Tweet
Jeebus H. Christ. These people are like zombies, they just get up and keep coming at you even after the limbs start dropping off. (HRC Back Story):
Having exhausted just about every legal avenue to stop loving, committed couples in the District of Columbia from being able to marry, opponents of equal marriage have reportedly filed an 11th hour appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court asking the Justices to halt Wednesday’s issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
More from the AP, including one name affiliated with the filing that is shameful — civil rights veteran Walter Fauntroy who was friends with Dr. Martin Luther King:
Opponents of gay marriage are asking the Supreme Court to put a hold on the District of Columbia’s new law allowing same-sex couples to wed.The new law, passed in December, is supposed to take effect Wednesday. Court papers filed Monday with Chief Justice John Roberts argue that Washington residents should be able to vote on the matter. Local courts have rejected the opponents’ arguments.
The gay marriage opponents include a Baptist minister, Walter E. Fauntroy, who was Washington’s delegate in the House for nearly 20 years.
It makes me ill.
33 Comments
Laugh Out Loud“Jeebus H. Christ. These people are like zombies, they just get up and keep coming at you even after the limbs start dropping off.”
Thanks Pam – I needed a good laugh today!!
Oh damn.Should have seen it coming.
It may even be a shot at circumventing the Prop 8 trial outcome, as well.
I can’t write the words I’m thinking right now without violating the TOS and certain rules of social etiquette.
All we have to do is find George A. RomeroFind George, ask him to yell ‘CUT!’ and maybe this will end…
Until “IT CAME FROM SCOTUS, PART II” starts rolling.
From ther same folks who gave us Bush for presidentGRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
Don’t underestmate the mischief Robert’s Court could do to us while they hold a majority…I wish one of their old f*cks would keel over.
MassachusettsSCOTUS turned the wingnuts away when they applied for “emergency relief” right before marriage equality became legal in Massachusetts because it was a state matter. What are the chances they’ll do the same now for DC?
What are the legal arguments?What does the federal judicial branch have to do with local affairs of the District? Am I missing something here?
D. C. is not a state… so perhaps the SCOTUS will intervene, but then again Congress had the chance to do something and didn’t, which gives hope. In any case, once loving couples get married this will become an issue of taking rights away, and since after Prop 8 that will galvanize support.
Interesting given that the district is not a state and technically it doesn’t get more local to SCOTUS.On the other hand how do you justify usurping the council, the laws and the courts in order to allowing voting on a law that can not be lawfully voted on in the first place. SCOTUS would do themselves a huge favor if they would just turn aside the request and basically ignore it. Unless of course they want to send a message out to the looming equality cases of prop 8, the case for equal protection under federal law by employees and the Mass. case. But I can’t see this case giving them or anyone else that platform. Nevertheless it is popcorn worthy in that slapstick comedy sort of way!
But not to worry. . .SCOTUS ain’t gonna touch this with a ten-foot pole. It’s called states rights (although DC is not a state, but the same legal theory applies) and there is no constitutional right for popular vote. Actually, the Supreme Court has already ruled against putting civil rights up to a popular vote in Romer v Evans.
This SCOTUS plea is, IMHO, analogous to the death rattle of the anti-gay bigots of DC (and of course Maryland resident Harry Jackson) just before their scare-tactic fund-raising gravy train dies in the District. But have no pity on them – they will pack up their slogans and magic potions and caravan off to the next marriage battleground – always ready to pass their collection plates for the unsuspecting hordes who have no clue that the war has already been lost. The gays ain’t going back into the closet and it is only a matter of time before the Harry Jacksons of the world shutter their final death rattle.
Really would not surprise me at allif they put on a hold on the law. Way outside of their bounds I think but the Roberts Court so far has not been shy in using their power.
You and me bothdys.
You and me both…
Miss Batshit JacksonPlease pack up your carpet bag and go back to Maryland, where they have just ruled that out of state SSMs will be recognized. You may as well move to VA where the rednecks still enjoy freedom to shove religion down others throats.
Miss Jackson?Everytime Harry Jackson comes up someone makes a comment like this. Unless there is something real there, like a past lover who’s come out of the closet, I don’t get it. I find it at least midly homophobic or transphobic (or both). Are you trying to refer to the conventional wisdom that people who are homopobic are closeted gay men? While there are some very famous examples of that, I’ve found that many heterosexuals that are quite capable about it by themselves. Or is this along the lines of “Ann Coulter is a man” kind of humor?
If there’s some ex-lover out there telling tales out of the bedroom, I’m sorry for bringing this up. However, if not, I find the “Miss Jackson” jokes somewhat destructive.
“Miss Jackson if you’re nasty”The way I see it is that Miss So-and-so is a term of endearment among some gay men. Jackson, being a homophobe of highest order, would find a gay term of endearment used on him the ultimate insult. Thus it is used on him because we know he hates it. It isn’t anti-gay at all, it’s using Jackson’s own homophobia against him. It may be a bit juvenile, but we need to get our jollies when we can.
He’s a whiney bitch…hence the Miss.
I always call him Miss Jacksonnothing to do with whether he’s gay or not.
Besides, I’ve called Miss Bishop Jackson worse!
Okay, fair enough.Seems I’ve been reading a little bit too much into it.
I mean, I could call him a coon“cause he sho’ll like coonin’ for them white folks.
The day at the Value Voters Summit when he had the audacity to tell white folks to stop being racist so he could organize the black community against gay marriage, I completely lost it.
I have no respect for him
I’m not worried about Harry.I’m not worried about horrible things said about the man. I’m worried that what we say is harmful to us. But you’ve explained everything. So, no worries.
Ummm huh?I live in DC, I blog from dc and run a popular gay wedding blog. My neighbor is also a gay blogger and two of the top ten gay wedding sites are based in Arlington VA. None of us found out about this. I’m lost.
Time to do some research. Thanks for keeping us all up to date Pam.
There’s only one AP story so farIt came out late Monday afternoon, so don’t feel bad about not knowing. interesting though that the anti crowd didn’t get evening tv news coverage (that i’m aware of).
Keep in mind…… that there have been two Bush appointees since that time (and Roberts is one of them) and that the measure hasn’t taken effect yet (~24 hours to go) so they can still certainly block the issue if they can come up with an excuse to do so.
They certainly did that well when they blocked video of the Prop. 8 trial on a technicality anyway (they said that the comment period should have been 30 days and didn’t rule on the issue itself).
Seems a step was skipped.Don’t they have to appeal to a District Apellatte court first?
I was wondering that too.It could be that they sent in the paperwork even though it is not legitimate, just as a last act of desperation (and perhaps a last fundraising lever). It’ll be interesting to get the full story tomorrow.
I’m curious too, I wasn’t able to find a linkthat descibed what the argument is. I know they keep whining the people should vote. But that’s an opinion, not an argument. For the SCOTUS to even deign to entertain it seems to set very dangerous precedence.
Could we not then ask toss away EVERYTHING our representational Democracy is built upon every time our legislators pass a law we disagree with? Would we then be able to cry “Foul” and demand a ballot initiative for absolutely everything?
They lost that argument every step of the way. There’s every reason to believe the SCOTUS won’t even give them the time of day. Let alone a stay.
No, appeal can be immediately after an initial rulingIn a federal case, one can appeal directly to the Supreme Court and skip the appeals courts, but the Court very, very, very, very rarely accepts the case in such circumstances, but it does happen. For example, in 1974 when Nixon tried to quash the subpoenas by the Watergate special prosecutor. The District court ruled against Nixon and both sides appealed parts of the ruling directly to the Supreme Court. The Court took the case and unanimously ruled (8-0, Rehnquist recusing himself) against Nixon and Nixon ended up resigning just over two weeks later.
If the case is coming through state courts, the Supreme Court generally waits until the state’s court of last appeal weighs in, i.e. the State Supreme Court rules or declines to hear the case, before it decides whether to accept the case or not. In fact I can’t think of a major case that is an exception to this.
I don’t find Roberts and Scallia comic, they can still be deadly dangerous to us
IIRC They did this last timeIn the Spring when the Council voted to recognize all out-of-state marriages. It didn’t work then, which was the entire point. David Catania, the gay former Republican on the Council who pushed the marriage law, decided to use the out-of-state recognition law to test the waters. If the courts refused to intervene, at all levels, then, there is no legal justification for them intervening now.
on the other hand………..it’s nice to see homophobic hysteria has transcended racial boundaries.
Ha! don’t sell these guys shortThey will be passing the collection plate for a longtime in the DC area with distant hopes of a change in government and/or growing attempts at a change in the laws for years!
I wouldn’t bet the farm on that one..Racial and religious communities may be difficult to speak to but when done right they prove most effective.
http://www.google.com/hostedne…
Any Updates?
YEAH!Just read a few minutes ago on the Seattle PI website that SCOTUS has refused to intervene! Marriage equality is a go!