Gay Rights: What the Supreme Court’s Decision Portends

Gay Rights Supreme CourtFor those of us who grew up when homosexuality was a crime, the United States Supreme Court deciding to take up the Prop 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) cases for review is astonishing.

Unfortunately, the result may be far from satisfying for those of us who are directly impacted by these cases.

In fact, Justice Antonin Scalia, who, on lgbt issues, sounds too much like a courtly educated version of Rush Limbaugh, aired his views on homosexuality while speaking at Princeton University on December 10. During the Q&A period Scalia was asked by freshman Duncan Hosie why he equates laws banning sodomy with murder, polygamy, cruelty to animals and bestiality in his dissents in cases regarding gay rights. Hosie, who identified himself as gay, said he found the comparisons offensive.

Said Hosie, “Do you think it’s necessary to draw these comparisons, to use this specific language, to make the point that the Constitution doesn’t protect gay rights?”

Scalia, who believes legislative bodies can ban “immoral” things, replied, “I don’t think it’s necessary, but I think it’s effective. It’s a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the ‘reduction to the absurd.’ If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things? Of course we can. I don’t apologize for the things I raised. I’m not comparing homosexuality to murder. I’m comparing the principle that a society may not adopt moral sanctions, moral views, against certain conduct. I’m comparing that with respect to murder and that with respect to homosexuality.”

While some in the audience applauded Scalia, many more applauded young Hosie.

Justice Scalia, the United States does not have laws against homosexuality, there are certainly laws against murder. Being gay is not the same as being a murderer. In the eyes of the law they are not morally the same. “I thought you would have known!”

A question, Justice Scalia. Are you familiar with a 2,000-year-old common notion from the Greek mathematician Euclid which reads, “Things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another?” Any two people getting married are equal to any other two people getting married. Homosexuality is not a sin. Thou shall not kill is one of the ten commandments, thou shall not be gay is not.

Meanwhile, Ted Olson, one of the co-counsels who will speak before the Supreme Court on behalf of the unconstitutionality of Prop 8, has called on the Obama administration to file an amicus brief before the Supreme Court in the upcoming Prop 8 case.

While the The Department of Justice has refused to defend DOMA in court, it has never weighed in on Prop 8. “I would hate to predict what the United States government is doing, but given the stand the president of the United States and the attorney general of the United States made with respect to marriage equality, we would certainly hope that they would participate,” Olson said in a conference call on December 7. “And I’m quite confident that if they did participate, they would support our position in this case because the denial of equal rights is subject to close scrutiny by the courts and cannot withstand that scrutiny.”

Richard Socarides, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton, said that “there will be pressure for the Justice Department to weigh in on the Prop 8 case. I think this federalizes the issue much more quickly than the White House would have liked and may force them to take a position earlier than they would have liked.”

President Obama became the first sitting president to announce his support for marriage equality. There’s no doubt that Americans followed Barack’s lead when he came out publicly not only for same-sex marriage, but lifted DADT (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell) and refused to defend DOMA in court. The result of his leadership, and strong grassroots campaigns, encouraged the citizens of Maine, Maryland and Washington state to vote in favor of marriage equality and voters in Minnesota to defeat an initiative which would have banned same-sex marriage.

But at this moment, the middle of December, 2012, on the matter of the Supreme Court cases, the White House and the DOJ are silent.

However, lgbt groups are not quiet and, in fact, have already moved into high-gear with petitions to President Obama and the DOJ. Proclaims the petition from the Courage Campaign: “President Obama and the Department of Justice: Please speak out on Prop 8 as the Supreme Court prepares to hear the case. Submit a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that a state ban on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution.”

So, the waiting game begins, anew.

The next step in the review process for the LGBT cases is a scheduling order laying out the date for oral arguments at the Supreme Court. The cases will likely not be heard until the spring of 2013.

carl matthes

The Court’s term lasts until June, so final news on the fate of Proposition 8 will be known by then. If the judge’s go against the Ninth Circuit’s ruling striking down Prop 8 as unconstitutional, couples cannot wed in California. However, the marriages of those lesbian and gay couples who were married in 2008 will remain legal.

Hmmm, another question, Justice Scalia. Do you know the word recuse?

Carl Matthes

Wednesday, 12 December 2012

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Comments

  1. Joseph Maizlish says

    The weakness in Scalia’s argument is his confounding of VIEWS with SANCTIONS:

    “I’m not comparing homosexuality to murder. I’m comparing the principle
    that a society may not adopt moral sanctions, moral views, against
    certain conduct.”

    He seems to be telling us that a society’s having a moral view opposing a behavior is the same as the society take action to penalize the behavior. This confounds words and actions.

  2. harry wood says

    I would like to submit a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that a state ban on same-sex marriage supports the U.S. Constitution. If you replace the word ”marriage” with the words “civil union”, then I am 100% with you. My problem is I see marriage as a religious act which happens in my church and is done before my GOD and others of my church. So I see a gay marriage as taking away from my religion, but if you use the word union, I do not feel that way because our civil government can pass any civil law, so pass a civil union law and leave my church out ot it. I know you will not see this my way, and that is OK, some gays in my family do and some do not.

    • Carl Matthes says

      Thank you, Harry, for your comment. I respect religions and people of faith. Unfortunately, religions don’t respect each others marriages. Just because you get married in one church doesn’t mean you are married in the eyes of another church. Your accepting that all of God’s children are worthy, including gay men and lesbians, is true spiritual growth. Beliefs of individual churches should not be written into civil laws governing everyone. I am sure that some Mormons believe that not having polygamy legal takes away from their religion. Your church does not have to accept gay marriages within it’s walls. Accepting gay people as worthy of God’s love embraces the love of God. In America, in the eyes of the law, everyone needs to be treated equally.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *