Wednesday, March 22, 2006

State Fare

Last month, the New Jersey Supreme Court heard arguments in a case brought by Lambda Legal seeking marriage for same-sex couples. The webcast of the arguments can be seen here. Lambda's case was made by a Mr. Buckle who seemed slightly, but endearingly, nervous. His argument, however, was concise and familiar: the New Jersey Constitution provides protection for all citizens under the law and therefore discriminating against same-sex couples is unconstitutional.

How did the state's argument come off? Well, here's the reaction when confronted with this quote by Sandra Day O'Connor from Lawrence v. Texas: "... we have never held that moral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest, is a sufficient rationale under the Equal Protection Clause to justify a law that discriminates among groups of persons."



Patrick DeAlmeida: "But she notes that it was moral disapproval with nothing more. Here, the state is asserting something more. It's asserting an interest in maintaining marriage as it has been."



Justice Virginia Long: "Why is that an interest? The interest in maintaining marriage 'as it has been'?"



DeAlmeida: "Because it is such a fundamental institution in society that it is a reasonable thing that the legislature not change it radically. There are some things that make up our society that are so fundamental that a change in them is something that belongs to the elected representatives of the people."



Justice Barry T. Albin: "Didn't Virginia argue that in the Loving case? When they tried to support banning interracial marriage -- in fact criminalizing them?"



DeAlmeida: "They did."


At which point Ogre interjected:


"NERDS!"

So, the next time you hear neo-cons say that you can't make the comparison between gay marriage and interracial marriage, just remind them that their side is doing exactly that.

(By the way, Ogre, calm down. That's not Lewis.)

9 comments:

Carl said...

No, but he could have been Wormser all growed up...

The idiocy of arguing against gay marriage is strikingly funny.

They ought to suffer the same way the rest of the country does! Do they think they're special or something????

Fantod said...

LOL! Maybe I need to rethink my stance on this...

;-)

RadicalPurple said...

try floatin THAT one past DLFister. He was always one to ixnay the comparison between race and sexual discrimination.

Never mind. He'd probably just delete it and ban you.

RadicalPurple said...

B/C "... between RACIAL and sexual ..."

Fantod said...

RadP,

I considered referring to Fister in some way -- that gay rights are civil rights does get under his skin sumthin' awful: "...please go tell all your white gay racist friends to stop crying, moaning and groaning about "homophobia" when they are some of the worst racists walking the planet." -- but decided it would ruin the simplicity of the post. :)

Also, I no longer even try to post on his blog after my comments' being repeatedly deleated.

It is funny to see him try to argue with others, though, like with Grant and Dale. He can't argue their points, so he invents a reason that they're violating his commenting policy: that they use two names for their signature and use the pronoun "we." As if the "pastor" wouldn't ban them outright if they posted under two different names coming from the same IP address.

KEvronius said...

loving v. va, eh? love it! gonna get tons o' mileage outta that one....

KEvron

Fantod said...

Isn't that great?

If I decide to sue for marriage and my case comes up before the US Sureme Court, I think I'll change my name to something like Fairness. Fairness v. Illinois. How could Fairness lose?

Anonymous said...

I've been on the west coast for awhile, so am out of the loop..
but I (a gay man) dated Patrick DeAlmeida in the late 80s when we were both living in New York. Strange to see him on the wrong side of this.

Fantod said...

I wonder if DeAlmeida found himself in a situation where he was simply assigned this project. I'm not sure from a lawyerly point of view you can decline to argue a case merely because you disagree with the view being expressed. Perhaps it was a case of conscience versus career.