Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Friday, November 30, 2012

Today's Big Gay News Stories

Posted by on Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:31 AM

First: yesterday we lived in a world without pictures of Glee's Chord Overstreet wearing a jockstrap over his face. Today we live in a new world.

Second, also, too, this:

The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to take up the issue of gay marriage in California as soon as Friday morning. The moment has prompted nervous debate within the gay-rights movement about the best path to achieve gay marriage. If the justices opt not to hear the Proposition 8 case, then a federal appeals court ruling that found the 2008 state ballot measure banning same-sex marriage unconstitutional would stand, clearing the way for marriages to begin. If the justices take up the case, a ruling would not come until next year and gay marriage would remain on hold until then, or longer depending on how the court rules.

Were the high court to decide to rule on Hollingsworth vs. Perry, it could lead to a historic victory legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. But gay activists are well aware that the court could rule against them and throw the movement back at a time when same-sex marriage has seen a series of election victories at the state level. Opponents of gay marriage, by contrast, are eager for the Supreme Court to weigh in and are hoping it will block the growing legalization of same-sex unions.


At their Conference today, the Justices will consider petitions raising federal constitutional issues related to same-sex marriage. These are the most significant cases these nine Justices have ever considered, and probably that they will ever decide.

I have never before seen cases that I believed would be discussed two hundred years from now. Bush v. Gore and Obamacare were relative pipsqueaks. The government’s assertion of the power to prohibit a loving couple to marry, or to refuse to recognize such a marriage, is profound. So is the opposite claim that five Justices can read the federal Constitution to strip the people of the power to enact the laws governing such a foundational social institution.

The cases present a profound test of the Justices’ judgment. The plaintiffs’ claims are rooted in the fact that these laws rest on an irrational and invidious hatred, enshrined in law. On the other hand, that describes some moral judgments. The Constitution does not forbid every inequality, and the people must correct some injustices (even some grave ones) themselves, legislatively. The striking feature of these cases—not present in any others I have ever seen—is that that they would have been decided by the Justices’ predecessors one way and would be decided by the Justices’ successors another way.

SCOTUSblog's entire post is worth your time.


Comments (10) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
I suggest folks also read the 4 recent posts by Lyle Denniston on SCOTUSblog.
Posted by searunner on November 30, 2012 at 10:46 AM · Report this
Will in Seattle 2
You missed all the fuss and appeals in NV too.
Posted by Will in Seattle on November 30, 2012 at 11:01 AM · Report this
seandr 3
Bush v. Gore and Obamacare were relative pipsqueaks.

The Supreme Court's decision to stop counting votes and choose the president themselves was a "relative pipsqueak"?

Um, no.
Posted by seandr on November 30, 2012 at 11:15 AM · Report this
Original Andrew 4
Sweet FSM, please don't let those senile, sadistic psychopaths on the Sue-preem KKKort anywhere near those lower court rulings. They'll order us all into Death Camps for Cuties.
Posted by Original Andrew on November 30, 2012 at 11:23 AM · Report this
That was on last week's episode, so while Dan may have lived in a world without a jockstrap on Chord Overstreet's face, the rest of us didn't.
Posted by RealityBites on November 30, 2012 at 11:26 AM · Report this
Pope Peabrain 6
The Supreme Court portico make's my only point. "Equal Justice Under Law"
Posted by Pope Peabrain on November 30, 2012 at 11:50 AM · Report this
Looking For a Better Read 7
I had never considered that this court is simultaneously the first that ever would even have the potential to "approve" gay marriage and also the last to ever even consider "opposing" gay marriage. Such is the time in which we live.
Posted by Looking For a Better Read on November 30, 2012 at 11:51 AM · Report this
its sooooo exciting!
Posted by oohh...our nipples are as hard as steel ball bearings..... on November 30, 2012 at 12:09 PM · Report this

Today's Big Gay News Stories: There are no big news stories. SCOTUS didn't bother with it... back to the ether with the issue, for whenever they decide to play bait & switch again. This isn't even the first time it's been de facto bumped. Basically, I'll believe it when I see it... until then, I'm not sure continuing to jump at these set dates only to have them yanked without comment over and over again is the wise way to proceed.

But hey, knock yourself out.
Posted by Nate on November 30, 2012 at 2:39 PM · Report this
OutInBumF 10
I'm with you @9! This is at least the 3rd time this fall they've yanked the football. I'm waiting for the news when they've actually done something; til then it's all wishful thinking.
Why they can't put the Prop 8 case to bed by refusing to hear it is a head-scratcher, tho. I'm betting the conservative justices are foot dragging with all of it just because it's Teh Ghay.
Posted by OutInBumF on November 30, 2012 at 8:42 PM · Report this

Add a comment


Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy