously cares nothing about the Bible moral dictates given her multiple marriages.  Here are highlights via BuzzFeed:

The Supreme Court on Monday evening denied a Kentucky clerk’s request to keep enforcing her “no marriage licenses” policy — in attempt to avoid issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples — while she appeals the trial court’s preliminary ruling. 

The Rowan County clerk, Kimberly Davis, argues that she should be exempted from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples because she has a religious objection.

Three same-sex couples seeking to marry sued her, leading U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning to order Davis to stop enforcing her “no marriage licenses” policy against those couples.

He refused to put his order on hold while Davis appealed, but he temporarily put it on hold until Monday so Davis could seek a stay pending appeal from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 6th Circuit denied that request this past week, leading Davis to seek a stay from the Supreme Court.

The court gave no reasons in Monday evening’s brief order for denying her request that the trial court’s order to be put on hold while she appeals the matter. No justices publicly announced that they would have granted the request.

On Tuesday morning, there will be no question — at least as to the three same-sex couples who sued Davis — that Davis is under a federal court’s order to stop her “no marriage licenses” policy.  If Davis does not comply, a party could ask Bunning to hold her in contempt of court.

Personally, I hope they put her hypocrisy filled ass in jail for contempt of court.  Given her four marriages, it would seem that Davis views marriage as a form of legal prostitution rather than a sacrament ordained by god as she claims.   One would think that even  the increasingly loony Staver could have found a more credible champion for his "religious freedom" myth.

 

New England Journal of Medicine To SCOTUS: Say Yes To Marriage

The opponents of same sex marriage have had quacks, religious zealots, and fraudulent researchers file amicus briefs with the United States Supreme Court ("SCOTUS") in Obergefell V. Hodges going to great lengths to mask the reality that same sex marriage bans are first and last based on anti-gay animus, ignorance and religious extremist bigotry.   Perhaps in response to the parade of batshitery on display from the "godly folk," the New England Journal of Medicine - one of the most respected medical periodicals - has published an editorial in support of marriage equality.  Among the reasons cited for the editorial's position is that marriage equality promotes the health of same sex couples and their children.  The Christofascist blather on about "hating the sin, but loving the sinner" and caring about "the children," yet in reality they do not give a damn about LGBT individuals or their children.  The truth is that they would prefer it if we all just died and disappeared. Here are editorial highlights:

Eleven years ago, Massachusetts became the first state in the country to give same-sex marriages full legal recognition. Today, same-sex marriage is legal, through legislative or judicial action or by popular vote, in more than 35 states and the District of Columbia. It is recognized by the federal government. And polls consistently show that it is supported by a clear majority of Americans. However, in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of laws and constitutional amendments that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman only, denying recognition of same-sex marriage.  . . . .  We believe that the Court should resolve this conflict in favor of the full recognition of same-sex marriage throughout the United States. 

A fundamental tenet of all medical care is the acceptance of patients as they are, for who they are, with respect and without prejudice or personal agendas. In most of the world, including the United States, there has been a long, sad history of mistreatment of homosexuals and misunderstanding of homosexuality, a normal expression of human sexuality. This mistreatment has ranged from disrespect to ridicule, from ostracizing to genocide. . . . And there are still health care providers who offer ways to “treat” homosexuality as if it were an illness.

Many of us in decades past have known people who felt they had no choice but to hide their homosexuality with false behaviors and sham marriages. Too often physicians have seen the price that their patients have paid for society's lack of acceptance of homosexuality. Stigma and shame lead to stress, anxiety, dysfunctional behavior, depression, even suicide..

Same-sex marriage should be accepted both as a matter of justice and as a measure that promotes health. Marriage as an institution is about stable, long-term relationships, which we know encourage health, reduce the risk of some diseases, and promote healthy families. All health professionals know that in those with chronic and severe illness, care almost always relies in part on family. And when things get really difficult, as when life and death decisions need to be made, physicians know that talking with a patient's partner is not legally the same as working with a patient's spouse. Many same-sex couples are now raising children, and the health of those children demands that their parents have the full rights and protection of marriage. In our society, marriage is often essential to obtaining and keeping adequate health insurance coverage for both members of a couple and for their children. More than 1000 federal benefits are conferred by marriage, among them access to family medical leave, Medicaid, and Veterans Affairs medical services.

The Supreme Court should require the full recognition of same-sex marriage throughout this country. If the Court rules otherwise, whatever the legal logic, a clear injustice will result. And that injustice would damage the health and welfare of millions of Americans.

Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee File Anti-Gay Briefs

The four states in the 6th Circuit defending their anti-gay state bans on same sex marriage - Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee - have filed their briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court, and not surprisingly, they present nothing new and merely a rehash of the same bullshit that we've seen time and time again and make arguments ranging from (i) that of majority mob rule should determine minority rights, (ii) the bans are needed to promote responsible heterosexual procreation,  to (iii) the claim that the bans do not discriminate since no one is barred from marriage as long as its a heterosexual marriage. Of these arguments, I wonder how long these blowhards will sing the song when Christians become a minority in America. Personally, it would be sweet justice to have their rights put to popular vote.  BuzzFeed looks at the tired efforts to justify animus inspired bigotry.  Here are excerpts:

In Ohio, where the state’s law and amendment banning recognition of same-sex couples’ marriages granted elsewhere are being challenged, Attorney General Mike DeWine’s office filed a brief arguing that the marriage issue is best left to the “democratic process” — an argument that formed a significant portion of the appeals court decision upholding the four states’ bans.

Specifically, the brief argues, the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act’s federal recognition ban “best shows that this issue belongs with communities for collaborative resolution through vibrant democratic debate and consensus.”

Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery defended his state’s recognition ban on far more direct grounds.  “Ultimately, Tennessee is not required to recognize petitioners’ out-of-state same-sex marriages because its own marriage policy is indeed legitimate,” the state’s lawyers write. “Marriage cannot be separated from its procreative purpose, and the inherently procreative capacity of opposite-sex couples cannot be denied. Maintaining a traditional definition of marriage ensures that when couples procreate, the children will be born into a stable family unit, and the promotion of family stability is certainly a legitimate state interest.”

Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear . . . argues that “Kentucky’s marriage statutes and constitutional amendment did not change the law in Kentucky. The laws reflect what has always been the law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the consensus of Kentucky communities – only traditional man-woman marriages will be licensed or recognized.”

In short, it's the same list of tired arguments that the majority of the Court found unconvincing in United States v. Windsor. 

The Supreme Court and Anti-Gay Animus

In its ruling in United States v. Windsor, one issue that went toward prompting the majority on the Court to strike down the portion of the Defense of Marriage Act was the documentation from the Congressional Record and elsewhere that the moving motivation behind the the enactment of DOMA was anti-gay animus.  The Court has held on a number of occasions, including Romer v. Evans in the early 1990's,  that animus towards a group in society does not make an unconstitutional law magically past constitutional muster.  With the Court to hear oral argument next month in the marriage cases out of the 6th Circuit, a brief has been filed by the Mattachine Society of Washington, D.C., that seeks to document the long history of anti-gay animus that has motivated laws limiting the civil rights of LGBT citizens.  A piece in Huffington Post looks at the brief and the ugly history that it sets forth.  Here are highlights:

In April the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on the constitutionality of state laws that ban same-sex couples from getting married. The historic case has attracted a wide array of amicus briefs; People for the American Way Foundation joined religious and civil rights groups on a brief urging the court to reject discriminatory marriage bans and challenging "religious liberty" arguments opposing marriage equality.

One fascinating brief was filed by the Mattachine Society of Washington, D.C. . . . . The Mattachine Society's project is about preserving the historical record, but it also has an important legal purpose, which is demonstrating that anti-equality laws and regulations have long been grounded in hostility, or animus, which is not a permissible justification for discrimination. Chief Justice John Roberts' dissent from the Supreme Court decision in Windsor, which overturned the key section of the Defense of Marriage Act, demonstrates the importance of this archival work. Roberts suggested there is insufficient evidence -- he waved it away as "snippets of legislative history" -- to demonstrate that DOMA's purpose was to "codify malice." Added Roberts, "I would not tar the political branches with the brush of bigotry." 

There's no escaping the brush of bigotry, the reeking stench of bigotry, exposed by the Mattachine Society's brief, which links to more than 35 historical documents that demonstrate the ways that the Civil Service Commission, often in partnership with J. Edgar Hoover's FBI and other law enforcement agencies, investigated people suspected of sexual "perversion" and robbed them of their federal jobs and careers. 

From the amicus:

For decades, both federal and state governments targeted and persecuted homosexuals, individuals suspected of being homosexual, and even those believed to have engaged in homosexual acts, regardless of actual sexual orientation. The stated rationale shifted over time -- from concerns about national security to code words, such as "suitability" -- but the point was always the same: government officials, federal and state, high and low, felt a complete revulsion toward homosexuals and wanted to purge the country of even the hint of homosexuality. 

Animus, therefore, was a culture. And with that culture came a language. For decades, government officials referred to homosexuality in official, often highly confidential or privileged communications, as "unnatural," "uniquely nasty," "immoral," "deviant," "pervert[ed]," and an "abomination."

The federal government also worked in concert with anti-gay activities being carried out at the state level. One of the documents uncovered by Mattachine's Freedom of Information Act requests is a 1963 note from Civil Service Commission General Counsel L. V. Malloy to Charley Johns, the chairman of the Florida Legislative Investigation Committee on Homosexuality and Citizenship. 

The Mattachine Society brief ends with an appeal to the Supreme Court's history of addressing anti-gay animus:

For decades, there was no limit to the animus meted out against LGBT Americans and no end to its reach. It poisoned every institution in the United States and seeped into the lives of all Americans, not merely those of gays and lesbians. So too, the language of animus became commonplace among those in the highest positions in government: "homo," "sexual deviant," "pervert," "abomination," "uniquely nasty," and other derogatory terms and phrases were used with bureaucratic ease as a way to define, cabin, and limit the citizenship of LGBT Americans.. . . .

It was the courts -- and in the case of Dew, this Court -- that ultimately stepped in to set the course right. This Court knows animus when it sees it, and it has a well-established line of cases overturning laws that by their text, background history, and effect, relegate a class of citizens to second-class status. See, e.g., Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996); Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003); and United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013). Indeed, this Court has already recognized the long history of discrimination and animus against homosexuals. See, e.g., Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 571.

The newly revealed documents cited herein merely reinforce what this Court already knows. For decades, there was a culture of animus against LGBT Americans that permeated every aspect of American life and every American institution. In many places, that culture continues to this day. To say that the marriage bans now at issue are not somehow the product of this historical animus is to ignore reality.

 In a nation that claims to have religious freedom for all, no one should have their CIVIL rights limited merely because they do not conform to Christofascists beliefs and sensibilities.  No one.

Supreme Court to Take 6th Circuit Marriage Appeal

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal of the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which upheld the same sex marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee and tried to depict such bans as "a benign, even admirable, initiative by “people of good faith,” endowed with a “Burkean sense of caution,” to validate a “long-existing, widely held social norm” rather than animus inspired acts to permanently denigrate gays and lesbians.  Indeed, under the reasoning of the Sixth Circuit's ruling, slavery and bans on interracial marriage ought to still be valid.  A final ruling should be handed down by late June.  This action comes after the Court refused to take the appeal from the Fourth Circuit last October which had the effect of making gay marriage legal in Virginia and the other states in the Fourth Circuit. SCOTUS Blog has details on the Court's action.  Here are excerpts:

Taking on a historic constitutional challenge with wide cultural impact, the Supreme Court on Friday afternoon agreed to hear four new cases on same-sex marriage.   The Court said it would rule on the power of the states to ban same-sex marriages and to refuse to recognize such marriages performed in another state.  A total of two-and-a-half hours was allocated for the hearings, likely in the April sitting.  A final ruling is expected by early next summer, probably in late June.

The Court fashioned the specific questions it is prepared to answer, but they closely tracked the two core constitutional issues that have led to a lengthy string of lower-court rulings striking down state bans.  As of now, same-sex marriages are allowed in thirty-six states, with bans remaining in the other fourteen but all are under court challenge.

Although the Court said explicitly that it was limiting review to the two basic issues, along the way the Justices may have to consider what constitutional tests they are going to apply to state bans, and what weight to give to policies that states will claim to justify one or the other of the bans.
The Court told the lawyers for same-sex couples to file their written briefs on the merits by February 27, and the lawyers for the states to file by March 27.  Reply briefs by the couples’ lawyers are due on April 17.

The Court is scheduled to hold its final session of oral arguments from April 20 through 29, so the same-sex marriage cases will be scheduled during that time.  The order issued on Friday did not set that date; that will be done later.

The focus of the Court’s review will be a decision issued in early November by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  That decision, breaking ranks with most other courts, upheld bans on marriage or marriage-recognition in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.

While one never knows what the Supreme Court will do, it would seem unlikely for the Court to uphold state bans after allowing same sex marriage to extend to 36 states, with legalization in nearly half of those states coming from the Court's refusal to hear appeals where bans were struck down.  The outlier ruling of the Sixth Circuit has forced toe Supreme Court to have to act.

Locally, it has been amazing to see even formerly very conservative private clubs now accept married same sex couples as members.  The husband and I belong to such club and friends have recently joined a local conservative country club.

Will 2015 Be the Year for Full Marriage Equality?

On January 9, 2015, the justices of the United States Supreme Court will reportedly consider taking one or more gay marriage ban cases.  This action will follow moves by the court to reject appeals of rulings that have struck down state marriage bans, thus suggesting the Court may be preparing to make marriage equality nationwide.  Indeed, in several petitions for extending stays, only two justice - the insane Scalia and cretinous Thomas - have supported granting such petitions.  A column in Huffington Post makes the case of why the Court needs to rule and strike down all state bans once and for all.  Here are excerpts:

The Supreme Court will decide shortly whether to review and decide a marriage equality case before its current term ends in June. Many are praying for this, eager to wrap up an issue long past the tipping point that folks are sick of discussing. 

But there is a more important reason the Court should act now: to halt the severe harm that continuing denial of the freedom to marry inflicts every day on countless same-sex couples, their children, and their extended families and friends. It matters whether this harm ends in June 2015 or lingers into the future.

The long-building national consensus for marriage equality reached critical mass after the Supreme Court's 2013 Windsor decision held it unconstitutional for the federal government to refuse to recognize the lawful marriages of same-sex couples. A flood of state and federal court decisions over the last eighteen months has applied Windsor to invalidate the marriage bans of the majority of states. 

The Court's denial of review delayed the nationwide elimination of discrimination and its harms -- but it also made all those favorable decisions final, allowing marriages to go forward in five more states (up from 19) and setting off a ripple effect that has now brought the freedom to marry to thirty-five states (with Florida coming on line in a few days as number 36), plus four with pro-equality rulings on appeal. In comparison, only thirty-four states permitted interracial couples to marry when Loving v. Virginia was decided in 1967. 

[A] handful of courts have gone the other way -- most significantly, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which in one fell swoop in November reversed pro-equality rulings in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. Marriage rights advocates are now asking the Supreme Court to review this decision and one issued by a federal district judge in Louisiana upholding that state's marriage ban. Their chances are good, because the Sixth Circuit created a classic "circuit split," though it is still possible the Court will opt to let litigation play out first in the remaining states. 

In the 15 states without the freedom to marry, families suffer concrete harm every day, deprived of literally hundreds of government benefits and protections as well as private benefits awarded based on marital status. 

Exclusion from marriage also inflicts severe dignitary injury -- the impact of being treated as second-class citizens with second class relationships. These injuries can be quite tangible, particularly the psychological harm to children of being told by society that their families are less real and worthy of respect than those of different-sex parents.

Even couples deemed married in their home states are harmed by continuing marriage discrimination in other states. Every time they travel to a non-recognition state they risk being treated as unmarried in the event of a medical or other emergency.

There is simply no good reason to inflict these risks and harms on American families for another day, much less another year. The country is ready for full recognition of the freedom to marry. Let's hope the Supreme Court is as well.

 Personally, the husband and I avoid non-marriage states and hope the issue in Florida is finally resolved before we decide whether or not to go to Key West this year.  As for the harm being done, there is no reason for it other than the desire of fat cows like Maggie Gallagher and Cardinal "Porky Pig" Dolan to feel smug and self-satisfied with themselves. 

U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Stay Marriage Equality in Florida

In a move that ought to be hand writing on the wall as to how the appeal from the ruling from the Sixth Circuit upholding state marriage bans is going to fare, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to extend a stay in Florida delaying the effect of lower court rulings that struck down that that state's gay marriage ban.  The immediate result: same sex marriages will begin in Florida on January 6, 2015.  The larger result?  It seems inconceivable that the Supreme Court would allow marriages to occur in more and more states if it planned to uphold the Sixth Circuit's reactionary ruling that took a position that had been argued by a white supremacist group that had filed an amicus brief.  Indeed, such an action would be akin to an expost facto law - something barred by the U.S. Constitution. Here are highlights from The Advocate:

In a ruling late Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court said it will allow same-sex couples to begin marrying in Florida on January 6. But that doesn't mean that clerks will actually issue licenses.

A federal judge ruled in August that the state's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, and stayed his decision until early January. The state had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to extend that stay, but the justices have now declined. Ordinarily, emergency requests from Florida are heard by Justice Clarence Thomas, but he referred Florida's petition to the full court. According to Friday's decision, only Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia were in favor of granting the state's request, and so it was denied.

Unfortunately, couples who attempt to obtain licenses January 6 may still be turned away. The Florida Association of Clerks and Comptrollers has warned its members that because the state's marriage ban remains on the books and because litigation is still ongoing, issuing licenses to gay and lesbian couples remains a criminal act in Florida. Clerks who issue licenses could face up to a year in jail, the group said.

It's hard to imagine that law enforcement officials would actually prosecute a clerk who decided to test that law. But will there be a clerk brave enough to stick his or her neck out? That remains unknown.

If a clerk did decide to issue a license, and if a prosecutor decided to then charge them with breaking the law, that clerk would likely be in a good legal position to defend their actions. But such a defense would probably be costly, so they would also need to be in a good financial position to defend themselves. That would require the support of national civil rights groups, like potentially Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union, or the Human Rights Campaign.

"Every day these couples and their families are denied the protections and benefits that come with legal marriage, they risk real and serious consequences," said HRC legal director Sarah Warbelow in a Friday statement. "We look forward to the day that all couples are able to have their relationships recognized as valid under the law."

The Court's move is a rebuke to Pam Bondi who has enthusiastically prostituted herself to the Christofascists.  It is telling that both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Alito did not support extending the stay.  Is it possible that even a reactionary like Alito now supports same sex marriage?  Perhaps he and Roberts see the future and they have decided that they do not want to be on the wrong side of history and looked back upon with derision.  Meanwhile, expect NOM and other hate groups to work hard to shake down the ignorant for money. 

U.S. Supreme Court Denies South Carolina Marriage Stay Request

I have noted before the manner in which South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley and Attorney General Alan Wilson have been squandering taxpayer funds fighting the inevitable application of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Schaefer v. Bostic as binding precedent on South Carolina.  As a last ditch attempt, a request for a stay of the U.S. District Court ruling that relied on Bostic was filed with Chief Justice John Roberts.  Today, that request was denied in a 7-2 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Only lunatic Justices Scalia and Thomas voted to hear the request.  Here are highlights from WISTV:

COLUMBIA, SC (WIS) - In a 7-2 decision, the United States Supreme Court has decided to not issue an emergency stay in the ongoing political drama surrounding same-sex marriage, paving the way for the marriages to begin in the Palmetto State at noon Thursday.

With that decision, South Carolina becomes the 35th state in the United States to allow same-sex couples to marry.

In a brief statement, seven of the nine Supreme Court justices denied the stay, but Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas said they would hear it.

Thursday's decision means there is very little left for Attorney General Alan Wilson to do to stop marriages from beginning at noon.

The attorney general's office released a statement shortly after the decision came down, saying that despite Thursday's ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has not resolved conflicting rulings by other federal appeals courts.

"When the U.S. Supreme Court. decides to consider the  case, our office will be supporting the position of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is more consistent with South Carolina State law, which upholds the unique status of traditional marriage," the statement said.
Same-sex marriage supporters celebrated the high court's decision.

"The order from the U.S. Supreme Court officially puts an end to the long fight for access to marriage for South Carolina's same-sex couples and their families. This decision clears away the last obstacle to marriage equality in the state," attorney Beth Littrell said. “We congratulate all the happy couples as South Carolina becomes the 35th state where same-sex couples can marry.”

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Gergel, who ruled the state's ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional late last week.

After the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to issue an emergency stay on Gergel's ruling on Tuesday, Attorney General Alan Wilson said he would appeal to the high court.

The 7-2 decision is hopefully a good sign that the 6th Circuit's wrongly decided ruling will eventually be reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Such a ruling would them make same sex marriage legal nationwide, including in Puerto Rico and U.S. territories.

Gay Marriage: The Tide Has Turned, But Is the Supreme Court Listen?

With the constitutionality of gay marriage bans headed back to the U.S. Supreme Court in the wake of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals incredibly wrong ruling - based, as previously noted on arguments made by a white supremacy group - some believe that the outcome will inevitably be than same sex marriage becomes legal nationwide, Given the fact that the Court turned down appeals from Virginia and other states and gave de facto affirmation of the Court of Appeals rulings, such reasoning is easy to understand.  Yet there remain far right extremists on the Court who would not hesitate to role back the advance of marriage equality.  A post in the Huffington Post looks at the issue and whether or not a majority on the Court realize that any attempt to reverse the tide will go against public opinion.  Here are highlights:

The Supreme Court may soon be pushed, however reluctantly, to address the question of whether there's a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. So far, it has punted on the issue. But last week, gay and lesbian couples filed petitions asking the court to rule on the matter now that federal appeals courts have issued contradictory decisions. They hope the court will hear their case before the current session ends in June.

On October 6, the Supreme Court rejected petitions seeking to appeal lower court rulings that struck down bans on same-sex marriage in Wisconsin, Utah, Indiana, Oklahoma, and Virginia. As a result, same-sex marriage is now legal in 33 states as well as the District of Columbia.

At the time, the various federal appeals courts saw the issue the same way, knocking down many state bans on gay marriage. But on November 6, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, based in Cincinnati, upheld state bans on same-sex marriage in Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan and Kentucky.

Splits among circuit courts are one of the factors that the Supreme Court considers before taking on a case. Now that different appeals courts have disagreed on the constitutionality of same sex marriage, the Supreme Court may have a hard time avoiding a direct showdown on the issue.

So far, the Supreme Court has been much more cautious about same-sex marriage than it was about inter-racial marriage a half-century ago. . . . They stopped short of proclaiming same-sex marriage a basic right. They left it to the states to determine whether gay Americans have the same right to marry as their straight counterparts.

Compare this to the Supreme Court's bold 1967 ruling in Loving v. Virginia, which knocked down state anti-miscegenation laws. At the time, "states' rights" was the justification used by Southern racists to defend Jim Crow laws, including school segregation, racial discrimination in restaurants and buses, severe limits on voting by African Americans, and bans on interracial marriage. Back then, the Supreme Court was ahead of public opinion regarding interracial marriage. Now it is behind public opinion when it comes to same-sex marriage. It is hard to see how the legal case for same-sex marriage is any different, but the Supreme Court chose to advocate states' rights over equal rights.

Although no one can be sure whether or how the Supreme Court justices will decide, the American public has already made up its mind. Public support for gay marriage has hit a new high. According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll, conducted in June this year, 56 percent of Americans believe it should be legal for gay and lesbian couples to marry . . .

Moreover, support for gay marriage is much higher among younger Americans, indicating that the future belongs to the advocates, not the opponents, of same-sex marriage. Soon, conservative politicians and groups will no longer be able to use gay marriage as a "wedge" issue to stir controversy and win elections. The days of gay-bashing as a political strategy are numbered.

[W]hen the U.S. Supreme Court, in Loving v. Virginia, knocked down state anti-miscegenation laws everywhere, 16 states still had such laws on the books and 72 percent of the public still opposed interracial marriages. 

Warren penned the opinion for the court, noting that the Virginia law endorsed the doctrine of white supremacy. He wrote:

Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.. . . To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Reread Chief Justice Warren's words. Then substitute same-sex marriage for interracial marriage and see if his views are any less compelling. Most Americans would now agree that to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry is, as Warren put it,"directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment." Today's version of anti-miscegenation laws are those that prohibit same-sex marriage.

6th Circuit Ruling Patterned on White Supremacist Brief?

In a recent post I speculated whether Judge Jeffrey Sutton was a modern day segregationist.  Perhaps my shots at Sutton were closer to home than I realized.  A white supremacist group that filed an amicus curiae in the 6th Circuit case is ecstatic that Sutton seemingly adopted the hate group's argument in support of upholding same sex marriage bans.  And, of course, leave it to a Chimperator George W. Bush appointee to side with the argument of white supremacists. Here are  excerpts from the group's own website boasting about the argument swallowed by Sutton who needs to receive a set of KKK robes for his Christmas gift:

When vice is celebrated as virtue and the proponents of that which is Good are labeled political heretics by the System, it is only just and proper for one to be “bad” as far as the powers that be are concerned.   

In DeBoer v. Snyder, Texas Attorney Jason Van Dyke of the Van Dyke Law Firm, PLLC, and I, Michigan and Ohio Attorney Kyle Bristow of Bristow Law, PLLC, submitted what we jokingly refer to as an “animus curiae brief” in which we articulated why the Western Legal Tradition and American history evince that there is no constitutional or natural law right for homosexuals to marry one another.  Although Schuette opined that our amicus brief should only be used to “line a birdcage” by the Sixth Circuit since it did not mince words by employing the System’s politically correct language or ideals, the judges disagreed with him:  our brief was not only accepted and considered by the Court, but the position we articulated was in effect adopted by the federal appellate judges since they saw fit to rule 2-1 that Michigan’s ban on homosexual marriage is constitutional.

Did the Sixth Circuit consider the amicus brief of us two villain lawyers and bad guy Michigan limited liability company?  Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by Judge Deborah Cook, cited Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972) in the opinion, and then followed it up by citing Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332 (1975)—which were both cited in our brief in the same manner as the Sixth Circuit cited them.

Judge Sutton also referred to “thousands of years of adherence to the traditional definition of marriage” in his written opinion, which echoes the sentiment espoused within our brief:  “[T]he Western and American legal traditions have proscribed sodomy—much less same-sex marriage—for thousands and hundreds of years, respectively.”  Not surprisingly, Judge Sutton mentioned the importance of tradition in the very first paragraph of his lengthy written opinion:  “[M]arriage has long been a social institution defined by relationships between men and women.  So long defined, the tradition is measured in millennia, not centuries or decades.  So widely shared, the tradition until recently had been adopted by all governments and major religions of the world.”

Also, our brief pointed out that sexual deviants with proclivities stranger than those even of homosexuals could demand the “right” to marry if the Court ruled that states cannot constitutionally regulate marriage, and the liberals mocked us for making the “slippery slope argument.”  Well, Judge Sutton agrees with us, which is evinced by what he opined in his opinion:  “If it is constitutionally irrational to stand by the man-woman definition of marriage, it must be constitutionally irrational to stand by the monogamous definition of marriage.”  How do you liberals like them apples?

Given the thousands of years that slavery was legal and an accepted institution, one can only assume that Sutton would up hold that institution as well.   Oh, and what about antisemitism?  That was acceptable too for centuries and in Poland and Russia pogroms were government sanctioned. Under Sutton's rational, that must be perfectly fine as well.  Disgusting!

6th Circuit's Judge Jeffrey Sutton: Modern Day Segregationist?

Sutton - Is he a racist too?

Reactions to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling upholding marriage bans continue and outside of knuckle dragging Christofascists circles, none are very favorable towards Judge Jeffrey Sutton who not surprisingly is a George W. "Chimperator" Bush appointee. As previously notes, Sutton's "let the people decide" analysis would have been very popular in the South in the 1950's and 1960's and one can only speculate that we would still have segregated schools and bans on interracial marriage if Sutton's approach had been applied by the Supreme Court in cases such as Brown v. Board of Education and/or Loving v. Virginia.   Sutton clearly underscores the dangers of placing a cretin in the White House.   Here's one good take down of Judge Sutton:

Well, the media reports are correct. Sutton's lengthy introduction, before the analysis: "And all come down to the same question: Who decides? Is this a matter that the National Constitution commits to resolution by the federal courts or leaves to the less expedient, but usually reliable, work of the state democratic processes?" 

 Sutton did make two cute rhetorical moves with Loving. First, he insisted that the Court assumed marriage only encompassed opposite-sex unions, since the Court did not say differently and because the couple in Loving where not same-sex. Second is this: "Loving addressed, and rightly corrected, an unconstitutional eligibility requirement for marriage; it did not create a new definition of marriage." But this seems too clever by a half--all definitions of a thing are based on eligibility requirements for the definition of that thing. Is Sutton really suggesting that Loving would have come out differently if, instead of the law saying "If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony," it said "marriage shall only be between two white persons or two black persons"? 

Say this: Sutton hit every possible argument and issue surrounding marriage equality (although he soft-pedaled his discussion of the "marriage is for men and the women they accidentally knock-up" argument). So the opinion presents a good vehicle for thorough consideration (and reversal).

Finally, a question: Judge Daughtrey in her dissent described at length the facts underlying the claim by the Michigan plaintiffs. Under Michigan law, unmarried couples cannot jointly adopt, which means only one parent is the legal parent of the child and there is no guarantee that, if the legal parent dies, the child will be allowed to stay with the other, non-legal parent. But that imposes huge financial costs on the state, if it has to bring that child into the foster care system, not to mention the human and social cost to the child and the entire system. But if the ban on same-sex marriage imposes such costs, doesn't that render it irrational, if not based on animus?

Of course, all of us know that animus IS the real motivation.  Wonkette has an even less kind analysis:

Let’s skip ahead now to the lone dissenting voice of reason, Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey, who politely points out that, ahem, that argument is some kind of bullcrud:

There is not now and never has been a universally accepted definition of marriage. In early Judeo-Christian law and throughout the West in the Middle Ages, marriage was a religious obligation, not a civil status. Historically, it has been pursued primarily as a political or economic arrangement. Even today, polygamous marriages outnumber monogamous ones—the practice is widespread in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, especially in countries following Islamic law, which also recognizes temporary marriages in some parts of the world. In Asia and the Middle East, many marriages are still arranged and some are even coerced.

But oh well, guess the majority forgot about that, because it sure does insist — over and over and over again — that up until about a decade ago, there was one definition of marriage, everywhere, for all time. And that is why the real question is whether the court has the authority to overrule The Voice Of The People, when The People have been homophobic bigots for all these millennia.

6th Circuit Issues Batshit Crazy Opinion Upholding Marriage Ban

6th Circuit Panel - Judge Daughtrey is at left.  Assholes are at center and right

Because the Supreme Court left intact rulings by the 4th Circuit, 7th Circuit and 10th Circuit Courts of Appeals striking down same-sex marriage bans in those five states, those appeals courts’ decisions applied to six other states in those three circuits: West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming. In a ruling that ought to terrify minorities of all stripes, by a 2 to one ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has held that minority rights can in effect be granted or denied based on the vote of the majority through the "democratic process."  Under the Court's reasoning, state constitutions - and by extension, the Federal Constitution - can be amended to strip the rights of minorities.  Blacks, Jews, Muslims, Hispanics, and so forth all should be very concerned by the reasoning of the Court.  Their rights, like gay rights are according to the majority ruling subject to the whims and prejudices of the majority of voters.  While the Christofascists are jumping for joy at the ruling - hate merchants Brian Brown and Tony Perkins seemingly are near orgasm - longer term they should be quaking: the day is coming when whites and Christian (certainly conservative Christians) will be in the minority.  Applied to its logical limits, the 6th Circuit ruling would allow the non-white, non-Christofascist majority of the future to strip the "godly folk" of their civil rights and treat them as they have so foully treated others (talk about Karma being a bitch). The ruling is so insane that it's hard to know if the majority wanted to be remembered in the same category as those judges that decided the Dred Scott ruling in the 1800's or if they are seeking to force the U.S. Supreme Court to make marriage equality nationwide.  Metro Weekly looks at the bizarre ruling.  Here are highlights:

In a 2-1 decision, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that same-sex marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee are constitutional. The decision reverses rulings by federal district courts striking down same-sex marriage bans in those four states.

“In just eleven years, nineteen States and a conspicuous District, accounting for nearly forty-five percent of the population, have exercised their sovereign powers to expand a definition of marriage that until recently was universally followed going back to the earliest days of human history. That is a difficult timeline to criticize as unworthy of further debate and voting,” wrote Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton for the majority. “When the courts do not let the people resolve new social issues like this one, they perpetuate the idea that the heroes in these change events are judges and lawyers. Better in this instance, we think, to allow change through the customary political processes, in which the people, gay and straight alike, become the heroes of their own stories by meeting each other not as adversaries in a court system but as fellow citizens seeking to resolve a new social issue in a fair-minded way.”

Under Judge Sutton's reasoning, schools would perhaps still be segregated and interracial marriage bans might still exist.   One judge dissented and called out the majority for their closed mindedness and, I would argue, bigotry.  Here's more from Metro Weekly:

Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey dissented.

“The author of the majority opinion has drafted what would make an engrossing TED Talk or, possibly, an introductory lecture in Political Philosophy,” Daughtrey wrote in her dissent. “But as an appellate court decision, it wholly fails to grapple with the relevant constitutional question in this appeal: whether a state’s constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, the majority sets up a false premise—that the question before us is “who should decide?”—and leads us through a largely irrelevant discourse on democracy and federalism. In point of fact, the real issue before us concerns what is at stake in these six cases for the individual plaintiffs and their children, and what should be done about it. “

“The legacies of Judges Deborah Cook and Jeffrey Sutton will forever be cemented on the wrong side of history,” said Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin in a statement.

The decision by the 6th Circuit marks the first time a federal appeals court has upheld a state ban on same-sex marriage and presents a split among the circuit courts, which could encourage the Supreme Court to once again take up the issue of same-sex marriage and decide whether the Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in September that if the 6th Circuit allowed same-sex marriage bans to stand “there will be some urgency” for the Supreme Court to step in.

Because the Supreme Court left intact rulings by the 4th Circuit, 7th Circuit and 10th Circuit Courts of Appeals striking down same-sex marriage bans in those five states, those appeals courts’ decisions applied to six other states in those three circuits: West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming. 

Will A Wave of Court of Appeals Rulings Turn the Tide on Same-Sex Marriage Bans?

With Friday's ruling in Michigan and the State of Michigan promising to appeal there are now or soon will be marriage equality cases on the dockets of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th and 10th Circuit Courts of Appeal.  As the New York Times reports, many legal experts expect that one or all of these Courts of Appeal will strike down state bans on same sex marriage.  The results of these rulings may well force the U.S.Supreme Court to resolve the issue once and for all.  Here are article highlights:

With a slew of cases barreling toward federal appeals courts, almost certainly including the decision Friday that overturned Michigan’s restrictive marriage amendment, the legal battle over same-sex marriage is entering a new and climactic phase. Decisions in the coming months will resonate beyond individual states across entire regions and may impel the Supreme Court to revisit the issue sooner than it wished. 

Legal experts say the country is entering what one called a “marriage spring” and predict that several of the circuit courts, which hold sway over a group of states, will rule that state laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman are unconstitutional.

Enforcement of decisions may well be delayed while the Supreme Court takes one or more of them for review, with a decision then possible by June 2015.

But if the Supreme Court demurs, those rulings will become law throughout those circuits, requiring many more states to join the 17 that have already authorized same-sex marriage.

“This is the penultimate act,” said Michael C. Dorf, a constitutional expert at Cornell University Law School, of the sudden wave of federal court hearings. It will start in Denver in April as the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit considers rulings that overturned marriage limits in Utah and Oklahoma.

Like many other legal scholars, Mr. Dorf predicts that same-sex marriage proponents will win many of the circuit-level decisions, which are generally handed down by three-judge panels.

Since June, when the Supreme Court required the federal government to recognize married same-sex couples and suggested that discriminatory laws were rooted in nothing but prejudice, rights advocates have won an uninterrupted series of decisions in federal district courts. Restrictive amendments or laws have been declared unconstitutional in Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Texas and Michigan, and partial decisions, requiring states to recognize out-of-state marriages, have been handed down in Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee.

In addition to the Denver hearings next month, the Fourth Circuit, based in Richmond, will hear arguments in the Virginia case in May. These cases are likely to be decided by summer or fall.

In other regions, hearings have not yet been scheduled but are considered very likely this year in the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, regarding a 2012 decision that upheld Nevada’s restrictive law. They also could occur this year in the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, for the Texas case, and in the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, for cases from Michigan, Ohio and Kentucky. 

Given the consistency of recent court decisions and the signals given by the Supreme Court in its ruling in June, many experts predict that some if not most of these circuit panels will uphold marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples. That could upend law in many conservative states.

The Supreme Court will be all but forced to decide if, as appears possible, different circuits reach clashing conclusions. The one most likely to decide against same-sex marriage, many experts say, is the Fifth Circuit, which will decide the Texas appeal. That circuit includes Mississippi and Louisiana, and the court is viewed as largely made up of conservative judges.

[M]ore than 50 challenges to marriage limits are working their way through lower federal courts and state courts. In the next three months, federal district courts will hear challenges in Idaho, Oregon and Pennsylvania, said Gary Buseck, legal director of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders. 

If, despite recent signs, the Supreme Court finds no constitutional right to same-sex marriage, that could block such marriages in states like Utah and Virginia, where laws were overturned by federal courts. But it would not turn back the clock in the 17 states that adopted same-sex marriage on their own through legislation, ballot questions or state court decisions.

6th Circuit Court Upholds Firing of Anti-Gay College Official

Remember Crystal Dixon (pictured at left), who had been the University of Toledo's interim associate vice president for human resources who got fired for authoring an anti-gay screed in the Toledo Free Press in April 2008?  She quickly became the darling and a martyr in the eyes of the Christofascists who believe that their religious beliefs trump everything else, including job responsibilities and the rights of other citizens.  It is the "it's all about me" mindset that typifies today's self-anointed "godly Christian" crowd.  After losing past case at the District Court, Dixon appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.  No doubt the shrieking, spittle flecked horror of the Christofascists, the 6th Circuit upheld her firing by the University of Toledo.  The Chronicle of Higher Education has details:

A federal appeals court has upheld the University of Toledo's decision to fire a high-level human-resources administrator who wrote a newspaper opinion column challenging the idea that gay people deserve the same civil-rights protections as members of racial minority groups.

In a ruling handed down on Monday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the administrator's column "contradicted the very policies she was charged with creating, promoting, and enforcing," and cannot be excused as merely a statement of her own views as a private citizen. The panel affirmed a lower court's decision to dismiss the administrator's lawsuit accusing the public university of violating her constitutional rights by firing her.

At the center of the case was an opinion essay that Crystal Dixon, who had been the university's interim associate vice president for human resources, published in the Toledo Free Press in April 2008. In it, she wrote that she takes "great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are 'civil-rights victims.'" She argued that she "cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman" because she is biologically and genetically such "as my creator intended." But, she said, "daily, thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle" with the help of groups such as Exodus International, which claim to be able to help people overcome homosexual desires.

She was fired after a hearing in which she stood by her views but argued that they did not affect her performance as a human-resources administrator, citing her recent decisions to hire "one, possibly two practicing homosexuals" in her own department.

In upholding the dismissal of Ms. Dixon's lawsuit, the federal appeals court said she differed from other employees cited in her equal-protection claim in that her speech, and not theirs, contradicted university policies. The appeals panel said her essay "spoke on policy issues related directly to her position at the university," and the government's interests as an employer outweighed her free-speech interests in the dispute.

In my view, Dixon is a bigoted idiot.  It's truly delicious that she cited Exodus International which has closed its doors and admitted that few, if any, gays actually change their sexual orientation.    Dixon is an example of why the Christofascists continue to fund these bogus "ministries" so that they can dupe the obviously simple minded.

Appeals Court Upholds Firing of College Official Over Anti-Gay Op-Ed

Why does it seem that while claiming that it is gays who want special rights it is actually the Christianists who want special rights?  The special right to bully at will, the right to stigmatize and denigrate others without consequence, and, in the case of Crystal Dixon (pictured at left), to ignore the responsibilities at the University of Toledo and engage in an anti-gay rant in an op-ed in the Toledo Free Press.  This demand by Christianists boils down to an incredible level of selfishness and open contempt for the rights of others.  The Christianists believe that their rights and beliefs trump everything and everyone else.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, however, ruled otherwise and affirmed the University of Toledo's decision to fire Ms. Dixon from her position as a high-level human-resources administrator.  The Chronicle of Higher Education looks at the slap down delivered to Dixon and by extension other self-centered bigots like her.  Here are excerpts"

In a ruling handed down on Monday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the administrator's column "contradicted the very policies she was charged with creating, promoting, and enforcing," and cannot be excused as merely a statement of her own views as a private citizen. The panel affirmed a lower court's decision to dismiss the administrator's lawsuit accusing the public university of violating her constitutional rights by firing her.

At the center of the case was an opinion essay that Crystal Dixon, who had been the university's interim associate vice president for human resources, published in the Toledo Free Press in April 2008. In it, she wrote that she takes "great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are 'civil-rights victims.'" She argued that she "cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman" because she is biologically and genetically such "as my creator intended." But, she said, "daily, thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle" with the help of groups such as Exodus International, which claim to be able to help people overcome homosexual desires.

She was fired after a hearing in which she stood by her views but argued that they did not affect her performance as a human-resources administrator, citing her recent decisions to hire "one, possibly two practicing homosexuals" in her own department.

In upholding the dismissal of Ms. Dixon's lawsuit, the federal appeals court said she differed from other employees cited in her equal-protection claim in that her speech, and not theirs, contradicted university policies. The appeals panel said her essay "spoke on policy issues related directly to her position at the university," and the government's interests as an employer outweighed her free-speech interests in the dispute.

Note how Dixon cited the fraudulent bullshit disseminated by the "ex-gay" crowd to support he bigotry.  That alone in my view makes it clear that the woman is too ignorant to hold any senior university opinion.  We can expect shrieking and flying spittle to engulf the professional Christian set who will falsely claim Christians are being persecuted when in fact it is they who are doing the persecuting.