US Court unimpressed by anti-equality bigots’ lame “arguments”

California’s gay marriage ban has been overturned. The bigots behind it were able to scare voters into fearing whatever it is they fear happening if gay people get married, but they couldn’t muster a single plausible argument against it in court – and have utterly, utterly lost. They gave it their best shot, and all their pablum was exposed as the contradictory, inconsistent stupidity it really is.

Look at them, oppressing Christians with their existence.

Opponents of common sense, justice and fairness will now be resting their taking-other-people’s-rights-away-for-no-good-reason hopes on the very conservative US Supreme Court. But even that Republican-stacked entity has to apply some version of the law: could even they redefine “equal protection” and “due process” to permit the cruelty of, in the absence of any harm being identified, outlawing somebody’s marriage? (A cruelty which, apparently unaware of the irony, the anti-equality side relied on in its request to have this order stayed pending their appeal.)

It’s a long way from over. The order will probably be stayed, meaning no gay marriages yet, and I wouldn’t rely on the US Supreme Court to come down on the side of reason, necessarily – but it’s a wonderful step. The bigots have had their empty arguments called out for the vacuous claptrap they’ve always been. It’s good to see.

MEANWHILE: Here in Australia, we have the two biggest parties determined to discriminate against gay and lesbian people for as long as possible, despite neither of them having an argument any stronger than “that’s the way John Howard defined it”.

I don’t know how anybody with a sense of justice or fairness could give their first preference to either of them.

ELSEWHERE: Last Wednesday’s Daily Show reports on the homosexual NAZI menace.

7 responses to “US Court unimpressed by anti-equality bigots’ lame “arguments”

  1. Splatterbottom

    The court may be seen as interfering with the will of the people, but in reality it is doing exactly what a court should do in this case which is to uphold due process and insist on equal legal rights for all citizens. It is a stand against mob rule.

    The decision illustrates that democracy is more than the right to vote. It also requires among other things adherence to the rule of law and the equal application of the law to all. Populist prejudice can be as big a threat to democracy as any other form of tyranny.

  2. jordanrastrick

    This is the pesky thing about documents like the American Constitution. Once you go saying shit like “all men are created equal” in a serious legal document, then when someone stands up in a court and points out they’re being treated unequally under the law for no apparently sensible reason, the judge has to pay attention.

    Only a federal constitutional amendment, I think, can ultimately save the common law heteronormative conception of marriage in America from the current trajectory towards equality. Of course the current SCOTUS bench will almost certainly delay the inevitable.

    Jefferson would I think be shocked, and certainly dismayed at the “activism” of the modern U.S. judiciary, but ultimately proud of the end result.

  3. baldrickjones

    So is the will of the people therefore irrelevant? Just putting it out there….you accuse people of being subject to scare campaigns, but is it not possible that they voted the way they intended to vote out of their morals?

  4. From the ruling itself….

    “That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as “fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, 319 US 624, 638 (1943).”

  5. jordanrastrick

    Popular will is not irrelevant; it just has to be weighed against individual rights.

    Some people (say of certain religious beliefs) do vote against Gay Marriage because they have an honest, genuine moral belief about it. Others are just bigots without much rational to say in defense of their homophobia.

    None of that changes the fact that even in a democracy the majority shouldn’t have the power to deny equal status under the law to a minority.

    Sadly, the only way we’ve discovered for overriding an unjust popular will is to have unelected judges enforce people’s civil rights; that’d work fine and dandy if civil rights were a static thing, but its not apparent judges are more qualified to figure out what the “new” rights should be (like that of women to vote, or of gay people to marry) than anyone else. Still, someone has to do it, and we don’t currently have a better system.

  6. and…

    “A private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples is not a proper basis for legislation.”

  7. Pingback: John “unconstitutionally disenfranchising voters” Howard slammed, four years late « An Onymous Lefty

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s