"Joy and pleasure are as real as pain and sorrow and one must learn what they have to teach. . . ." -- Sean Russell, from Gatherer of Clouds

"If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right." -- Helyn D. Goldenberg

"I love you and I'm not afraid." -- Evanescence, "My Last Breath"

“If I hear ‘not allowed’ much oftener,” said Sam, “I’m going to get angry.” -- J.R.R. Tolkien, from Lord of the Rings

Tuesday, November 02, 2010

Gays in Court

Timothy Kincaid has compiled an excellent summary of the amicus briefs supporting the plaintiffs (now the appellees) in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger. It's quite an impressive roster.

Also follow the links in his last paragraph to the amicus briefs filed by supporters of the defendant-intervenors, now the appellants. They're a scream. It's hard to pick out a favorite from the loony bin, but there's one from NARTH (yep, full of references to outdated and superseded research, with a good dose of Paul Cameron), and good old Mat Staver couldn't keep his fingers out of it. NOM weighs in (of course). There's some pretty funny stuff in there.

The Proponents, even if the court decides they have standing and it goes to a hearing, are going to lose big-time. They just have no case.

Less funny is the Ninth Circuit's decision to stay the district court's injunction against DADT. At the Circuit level, it's all about forms and procedures, but the decision sounds a little sketchy to me.

From Bloomberg:

In a 2-1 decision, the court said it was persuaded by the government’s argument that there could be immediate harm unless there was proper training and guidance in the military and ‘an orderly transition in policy.”

“The public interest in ensuring orderly change of this magnitude in the military -- if that is what is to happen -- strongly militates in favor of a stay,” the court said in yesterday’s order.


The government's argument, based on events of the past ten days and outside evidence, strikes me as thin, at best. There are also references to decisions by other circuits, most of them pre-Lawrence, which as Judge Phillips found (and quite rightly, I think) makes it a whole new ballgame. I'm seeing some over-deference to Congress and the military here.

That one's kind of iffy. If the government loses in the circuit court (which is chancy, I think), Obama would be wise not to appeal. (That's based on the assumption that no matter what happens in today's election, the Senate is going to sit on its hand in the lame-duck session, which seems these days to be what it does best. And here you thought kabuki was Japanese.)

No comments: