An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Analysis of the Maryland Anti-Gay Marriage Decision
Shorter MD Sup. Ct.: “We admit that reading the text ‘literally’ would require a plaintiff’s victory, but with a little judicial creativity, we can do anything we want to do! Fortunately, the TMV comment threads are full of people who hate when judges rule based on what they want the law to be, rather than what it says, so when the Court admits that a “literal” reading of the relevant law and text would point to a gay rights outcome, but votes against it anyway, I look forward to their full-throated condemnation.
Also, gays are now so politically powerful that it entirely outweighs the admitted “purposeful discrimination” and “disabilities” law and society has previously and continually placed upon them. Who knew?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
7 Responses to “Analysis of the Maryland Anti-Gay Marriage Decision”
Sorry to have the first post go off topic, but we’ve already got another one going on this one.
Anyone else notice there are no Iraq related posts today? I think its refreshing that we have some other topics.
Didn’t I read somewhere that another part of the majority decision stated that one reason there shouldn’t be any protection of the right to marry for gays was because being gay was a choice. First, that’s highly questionable. Secondly, isn’t religious affiliation a choice as well? If they really did say that did they think about it first?
The majority explained its position with respect to literal and intentional construction in the rest of the sentence from which you quoted conveniently out of context and misused to take a predictably childish swipe at those who prefer real law and rule of law over liberal to radical politics.
“Real law” manages to conveniently mimic whatever DLS wants it to mean, once again. Damn the ERA (not a product of “liberal to radical politics” at all, incidentally!) for its “beguiling” text!
The best you have possibly achieved here is to have engaged in projection.
That’s a little different than your rephrase.
All I would say about this decision is that the Maryland State Constitution does not give protection for Gay marriage. So? I grant you that if I wanted a gay marriage in Md that would help but this verdict wasn’t about if that should be possible rather if the state Constitution protected that right. It is possible to be pro gay marriage and agree with the decision. I know people who are pro choice and still think Roe vs. Wade is a horrible decision. People who are pro gun control who hate that the 2nd amendment gives the rights that it does.
It’s bad when we no longer allow judges to actually judge issues without ascribing nefarious motive to every decision.
The problem is the “politically powerless” prong is, at best, one sixth of the factors a Court is supposed to use in order to determine suspect class status. The idea that the mild legislative victories gays have achieved outstrips the continued oppression and discrimination they face is like saying Loving (in 1967) shouldn’t have had strict scrutiny because Congress had passed a bunch of civil rights acts by then (six of them, to be precise). It’s facially bogus, and purely manipulative.