Judges, Lawyers Already Test Driving Marriage Equality Ruling

[bigtree]

The Associated Press ?@AP 9m
Judges, attorneys putting federal gay marriage ruling to work in pending cases: http://apne.ws/150IT1F -SS


Gay marriage ruling already in use in other cases

WASHINGTON (AP) — When the Supreme Court struck down part of an anti-gay marriage law, Justice Anthony Kennedy took pains in his majority opinion to say the ruling applied only to legally married same-sex couples seeking benefits from the federal government.

But judges and lawyers representing same-sex couples are already using Kennedy's language and reasoning in other cases about the right to marry.

It's a predictable next step in a long-term, incremental legal strategy that is being used at both the state and federal levels, and in state legislatures and executive mansions as well as the courts, to build public and official acceptance of gay marriage. Much the same approach was used decades ago by civil rights lawyers fighting official discrimination; one decision becomes a steppingstone to the next . . .

When civil rights lawyers began their decadeslong quest to end official discrimination against black Americans, they pursued cases in state and federal courts that typically stopped short of the ultimate goal of overturning the Supreme Court decree in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 that "separate but equal" treatment of the races was permitted by the Constitution . . .

No one is sure what the magic number needs to be for the court to set a nationwide rule. (Harvard Law School professor) Mark Tushnet predicts that when roughly 40 states allow same-sex marriage, "it is going to seem all right to tell Mississippi that it has to recognize gay marriage . . ."


read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/gay-marriage-ruling-already-use-other-cases

[customerserviceguy]

1. That's sort of what happened with the Loving vs. Virginia decision

Yes, interracial marriage was not popular in 1967, but not many states had laws against it at the time, and they were not always enforced. It was the arbitrary nature of the laws that gave the Court the needed impetus to wipe out all interracial marriage laws where the vestiges of them still existed.

It's also important to note that many of those laws were a century old, having been enacted in the wake of the Civil War. The stains that are on the constitutions of about three quarters of the states are of very recent origin, relatively speaking. It's going to take active repeal by the voters of at least another quarter of the affected states of the homophobia written into their primary law document. It would also be helpful if there were another quarter of the states that allowed civil unions and/or domestic partnerships. When we get down to the last stubborn quarter of the states that will never change until forced, then it's time.

By the way, the cartoon is cute, but if you replaced the sign under the roof peak with "Second Amendment Rights", it would also be accurate.

[bigtree]

2. "Second Amendment Rights"

. . . would certainly do, customerserviceguy.

Thanks for the perspective . . .