Last Train to Covington

While I sympathize with the gist of this writeup, I think it’s far too generous to the many states that are far more bigoted even than California in their attitudes toward gays. In Virginia, for instance, companies are prohibited by law from offering domestic partnership benefits to gay couples and women have been stripped of custody of their children for being lesbians.

A quick note: here in Cal, state court judges, including those on our Supreme Court, do not have life tenure but rather have to stand for election or “confirmation” every so many years. Don’t think that they are not aware of this.

@Dodgerblue: Two words: Rose Bird.

@Serolf Divad: And of course, in four states, gays can’t adopt children from foster care. To my state’s credit, here in SF, you can’t walk more than 5 feet in the Castro or on the Muni without seeing an ad featuring same sex parents and multi-racial children imploring teh gheyz to foster and adopt kids.

And now a new challenge to Prop. 8 has been filed in federal district court and oddly enough, counsel are Ted Olson and David Boies. I do not like this one bit.

SanFranLefty: Of course, judicial retention ballots are a total joke. At least, they are here in Chicago. A judge would basically have to get caught robbing a bank or, you know, killing somebody before they would get tossed.

But anyway: the whole white European Christian guy domination thing that this country imported is getting old. There is a change coming, and it may come violently. A good start might be a mob beating Lars von Trier to a bloody pulp.

(Mind you: it would do nothing to advance the cause of equality in this country, necessarily. It’ll feel really good though, on account of recent events. [Particularly squeamish Stinquers, especially those who, you know, kinda sorta think women are pretty cool, might not want to click here.])

SanFranLefty: Waitaminnit — Prop 8 was a question of state law, right? Federal jurisdiction FAIL.

Seriously. Was Prop 8 good? Hell to the no. Were the people who voted for it morons? Yep. Should human rights be voted on? Not on your life.

But: will a Court reversing a vote of the people do anything to help? Sadly, it would do more harm than good. So, the best way to shut ’em up is to rerack the vote in 2010 and kick their ass.

@chicago bureau: Yes. And the challenges were brought under the state constitution b/c the caselaw has a broader reading of equal protection than in federal 14th A caselaw. See, e.g., In re Marriage Cases in which sexual orientation was reviewed under strict scrutiny according to the California Constitution. Fed courts most definitely won’t do that per US Constitution. I’m going to go on the N.D.Cal. website today and see if I can pull off a copy of the pleadings.

@SanFranLefty: Hmmmmm…

@chicago bureau: Yeah, but if the citizens of CA were to adopt a const’l amendment bringing back slavery, the US Supreme Court would take that case with the quickness. IIRC, they have struck down state const’l provisions or amendments before.

The underlying problem (as I see it) is that like Lefty said, the 14th Am is interpreted more narrowly than CA EP cases. That said, no one in a million years would have expected the Warren court to go all rights happy like they did. He managed to get a unanimous vote in Brown. What’s the Eisenhower quote about Warren? Something to the effect that nominating him Chief Justice was a big/the biggest(?) mistake he made.

The current make up of the court doesn’t leave one with a lot of hope w/r/t EP for gays, BUT what’s the tally? Against: Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas. For: Ginsburg. Could Stevens, Souter, Breyer and Kennedy (ugh) be swayed? Gotta wait to see the briefs.

ADD: I don’t think sexual orientation cases will receive strict scrutiny, although I think they should. But any higher level of scrutiny will be a win.

@JNOV: Yeah, unfortunately Romer v. Evans could indicate that they’d use rational basis review….

@JNOV / @SanFranLefty: You forget Lawrence v. Texas — intermediate scrutiny. Not strict scrutiny obviously. But better.

I gotta call a foul, however: slavery? Come on, now. People can choose to be gay, and gay people could always get married the old fashioned way. It’s true! Antonin Scalia told me so!

@chicago bureau: Hey CB, I’m loving the Burris transcript that just got released. Is anyone surprised?

“a special circle of Hell which exists solely in Lars van Trier’s head”
Yes, and easily avoided, thank God. Thanks to reviewers for tipping us off.