Two Oregon County-Level Judges Stop Performing Marriages, Citing Personal Conscience

Katherine Krueger at TPM sketches the story.

Judge Vance Day

Judge Thomas Kohl

In the judges' defense, some are pointing out that Oregon permits, but does not require, judges to perform marriages. To that, I can only say that such a state law would allow such judges to remain silent on the subject, but not to announce a policy of refusing to perform marriages, their announcements coming specifically in response to the legalizing of same-sex marriages. If a judge has the power to perform a marriage and ceases to exercise that power directly in response to the now legally required institution of gay marriage, that judge should resign his/her office or prepare to be jailed in contempt.

When judges begin playing legal tricks to avoid the clear intent of a Supreme Court decision, they no longer serve their rightful purpose. That has been true when I've disagreed with the Court's decision, and it must in turn be true when I happen to agree with the SCOTUS decision.

Otherwise... we have no justice. Those among us who are unwilling to see justice subverted to the religious purposes of individuals must draw the line RIGHT HERE.

(The usual warning: IANAL.)

RWNJ Kentucky County Clerk Ordered Jailed For Contempt Of Court Over Refusal To Issue Gay Marriage Licenses

Katherine Krueger and Tierney Sneed at TPM:

Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refused to issue gay marriage licenses, has been found in contempt of court and taken into federal custody.

According to AP, U.S. District Judge David Bunning said Thursday that Davis would be held in jail until she complied with the previous court orders to begin granting the marriage licenses.

...

And thus it must be in a society where the rule of law prevails over the rule of wo/man. If people start choosing which judges' orders they obey and which they do not, the required balance between freedom and order in society will quickly collapse in favor of wanton freedom, and the laws of the land will become utterly unenforceable.

Someone could do Kim Davis a favor by explaining the workings of civil disobedience to her: the person engaging in civil disobedience expects to go to jail for what s/he does; it cannot be otherwise, because s/he is violating the law. If Ms. Davis wants to decide in her own mind what the law means and act accordingly, but not be jailed for her lawbreaking, then she is asserting that she is some kind of queen, or at least a princess: not in America, baby, not in America.

Senators Rand Paul and Ted Cruz had some interesting things to say in Krueger and Sneed's article (which you really should read before proceeding)...

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) also rushed to Davis' defense: "I think it’s absurd to put someone in jail for exercising their religious liberties," he said on CNN.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) issued a statement calling for "every lover of liberty to stand for Kim Davis." “Kim Davis should not be in jail. We are a country founded on Judeo-Christian values, founded by those fleeing religious oppression and seeking a land where we could worship God and live according to our faith, without being imprisoned for doing so," he said.

(Sigh! the RWNJs always require explanation of the simplest matters of rights and responsibilities.)

Sen. Paul, it's not for exercising her religious liberties that Davis is being jailed: those are liberties of belief and expression, not of action in contravention to the law, especially as in this case where the law couldn't possibly be clearer after the Supreme Court's refusal to support Ms. Davis's position.

And Sen. Cruz, I am at least as American as you are, and the nation I fight for is NOT "founded on Judeo-Christian values" because though I am religious, I am not a Christian, whether you like that fact or not. And I'm pretty sure you don't, you un-American bastard.

Just for good measure, Mike Huckabee chimed in:

... former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said, "Kim Davis in federal custody removes all doubts about the criminalization of Christianity in this country."

No, ex-Gov. Huckabee, it "removes all doubts about the criminalization of" criminal behavior, and most of us don't have any problem with that. Sit down and STFU!

Morning Misc.

• Charles Davis at The Intercept: UNDER THE BRIDGE: The Crime of Living Without a Home in Los Angeles
• Ian Reifowitz at Kos: STUNNER from Pope: Church Should Stop Being "Obsessed" with Abortion, Gay marriage and Contraception
• Leslie Salzillo at Kos: New Study Ranks 50 States By Gun Sense And Gun Deaths -- Gun Extremists Arrive in 5-4-3-2-1
• Violence Policy Center (VPC): State Firearm Death Rates, Ranked by Rate, 2011 [NOTE: no, Texas is not even in the top half among states. Put that in your pipe and... uh... dump it out of your pipe; please don't smoke it! - SB]

And one for fellow Texans...

• Texas Secretary of State: Important 2015 Election Dates

ADDENDUM: "We have to find a new balance," the Pope is quoted as saying. I am sorry to hear the Pope has lost one of his athletic shoes... <grin_duck_run />

Friday Catch-Up

Too much celebration of Stella's 64^th left me in no condition to blog for a couple of days. Here's a list of... uh... stuff... to clear the desktop of things that accumulated:

• Appeals Court OKs Throwing Out Strict North Dakota Anti-Abortion Law
• Alito: Gay Marriage Ruling Could Allow Judges To End Minimum Wage Laws
• Mitch McConnell: 'Gender Card' Not Enough To Get Hillary Clinton To White House
• Planned Parenthood: Secret Video Part Of Years-Long Harassment Campaign
• The Constitutional Roadblock to Efforts to Fix Federal Elections
• Republican House and Senate Introduce Bills Allowing Companies To Fire Single, Pregnant Women

Gay Pride Parade: The Good G*d, S/He Laughs With, Not At, Houston's LGBTQ Community

Mayor Annise Parker (D,L-Houston)
"We have come a long way since Stonewall"

Houston's annual Gay Pride Parade was moved from the Montrose-Westheimer area to downtown this year, and needless to say, a lot of participants (including some newlyweds!) were very, very happy in their procession beneath the skyscrapers of the Bayou City.

To no one's surprise, some of the city's most conservative ministers, pastors, holy fathers, call them whatever you will, expressed their displeasure with the whole business, said the gay community, along with the Supreme Court, was "defy[ing] G*d's law," and that their own "religious freedom" was being violated (WTF???) by the ruling.

Supreme Court, 6/26/2015

So one might expect the good G*d to display some pique, perhaps even rage, at the Houston LGBTQ community, eh? Here's how S/He did that:

Houston City Hall

• Right before the parade started, S/He placed a rainbow in the sky, visible from downtown Houston, and
• S/He held off the rainstorms to the north of Houston from proceeding into downtown until the formal parade was over and the revelers had mostly headed to their evening parties in the Montrose. (For those who don't know, the Montrose is the heart of the LGBTQ community in Houston [and the home of a lot of other good people, including, back in my youth, my family and me].)

That's an odd way for G*d to express overpowering anger, don't you think?

Regular people, get it? ‘Gay’ may be
special, but every bit as human as ‘straight’

Look. This is much ado about very little. People who love each other often want to marry each other... including LGBTQ people. Some who marry want to have children. (I have actually had a foolish religious fanatic tell me that gay people violated G*d's law because "they couldn't have children." Bullfeathers! Most adult humans are physically perfectly capable of begetting or bearing children... including LGBTQ people.)

To this point, before five members of the US Supreme Court saw fit to bless gay marriages, this was not possible under law, even though LGBTQ people often married de facto without benefit of stupid state laws. Now they can marry, in all fifty states, and people who are uncomfortable with that may as well fucking get over it, possibly invite a lesbian couple over for dinner, and adjust to the new reality. Did you not see it was inevitable? I don't care if you see it is also right and proper; it's your loss if you don't!

A Priori Nullification: GOPers Prepare To Disobey Possible Forthcoming Supreme Court Order Requiring States To Recognize Gay Marriages

Tierney Sneed at TPM:

Ahead of a potentially historic Supreme Court ruling, leading Republicans are vowing to defy any decision that sanctions same-sex marriage and are challenging the very legitimacy of the high court.

With a decision in Obergefell v. Hodges expected before the end of June, conservatives are confronted with what was only a few years ago a nearly unthinkable possibility: a Supreme Court decision that decisively makes same-sex marriage a constitutional right.

Fearing a huge setback to their cause, opponents of same-sex marriage, including some of the major contenders for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination, are darkly warning that they will not "honor" an adverse Supreme Court decision. Some are calling for civil disobedience. Others are moving to strip the Supreme Court of its authority to decide whether gay couples should be allowed to marry, while others have questioned whether the court has that jurisdiction in the first place. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has said that such a decision would be "fundamentally illegitimate."

...

I've often said Sen. Cruz is "illegitimate," though not quite so politely... [/sigh]

The party of "law and order" as recently as the Nixon presidency, today's GOP is ready, even eager, to defy laws and even constitutional rulings it doesn't like. But what did we expect?

I noticed that Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart (R) has announced that his office will NOT be ready with the necessary paperwork to issue gay marriage licenses, effectively saying that anyone who doesn't like that can just (ahem) suck on it. Willful defiance of a Supreme Court ruling: I wonder how Mr. Stanart would like the view from inside a prison cell?

On the plus side, Dallas County seems to take another attitude. This may be the only time you'll get me to admit that, in this one matter, Dallas is superior to Houston. Goddamn it.

Alabama Redneck Has A Sense Of Humor About Gay Marriage

There is hope yet for Alabama, as long as people like Jeremy "J.T." Addaway live there and project dry humor about a subject that seems to have upset a lot of Alabamans:

(Watch on YouTube)

Redneck though he may be, Mr. Addaway has a better attitude than a lot of people confronted with the fact that gay marriage is quickly becoming a reality everywhere in America. If gays marry in Alabama, why should anyone be anything but happy for the young (or old) couples? It's not as if they head right away for a pile of brush on your land as soon as the wedding is over, And sure enough, I just looked out the window, and there are none falling from the sky...

ASIDE: Stella has still not voiced any suggestion that gay marriage in Texas, when it gets here RSN despite legislative temper tantrums, will adversely affect our relationship. I was really worried: Our House doesn't have room for all the LGBTs who would doubtless flock to our door when the law is changed...

OK, Gay Californians Can Marry Now

The US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted its stay on the rejection of Prop. 8. This means the Supreme Court ruling earlier this week applies immediately... even in California. Amazing!

DOMA Down

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 today that the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 is unconstitutional. The basis of the decision isn't rocket science; the only amazing things are that a) the Supremes followed through rather than looking for a way to keep the law, and b) they based it in part on a Fifth Amendment equal-liberty argument, which in my naive but not humble opinion, is exactly where it belongs.

Here's Justice Kennedy for the Court:

...

“DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment,” Kennedy wrote for the Court. “DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal.”

Kennedy’s opinion struck down DOMA in part on equal protection and due process grounds, and in part because marriage is a state issue, determining that Congress lacks a constitutional basis not to recognize definitions set by states.

...

As often happens these days, Justice Kennedy was the swing vote, the rest splitting along usual conservative/"liberal" lines (sorry for the scare quotes, but there are no genuine liberal justices on the Court today). If anyone tells you the judiciary is the nonpolitical branch of government, point them at... well, point them at just about any decision the Court makes these days, including this one.

This may simply shift the gay marriage battleground to individual state constitutions or laws. Even so, it seems nonsensical to me that a couple that is married in one state can be unmarried in another.

And I can't help having a "sufficient unto the day..." feeling about the law. Good riddance to DOMA. It was bad law from the beginning. It had only two bases, hatred and fear, and no measurable positive consequences for American society... none whatsoever. For those who "lost" this battle, what was the upshot? If you don't "believe in" same-sex marriage, you can still refuse to marry a partner of the same sex as yours. Oh, and by the way, if you're that committed to hate and fear, AFAIC, you can go straight to Hell, and soon would be good.

To my LGBTQ friends who have been unable to marry but wanted to do so... my heartfelt best wishes. Now you have a right... a right protected right there in the Bill of Rights... to marry. Just don't save me a piece of cake with icky sugar‑laden icing...

Why Not Just Give Justice Kennedy A Swastika, Have Him Grow A Thin Mustache, And Be Done With It?

TPM's Sahil Kapur, on the first of the gay marriage cases, the issue of standing, discussed by the Supreme Court yesterday:

The case appeared to break down along ideological lines, with four justices in each camp and Justice Anthony Kennedy once again emerging as the likely swing vote.

Many of us believe that in a democracy, final decisions on significant social issues should not be relegated to the exercise of power by one man or woman. It's too much like dictatorship. But that is happening regularly in America in this decade. Sometimes that one man is the president; sometimes it is Justice Kennedy... but in no case is the Constitution, or even a majority in Congress, let alone the voice of the people, who have advanced quickly to majority support of gay marriage, given any weight.

I understand that the Court is supposed to be a balancing branch, a counterweight to current popular sentiment. But must it be so to the detriment of fundamental human rights such as the right to marry? Who will save our rights from the depredations of the political center?

And today the Court hears DOMA...

Supreme Court: Possible Outcomes On Prop. 8

Sahil Kapur of TPM outlines the possibilities. There are some twists, e.g., lower courts unexpectedly granted the right to appeal the law to the originators of Prop. 8... not the California government, which declined to defend it... and the Supremes may decide they didn't have standing. So the article is worth a read.

I'll add only one observation. We say casually that the Supreme Court "decides" the constitutionality of a law. But at least two Supreme Court members, Scalia and Thomas (who almost always votes with Scalia), and possibly more, have already made up their minds, and Scalia is even talking about it. If that isn't questionable judicial ethics, I don't know what is... broadcasting one's pre-judgment of a case before even hearing it. But The Fat Over-aged Catholic Choirboy will push the limits, and apparently no one sees fit to try to stop him. So I am confident there are two votes on the Court to reinstate Prop. 8 before proceedings even begin.

This is the most politicized Supreme Court ever, and it was created that way by a succession of Republican presidents nominating Justices well right-of-center who lied their way through confirmation hearings to gain seats on the bench. If, over a long enough time period, Democrats nominate judicial moderates and Republicans nominate off-the-wall right-wing nut-jobs, the bench will tilt so far to the right that the building's stability will be endangered. That is where we stand today. No president ever nominates new Justices as far to the left as virtually all Republican nominees are to the right. So for a while we're stuck with a Court of wing-nuts appointed to serve an agenda.

Let me say for the record that ruling Prop. 8 constitutional would be an injustice on a massive scale affecting our most personal of rights: the right to formalize legal recognition of our most intimate partnerships. Tens of thousands of gay people have already gotten married in California alone: stating now that the law grants none of the legal benefits of marriage to gay couples legally married is reneging on a fundamental, once presumed irrevocable, promise. If we cannot depend on the government to keep its bargains, what can we depend on?

A Shout Out To My LGBTQ Friends

... and congratulations on the first two victories of gay marriage at the ballot box, in Maryland and Maine. Goodness knows you've waited long enough and fought hard enough.

Marriage is a fundamental human right, not a legally granted privilege. The gay couples I know who are now or are soon to be legally married have been de facto married for years, even decades; some have kids, a home mortgage and all the other burdens/joys of the wedded state. It's about damned time they had the status if they want it.

Best of all, the public attitude is changing. In the performing arts community, gayness has for several decades been as normal as breathing; no one thinks anything of it... you have to remember your good friends' spouses' birthdays as surely as you do in the straight community. It's just not that big a deal, and hasn't been for over 30 years.

But for the LGBTQ community, the deal could scarcely be bigger. One of many reasons I want to live another decade or so is that it will give me the opportunity to watch this transformation into a love that damned well CAN speak its name... at the altar if it wants!

Bless you all. It is a good time to be queer!

Second Circuit Becomes Second Circuit-Level Federal Court To Dump DOMA

This is a victory for LGBTQs. And straights. And every American under the Sun, whether they know it or not!

Congrats to my good friend's daughter and her wife; you know who you are. You were "early adopters" in Massachusetts, if I recall correctly, and now you can move anywhere in the States you want to go.

Marriage is a human right. Depriving gay people of it is a human rights violation. Pretty simple, eh? If you don't like the new reality, you're in the wrong country!

Of course the Repugnicans wlll take it to the Supremes, and Dog knows what the Supremes will do to the two decisions... First Circuit and Second Circuit Courts of Appeal... striking down DOMA as unconstitutional. But as some commenters have pointed out, Kennedy is more libertarian in his inclinations than social conservative, so there is some hope. Meanwhile... to those who have always been married in their own eyes and in mine, congratulations on being married in the eyes of the law of the land!