Big suprise. Towleroad has the opinion.
I can't copy the quote here, but on page 114, beginning at line 9, Walker blows the bottom out of Scalia's favorite dictum, "The Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to same-sex marriage." Walker's response, basically, is that all same-sex couples are asking for is "marriage," plain and simple.
Another key quote: "fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
Which I've been saying for a long time.
OK -- now that I'm home and have a couple of minutes, here's the decision:
Prop 8 Ruling FINAL
Both AmericaBlog and Box Turtle Bulletin have a summary of reactions -- all from supporters, as far as I can tell, but this one's sort of fun -- from Box Turtle Bulletin:
This is hilarious. Matt Staver’s Liberty Counsel, which is closely aligned with Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, issued a press release blaming the Prop 8 decision on the Alliance Defense Fund[.]
And this final quote should give you a good idea as to why the rabid right is on such shaky ground:
Mary McAlister, Senior Litigation Counsel for Liberty Counsel, commented: “This is a classic case of judicial activism. The Constitution is unrecognizable in this opinion. This is simply the whim of one judge. It does not reflect the Constitution, the rule of law, or the will of the people. I am confident this decision will be overturned.”
This is the senior litigation counsel for Liberty Counsel, who can't recognize the Constitution in what strikes me as a very straightforward decision. Good luck.
Cue the circular firing squad, wingnut version.
Another note: I've been reading some of the "pro-marriage" (in the Biblical sense) reactions. They are so predictable -- mostly along the lines of the quote above -- that I'm surprised these bigots (and yes, sorry, they are bigots by any definition you care to adopt) even bother to issue the press releases -- everyone knows what they're going to say: judicial activism, right to vote, overturning the Constitution, will of the people, etc., etc., etc. It's called making it up as you go along, I guess, except they don't even seem to be able to come up with anything new.
2 comments:
They might not have to make it up using the same tired tropes if they actually had a leg to stand on in their objections.
I was really sort of surprised by the weakness of the proponents' case -- I really thought they would at least try to do better, even if it was all BS. But to claim in a court of law that you don't need evidence to support your assertions is really sort of amazing.
Post a Comment