“Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned,” Scalia wrote.
Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion said the Court’s ruling against anti-sodomy laws “does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.”
Scalia’s retort: “Do not believe it.”
“This case ‘does not involve’ the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court,” he wrote.
First, I find it abhorrent that part of this guy’s ‘logic’ in his dissent was nothing more than a slippery slope argument he needed to make in order to defend the personal political and religious agenda he was clearly infusing into his response. Second, it is abundantly clear that if he has any integrity, he must force himself to rule in favor of marriage equality, regardless of how much it offends his personal sexual immaturity and bronze age ideas of morality.
I’m not expecting anyone to be surprised after this ruling, though.
I was recently having a discussion with someone about the 5th Amendment and I thought I would throw an old post up here. This may be the third time I’ve posted it, but the central point is a good one: Speaking with the police always has the potential of getting you in trouble. It doesn’t matter if you’re innocent, guilty, or even sometimes the victim. (Bio just ran an interesting piece about battered women and their spouses, including John and Lorena Bobbitt; John, despite being the primary victim, was placed on trial with scant evidence against him.) The police provide a valuable service, but it is important to know one’s rights when interacting with them. Remember, except in particular trial and trial-related circumstances, you never have to speak with someone from the government. Approached by them in your home? On the street? In your car? After being arrested? Invoke your right to silence. Always. Read this post for more information:
~~~
I’ve posted this before, but I think it’s worth repeating. I’ve actually read a few local stories where the police had limited leads, thought maybe they had the right suspect, but then someone threw magic fairy dust all over the place and the person just confessed. That’s all sunshine and flowers for those of us who abide by the law, but I hate the reason guilty people do it: police trick them into believing it is in their best interest to do so. That is rarely, if ever, the case. The police are not looking to help out those they suspect of crimes. That isn’t their job. And don’t think to yourself, ‘Oh, I’m innocent. Where’s the harm?’ You can still get screwed.
Unless your reason is that you need help, it isn’t worth the risk to talk to the police. If they come to you for whatever reason, turn them away (unless a loved one is injured or some similar incident, obviously). Don’t fill out or sign any affidavits, don’t tell them where you’ve been or where you’re going, and if you can avoid doing so, don’t even tell them who you are. (For my fellow Mainers, you have to give them your name and address during any traffic or terry stop, and if you’re trespassing, you have to tell them why you’re there. Only give out minimal information. The laws for every state can be found here.) UPDATE: Upon further investigation, it appears that Maine does not have any Stop and Identify statutes that require citizens to tell the police anything during a Terry Stop or casual conversation. Twenty-four states do, including nearby New Hampshire. I recommend independent research by those interested in the specifics of all this.
But for most of us, the situation isn’t going to be so significant as to require a lot of legal forethought like what’s in James Duane’s video above. Instead, most people are going to interact with police officers during traffic stops. There’s a way to handle those, too.
(Keep annotations on.)
There’s a longer version to that video where the kids actually had pot in their car, so they had good reason to be assertive in order to avoid a search. This may not be the best way for everyone to handle being pulled over. Sometimes there isn’t anything to hide, so asserting one’s rights is a good way to end up paying a $200 fine (like those kids) because the cop prefers his citizens friendly. But then there are times when it only seems like there isn’t anything to hide. Fast forward to the 22 minute point of this next video.
That video contains the entire clip with the first group of kids, but it’s the second kid who matters for this point. He may well have been innocent, but the fact that he allowed the police unnecessary access to his property got him in trouble. Keep watching for when he handles the situation correctly, giving minimal information. The police don’t need to know what they claim they should know.
For nearly 17 years, gay and lesbian soldiers of the U.S. military were expected to deny their sexuality under threat of dismissal as part of the policy known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
The repeal of the policy on September 20, 2011 stirred controversy, and inspired passionate arguments on both sides of the issue.
Now a year later, the first academic study of the effects of repealing “don’t ask don’t tell” has found the repeal has had “no overall negative impact on military readiness or its component dimensions, including cohesion, recruitment, retention, assaults, harassment or morale.”
In fact, military members have become more aware of their surroundings. Now that many of them actually know a gay person, they aren’t so ready to use derogatory language:
An enlisted soldier at a military university told researchers that when DADT was in effect, his unit mates would use degrading, anti-gay language, “almost absent-mindedly and with little consequence,” but that after repeal, he said, “it was kind of a big deal for two weeks,” as soldiers considered what it would mean for their comrades to be openly gay.
The report says the soldier told researchers that after people wrapped their heads around the idea, their consideration changed, “the new attitude seemed to be, ‘now that I know someone who is [gay], I’m talking about a real person. I’m not just using abstract insults [but words] that actually mean something.’”
This reminds me of the strategy of Harvey Milk: Make sure people know they know a gay person and bigotry and anti-gay measures will decrease.
The repeal of DADT has long been portrayed by the GOP as “social experimentation” and other such nonsense, but it was never anything of the sort. It was an exercise in treating our citizens equally in a way which was not merely neutral in the security of the United States but, indeed, in a way which strengthened our nation. The side benefit is that we’ve done away with a good deal of ignorance in the process.
A federal appeals court in California has denied a petition to have Prop 8 -the 2008 California ballot initiative that defines marriage as between a man and a woman – further reviewed by a larger panel of judges, which means the case likely is headed to the Supreme Court of the United States.
In February , the majority of a three judge panel sitting on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Prop 8 ruling that the initiative “serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California and to officially reclassify their relationship and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.” The court ruled on narrow grounds specific to California and Proposition 8. It did not find a fundamental right of same sex couples to marry.
Supporters of Prop 8 – opponents of gay marriage – had asked for “en banc” review of the case. This would have meant that the Chief Judge of the circuit along with 10 randomly selected judges would have mooted their colleagues’ decision and started anew. But in a filing today the court said that a majority of judges had voted to deny the petition.
We all know that Political Figure Scalia made his decision on this matter a few decades ago, and we all know that once Political Lapdog Thomas gets word of his lawless colleague’s position he will also be voting against equal rights. But that said, it’s hard to imagine the Supreme Court, even with 4 devoted bigots, will ultimately rule against fair treatment under the law. Sure, it took them until the 1950’s to make the right call on the mirror issue of racial segregation, gays in America have been swift with showing just how much of this country they are. Now that over half the nation is ready for equal rights for gays, I think the Supreme Court may be ready, too.
Plus there’s this:
Today’s ruling comes a week after a federal appeals court in Boston struck down a key provision of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In that case, legally married same sex couples argue that the federal government is denying them benefits available to opposite sex couples.
The Supreme Court will most likely consider both the Prop 8 case and the DOMA cases next term.
“The numbers are inexorably moving in one direction,” said [pollster Mark] DeCamillo. “Older folks, who are more in opposition, are dying out and younger folks are more inclined to support it. It’s not rocket science.”
At least, I believe that is the major reason why things are turning around. Of course, there is also the Harvey Milk strategy of making sure people realize that they do, in fact, know gay people. That and coming-out movements have worked fantastically. However, it cannot be denied that the overwhelming opposition to equal rights for gays is among older generations. As they die out, younger, more enlightened, more well-educated people are taking their place. Even conservatives aren’t surprised:
Frederic Deloizy says his life began the day he met Mark Himes by chance at a birthday party in April 1990.
Himes had recently started a job with Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education, and Deloizy was studying at a nearby college. The strangers arrived at the party at the same time, and Deloizy held the door open for Himes, catching his eye.
“It was love at first sight. We felt we belonged together,” Deloizy said.
What followed was a whirlwind romance lived out across two continents, through overseas phone calls and hand-written love letters.
Deloizy, a French national, spent the past two decades in and out of the United States leapfrogging from one visa to another, in hopes of creating a life together with Himes, who was born and raised outside of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
But 21 years and four adopted children later, the couple — who were married in California in 2008 — is fighting to stay together since Deloizy’s final visa expired in September.
And, of course, DOMA is forcing this couple to the back of the bus. Hell, it’s kicking one of them out of the vehicle all together. How anyone can’t see that this is wrong is beyond me.
I would love to hear some conservative bigot try to justify this. Oh, marriage is for the protection and well-being of children? Then how about we make the lives of the four children involved here a whole lot better? I realize that the emotional and financial well-being of human beings who are different isn’t important to most conservatives, especially those conservatives of the religious variety, but it is nothing short of hypocrisy to want to deny this small litter of kids their parents. It can only be a good thing to facilitate a loving home. That fact is nothing but improved under the presence of children.
The number of homes with same-sex couples has grown nearly 60 percent over the past decade in Maine, according to census data released as same-sex marriage advocates gather petitions that could lead to the state’s second statewide referendum on gay marriage.
Data released Thursday by the U.S. Census Bureau show that the number of same-sex households grew 59 percent from 3,394 in 2000 to 5,405 in 2010 in Maine.
This is both good and bad news. It’s bad for the obvious reason that it means there are so many households being discriminated against – not to mention all the people who would be more likely to live together could they get married in Maine. But it’s good news because it means more and more gay couples are feeling comfortable enough to declare their status. This is all despite the efforts of Christians to shame people for who they are.
The Rev. Bob Emrich, chairman of the Christian Civic League of Maine, which opposes gay marriage, said the percentage growth in same-sex households may sound impressive, but he said the overall numbers are small. He doesn’t think the new census numbers are relevant to the debate.
Oh. I forgot that it’s okay to discriminate so long as it’s only against a small number of people. Good argument, Emrich.
It’s a common tactic for anti-gay bigots to distort science. One of their favorites ways to do so is to find studies which are limited in their scope to ‘traditional’ families, but then they take a wrecking ball to the science by pretending that they’re looking at something comparative. I documentedone bigot who did just that.
But that isn’t their only tactic. So long as they can distort a scientific study in some way, they will. Take this instance of an anti-gay bigot from the Congressional hearings on the repeal of DADT.
This is common not only of Christians, but much of the conservative movement. So long as a citation is being made, they think they’ve proven their case. Who cares if their source actually contradicts what they have to say?
For the Sake of Science 