Chris Geidner has a roundup of the reactions from around the blogosphere to last week's New York court ruling in favor of gay marriage, including analysis of the decision from Jack Balkin, Patterico, Kip Esquire and others. I've not read the decision yet, but my friend Dan Ray sent me it to me last night. He had the same reaction to it that Jack Balkin had, which is that while he agreed with the outcome, he thought it was pretty strange decision that would either give the court of appeals ample room to overturn it, or would require them to affirm it on substantially different legal grounds.
- Log in to post comments
Thanks for the links. I'll check them out
The Acrobat of the opinion is available on Lambda Legal's website through http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/documents/record?record=1635 I've read parts of the opinion, but it's a little long. Has there been any comment from John Rowe?
I haven't read the decision. I did however, comment on Joe Carter's analysis of the case where he asserted that once you defend gay marriage, you have no logical or consistent grounds for resisting polygamy.
I am not familiar with Joe Carter, but apparently he is unfamiliar with "equal protection" jurisprudence, under the 14th amendment or state constitutions requiring "equal protection" of the laws. As should be clear, after the plaintiff has shown that a state provision is discriminatory, the burden shifts to the state to prove that the provision, at a minimum, is rational, or, depending on the basis for the discrimination, serves a compelling state interest. Defending SSM (same-sex marriage) on the basis that (a) it is discriminatory) and (b) there is no rational basis for the discrimination, does not in any way suggest that the defender also has an obligation regarding something else incest or polygamy. Unlike marriage, incest, per se, is not a relationship that may be sanctioned by the state--it is nothing more than a sex act. And, regarding polygamy, there may be rational bases for a state refusing to give state recognition of polygamous relationships. Indeed, the US Supreme Court seemed to indicate as such in its decision in the 1880s regarding the polygamy case from the Utah Territory.
BTW, it should be evident that, irrespective of the availability of SSM, it is clear that the issue regarding incest and polygamy is their fantasized "slippery slope": that SSM will lead to incest, polygamy, bestiality (which, ironically, has been legal in Texas for years), etc., etc., etc. Until the sky falls, of course. But it should be evident to anyone paying attention that the initial push on their "slippery slope" isn't SSM, it is OSM (opposite sex marriage). Polygamists have been trying for years to get polygamy legalized. Because of OSM, not SSM. The idea that SSM might lead to polygamy is idiotic in the extreme.