John Roberts would like to extend legal protection to gays and lesbians, but he’s just not sure whether they’re unpopular enough…. (cc photo by the McConnell Center)
In an article that should go down in the annals of improbable news analyses, Peter Baker argues in the New York Times (3/28/13) that the Chief Justice might be in favor of gay rights if they weren’t so popular:
Momentum in the political world for gay rights could actually limit momentum in the legal world. While the court may throw out a federal law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, the justices signaled over two days of arguments that they might not feel compelled to intervene further, since the democratic process seems to be playing out on its own, state by state, elected official by elected official.
The prospect that gay rights advocates may become a victim of their own political success was underscored during arguments on Wednesday over the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. Opponents of the law were left to make the paradoxical argument that the nation has come to accept that gay men and lesbians deserve the same right to marriage as heterosexuals while maintaining that they are a politically oppressed class deserving the protection of the courts.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. pressed that point with the lawyer for the plaintiff…. “You don’t doubt that the lobby supporting the enactment of same-sex marriage laws in different states is politically powerful, do you?” he asked the lawyer…. “As far as I can tell, political figures are falling over themselves to endorse your side of the case.”
As ludicrous is the idea that it’s the popularity of gay rights that keeps Roberts from embracing them, Baker seems to really buy the idea that legal protection for gay men and lesbians is no longer necessary in a nation swept by tolerance. He might want to consult the state of anti-discrimination law–where he’ll find that people can be legally fired from their jobs or kicked out of their homes for their sexual orientation in 29 states–as well as the FBI’s annual tally of hate crimes.
Isn’t this essentially the same argument employed by those who want to rescind Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act?
“Times have changed. It’s no longer needed.”
You might ask the folks who stood in line for hours to vote last November about its necessity.
He might also look into the state of gay marriage laws. Last I checked, 29 states had constitutional amendments against it.
Opponents of the law were left to make the paradoxical argument that the nation has come to accept that gay men and lesbians deserve the same right to marriage as heterosexuals while maintaining that they are a politically oppressed class deserving the protection of the courts.
This perfect black/white double speak, as if “people accepting Gay Marriages means
A) it is the majority of the people who accept it,
B) That it is the majority of the people who control the laws, that accept
and
C) that because it is accepted, it you can’t be discriminated against.
All are non sequitur straw men. This is just another Chief Injustice.
This is ridiculous. I would say that refusing to recognize a gay marriage is a violaiton of the Bill of Rights. The Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” I would say that if you live in a free society you are free to marry who you please. Or is John Roberts opposed to us living in a free society?
Ach there’s no edit function on this.
For a Chief Justice in front of whom our senators were genuflecting and tripping over each other to proclaim as exceptionally bright – too bright to even question during his confirmation hearing – CJ Thomas demonstrates unbelievable lack of logic. The very existence of Prop. 8 and other laws like it around the US is prima facea proof that the gay community is discriminated against! Also, the popularity and/or the size of the lobby for an issue is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is constitutional. But then again what do you expect from a sophist-icated right-wing ideologue?
Finally, CJ Thomas’ senate confirmation hearing and our senators’ inability to match his prowess of sophism is proof that we need more professors and intellectuals in the Congress instead of half-witted lawyers who got there by being willing to whore themselves to the ruling elite.
Justice Roberts: A Paragon of Courage
Politicians are falling all over themselves to protect the corporatocracy from the repercussions of its actions… Does this mean that Roberts is going to stop ruling in favor of the corporate side because corporations can take care of themselves?