Comments on Federalist Society on Andersen v. King County

Definition-

Specious: Plausible, but false. A dishonest argument advanced for the sole purpose of making a point.

I'd say that sums up the Supreme Court's marriage ruling. You can't convince people that refuse to acknowledge legal and scientific evidence. Madsen and Alexander both used reasoning that clearly contradicts previous rulings and statements that they themselves made regarding gay and lesbian parents and relationships. Jim Johnson and Charles Johnson are practically on the payroll of these conservative groups and wouldn't know a fair ruling if it grabbed them with both hands. Who knows what the hell Richard Sanders was thinking.

My guess: They were very, very scared of being labeled "activist judges," and this amazingly weak decision, which didn’t even answer the basic questions of the case like how preventing gay men and lesbians from marrying encourages straight couples to marry and have kids, shows that it was a sham ruling; a mockery of due process and equal protection. Over and over, Madsen wrote "defer to legislature." She is hypocrite and a liar.

If I had one question for them, I would ask: Why did you use exactly the same reasoning that racist judges used in the past to uphold bans on interracial marriage?

I should also add that judges are people too, and issue some whopper, horrific decisions. Read 'em and weep:

No Negroes, not even free Negroes, can ever become citizens of the United States. They are "beings of an inferior order" not included in the phrase "all men" in the Declaration of Independence nor afforded any rights by the United States Constitution.
United States Supreme Court, Dred Scott v. Sanford, 1857

"We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it."
Henry Billings Brown, US Supreme Court Justice, Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
Leon Bazile, Virginia Trial Judge, Loving v. Virginia

Bestiality aside, why wouldn't the legalization of gay marriage pave the way for polygamy?

So, I guess we can add Andersen v. King County to this greatest hits list.

Here's my favorite response that I'd love to deliver to the Washington Supreme Court in person:

"My hopes were never brighter than now. I have no fear that the National Conscience will be put to sleep by such an open, glaring and scandalous issue of lies."
Frederick Douglass, reacting to Dred Scott v. Sanford, 1857

Annie, how did I show I was miffed at the result in the case? I did not express any opinion about the result of the case. I did express some surprise at the tone the justices used in writing about each other, and questioned some of the legal reasoning raised from both sides of the court.

I, too, learned things about the decision by listening to those guys. Many members of the Federalist Society may share a political leaning, but they certainly didn't skew the panel or make any attempt to control where the discussion led.

The event will be shown on TVW but it is not yet available on-line.

Postman--
I don't mean to say you weren't an objective moderator, but my reading of your blog posts on Andersen is that you were miffed at the result. If that's incorrect, please let me know and I'll amend my post.

As to Andrew--
The reason Madsen, Alexander et al did not consider external evidence on immutability (to cite one example, though you may be referring to others) was that the plaintiffs requested a summary judgment at the trial court level, meaning the introduction of evidence was blocked from there on out. In this case, I blame the plaintiffs' legal team, not the justices.

Investigatory--
Marriage, right now, is set up in the legal system to be a contract between two people. (I can't remember the word Carpenter used--Postman?) Changing the law to admit gay marriage would mean a lot less interference with the current order. Plus, there's a strong history of polygamous marriage in both American and other cultures, and the panelists suggested there'd be a lot more evidence against polygamy than there would be in favor of it.

Investigatory Journalist,

You're clearly a genius, so you probably already know this, but the bestiality argument, and in fact all of the current arguments against marriage equality, were used by racists against interracial marriage. Yet no man on horse marriages have been legalized since the US Supreme Court made it legal for whites, blacks, Asians and Hispanics to marry forty years ago, have they?

You have to be human, have informed consent and be of legal age to enter into a legal contract like a marriage. Duh.

Massachusetts, Canada, Spain, the Netherlands, and Belgium all have legalized same sex marriage, and you know what? All that happened is that they are enjoying a society that values human relationships over hate, divisiveness and bigotry. The sky didn't fall, and neither Zeus nor Jesus sent lightening bolts.

Many other states and countries have civil unions. Try Wikipedia.

Andrew-- I think you misread my question. It wasn't meant to be sarcastic, snarky, backhanded, or rude in any way. I am very much for marriage equality.

Annie-- I understand that the system as it currently stands could not be as easily modified to allow for polygamy as it would for same-sex marriages. But I don't think that addresses the question of why polygamy shouldn't be legal.

I really wasn't miffed at the result. As frustrating and even unbelievable as it is to many readers -- as well as some friends and even family -- I don't give my personal opinion on issues I cover. It's become something of a parlor game at my blog to try to figure out what I really think.

I did try a little on-the-fly legal analysis the day the decision came out and did question the logic of some of the Madsen opinion. I was glad to see the panelists saw things at least somewhat similarly.

Mostly, though, I was reacting to the bitterness and allegations of political motivations that were evident in the opinions.

Investigatory Journalist,

I did misread your post. My apologies.

Wikipedia has exhaustive information on same sex marriage throughout the world, and you can also check out www.freedomtomarry.org for more legal analysis.

First the blacks and yellows and reds wanted to marry whites and each other. Now gays want to marry each other. What's next, polygamy? Then what, beastiality marriage? Before you know it, we'll have forks marrying spoons, making little baby sporks!!

Annie,

You can't blame the plaintiffs' legal team for the restriction on admissible evidence for immutability; that reasoning might suggest a criticism of Jamie Pedersen. And we can't have that; just ask Andrew.*

*See the response posts to my "Letter of the Day" yesterday, 10/3.

Oh Todd ---- give up the sore loser thing.

Time to get rid of the devil cult of neo cons who have run America into the ground. And it might be a last chance.

Or are you just a light weight when it comes to real thinking about politics --- all whine and no grine.

Definition-

Doublethink: From newspeak, the act of holding two mutually contradictory ideas and accepting both.

As Americans, we spend a lot of time lecturing others about the importance of human rights, freedom and equality, when in practice we do everything possible to denigrate and destroy those values. Need proof?

Exhibit A: A US history textbook.

Exhibit B: The daily newspaper.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia and most of the other provincial courts legalized same sex marriage in 2003 and 2004, and the Canadian federal government followed in 2005. All four major political parties, even the Conservatives, agreed that they would never put same sex marriage up for a public vote, because asking the majority to vote on the rights of a minority is immoral. Wow. Canada is a country that actually lives its values.

I’ve talked with people in US politics and for many of them, it’s just a game. Forget the fact that their decisions effect real people with real lives. I guess that attitude is necessary to maintain the doublethink and hypocrisy that are prevalent in American society and government today.

Todd,

You’re free to criticize Jamie all that you want – after he actually does something in the political arena for which he should be criticized. I’m tired of all the pointless personal attacks, so please save it for the Republicans who really are out to get you.

As you can probably surmise from my postings, I don’t believe the Andersen decision was based on law, fairness or even reality.

I highly recommend making a contribution to the campaign of Supreme Court Justice Susan Owens. Please see www.justicesusanowens.com for more info.

I do not agree better go to http://www.apartments.waw.pl/