Without wading into the larger, heated Obama vs gays fight (to the death!), a thought about repealing DOMA. That thought being: it ain't going to happen anytime soon
( Read more... )
Not to be persnickety, but i am glad someone mentioned that Congress is the only one that can repeal DOMA. Reading blogs and opinion papers and whatnot, I was starting to think that the President could somehow retroactively veto laws that were enacted in previous administrations.
Now, that being said, the SCOTUS can consider DOMA unconstitutional, but the legal arguments about defending it have made the rounds for a while and are considered strong. I don't agree with them, but the arguments have weight with the judges so far.
Sadly politics is a zero-sum game - every once of capital you use takes away from the limited supply you were given.
Yes, but I don't put much hope in that either, at least not with this conservative court. We can argue about the wording of the recent DOMA brief that the DOJ filed, or even if it should have been filed in the first place. I understand the pro and con arguments. But personally, I don't want a DOMA case going to SCOTUS right now, because I think we'll lose, and that would be a huge setback.
I'm really bugged by this. Sure, it's the job of the DOJ to defend federal legislation--unless the legislation is blatantly unconstitutional. DoMA is in conflict with the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. It would have been a very effective out.
I think DOMA is unconstitutional. You think DOMA is unconstitutional. Bu there are a lot of other scholars that think otherwise.
Taking a step back for a minute, I think the more important question is what the SCOTUS would most likely think. I don't feel very good about our chances there at the moment. In Lawrence v Texas, O'Connor was the only one to go for the equal protection argument. Kennedy is the swing vote, and he's a wild card - he's ruled both with us and against us. And we really don't know where Sotomayor will stand on gay rights issues yet. My gut says the current court would uphold DOMA, and that could set us back for a long, long time. When I think about this case, or the one that Olsen filed, getting to SCOTUS, I get butterflies in my stomach.
I wouldn't pretend that the DOJ filed this brief to do us the favor of keeping the case from an unsympathetic SCOTUS. However, one day we may view it that way.
My gut says the current court would uphold DOMA, and that could set us back for a long, long time.
Agreed. I had a discussion about this on my journal a few weeks ago. I think that a loss at the Supreme Court at this time could end up being our Plessey v. Fergusson where it relegates gays to a "separate but equal" status that could take much longer to undo than it would for progress to march forward state by state.
I think that ENDA at the national level and similar state-level nondiscrimination laws are a good outlet for our energy right now. As I posted in my journal today, there are data to suggest that these laws are the trailblazers to build support for gay marriage. Also, they enjoy greater than 50% support from the voters in many states where we haven't managed to get them passed. (Also, as I mentioned in my journal, I don't think it has to be either/or for marriage equality or nondiscrimination, but I do think that the marriage equality push gains from every victory that we make on the job/housing nondiscrimination
Comments 7
Now, that being said, the SCOTUS can consider DOMA unconstitutional, but the legal arguments about defending it have made the rounds for a while and are considered strong. I don't agree with them, but the arguments have weight with the judges so far.
Sadly politics is a zero-sum game - every once of capital you use takes away from the limited supply you were given.
Reply
Yes, but I don't put much hope in that either, at least not with this conservative court. We can argue about the wording of the recent DOMA brief that the DOJ filed, or even if it should have been filed in the first place. I understand the pro and con arguments. But personally, I don't want a DOMA case going to SCOTUS right now, because I think we'll lose, and that would be a huge setback.
Reply
Reply
Taking a step back for a minute, I think the more important question is what the SCOTUS would most likely think. I don't feel very good about our chances there at the moment. In Lawrence v Texas, O'Connor was the only one to go for the equal protection argument. Kennedy is the swing vote, and he's a wild card - he's ruled both with us and against us. And we really don't know where Sotomayor will stand on gay rights issues yet. My gut says the current court would uphold DOMA, and that could set us back for a long, long time. When I think about this case, or the one that Olsen filed, getting to SCOTUS, I get butterflies in my stomach.
I wouldn't pretend that the DOJ filed this brief to do us the favor of keeping the case from an unsympathetic SCOTUS. However, one day we may view it that way.
Reply
I must admit to some despair that this is even a question. People really are this stupid, and it's bumming me out.
I don't follow that last line--come again?
Reply
Agreed. I had a discussion about this on my journal a few weeks ago. I think that a loss at the Supreme Court at this time could end up being our Plessey v. Fergusson where it relegates gays to a "separate but equal" status that could take much longer to undo than it would for progress to march forward state by state.
I think that ENDA at the national level and similar state-level nondiscrimination laws are a good outlet for our energy right now. As I posted in my journal today, there are data to suggest that these laws are the trailblazers to build support for gay marriage. Also, they enjoy greater than 50% support from the voters in many states where we haven't managed to get them passed. (Also, as I mentioned in my journal, I don't think it has to be either/or for marriage equality or nondiscrimination, but I do think that the marriage equality push gains from every victory that we make on the job/housing nondiscrimination
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment