Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Preemptive Strike: Conservatives Vow To Defy Supreme Court If It Rules For Marriage Equality

Jun 21, 2013

Drawing what they called a line “we cannot and will not cross,” more than 200 conservative activists released a letter Thursday vowing to ignore any U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of marriage equality for same-sex couples. The signers include prominent anti-LGBT activists and major figures from the national conservative movement.

Circulated by Liberty Counsel Action chairman Mat Staver and Common Good Alliance chairman Deacon Keith Fournier, under the banner of the equally ironically named Freedom Federation, the statement bore the title, “We Stand in Solidarity to Defend Marriage and the Family and Society Founded Upon Them.” After arguing that same-sex marriage goes against “natural moral law,” the signers claim that the Supreme Court has “no authority to redefine marriage,” writing:

As the Supreme Court acknowledged in the 1992 decision of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, its power rests solely upon the legitimacy of its decisions in the eyes of the people. If the Supreme Court were to issue a decision that redefined marriage or provided a precedent on which to build an argument to redefine marriage, the Supreme Court will thereby undermine its legitimacy. The Court will significantly decrease its credibility and impair the role it has assumed for itself as a moral authority. It will be acting beyond its proper constitutional role and contrary to the Natural Moral Law which transcends religions, culture, and time.

Despite these claims, the provisions of the U.S. Constitution grant the high court judicial power in “all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,” and the 14th Amendment guarantees “equal protection of the laws” for all persons.

Worse, the letter ends with a clear threat that conservatives will refuse to comply with any court ruling in support of marriage equality: “[M]ake no mistake about our resolve. While there are many things we can endure, redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural order and the true common good that this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross.”

In addition to designated hate group leaders like Family Research Council president Tony Perkins and Traditional Values Coalition chairman Rev. Louis Sheldon, the list included Tea Party activist Ben Carson, Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern (R), former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell (R), former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer, conservative movement legend Richard Viguerie, Focus on the Family founder Rev. James Dobson, birther Joseph Farah, and disgraced Abramoff scandal figure Ralph Reed.

by Anonymousreply 4706/24/2013

What does "refuse to comply" mean practically speaking?

by Anonymousreply 106/21/2013

So the signers are a bunch of powerless nobodies.

by Anonymousreply 206/21/2013

They need their scapegoats so badly to give them significance in the eyes of the stupid.

by Anonymousreply 306/21/2013

Someone should tell them that the case isn't about getting judgmental nobodies to recognize the freedom to marry, but the government.

No one cares what they think. Their little world of hatred, bigotry and cruelty is unravelling before their eyes. Sucks to be them.

by Anonymousreply 406/21/2013

Wonder how they would feel if we refused to comply with the 2nd Amendment.

by Anonymousreply 506/21/2013

Drama. Queens.

by Anonymousreply 606/21/2013

The Bull Connors of their time.

Civil disobedience is a powerful and sometimes a great thing.

But it can be used for bad as well as for good.

by Anonymousreply 706/21/2013

What are they going to do to protest? Hold their breath?

by Anonymousreply 806/21/2013

The Court is no "moral authority." It determines what the societal zeitgeist is, what the existing moral climate is at any given time in history, what the PEOPLE have shaped for themselves. It is more of "discoverer" of what society determines as moral. And this is ever changing in society. The high Court applies the Constitution, weaving and considering these factors into its decisions.

These frustrating people are just hoping the Court supports THEIR views on morality. Society, as a whole, has moved on.

by Anonymousreply 906/21/2013

When the Supreme Court held that Native Americans could not be relocated from their lands, President Jackson is reported to have said,"Justice Marshall has issued his opinion, now let him enforce it". The relocation went forward.

Anyone expect a similar response from President Obama?

by Anonymousreply 1006/21/2013

[quote]Anyone expect a similar response from President Obama?

No, in fact I expect there has been internal discussion amongst all the parts of the administration that the ruling with effect (State, Justice, Treasury, DHS, HHS) about how exactly the ruling will be implemented. I would expect him to make a statement about it within 24 hours and the new procedures ready to go in two weeks, tops.

by Anonymousreply 1106/21/2013

Once DOMA and Prop 8 are struck down, we are going to have to sue in each state with so-called marriage protection laws for the right to be married, using this Supreme Court decision as precedent to have the laws struck down in state courts. The struggle isn't over with a positive SCOTUS decision.

by Anonymousreply 1206/21/2013

R11 Ur, there isn't any ruling yet.

Seems like everyone is getting ahead of themselves.

by Anonymousreply 1306/21/2013

[quote]Once DOMA and Prop 8 are struck down, we are going to have to sue in each state with so-called marriage protection laws for the right to be married, using this Supreme Court decision as precedent to have the laws struck down in state courts. The struggle isn't over with a positive SCOTUS decision.

But it's over on the Federal level at that point. And you don't need to sue in each state, you just need one case like Loving v Virginia where the scope of the ruling the broad enough so has to declare all of those sorts of amendments and statutes unconstitutional.

by Anonymousreply 1406/21/2013

[quote][R11] Ur, there isn't any ruling yet.

No, but they've known since SCOTUS agreed to take up the case that a ruling was coming. I expect they have plans in place on how to move forward if the ruling goes our way.

by Anonymousreply 1506/21/2013

r12, it will not be necessary to sue in each state if the Court holds that laws forbidding gay marriage are unconstitutional. That will then become the law of the land on federal and state levels. What is more likely is a more narrow interpretation which WILL spur further litigation on state levels. People still sue using Roe. vs. Wade, for example, whenever a state passes or modifies an abortion law that is questionably too restrictive or unconstitutional. It all depends upon how far the Court goes with the ruling.

by Anonymousreply 1606/21/2013

That is unlikely though. Possible, but unlikely.

I strongly feel that both DOMA and Prop 8 will be struck down but on very narrow grounds in both cases. Prop 8's end will be a good thing, but of little effect other than this: DOMA's end will mean Jack and Jim Jones of Los Angeles will be able to file joint federal tax returns while John Smith and Kevin White of Dallas will not. Jack will draw SS on Jim's higher lifetime salary, John cannot against Kevin's. That is just the start of the list too.

That will be the subject of the next case and that will address equal protection and due process where different treatment in different states results in different and UNCONSTITUTIONAL treatment by the Feds.

by Anonymousreply 1706/21/2013

I don't think Section 3 of DOMA can be struck down on narrow grounds. Even the Supremes seem to understand that. The issue it raises is, quite simply, whether the Federal Government can enforce its own definition of marriage by any means short of a constitutional amendment.

by Anonymousreply 1806/21/2013

That's fun. Now we can just choose which laws to believe in.

Well, who gives a shit about your proclamation. It wasn't for you anyway that we did this, we did it for US - and you're all going to die off soon anyway and the next generation gives exactly zero fucks. So all of this banging of garbage can lids will pipe down the minute you lot choke on your own bile, so get to it, please. We've got weddings to plan.

by Anonymousreply 1906/21/2013

Citing the limitations of the Fed is a VERY narrow ground. It leaves wide open the questions of equal protection and due process that would pave the way to a nationwide protection of gay marriage (or at least a ban on bans).

by Anonymousreply 2006/21/2013

[quote]What are they going to do to protest? Hold their breath?

Let's hope it is only that r8 and not forcing us to lose ours.

by Anonymousreply 2106/21/2013

What does this mean in practical terms?

If you work in a position that gives marriage licenses, then you won't issue them?

You won't attend a same sex wedding or send a present?

How do you defy a Supreme Court ruling?

by Anonymousreply 2206/21/2013

We refuse to comply with Obamacare so gay marriage ought to be easy.

by Anonymousreply 2306/21/2013

Fair enough. They'll ignore us, and we'll ignore them.

by Anonymousreply 2406/21/2013

Why does everything that has the name Liberty, Heritage or Freedom promote none of those attributes?

by Anonymousreply 2506/21/2013

White males with power stomping on our rights.

by Anonymousreply 2606/21/2013

...isn't this, in a weird way, a good thing (i.e. they are running scared)...?

by Anonymousreply 2706/21/2013

[quote]White males with power stomping on our rights.

Stomping their tiny little feet, you mean.

by Anonymousreply 2806/21/2013

"Once DOMA and Prop 8 are struck down, we are going to have to sue in each state with so-called marriage protection laws for the right to be married, using this Supreme Court decision as precedent to have the laws struck down in state courts. The struggle isn't over with a positive SCOTUS decision."

There may potentilly be language in the decisions which may help the cause for same sex marriage to be recognized in each and every state.

But if DOMA is struck down then a same sex marriage from any state would have to be recognized by any other jurisdiction. If a same sex wife or husband is denied equal protection because her or his out of state marriage is not given full faith and credit by her or his homestate, than that would be the issue.

There is no reason to think that the federal government would fail to recognize same sex marriages if the Supreme Court strikes down DOMA. There is also no reason to think that the federal government would defy the Supreme Court's decision if it affirms DOMA. The presidency has not thus far defied DOMA because it was legislative and signed into law during a previous administration. Obama is no more likely to defy the Supreme Court that it would defy Congress and Clinton.

Rather, Obama would be more likely to try to work to repeal DOMA in Congress. Just because The Supreme Court affirms DOMA as a proper congressional act, doesn't mean that DOMA can't be repealed by the Congress at a later date.

by Anonymousreply 2906/21/2013

[quote]Just because The Supreme Court affirms DOMA as a proper congressional act, doesn't mean that DOMA can't be repealed by the Congress at a later date.

Good point. I think we will soon have enough votes in Congress to do this, should it become necessary.

by Anonymousreply 3006/21/2013

I don't think striking down section 3 of DOMA guarantees states would have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states where it is legal.

My understanding is section 3 deals with Federal recognition.

There is a way for the court to strike down section 3 of DOMA that would not help court cases at the state level. If the decision to strike down is made based upon the conclusion the Federal government doesn't have the authority to regulate marriage it is of little help.

However in the event the decision is based upon due process - that helps a lot.

If you work under the assumption there are four votes to strike down - I suspect the negotiations focused on what was acceptable to the 5th judge. Probably Kennedy, but after the Obamacare ruling maybe Roberts?

I'd be very happy and very surprised to see the court rule based upon due process.

by Anonymousreply 3106/21/2013

Conservatives have no respect for the rule of law, or of democracy in general.

They always want to have things their way, period.

by Anonymousreply 3206/24/2013

Die in grease fire, R33.

No, actually, survive a grease fire with burns over 95% of your body.

by Anonymousreply 3406/24/2013

the truth is we won't know until we know. I am doing some work around Prop 8 and it looks like marriage has a good chance of returning to California, I would say conservatively 60/40 chance. But it doesn't mean it's permanent. Depending on how they rule and why, it could mean another trip to the ballot or it could end up simply being DONE. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has said repeatedly that SCOTUS moved "too far and too fast" on Roe V. Wade so that is an indication that she wouldn't likely rule on a very wide margin for either DOMA or Prop 8. I think we will win both, but I think they are going to be very narrow with more court cases and more unknowns to contend with. Still, a major victory for marriage equality. PLUS, a new poll has just been released that says support in California is at an all time high, across all age groups, demos and ethnicities. Some have moved faster than others but it hasn't gone backwards or dwindled at ALL.

by Anonymousreply 3506/24/2013

I think we've learned just how far the wingnuts will go... they'll post remarks like r33 on liberal websites.

How will we survive their onslaught?

by Anonymousreply 3706/24/2013

r18, Romer was a very narrow ground (rational basis review) and that's what was used in the courts below. That's what will be used here.

And calling the Court "the Supremes" just makes you ridiculous. You might as well call them the bitches and be done with it.

by Anonymousreply 3806/24/2013

Good. The crazier people like that act, the more attention they bring to the issue and the more rational and sane the gay community appears.

by Anonymousreply 3906/24/2013

The decision has been made, possibly for some time now. There are clerks and others who work at the Supreme Court. I know they have a reputation for not leaking anything. But someone must have heard something. Is there any gossip about the decision? Maybe a blind item?

by Anonymousreply 4006/24/2013

No matter what happens, hold it together. This isn't the last court case on this. Don't flip out.

by Anonymousreply 4106/24/2013

[quote]In addition to designated hate group leaders like Family Research Council president Tony Perkins and Traditional Values Coalition chairman Rev. Louis Sheldon, the list included Tea Party activist Ben Carson, Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern (R), former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell (R), former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer, conservative movement legend Richard Viguerie, Focus on the Family founder Rev. James Dobson, birther Joseph Farah, and disgraced Abramoff scandal figure Ralph Reed.

LOL

by Anonymousreply 4206/24/2013

[quote]What does "refuse to comply" mean practically speaking?

Practically speaking it means that they and their groups will collect hundreds of millions of tax-exempt dollars from jesus freak bigots to fight this "assault" on hetero marriage. However, most of the money collected will join their other money in offshore tax evading bank accounts.

by Anonymousreply 4306/24/2013

I've wondered the same thing, r40. So many clerks, typists, proofreaders etc must know the decision by now it seems almost impossible there wouldn't be some sort of leak.

by Anonymousreply 4406/24/2013

So they refuse to acknowledge that the Supreme Court is the highest court in the U.S.? If they're serious about that, I think they should renounce their citizenship and move to a country that has laws more to their liking, like Uganda.

by Anonymousreply 4506/24/2013

This is why those Tea Party fanatics don't deserve nonprofit status for their little hate groups.

If they had brains or any legitimate value, they'd have used the tax horrors of gay couples as reason for their beliefs. But no. Never hear them taking on how unfair the tax systems is for gays & lesbians.

by Anonymousreply 4606/24/2013

Wow, r42. I didn't know politicians and pundits had a D-list.

Lol indeed.

by Anonymousreply 4706/24/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.