Chris Geidner has a roundup of the reactions from around the blogosphere to last week's New York court ruling in favor of gay marriage, including analysis of the decision from Jack Balkin, Patterico, Kip Esquire and others. I've not read the decision yet, but my friend Dan Ray sent me it to me last night. He had the same reaction to it that Jack Balkin had, which is that while he agreed with the outcome, he thought it was pretty strange decision that would either give the court of appeals ample room to overturn it, or would require them to affirm it on substantially different legal grounds.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Jack Balkin has a couple of fascinating essays on how easily originalism is used to justify a particular result, an argument I have long made myself. I'm not an enemy of originalism, nor am I a "living constitutionalist", and I think that both original intent and original understanding or original…
Friday was a fabulous day, after a very, very long week. For a week, we frantically prepared for our final home visit. Some of it was pretty normal stuff - minor repairs, etc... Some of it, I think was pretty weird - who knew that freshly washed window screens were a requirement to be a good…
Dale Carpenter has had a series of interesting posts at Volokh about last week's ruling from the NY Court of Appeals (which is their state supreme court) that said that gay marriage was not required by the state constitution of New York. Carpenter is a law professor who advocates gay marriage but…
My thanks to Ed Darrell for pointing me to an article by Peter Gomes in the Boston Globe. Gomes is the Plummer Professor of Christian Morals and minister of the Memorial Church at Harvard. Of the recent court cases involving gay marriage, he writes:
We have seen this before. When the courts…
Thanks for the links. I'll check them out
The Acrobat of the opinion is available on Lambda Legal's website through http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/documents/record?record=1635 I've read parts of the opinion, but it's a little long. Has there been any comment from John Rowe?
I haven't read the decision. I did however, comment on Joe Carter's analysis of the case where he asserted that once you defend gay marriage, you have no logical or consistent grounds for resisting polygamy.
I am not familiar with Joe Carter, but apparently he is unfamiliar with "equal protection" jurisprudence, under the 14th amendment or state constitutions requiring "equal protection" of the laws. As should be clear, after the plaintiff has shown that a state provision is discriminatory, the burden shifts to the state to prove that the provision, at a minimum, is rational, or, depending on the basis for the discrimination, serves a compelling state interest. Defending SSM (same-sex marriage) on the basis that (a) it is discriminatory) and (b) there is no rational basis for the discrimination, does not in any way suggest that the defender also has an obligation regarding something else incest or polygamy. Unlike marriage, incest, per se, is not a relationship that may be sanctioned by the state--it is nothing more than a sex act. And, regarding polygamy, there may be rational bases for a state refusing to give state recognition of polygamous relationships. Indeed, the US Supreme Court seemed to indicate as such in its decision in the 1880s regarding the polygamy case from the Utah Territory.
BTW, it should be evident that, irrespective of the availability of SSM, it is clear that the issue regarding incest and polygamy is their fantasized "slippery slope": that SSM will lead to incest, polygamy, bestiality (which, ironically, has been legal in Texas for years), etc., etc., etc. Until the sky falls, of course. But it should be evident to anyone paying attention that the initial push on their "slippery slope" isn't SSM, it is OSM (opposite sex marriage). Polygamists have been trying for years to get polygamy legalized. Because of OSM, not SSM. The idea that SSM might lead to polygamy is idiotic in the extreme.