« FL Columnist Boosts Romney 08 | Main | A really bad idea »
December 01, 2004
Total chaos
Shhh.... listen closely ... hear that? That's the sound of total freakin' chaos. Right here, in Massachusetts! (No, not that! That's just crickets.)
Well, that's what the Liberty Counsel (from FL) told the US Supreme Court would ensue if gay marriage was legalized: "marriage as universally understood for millennia of human history will be forever changed; chaos will ensue."
Chaos is happening right now. Oops, it's been happening since May 17. Aren't you terrified?
(The big "whatever" on gay marriage was heard on election day in the Bay State, by the way.)
Posted by Charley on the MTA at 06:52 PM in Law and Lawyers, Massachusetts | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83456d93f69e200e5506491448833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Total chaos:
Comments
The dipshits over at "Reason" are trying to read all kinds of intrigue into the Supremes' decision not to decide this case, claiming that it's "difficult to tell" what the refusal means. They ask: "Does the court want a better, clearer case to address the issue? Do the justices really want the states to hash it out amongst themselves? Do they need more action on the issue from Congress? Or is the Court simply stalling for time until a new chief justice is appointed?" They conclude that the "stalling" rationale is "the easiest one to swallow." See http://www.reason.com/re/current.shtml#3
They leave out what is by far the most likely explanation: this case was utterly, completely, and totally without merit. The theory, basically, was that the gay marriage decision deprived the citizens of MA of a "republican form of government." That theory is, in a word, silly - as both the district court and the court of appeals in Boston held. I would be surprised if anyone currently sitting on the Supreme Court believed that there is a federal constitutional right to gay marriage, but I would be even more surprised if any of them believed that a STATE court's conclusion that there is a STATE constitutional right to gay marriage somehow creates a federal constitutional issue. This thing is going to be decided state by state. As it should be.
Posted by: David | Dec 2, 2004 10:49:02 AM
Update: Lyle Denniston has an article here - http://www.slate.com/id/2110490 - explaining why the Sup. Ct.'s refusal to hear this case was utterly predictable and doesn't reflect anything about what the Court actually thinks about gay marriage.
Posted by: David | Dec 2, 2004 2:48:28 PM
I happen to be a big fan of "the dipshits over at Reason", and I was surprised to hear that they wouldn't speculate that the lack of merit is the reason for the dismissal.
But sure enough, the next 2 sentences state:
"But the complaint itself was rather odd, essentially asking the Supreme Court to 'save' Massachusetts residents from the Massachusetts high court.
"With a possible state referendum on gay marriage a key topic for debate among Massachusetts state legislators, the Court may have concluded that Massachusetts was well on its way to saving itself."
So please read the whole article before you diss one of my favorite magazines.
Posted by: Greg | Dec 10, 2004 2:00:20 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.