Re: [Marxism] Cal AG Brown asks court to overturn Proposition 8

[Ralph Johansen <mdriscollrj@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Shane Mage wrote:

On Dec 20, 2008, at 5:37 PM, Fred Feldman wrote:
 > California Attorney General Jerry Brown urges court to overturn Prop 8
 > BY NANCY DILLON
 > DAILY NEWS WEST COAST BUREAU CHIEF
 >
 > LOS ANGELES - In a surprising reversal, California Attorney General
 > Jerry
 > Brown is asking the state Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8...

"Stunning reversal?" I hate to have to defend JB, a typical Dumbocrat,
but there's no reversal here. He was firmly on the record as to the
unconstitutionality of Prop 8. But I still don't understand why no
Californian with an out-of-state gay marriage has yet sued on the
basis of the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution.

Shane Mage
-----------------------------

Just off the top, that appears to be a federal question, suing for 
enforcement of the federal full faith and credit clause of the US 
Constitution, and would go into the federal courts, ultimately to the 
Supreme Court as presently constituted. Where it would have a baleful 
fate, I do not doubt. I expect that It would probably not even get on 
the docket, but if it did it would be shot down under majority-favored 
doctrines of strict scrutiny, a general reluctance to extend the concept 
of equal rights and abhorrence of a 'legislative' role for the courts, - 
unless of course it might be the legislative role of reinterpreting the 
Constitution to give the government (of men, of course) the authority to 
deprive a woman of control over her own body.

By the way, I think that it is odd that anyone on a socialist list, 
ostensibly favoring gay rights, would not see that at the same time 
supporting, or minimizing, the effect of Proposition 8 would alienate 
virtually all gay couples. These partners would be assumed to be willing 
to do without all the tangible rights and benefits that accompany legal 
marriage and are not accorded by civil unions. This includes but is 
certainly not limited to the right to collect benefits under a partner's 
health insurance program and to make medical decisions on behalf of a 
partner who is unable to do so. I would not think that gay partners 
would appreciate that one who expressed support for them also ignored 
the hurt and stigma inflicted by shutting out gay people from the 
institution of marriage (to quote the language of yesterday's NYTimes 
editorial), and the insecurity and shunning that this isolation 
entails.  And thus to require gay couples to forgo the benefits that are 
essential for a secure existence. To think otherwise is to dwell in/on 
some social setting other than the present one, and to require strict 
adherence to dogma, sacrificing others' lives to that dogma, and 
confusing that with sound political judgment. I hold no brief for the 
institution of marriage, as I have said here before, but I would like to 
think that I finally have my priorities fairly straight.

I don't know how I keep getting myself into a discussion on this topic, 
but fwiw.

Ralph Johansen


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu