Tag: Law

Posted on

Right-Wing Website Says Same-Sex Marriage Is Like Slavery

The conservative website, Public Discourse, posts an essay today that says the legal arguments for marriage equality and 1857’s Dred Scott case for slavery law are pretty much the same thing.

The structure and logic of the legal arguments made for nationwide judicial imposition of same-sex marriage are remarkably similar to the arguments made by those who argued for the judicial imposition of slavery nationwide.

[snip]

In both Dred Scott and Windsor, the Court’s legal analysis was transparently result-oriented: the justices wanted a particular result, and manipulated the law to reach the outcome they thought preferable as a social-policy matter. In both cases, the majority’s “reasoning” wanders aimlessly before finally settling into the same oft-discredited judicial invention of “substantive due process”—the idea that it is simply morally wrong, or mean, for a democracy to deny a legal right or status conferred under the law of a different jurisdiction. In both cases, the majority opinions were subject to devastating dissents, and they produced greatly divided public reaction. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Dred Scott and Windsor are two peas from the same judicial-activist pod.

Posted on

President Obama: “Equal Protection Clause Does Guarantee Same-Sex Marriage”

President Obama was asked by Jeffrey Toobin, writing for the New Yorker, to name the best Supreme Court ruling during his tenure as president so far.

His answer? The recent SCOTUS decision to not review same-sex marriage appeals which allowed marriage equality to move forward one state at a time.

“Ultimately, I think the Equal Protection Clause does guarantee same-sex marriage in all fifty states,” he said. “But, as you know, courts have always been strategic. There have been times where the stars were aligned and the Court, like a thunderbolt, issues a ruling like Brown v. Board of Education, but that’s pretty rare.

“And, given the direction of society, for the Court to have allowed the process to play out the way it has may make the shift less controversial and more lasting.”

When asked if he would consider a judgeship after the presidency: “When I got out of law school, I chose not to clerk. Partly because I was an older student, but partly because I don’t think I have the temperament to sit in a chamber and write opinions.”

Posted on

Mayor in France refuses to marry gay couple

From the Advocate: A mayor in southwestern France refused to marry a gay couple Friday, defying the nation’s newly enacted marriage equality law. But the mayor would consider marrying two women, reports France’s English-language news source The Local.

Claude Binaud, the 77-year-old six-term mayor of Matha, reportedly told Bernard Rouhaud and his partner that he would not issue a marriage license to the couple.

“There’s no doubt, I will not marry them, not two boys,” Binaud told local daily paper Sud-Ouest. “I don’t find [gay marriage] normal. We’re touching on something central to society here — the family.”

But that concern for family is apparently what led the mayor to speculate that he might marry two women, if he were forced to do so.

“Two girls, I might have said yes, if my back was against the wall,” continued Binaud. “But that’s totally different — they can have children.”

Binaud suggested that a town councillor officiate at Rouhaud’s wedding August 3, reports The Local.

But that compromise might not be good enough for national authorities, as France’s interior minister, Manuel Valls, warned mayors last week that anyone refusing to marry same-sex couples will find themselves in violation of the new law, which took effect May 30. Valls was responding to reports that a mayor from another southwestern town had refused to officiate a gay couple’s wedding, and noted that state officials who refuse to marry same-sex couples could face up to three years in prison and a fine of 45,000 Euros for their discriminatory practice that’s at odds with nationwide law.

Posted on

Montana: House votes to decriminalize homosexuality

The Montana House decisively voted Tuesday to repeal Montana’s law making gay sex a crime, putting the bill one step away from the governor’s desk.

After a half-hour of emotional debate for and against the measure, the House voted 64-36 to endorse Senate Bill 107. Twenty-five Republicans joined all 39 House Democrats to support the bill.

The bill removes gay sex from the definition of the crime of “deviate sexual relations,” a felony that carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $50,000.

LGBT advocates in the state have worked for over 20 years to address the law that grouped gay sex in with “sexual intercourse with an animal” as criminal deviate sexual conduct.

The bill faces one more vote in the House before heading to the Governor’s desk.

(via http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/montana-house-endorses-measure-to-decriminalize-gay-sex/article_79b4d3e9-c54a-5cc5-86cd-695dcf6d5750.html#ixzz2Q4nTIBKi)

Posted on

Mexican Supreme Court: Anti-gay expressions not protected by free speech

The First Chamber of the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice has ruled that anti-gay epithets are not protected speech under the Freedom of Expression.

From Blabbeando:

In this sense, the First Chamber determined that homophobic expressions or – in other words the frequent allegations that homosexuality is not a valid option but an inferior condition – constitute discriminatory statements even if they are expressed jokingly, since they can be used to encourage, promote and justify intolerance against gays.

For this reason, the Chamber determined that the terms used in this specific case – made up of the words “maricones” and “puñal” – were offensive. These are expressions which are certainly deeply rooted in the language of Mexican society but the truth is that the practices of a majority of participants of a society cannot trump violations of basic rights.