The Importance Of The Latest Gay Marriage Decision
Judge Richard Posner, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, wrote a powerful opinion ordering Indiana and Wisconsin to recognize same-sex marriages. In the process, he eviscerated the states’ efforts to defend their discriminatory laws.
The author matters in this case. Posner was appointed by Ronald Reagan, and he isn’t known for favoring an active judicial role or for thinking that courts should promote social change. He is also widely admired, and probably counts as the most influential lower court judge of the past 50 years. When he speaks, people listen.
The end of this issue being relevant is near.
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Stuart Shapiro
Stuart is a professor and the Director of the Public Policy
program at the Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers
University. He teaches economics and cost-benefit analysis and studies
regulation in the United States at both the federal and state levels.
Prior to coming to Rutgers, Stuart worked for five years at the Office
of Management and Budget in Washington under Presidents Clinton and
George W. Bush.
12 responses to The Importance Of The Latest Gay Marriage Decision
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
juicyfruityyy September 7th, 2014 at 21:31
They spend too much time in other people’s bedroom and uterus. They need to stay out of other people’s business and lives. I’m happy for the states. But it should not have been a matter for the courts to decide.
M D Reese September 7th, 2014 at 22:26
I agree. And people need to understand that you cannot vote away the civil rights of any group of people. Equal protection under the law means just what it says.
burqa September 7th, 2014 at 22:58
Of course you are correct. People have these rights already, whether the law has recognized that or not.
It’s nice seeing this snowball rolling faster and faster down the hill. It’s a damned shame it has taken so long.
M D Reese September 9th, 2014 at 23:25
I’m with you there. This Supreme Court scares the crap out of me though. I’ve been paying first class taxes my whole life–I’d like to be treated like a first class citizen before I die.
juicyfruityyy September 7th, 2014 at 21:31
They spend too much time in other people’s bedroom and uterus. They need to stay out of other people’s business and lives. I’m happy for the states. But it should not have been a matter for the courts to decide.
M D Reese September 7th, 2014 at 22:26
I agree. And people need to understand that you cannot vote away the civil rights of any group of people. Equal protection under the law means just what it says.
burqa September 7th, 2014 at 22:58
Of course you are correct. People have these rights already, whether the law has recognized that or not.
It’s nice seeing this snowball rolling faster and faster down the hill. It’s a damned shame it has taken so long.
M D Reese September 9th, 2014 at 23:25
I’m with you there. This Supreme Court scares the crap out of me though. I’ve been paying first class taxes my whole life–I’d like to be treated like a first class citizen before I die.
Eric Trommater September 7th, 2014 at 21:43
Once Lawrence v Texas made it no longer legal to prosecute sodomy, denying people their civil rights was no longer protected by law. Judge Posner is not only on the right side of history, he is on the right side of the law.
burqa September 7th, 2014 at 23:03
The Supreme Court already ruled in the mid 60s that all have the right to marriage.
“… These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. …”
Loving v. Virginia
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html
Eric Trommater September 7th, 2014 at 21:43
Once Lawrence v Texas made it no longer legal to prosecute sodomy, denying people their civil rights was no longer protected by law. Judge Posner is not only on the right side of history, he is on the right side of the law.
burqa September 7th, 2014 at 23:03
The Supreme Court already ruled in the mid 60s that all have the right to marriage.
“… These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. …”
Loving v. Virginia
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html
Though the Lovings were prevented from marrying because of race, it is clear the Supreme Court is saying all have this right, and not just heterosexuals. The neat thing is they most likely never even thought of gay marriage at the time.