And Now Minnesota Joins the Parade

 

"Jungle Love" - Morris Day and the Time (Minneapolis Natives)

So the Minnesota House just passed a marriage equality bill, two days after Delaware recognized same sex marriage.  The Minnesota Senate is expected to the pass the same bill on Monday and Governor Mark Dayton has pledged to sign it into law.  It's just part of an amazing manifestation of legislative support for the love that once did not dare speak its name.  It's a fantastic development.

A couple of thoughts.  Having just spent Monday at a memorial service for a member of a longtime gay union -- one where the couple had recently taken advantage of marriage equality in DC -- it heartens me to see the love and commitment that many of my friends have enjoyed being recognized as fully the equal of heterosexual unions, because it is.  Quite simply it is.  The bonds -- and the burdens -- of a lifetime are actually pretty much indistinguishable, regardless of sexual preference. 

Second, I wonder if these dramatic democratic developments leave the Supreme Court more inclined to render a narrow verdict in the Prop 8 and DOMA cases? 

And finally, although my emotions associated with this progress are by and large joyful and without malice, there is a small part of me that is also reveling in the crushing of our enemies -- I'd say 90% large-minded happiness, 10% spite-driven euphoria.  This small part of me relishes the marginalization of those on the other side, savors the alienation they must be feeling, finds happiness in their spittle-flecked rage as it dawns on them it truly isn't their country anymore.  Slowly -- and then not so slowly -- they are consigned to the ghettoes of reaction, the disreputable neighborhoods of ignorance and prejudice, offering a world view that has come to be seen as an embarrassment in polite company.  I revel in their exile.

There is still work to be done and the likelihood that the marriage equality movement will hit a temporary wall at a certain point, once the blue states are converted.  But the wall will be temporary -- the generational momentum will ultimately overwhelm even the most reactionary bastions.

I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like it during my lifetime.  The triumphs of the civil rights movement, remarkable as they were, never fully eradicated the racial animus that to this day remains a feature of much of American life.  One senses a sea change here that is truly transformational, with a younger generation coming to maturity that is truly lacking in homophobia.  It's a great thing. 

Comments

[oddjob]

Second, I wonder if these dramatic democratic developments leave the Supreme Court more inclined to render a narrow verdict in the Prop 8 and DOMA cases?

I thought the protocol was that they voted on the Friday following hearing the case? If so, isn't what's taking place now kind of moot?

[oddjob]

What is happening now in the state legislatures, what happened when Jason Collins came out (to we now learn the firm approval of a large majority, something close to 70% if memory serves, of his fellow citizens), is all about getting closer to that day when a kid publicly acknowledges he or she is gay and no ones cares at all.

:)

[Sir Charles]

Oddjob,

The votes the SC take in conference are preliminary in nature. Draft opinions are circulated and things can remain in flux until a final decision is issued. Members of the Court are deeply concerned not just about the holding in cases, but the language and theory behind the holding.

[big bad wolf]

oodjob, nothing is final until the court issues its opinion. the court conferences after hearing oral argument in the case. the justices vote and a tentative result is reached, as is a tentative rationale for the result. a justice is assigned to draft an opinion setting out the rationale and result. concurring and dissenting opinions may also be drafted while the majority is being drafted.

the drafts of those opinions are then circulated among the justices. most often, that circulation results in no change in the result. sometimes, that circulation results in specific changes in the majority opinion to hold the majority together. occasionally, that circulation results in a justice changing her.his mind, perhaps because, set out in writing, the rationale supporting the result appears more or less compelling than it seemed after breifing and argument. that change may only result in the justice writing a concurring opinion she had not planned to, but every once in awhile a justice changes his mind and with it the result of the case.

the reality of the supreme court is that the justices have a broad role to play. the legal questions that reach the supreme court rarely have mechanical, right answers, despite the claims of conservatives and, even sometimes, liberals. the questions involve balancing a hosts of competing arguments and interests and require the court to project the effect not just of its result, but of its rationale, on future issues. every once in awhile a case can be decided on very narrow grounds that confine the rationale to that case, but the court doesn't sit to hear particular cases or right particular injustices. it sits to provide broad guidance. in doing that, it doesn't ignore the world, though it often pretends to officially.

john roberts's famous umpire analogy at his confirmation hearing was actually an example of good lawyering. umpires call balls and strikes, yes, but they, as the phrase goes, "call'em as i see'em," and umpires see things from different individual angles based on all sorts of factors, including how they stand, how the batter stands, how the pitch moves, and what particular fraction of a second the umpire "sees" or perceives the pitch, from his perspective, cross the plate. the objective strike zone is a fiction; there is a general consensus on the zone but not a fixed one. that people want to hear the umpire analogy as a way of saying that there is an objective and neutral judgment perspective does not create such a perspective. this is not, within the general consensus of a society, a bad thing, i think. little is as clear as we think when we give our opinions.

that said, gay marriage should be a relatively easy thing to approve legally within the flexible general consensus of the law and society.

[Crissa]

It's hard to tell when they'll vote, and besides, until the court announces, the Justices can change their positions - like the Chief Justice reportedly did on the Obamacare case last summer. Passing notes and stuff between them, and all.

[oddjob]

Thank you all for the education. Not being trained in the law the particulars of how SCOTUS comes to its decisions are not familiar to me. :)

[kathy a.]

good days, though. no matter how scotus goes on the cases before it, things are moving in the direction of inclusion and happiness for all.