I've noticed a lot of people bitching and moaning that the Administration's brief in support of the Respondents in the Prop 8 trial didn't call for repealing all anti-marriage laws and amendments. I just ran across this in a transcript of his press conference yesterday that states why:
Any questions? Anyone?
Via C&L.
Digby also has some thoughts on Obama's evolution, with a link to this analysis by bmaz at Emptywheel. Bmaz is another who called for total repeal, now, but he also cites a quote from Ted Boutrous, an attorney for Respondents, that lays out what I think is the Administration's thinking:
Once again: Any questions?
Q And given the fact that you do hold that position about gay marriage, I wonder if you thought about just -- once you made the decision to weigh in, why not just argue that marriage is a right that should be available to all people of this country?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that's an argument that I’ve made personally. The Solicitor General in his institutional role going before the Supreme Court is obliged to answer the specific question before them. And the specific question presented before the Court right now is whether Prop 8 and the California law is unconstitutional.
And what we’ve done is we’ve put forward a basic principle, which is -- which applies to all equal protection cases. Whenever a particular group is being discriminated against, the Court asks the question, what’s the rationale for this -- and it better be a good reason. And if you don't have a good reason, we’re going to strike it down.
And what we’ve said is, is that same-sex couples are a group, a class that deserves heightened scrutiny, that the Supreme Court needs to ask the state why it’s doing it. And if the state doesn't have a good reason, it should be struck down. That's the core principle as applied to this case.
Now, the Court may decide that if it doesn't apply in this case, it probably can't apply in any case. There’s no good reason for it. If I were on the Court, that would probably be the view that I’d put forward. But I’m not a judge, I’m the President. So the basic principle, though, is let’s treat everybody fairly and let’s treat everybody equally. And I think that the brief that's been presented accurately reflects our views.
Any questions? Anyone?
Via C&L.
Digby also has some thoughts on Obama's evolution, with a link to this analysis by bmaz at Emptywheel. Bmaz is another who called for total repeal, now, but he also cites a quote from Ted Boutrous, an attorney for Respondents, that lays out what I think is the Administration's thinking:
Their arguments from start to finish would apply to other states,” he said. “The argument of the day (against same-sex marriage) is the responsible pro-creation argument. The United States takes it apart piece by piece. It’s those same types of arguments that are used in other jurisdictions to justify the exclusion of gays and lesbians from marriage.
Once again: Any questions?
No comments:
Post a Comment