U.S. Supreme Court to rule on same-sex marriage
January 16, 2015 5:20 PM   Subscribe

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear cases on same-sex marriage. The focus of the Court’s review will be a decision issued in early November by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which upheld bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. The Court will rule on the power of U.S. states to ban same-sex marriages or refuse to recognize such marriages when performed in another state. Hearings will likely take place in April, and a final ruling is expected in late June.

Currently in the U.S., same-sex marriages are recognized by the federal government and are legal in 36 U.S. states (plus some districts in Missouri), the District of Columbia, and 21 Native American tribal jurisdictions.

However, in many of those states the legality is the result of federal court decision -- including Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Wisconsin, Indiana, Florida, Nevada, Idaho, West Virginia, North Carolina, Alaska, Kansas, South Carolina, and Montana. The legality of same-sex marriage in those states, as well as those with bans still in place (Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Tennessee) or stayed rulings striking down bans (Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, and South Dakota) would be affected by the Supreme Court's decision.
posted by kyrademon (120 comments total) 15 users marked this as a favorite
 
The verdict is going to be YES EQUAL MARRIAGE. The whole important extent of expectation is how far that extends: YES GAY PEOPLE ARE NORMAL CITIZENS.
posted by mississippi at 5:30 PM on January 16, 2015 [3 favorites]


The verdict is going to be YES EQUAL MARRIAGE. The whole important extent of expectation is how far that extends: YES GAY PEOPLE ARE NORMAL CITIZENS. posted by mississippi

Let me just say that I hope the SC ruling is line with mississippi the Mefite's stance and not Mississippi the state's stance.
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:31 PM on January 16, 2015 [27 favorites]


Sorry!
posted by mississippi at 5:32 PM on January 16, 2015 [5 favorites]


Good luck, everyone.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 5:34 PM on January 16, 2015 [3 favorites]


(The Mississippi River starts in Minnesota: Equal Marriage State #12)
posted by mississippi at 5:34 PM on January 16, 2015 [13 favorites]


Godspeed, America. If SCOTUS doesn't make the right decision, you know what to do.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 5:38 PM on January 16, 2015 [29 favorites]


ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:40 PM on January 16, 2015 [8 favorites]


When Florida asked SCOTUS to stay the marriage equality decision there, only Scalia and Thomas would have even granted a stay.
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 5:43 PM on January 16, 2015


Holder/Obama have been totally unambiguous as to what the US Govt will present. (Not sure if that was linked in the article when you posted; was added as an update).
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:45 PM on January 16, 2015 [10 favorites]


Rick Hasen is a little concerned by the rewording of the Court and wonders if it's intended to narrow a victory for SSM as much as possible.
Michael Dorf says that it's not a major concern and shouldn't change anything.

I, however, ...have not nearly enough knowledge to form an opinion on that particular issue. But I'm excited to follow along and watch equal rights be accepted!
posted by Lemurrhea at 5:46 PM on January 16, 2015


If you give gay people the right to get married, which I think is certainly going to happen in the last week of June, what rights do you also have to give them? THIS IS THE QUESTION that is going to make this decision the biggest decision of some large span of time.
posted by mississippi at 5:49 PM on January 16, 2015


Just to be clear...they can basically either find that *all* states must allow same-sex marriage, *or* leave things as they currently are, right? There's no danger that this case will actually roll things back?
posted by uosuaq at 5:50 PM on January 16, 2015


My heart wedged itself in my throat when I read this headline earlier - I have such high hopes that the Court does the right thing and recognizes, no - LEGALIZES equality. I'm feeling all weepy and hyper.
posted by ersatzkat at 5:50 PM on January 16, 2015


Pride is either going to be off the hook this year across the USA, or we'll be looking at Stonewall 2.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:52 PM on January 16, 2015 [18 favorites]


I'm glad the Supreme Court is stepping in, as it seems that at our current rate, most of Virginia's politicians will be in prison by summer.

In all seriousness, though, I hope this settles the issue for justice and equality once and for all. It has been a long time coming.
posted by 4ster at 5:55 PM on January 16, 2015 [2 favorites]


I'm pretty excited and optimistic. I went to college in Ohio, so I have a soft spot for that weird state.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:58 PM on January 16, 2015


If you can get married, get married, get married, WHAT ELSE CAN YOU DO? Let's be aggressive.
posted by mississippi at 6:09 PM on January 16, 2015


I would hope that if SCOTUS rules correctly, the ruling will include an order saying "all laws about marriage now apply no matter what genders are involved," which would wrap up pretty much everything--taxes, inheritance, medical visits and decisions. I can see adoption still being a sticking point, but the (hopeful) precedent should make a legal challenge there something of a cakewalk.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:12 PM on January 16, 2015 [3 favorites]


uosuaq, that sounds about right. There are two separate questions:

1) Must States marry a couple who are of the same sex? This can be yes, which means marriage equality across the country. Or it can be no, which means States aren't required to, and the state-by-state process will continue. It might roll back some of the intermediate gains - Florida for example - where judges have ruled that they are required to. Not sure how many. Actually I think it's a lot.

2)Must States recognize same-sex marriages from other States? This can be yes, which only really matters if #1 is no (because if #1 is yes I think it implies #2 is yes, or at least it allows people to re-marry in their State; if #1 is no then #2 being yes means that a couple could travel outside of their State to marry and have it accepted where they're married, circumventing the failure of #1). Or it can be no, which again only matters if #1 is no, and is the full rejection.
posted by Lemurrhea at 6:15 PM on January 16, 2015


Just to be clear...they can basically either find that *all* states must allow same-sex marriage, *or* leave things as they currently are, right? There's no danger that this case will actually roll things back?
I am not a lawyer, but I think that my state's decision was based on the court's reading of the state constitution, and I don't think a Supreme Court ruling on the Federal constitutionality would override that. I don't think.

The chatter that I'm hearing on twitter is that the expectation is that they'll rule in favor of gay marriage on the same day that they eviscerate Obamacare, thereby making all forward-thinking Americans' heads explode.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:16 PM on January 16, 2015 [3 favorites]


So ideally we want:

yes/yes
yes/no
no/yes
no/no

In order of desirability?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:17 PM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]


Keep in mind that every other circuit which has upheld a ruling for gay marriage (4th, 7th, 9th and 10th) has been appealed to and denied review by SCOTUS. The fact that they picked up this decision which splits the circuits is probably just to rebuke the sixth circuit.

Expect to see the liberal justices twist the knife in oral arguments. I'm quietly very confident about this one.
posted by Talez at 6:19 PM on January 16, 2015 [7 favorites]


can Ginsberg do a mic drop

please
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:21 PM on January 16, 2015 [15 favorites]


Thanks, Lemurrhea. That's what I thought, but I just get really nervous about this Supreme Court, you know?
And to a lesser extent, thanks, ArbitraryAndCapricious...I was trying to worry about one thing at a time...
posted by uosuaq at 6:23 PM on January 16, 2015


I am not a lawyer, but I think that my state's decision was based on the court's reading of the state constitution, and I don't think a Supreme Court ruling on the Federal constitutionality would override that. I don't think.

If something is unconstitutional Federally, wouldn't that automatically make it unconstitutional on a State level, too? If not, there are several states that would still have slavery e.g., no?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:27 PM on January 16, 2015


I went to college in Ohio, so I have a soft spot for that weird state

God, we are a weird state, aren't we? I only moved here in September for work, and I'm in the southwestern corner; it bewilders me how wildly opinions can vary within just a few hundred miles. For the first time in my life, I'm around people who wistfully refer to Cleveland as "liberal"!

Both Ohio marriage cases before the court originate in Cincinnati, though, which does give me quite a bit of hope.

Please let this June be as good as the June that DOMA was struck down. Please. My girlfriend and I would like to be married in every state, end of story.
posted by none of these will bring disaster at 6:28 PM on January 16, 2015 [4 favorites]


Yeah my understanding (not being an American lawyer) is that ArbitraryAndCapricious is right. Anything based on a state constitution would remain, anything passed by law would obviously remain, California would remain (because...it's weird). I don't know numbers, sorry!

FFFM, correct. But in this case a 'no' would be ruling that it IS constitutional to ban equal marriage. So that ban might still be unconstitutional under the State constitution. Depends on if the ban was a constitutional amendment or just an everyday law.

[The Fed constitution can be thought of as a floor. No State can go lower than it, but they can go above that floor in their own constitution.]
posted by Lemurrhea at 6:31 PM on January 16, 2015 [2 favorites]


Almost all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution are reverse incorporated to apply to states via the 14th Amendment.
posted by Dr. Zira at 6:39 PM on January 16, 2015


Yeah... what I mean is that State constitutions must be constitutional under the Federal, yeah? So if SCOTUS says "No, assholes, you can't prevent queer people from getting married because Constitution," that also invalidates any State constitutions forbidding SSM, right?

I feel like Steve Ballmer. "Constitution constitution constitution"
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:42 PM on January 16, 2015 [3 favorites]


Yes. Supremacy clause and all that. If the states and Feds conflict the federal constitution is the law of the land.
posted by Talez at 6:44 PM on January 16, 2015 [6 favorites]


No, Federal law is considered controlling under the legal concept of Federal preeminence when it conflicts with state law. That doesn't however guarantee the state won't just continue doing what it wants until the federal government steps in with either a big carrot or a big stick.
posted by saulgoodman at 6:45 PM on January 16, 2015


Don't forget Dred Scott, Citizens United, and Hobby Lobby (I know, these justices weren't around for Dred Scott). SCOTUS can really screw things up and send the country in the wrong direction.
posted by fgdmorr at 6:45 PM on January 16, 2015 [2 favorites]


If something is unconstitutional Federally, wouldn't that automatically make it unconstitutional on a State level, too?
Nope, because there are two different constitutions at play: the Federal one and the state one. In the event that they come into conflict, the Federal one trumps. But it is very, very, very unlikely that the Supreme Court is going to rule that the US Constitution says that there can't be same-sex marriage. The only question is whether they're going to say that the Federal Constitution guarantees marriage equality or whether it's up to the states. And if it's up to the states, then the state supreme courts get to interpret the state constitutions. And the Iowa Supreme Court said that according to the Iowa state constitution, you can't discriminate between same-sex and mixed-sex couples. Similarly, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in 1868 that school segregation was unconstitutional according to the state constitution, and that stood even after Plessy vs. Ferguson upheld segregation under the federal constitution.

At least, I think that's how it works. Like I said: not a lawyer.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:47 PM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]


That doesn't however guarantee the state won't just continue doing what it wants until the federal government steps in with either a big carrot or a big stick.

For those of you playing our home game see Worcester v Georgia.
posted by Talez at 6:50 PM on January 16, 2015


ArbitraryandCapricious: my understanding is that the SC is looking at the question as to whether 1.) the U.S. Constitution guarantees a right to SSM, and 2.) whether states have to recognize SSM performed out-of-state. Depending on the answers to these questions, yeah, supremacy clause would come into play, I think.

I could be wrong, of course. Heart is in my throat. I expect this to go right, but it could still go wrong.
posted by Navelgazer at 6:55 PM on January 16, 2015


ArbitraryAndCapricious: "And if it's up to the states, then the state supreme courts get to interpret the state constitutions."

And, of course, the real pain there is that some states have incorporated discriminatory language into their constitutions by virtue of a popular vote.
posted by fireoyster at 6:58 PM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]


We're going to waste a lot of taxpayer money and effort coming to an obvious conclusion from an obvious set of premises and we have to go through this stupid waste of taxpayer money because of one reason and one reason only :

Conservatives hate freedom.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 7:09 PM on January 16, 2015 [24 favorites]


I'm very nervous about this. Right now the tide of change is clearly in favor of marriage equality; a year or two more waiting would be slow, but only make the case stronger. I worry that the Supreme Court may decide against gay marriage. It's a very dismaying prospect.

How does the choice of what cases to hear work, anyway? Do the justices vote privately on whether to take a case? Is there any idea that on something this well defined the justices' opinions might be swayed by what's presented in the court?
posted by Nelson at 7:10 PM on January 16, 2015


probably just to rebuke the sixth circuit

IAAL, but IANYL. I wonder if we shouldn't thank the 6th Circuit for their decision -- as regressive as it is. The SC often hangs back until there's a circuit split (i.e., different courts going different ways). So if we slogged through state-by-state and everybody allowed SSM, it might never have gotten to the SC. (And Certain People of the Republican Persuasion would hold out hope that a future SC would overturn all the appellate courts.)
This way, although there's a fair chance the SC will do something minimalist or even craptacular, at least there's a chance for things to come out better, once and for all, and at a level that doesn't admit dicking around in particular states or regions of the country.
posted by spacewrench at 7:13 PM on January 16, 2015


Any lawyers want to weigh in on the (apparently increasing?) use of freedom of eligion laws being enacted by various states as a way to give state employees an out on doing their jobs if someone icky needs them to perform a state service (like, say, filing marriage paperwork)?
posted by rtha at 7:14 PM on January 16, 2015 [2 favorites]


use of freedom of [r]eligion laws

I don't like it, but I'm not sure there's enough oomph behind it to make it go away. Frankly, I think we're done for, and I don't believe courts can (or particularly even care about) ensuring that justice is done and the weak are protected. Certainly, many judges have their pet causes, but you need a more reliable foundation to ensure justice than just this judge being tough on drugs, and that one being tough on free speech. (And where, tell me, are the judges who are tough on official corruption? Yes, I know, you need a prosecutor who's tough on corruption to get cases in front of a judge, so the judge can be tough on corruption. Well, where are the prosecutors, then?)
posted by spacewrench at 7:22 PM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]


I eager to see what Clarence Thomas' argument will be.
posted by Renoroc at 7:29 PM on January 16, 2015


Preview of J. Thomas's argument:

"Concurring with J. Scalia in part, concurring with JJ. Roberts, in part."
posted by Navelgazer at 7:37 PM on January 16, 2015 [21 favorites]


ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease

I'm with you, mah brothah! I want to see all citizens recognized as equal. It's long past due.
posted by MissySedai at 7:39 PM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]


I eager to see what Clarence Thomas' argument will be.

"But gays are icky."
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:47 PM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]


With respect to the state court rulings, the important thing to remember is that the Supreme Court absolutely will not say that states cannot recognize same sex marriages. The worst they can do is to hold that the U.S. Constitution does not require such recognition. Any state that has marriage equality for any reason other than a court ruling that says "the U.S. constitution requires it" will be unaffected.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 7:48 PM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]


if corps can be people then surely gay folks are too, right Clarence?
posted by Fupped Duck at 7:59 PM on January 16, 2015 [5 favorites]


The worst they can do is to hold that the U.S. Constitution does not require such recognition. Any state that has marriage equality for any reason other than a court ruling that says "the U.S. constitution requires it" will be unaffected.

But that's a pretty small number of states, isn't it? It would leave SSM intact in states that had adopted it legislatively (the green and orange states in this map) and states where a pro-SSM court decision was based on the state constitution (not sure if there are any of these?) That would roll it back from 36 states to just, what, 11?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:01 PM on January 16, 2015


The Court can't stop or curtail equality of marriage. That ship has sailed. In a few more years, this wouldn't have been an issue. So why hear these cases now?
posted by Ik ben afgesneden at 8:16 PM on January 16, 2015


Ik ben afgesneden: "The Court can't stop or curtail equality of marriage. That ship has sailed. In a few more years, this wouldn't have been an issue. So why hear these cases now?"

Because until now, there hasn't been a circuit split. The Sixth Circuit upheld the bans overturned by the lower courts, conflicting with all of the other circuits that held the SSM bans unconstitutional.
posted by Dr. Zira at 8:19 PM on January 16, 2015 [3 favorites]


states where a pro-SSM court decision was based on the state constitution (not sure if there are any of these?)

Iowa's court decided this issue based on Iowa law. So that's at least one.
posted by the christopher hundreds at 8:20 PM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]


And hey, don't forget that you guys have come real far, real fast given the hurdles marriage equality has had to clear in terms of legislated bans in many states.

As a Canadian observer, if you had told me that this would happen this fast for you folks, I would have said you were dreaming.

Up here, it was a case of a crack in the dam opening the whole thing up to a flood. It happened way faster than anyone here imagined it would after that first ruling and...boom.

We got married this summer because, after 16 years together, we thought it was time, despite it being legal for us to do for more than a decade. I'm still getting used to being a dude using the term "husband" to describe the guy I've spent the last 16 years of my life with. But it feels awesome.

The interesting thing was that it blew the doors of the last little vestiges of homophobia in our respective families. It was like taking a power washer to the grotty little corners of a garage or something. People who may have been a little "meh" were forced to come along for the ride. And they were happy to, in the end.

It's been a long fight. Good luck. Git 'er done.

Buy Clarence a Coke with a little garnish on the can when it's over so he can drown his sorrows.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 8:24 PM on January 16, 2015 [31 favorites]


How does the choice of what cases to hear work, anyway? Do the justices vote privately on whether to take a case?

Pretty much. It takes 4 votes to hear a case.
posted by Garm at 8:39 PM on January 16, 2015


Oh to have seen Thomas and Scalia wailing and gnashing their teeth at that vote
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:41 PM on January 16, 2015


would that be SCOTUSfreude
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:44 PM on January 16, 2015 [7 favorites]


This is unquestionably good news. The verdict will officially count nonheterosexual couplings as marriages. There is no other reading that is not completely paranoid.

Yay!

The only issue is how much more being gay is treated as officially normal.

And if you can get married, how much else can't you do or be because of hate?

We are going to find out, I think.
posted by mississippi at 9:07 PM on January 16, 2015 [1 favorite]


ArbitraryAndCapricious: "The chatter that I'm hearing on twitter is that the expectation is that they'll rule in favor of gay marriage on the same day that they eviscerate Obamacare, thereby making all forward-thinking Americans' heads explode."

This is what's really giving me nausea. As fantastic as nationwide marriage equality would be, we're already 75% of the way there both by population and by number of states. A SCOTUS ruling for the few remaining holdouts would be a relatively small victory compared to the tidal wave of progress enjoyed over the last 5-10 years. They're only slightly speeding up the inevitable.

But gutting the ACA would be crippling, on the same scale as Citizens United or the VRA ruling. Health care reform was bitterly struggled for over the course of a century, and only achieved -- barely -- on the backs of one of the largest liberal caucuses in congressional history, led by a uniquely charismatic and popular president and one of the most effective House speakers ever. And even that required significant compromise and complex senatorial wrangling. Still, it's a legislative landmark and a crucial foot in the door for future reform.

If the Court guts it, it will not only be snatching away an incredibly hard-fought and historic victory. It will be shattering Obama's domestic legacy. Wrecking a system that's working to protect millions of vulnerable people. And giving the right all the rope they need to hang the idea of ever attempting any government program of this scale and ambition ever again. Most people won't care how SCOTUS shredded the ACA, or why. They'll just be bombarded with "unconstitutional" and "death spiral" and "economic collapse" and "failed presidency," as well as skyrocketing premiums or the loss of coverage altogether, right as the vicious 2016 cycle is starting to gear up. It would be disastrous.
posted by Rhaomi at 9:22 PM on January 16, 2015 [14 favorites]


use of freedom of eligion laws being enacted by various states as a way to give state employees an out

I don't know enough, sorry. One of my earlier posts to MeFi was about that exact issue getting shot down here in Canada, but the legal minutiae make it tricky. My hunch is that if the right framing was brought to the SCOTUS, you could get a ruling that a State, even if they are allowed to exempt state employees from performing all required duties of their job on religious grounds, has to then make it feasible for an individual to get the benefits at the same cost. So it's fine if in a major centre some people take advantage of this, as long as there's always some staff who will. In a rural area where there aren't a bunch of staff, they'd have to specifically address it by like having on-call non-bigots or something.

I don't actually like that, but I think it has a decent chance. Not great? *shrugs*
posted by Lemurrhea at 9:28 PM on January 16, 2015


One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet anywhere, from SCOTUSblog:
The Kentucky case (Bourke v. Beshear) raises both of the issues that the Court will be deciding, the Michigan case (DeBoer v. Snyder) deals only with marriage, and the Ohio (Obergefell v. Hodges) and Tennessee cases (Tanco v. Haslam) deal only with the recognition question. If customary practice is followed, the first case listed in the order — the Ohio case Obergefell v. Hodges — will become the historic title for the final ruling.
Interesting how it's the one option that won't immortalize a prominent conservative governor in infamy (Rick Hodges is Gov. Kasich's pick to head the Ohio Department of Health). It doesn't have the same ring to it as Perry v. Schwarzenegger, but at least it'll be marginally easier for future high school students to spell (speaking of which).

Also, read up on the particulars of the Obergefell case -- it's heartbreaking:
James Obergefell and John Arthur, lived in a loving and committed relationship for 22 years until John's death on October 22, 2013. In 2011, John was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), a condition for which there is no cure and Jim cared for him at every stage of his illness.

After the United States Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in Windsor, James and John decided to marry. At the time, John was confined to his bed and the couple knew that they did not have much time left. John's physical condition made it difficult to travel to a state where they would have the freedom to marry but with the support of family and friends, on July 11, 2013, the couple boarded a medically equipped plane and traveled to Maryland. Because of John's fragile health, they could not leave the plane and were married inside the plane on the tarmac. When they returned to Ohio, they learned that Jim would not be listed on John's death certificate as his surviving spouse when he died because Ohio did not recognize their marriage for any purpose.

On July 22, 2013, the District Court entered a temporary restraining order enjoining the enforcement of the State's marriage recognition bans as applied to the eventual issuance of John's death certificate. In accordance with that Order, after John died in October, his death certificate reflected that he was married and that James is his surviving spouse.

But the State of Ohio has appealed that ruling and the case is now pending before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. If the Court overturns the District Court's order, the State will amend John's death certificate to remove the reference to the couple's marriage and the name of James as John's surviving spouse. James seeks to make permanent the recognition of his marriage to John.
posted by Rhaomi at 12:02 AM on January 17, 2015 [15 favorites]


jesus hell Rhaomi, why did you start chopping onions all up in here?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:08 AM on January 17, 2015


actually okay fuck that ironic distance shit. That is fucking tragedy. People who love each other and The State is invested in denying that? Just do go fuck off you conservative fucktrucks. LOVE MATTERS and LOVE IS LOVE IS LOVE. That is a conservative value, preserving the family unit, and what is the family unit if not a grouping of people linked by love and duty?

Seriously you emotionally stunted shitlords, what the actual fuck is wrong with you? Me wanting to marry my putative boyfriend is bolstering your notions of stability. It's not fighting them. Love is love is love is fucking love. End of discussion. More people loving each other doesn't diminish your love. Why are you a teenager who only thinks something is good if you're the only person who likes it?

I'm about to degrade into mashing the keyboard with my face but fundamentally I do not understand you people. If my joy diminishes yours you need to re-examine what the fuck is wrong with your life. Requiring the pain of others to be satisfied on a day to day basis is so sad, on so many levels.

Stop making me and my brothers and sisters have to suffer to make you feel good. It's so childish.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:16 AM on January 17, 2015 [24 favorites]


Here is my understanding of some of the questions that have been raised here:

1) Could the Supreme Court actually roll things back from where they are now?

Yes. Their decision will not affect any state that instituted same sex marriage on its own, whether through popular vote, state legislation, or state court decision based on that state's own constitution. However, it could potentially affect any state that has instituted same sex marriage solely as a result of a federal court decision based on the U.S. Constitution -- which is currently about 16 of the 36 states that allow same-sex marriage.

2) Is it likely to?

No. At this point, a decision of that nature would retroactively un-marry on order of tens of thousands of people. While this is not without precedent (there was a period when many people legally married in California got un-married), it's hard to believe that this particular court would do so.

3) Are there screwed-up decisions the Court could make without rolling things back?

Sure. The Court can decide pretty much whatever. They could make some kind of weird narrow ruling, like, states can ban same-sex marriage, but only if no legal same-sex marriage has ever taken place in that state already. And they might or might not add that states must recognize marriages performed in other states -- potentially creating a situation where same-sex couples have to travel to a different location to be recognized as legally married at home. That's a situation that, weird as it is, is again not without some historic precedent (for example, in Britain in the 19th century, Scotland had different marriage laws from England but Scottish marriages were legal throughout Great Britain; young couples in England who wanted to be married without parental consent had to elope to Scotland.)

4) Are they likely to do something like that?

Fingers crossed, but ... probably not. All the signals coming from the Supreme Court for the last year have looked pretty good for the prospects of same-sex marriage. For example, they haven't been staying federal court decisions, as they might have if they were leaning towards keeping the country split.

Honestly, right now, the prospects are looking pretty decent for love and justice.
posted by kyrademon at 2:31 AM on January 17, 2015 [2 favorites]


The amazing thing is that this is about to be over. This discussion is about to be antique.

THIS IS WONDERFUL.

The whole emerging discussion is about non-marriage rights. Can a single gay person adopt a child in fucking Florida? Stay tuned.
posted by mississippi at 2:33 AM on January 17, 2015 [2 favorites]


Last night on Wheel of Fortune, Pat Sajack asked the middle-aged male contestant who was in the audience with him. The guy said "My husband."

The camera showed the husband.

Hell, if Wheel of Fortune is OK with gay marriage, how can the SC go any other way?
posted by yesster at 4:36 AM on January 17, 2015 [17 favorites]


I eager to see what Clarence Thomas' argument will be.

We know what that will be, just as we know what the 4 liberal justices will write. The only thing we don't know for certain is what Justice Kennedy will write. Odds are good he'll vote for gay marriage, but it's not clear what reasoning gets him there.
posted by jpe at 5:11 AM on January 17, 2015 [1 favorite]


I think Kyrademon describes the legal issues correctly, but I'm a little more concerned that the SC will try to split hairs and issue a decision that sets us backwards. Unfortunately, as with so many decisions in the modern era, it comes down to Kennedy. While he's been pretty good on gay rights issues, I think he also has an unfortunate tendency of trying to forge "compromise" positions that don't really work. And I think he buys too much into states rights arguments. I could see the court deciding that banning SSM does not violate the 14th Amendment so long as the state makes all of the privileges of marriage available to same sex couples, say, in the form of civil unions. This would have the effect of abrogating any decisions finding that SSM is required by the 14th Amendment (unless they had some other additional ground like the state's constitution), so some states could reinstate their SSM bans.

Definitely hope I'm wrong but I think it's a little too soon for a victory dance. Let's keep organizing.
posted by burden at 5:18 AM on January 17, 2015 [1 favorite]


I've always found it interesting that Clarence Thomas opposes SSM so vehemently --- after all, if I recall correctly he, a black man, is married to a white woman, and it's not all that long ago that his own marriage was illegal.

And for cryin' out loud, Thomas' reasoning is basically the same as those who fought against the SCOTUS case (Loving vs. Virginia) that permitted him to marry that white wife: it's 'unnatural', it's 'against the laws of God', etc. etc. ad nauseam. How can he justify the dichotomy to himself?
posted by easily confused at 5:20 AM on January 17, 2015 [4 favorites]


...after all, if I recall correctly he, a black man, is married to a white woman, and it's not all that long ago that his own marriage was illegal.

You'd be appalled at how brightly-drawn that line is between "civil rights" and gay rights on the part of many conservative African Americans.

I'm sure I've related this tale in an earlier post...
Quite a few years ago, I was watching Tavis Smiley's show on my local PBS station. Tavis had as his guests, a group of African American ministers who had been a part of the civil rights movement back in the 60's. They happily told stories (and patted each other's back) of how they stood with Martin, etc. etc.

Then, Tavis asked them about gay rights. The change in their attitudes was abrupt and disappointing. Basically, they declared (in so many weasel words) that in no way were the two even similar or related. It was a pretty blatant display of "Got mine, fuck you." That they were all "men of the cloth" made it especially galling.

So, no, it doesn't surprise me that Thomas can make (and justify) the distinction in his head.

On the other hand, if he truly wanted his name to be remembered for posterity (for anything other than being an ultra-conservative road-block), he could be the swing vote for gay marriage. That would assure his name being forever linked (and spoken of) with one of the more important SCOTUS rulings ever. It'll never happen, of course.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:33 AM on January 17, 2015 [7 favorites]


Interesting how it's the one option that won't immortalize a prominent conservative governor in infamy

Beshear is a Democratic governor, and quite a good one at that, given the Appalachian clusterfuck that is the Kentucky legislature. He made Kentucky's rollout of the ACA the best in the country, and it was his signature legislative effort for his second term.

He wasn't on the right side of history when it came to gay marriage in Kentucky though; when the AG refused to appeal the court decision overturning the state's ban, he hired private lawyers. I get that he saw the matter as just needing to proceed through the courts, but it was still disheartening.

Anyway. That's Kentucky.
posted by none of these will bring disaster at 5:41 AM on January 17, 2015 [3 favorites]


While he's been pretty good on gay rights issues, I think he also has an unfortunate tendency of trying to forge "compromise" positions that don't really work. And I think he buys too much into states rights arguments. I could see the court deciding that banning SSM does not violate the 14th Amendment so long as the state makes all of the privileges of marriage available to same sex couples, say, in the form of civil unions. This would have the effect of abrogating any decisions finding that SSM is required by the 14th Amendment (unless they had some other additional ground like the state's constitution), so some states could reinstate their SSM bans.
The problem with this, at least according to a little thing on the Atlantic website, is that in Windsor he specifically says that the government can't refuse to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples, because doing so humiliates them and their children. He recognizes that this isn't just about concrete privileges: it's also about the dignity that the state bestows upon you when they recognize that your marriage is equal to anyone else's and that the state denies to you when they say that it isn't. I'm not going to pretend to know how this is going to go, but Justice Kennedy really does seem to understand why that compromise doesn't work and that equality isn't just about taxes and hospital visitation rights.

And here's where I try really hard not to go off on a rant about how it would be awesome if he were equally attuned to the way that his ideas about women's reproductive freedom humiliate us and deprive us of dignity, but I'll save that for a more-appropriate thread.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:49 AM on January 17, 2015 [3 favorites]


I was just wondering--why push so hard for this to go to the Court? Do conservatives think they can win? Or is there some clever strategist who realizes that fighting this on the ground state by state is HORRIBLE for the Republican brand and the best course is to force the SC to force all states to accept SSM so they can take up a beleaguered underdog position with the base but stop having to turn off moderates by acting bigoted in public? But nah, I doubt they're that smart.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:06 AM on January 17, 2015 [2 favorites]


Part of me thinks that the smart conservatives would like for this to no longer be an issue come primary time next winter.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:09 AM on January 17, 2015 [6 favorites]


I don't find the point made in the Atlantic article completely convincing. While the Windsor decision does include the statement that DOMA "humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples" and "makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives," it is also very heavy on the point that marriage is a matter for states to regulate, not the federal government.

The decision is here, and isn't too terribly long - really only parts III and IV are of interest here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-307
posted by burden at 6:16 AM on January 17, 2015 [1 favorite]


I suppose it's petty of me to feel that, after the profound, abiding shame I have experienced over living in one of the most backward states, it would be sublimely schadenfreudelicious if all the raging creeps who enshrined gross bigotry in the Michigan constitution get to live the rest of their lives knowing that they were unintentionally instrumental in extending marriage equality to the whole nation.

I sure hope it turns out that way, but a SCOTUS capable of deciding that a legal fiction can have actual religious beliefs is such a loose cannon that I don't plan on tempting fate by presuming blithely that they'll do the decent and logical thing here.
posted by FelliniBlank at 6:47 AM on January 17, 2015


...why push so hard for this to go to the Court? Do conservatives think they can win?

If SCOTUS swings to the conservative side, it's a huge win that the right can ride like a wave into 2016. Conversely, SCOTUS siding with gay marriage gives the right a plank and screaming-point with which to run on into 2016. That whole, LIBERAL COURT OUT OF CONTROL DESTROYING AMERICA!!!!! thing. It's a weaker plank, but will nonetheless energize the base, and give Fox News and talk radio plenty of fodder.
posted by Thorzdad at 6:48 AM on January 17, 2015


I don't find the point made in the Atlantic article completely convincing.

What point are they making? Marriage being for the States to regulate has no bearing on a constitutional argument under either equal protection or due process. (Most of) The same arguments used against the Feds in Windsor can be used against the States.
posted by Lemurrhea at 6:57 AM on January 17, 2015


(I know, these justices weren't around for Dred Scott)

Your mistake is understandable, but still a mistake. The entity currently known as Associate Justice Antonin Scalia does not die. It only slumbers, sometimes for centuries, before rising again.

Ahem, seriously though; I share the guarded optimism (blended with expectation of disappointment) which has characterised the centrist/moderate reaction to the decision to hear these cases. Best wishes to the United States in its ongoing effort to modernise.
posted by The Zeroth Law at 7:07 AM on January 17, 2015


Sure. The Court can decide pretty much whatever. They could make some kind of weird narrow ruling, like, states can ban same-sex marriage, but only if no legal same-sex marriage has ever taken place in that state already.

The slimy compromise I worry about is ruling that SSM bans are unconstitutional (or maybe that they don't specifically violate the 14th Amendment but don't pass a rational purpose test), but that overturning the bans merely returns the state to the status quo ante rather than actively creating SSM.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:15 AM on January 17, 2015


Then, Tavis asked them about gay rights. The change in their attitudes was abrupt and disappointing. Basically, they declared (in so many weasel words) that in no way were the two even similar or related. It was a pretty blatant display of "Got mine, fuck you." That they were all "men of the cloth" made it especially galling.

This is a pretty blatant example of not taking the other side at their word. Rather than assuming a one-sided "Us, and then the forces of unenlightened self-interest", you might want to consider that they really believed, right or wrong, that gay marriage was not in fact similar in any way (as they apparently stated), and that it was the very fact that they were men of the cloth that assisted them in arriving in this conclusion.

Sometimes people actually believe what they say, even if that belief is incompatible with yours.
posted by Palindromedary at 8:07 AM on January 17, 2015 [3 favorites]


It's not the sincerity of people like those preachers on the Tavis Smiley show Thorzdad and Palindromedary refer to that I mistrust: it's their conclusions. I mean, these were people who fought for equal rights, on the basis that treating one person differently from another person is unjustifiable, and yet here they were vociferously arguing just that: that, merely because of someone's sexual preference, they should be denied the same rights & responsibilities.

Or anecdata: my own father. I asked him, back in 2004, what he thought of SSM. He and my mother were married 53 years; they were, as you can imagine, solid believers in the institute of marriage and the sanctity of their wedding vows (as in, you made a promise to this person: so keep that promise). They also understood that, yes, divorce was sometimes the best choice, although it certainly wasn't for them. They also firmly believed, and made sure to teach us their kids, that all human beings are equal in all things, irregardless of race/creed/color/national origin/sexual preference/anything else. To them, 'equal' meant exactly that, equal in the eyes of God and under man's laws.

ANYhow, when I asked Dad what he thought about SSM, I had to back off quickly, because he started in about how SSM "degraded" his own marriage to my mother..... but I've never understood how, for cryin' out loud. Let me get this right: a gay or lesbian couple looks at your 53-year-long marriage, and somehow its an insult that they think it's so great that they want that too?!? That that gay or lesbian couple wants to grow old together just the way a straight couple did?!?
posted by easily confused at 8:44 AM on January 17, 2015 [3 favorites]


It's not the sincerity of people like those preachers on the Tavis Smiley show Thorzdad and Palindromedary refer to that I mistrust: it's their conclusions.

Sure, and that's a perfectly just and normal reaction to have. I just get irked when people start caricaturing the other side of such an important debate, as it inevitably leads to a lot of self-satisfied smugness but little in the way of actual progress in understanding and thus defeating those viewpoints. It's extremely difficult in a war of words to defeat a viewpoint that you do not really understand, or want to understand.

let me get this right: a gay or lesbian couple looks at your 53-year-long marriage, and somehow its an insult that they think it's so great that they want that too?!?

I think your dad is unlikely to view it as an insult, since that involves bringing in the view of the other side here (gay and lesbian couples, and what they want or respect), something the other party (your dad, in this case) tends not to do. I imagine he feels it's simply wrong, and by tying something wrong to something he views as right, you cheapen or corrupt what he has.
posted by Palindromedary at 9:02 AM on January 17, 2015 [2 favorites]


(The Mississippi River starts in Minnesota: Equal Marriage State #12)

'Cause that's how we do Minnesota nice, y'all.
posted by jonp72 at 9:33 AM on January 17, 2015 [2 favorites]


I think Kyrademon describes the legal issues correctly, but I'm a little more concerned that the SC will try to split hairs and issue a decision that sets us backwards. Unfortunately, as with so many decisions in the modern era, it comes down to Kennedy. While he's been pretty good on gay rights issues, I think he also has an unfortunate tendency of trying to forge "compromise" positions that don't really work.

That's what gets me. It's so absurd that major constitutional questions are effectively decided by the whims of Anthony Kennedy. It's like he was Paul Lynde on the Hollywood Squares and the power of being the "secret square" went to his head.
posted by jonp72 at 9:42 AM on January 17, 2015 [1 favorite]


can Ginsberg do a mic drop

I look forward to Ginsburg's opinion being put into ♫ song ♫.
posted by homunculus at 9:56 AM on January 17, 2015


I just get irked when people start caricaturing the other side of such an important debate

Nah. I don't need to understand or respect or pay any fucking attention to the shitbags who think I am less of a person.

They just need to get out of my way. That's it.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:21 PM on January 17, 2015 [3 favorites]


I share Palindromedary's belief in the usefulness of understanding opposing views. However.

you might want to consider that they really believed, right or wrong, that gay marriage was not in fact similar in any way

I've spent many years trying to understand the why of anti-gay attitudes in the US. In the 80s it was "fags are gross" or "homosexuals are against God" or "queers are diseased". In the 90s there was this big thing about "no special rights for homosexuals" (whatever those would be). In the 00s it was "gay marriage threatens the family" as well as "why won't they just shut up?"

I think anti-gay people really believed those things. It's just that none of those beliefs are rational beliefs. There's no value in trying to argue with them, or convince them. The only thing that's worked is to wait for the worst of the bad attitudes to die (Jesse Helms; dead 6.5 years now!) and for the more ordinary folks to slowly, casually get comfortable with the idea that people like me aren't so different, aren't so bad, maybe even deserve equality. It's worked, but it's taken a long time.

This isn't some debate about an intellectual matter, like whether it's better to set taxes high and have the government provide services or set taxes low and have individuals provide for themselves. There's no room for a Piketty to do a decade of research and illuminate the debate with newly interpreted data and insight. For gay rights there's just centuries of bigotry on one side and human decency and civil rights on the other. I'm very happy and a little surprised how fast the pendulum has swung on the side of good. I'm scared it will go back again, or maybe get plucked mid-swing by some crazy Supreme Court "compromise".

I'm not going to accept three-fifths of a marriage as sufficient.
posted by Nelson at 2:46 PM on January 17, 2015 [5 favorites]


Nah. I don't need to understand or respect or pay any fucking attention to the shitbags who think I am less of a person.

They just need to get out of my way. That's it.


Do you want to win, or do you want to feel the powerful self-satisfaction of the righteous?

For every committed racist or hopeless biblical/koranic literalist who is impossible to sway, there are X others who just grew up with those ideas in a social/cultural context instead of actively adopting them, and aren't anywhere near as committed to those ideas as they might first appear. You see it when people, told all their lives that blacks/irish/polish are lazy and shiftless or the gays are all out to convert little boys, are actually forced to interact with those groups in an everyday context. Some have their feelings reinforced, but some learn that what they were told is the enemy are actually individual human beings, and ideas begin to change.

Ask yourself just how it is that so much progress has been made in the name of social justice these past fifty years. Yes, minds change one grave at a time, but just as significant, I would argue are those who did a lot of hard work in taking the time to change the attitudes of others, so that values didn't just mindlessly percolate down from one generation to the next. Ultimately these elements of change are on the correct side of history, and so will likely win anyways. But just giving a giant middle finger to everyone that doesn't immediately come down on the right side only polarizes things, and abandons potential allies in the name of having to avoid all that awkward consideration of what opponents might actually believe and annoying work towards salvaging those who can be salvaged.

So you can delude yourself by arguing that your opponents are absurd boogeyman, only fighting for self-interest or cartoonish evil, but I often wonder how people can do this and not understand that that's exactly what the other side is doing in return. And then each wonders why the other doesn't see the obvious truth of what they represent. The truth isn't in the middle, but that in no way suggests a stance powered by ignorance and misattribution of what's on the other side of the scales. Snide contempt never changed a single mind.
posted by Palindromedary at 2:50 PM on January 17, 2015


So you can delude yourself by arguing that your opponents are absurd boogeyman, only fighting for self-interest or cartoonish evil, but I often wonder how people can do this and not understand that that's exactly what the other side is doing in return.
This kind of thing is irritating. Homophobes hate gay people for existing. FFFM hates homophobes for wanting to deny him dignity, equality, and basic human rights. Those two things are not equivalent. Oppressing people is not in any way the same as being angry at people for oppressing you.

Anyway, whatever marriage-equality advocates are doing is clearly working, so I don't think your smug lecture is required here.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:00 PM on January 17, 2015 [12 favorites]


I can guarantee that a giant FUCK YOU from a gay dude (in Canada, even!) is not going to make any damn difference, if that makes you feel better. Not everyone is required to be a saint of patience when it comes to making this kind of change (and thank dog for that); not everyone defines "patience" the same way, either - it's a sure thing that the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (by legislative action, not Activist Judges, mind) engendered incandescent rage from more than a few, in the same way that gun-carrying Black Panthers did a few years later.

Some people are going to hate me, and fffm, no matter how polite we are, how nice we dress, blahblahblah, foreverneveramen, so I feel no need at all to be patient about them. Them, they can get the fuck out of my way or get run over.
posted by rtha at 3:05 PM on January 17, 2015 [4 favorites]


Just once I'd like to see an advocate of the "don't say anything mean about bigots to make faster progress" approach cite a single study showing that this is actually more effective than a more confrontational one. Every single time I've seen this argument it's based on nothing more than motivated reasoning and unverifiable anecdotes. If you're going to tell a person who's being oppressed to be nicer, the very least you could do is show that this approach will actually work.
posted by burden at 3:11 PM on January 17, 2015 [4 favorites]


So you can delude yourself by arguing that your opponents are absurd boogeyman, only fighting for self-interest or cartoonish evil, but I often wonder how people can do this and not understand that that's exactly what the other side is doing in return.

It's not a delusion, that is exactly what they are fighting for, and how dare you make a comparison between my side and the regressive dinosaurs?

My side: WE ARE PEOPLE TOO
Them: NOPE.

These are not even remotely equivalent. Don't you dare lecture queer people on how nice we should be to people who try to kill us, beat us, deny our love and our humanity, split our families... I mean seriously, just don't. Smug little homilies about how me telling them to fuck off is exactly what they're doing are just breathtakingly arrogant and insensitive.

Giving these shitbags respect and understanding is saying that their ideas have merit, that there is a discussion to be had.

There is no discussion to be had. They're wrong, I'm right, and as rtha said: get the fuck out of the way or get squished. That's it.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:13 PM on January 17, 2015 [2 favorites]


I just get irked when people start caricaturing the other side of such an important debate

Actually, I should have just said this: THERE IS NO DEBATE. Calling human rights a debate is 'teaching the controversy.' It's horseshit designed to move the Overton window to the right.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:14 PM on January 17, 2015 [2 favorites]


MetaFilter: do you want to feel the powerful self-satisfaction of the righteous?
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 3:16 PM on January 17, 2015 [2 favorites]




We went through a huge period of gay activism here in the US in the late 80s/early 90s, mostly about HIV/AIDs, activism that involved people lying down in the middle of the street, chaining themselves to the front doors of the FDA, blocking the Golden Gate Bridge, disrupting Catholic services in NY cathedrals, throwing their dead lovers' ashes over the White House fence.... and we're here with an increasing number of states and people going "Yeah, so...gay people. Big whoop. They're people and citizens and whatever and my neighbor's gay kid throws excellent barbecues so can we get on with working on actual issues?"

In other words: Several decades of Hardly Ever Being Polite have gotten us here. Let's not fix what ain't broke.
posted by rtha at 3:25 PM on January 17, 2015 [10 favorites]


rtha I feel like this has to be repeated

We're here
We're queer
Get used to it

posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:32 PM on January 17, 2015 [4 favorites]


Actually, I should have just said this: THERE IS NO DEBATE. Calling human rights a debate is 'teaching the controversy.' It's horseshit designed to move the Overton window to the right.

Whether you like it or not, there is a debate. There's another side out there, arguing against you. Yes, yes: there shouldn't be, and only one side is right, but there it is. Calling the recognition of this fact "an attempt to move the Overton window to the right" is just doing literally what I was arguing against. Who thinks, "hmmm, yes, time to continue my efforts to shift the Overton Window"? There's only individuals, fighting against what you have to say for a variety of reasons, few of which involve some poli-sci theory about Windows.

My side: WE ARE PEOPLE TOO
Them: NOPE.


Something more accurate would be:

Them: I don't like gays; gays are subhuman; that's kind of weird; they should all be killed; I used to think they were awful but then I met a few; can't say I really think about it much but I don't like change; my religious leader tells me X so I Y; I have ideas of marriage based on bad history lessons and shitty op-eds and that informs how I vote; I fear gays but would never admit it; etc etc...

Some of Them you can reach, and some of Them you can't and you'll have to wait for them to die. I don't see what pretending they're all Falwells and Robertsons is going to get you other than a pleasant feeling of being right. I've changed people's minds on this. I've seen others change others' minds on this. There's no reason attempting to reach your opponents can't be mixed with active campaigning and protests and just living a normal public life as what you identify as: the choice is not some false equivalency between milquetoast dialogue with the forces of Evil and Actually Getting Shit Done.

I argued only for not ascribing false motives to the other side, because it's counterproductive. That instead people are implying that I was arguing for attacked groups needing to be only quiet, or only polite, or some other things that are being levelled against me here would be comical if it didn't help demonstrate what I was arguing in the first place. How does literally making false statements about what your opponents believe--whether out of ignorance, or impatience, or whatever reason--help anything? Who does it reach, and what does it accomplish?
posted by Palindromedary at 3:50 PM on January 17, 2015


I don't think fffm was accusing you personally of intending to move the Overton window to the right. I read him as saying that presenting LGBT rights as controversial and worthy of debate does effectively move the window, and that there really are political groups opposing LGBT rights who push this meme in order to do so.
posted by en forme de poire at 3:57 PM on January 17, 2015 [3 favorites]


I don't understand you, Palindromedary. There are people here, right here, who have been Actually Getting Shit Done with regards to gay rights for decades. They've been remarkably successful. They've been mindblowingly successful, really. The pace of change has been truly incredible. Why do you think they need you to educate them on how to be successful? What are your qualifications to lecture people on how to get shit done?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:58 PM on January 17, 2015 [2 favorites]


I do hope you're out on some other message boards saying exactly that to people who declare that gays only want to rape children and destroy the family. That's all I ask.
posted by rtha at 3:58 PM on January 17, 2015 [1 favorite]


(That was to Palindromedary, btw.)
posted by rtha at 3:59 PM on January 17, 2015


No, see what you're missing is that it's not about pretending they're all Falwells and Robertsons.

Let me show you exactly how many fucks I give as to what their reasons are:


The fact of their beliefs, not the reasons for them, is what makes them caricatures of themselves. Their beliefs are wrong. Engaging in a debate tells them that there is a reasonable basis for their beliefs. There isn't.

Whether you like it or not, there is a debate. There's another side out there, arguing against you. Yes, yes: there shouldn't be, and only one side is right, but there it is

No. They think there's a debate. I am about as disinclined to indulge them in conversation as I was disinclined to listen to my niece's well-reasoned arguments as to why it wasn't bedtime yet when she was five, and for approximately the same reason.

How does literally making false statements about what your opponents believe--whether out of ignorance, or impatience, or whatever reason--help anything? Who does it reach, and what does it accomplish?

I am making no false statements about what they believe. They hate me and people like me. At that point, my interest in their motivation ends. They are wrong, and your insistence on telling queer people how to behave is really getting really old really fast.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:02 PM on January 17, 2015 [3 favorites]


I mean, I think certainly, understanding where people are getting these cultural biases about queer people is useful, but one also has to acknowledge that it doesn't all just ultimately boil back down to understanding other people's innocent misconceptions. There are actually powerful political groups in the USA who have done a really excellent job in entangling and slowing down the progress of gay rights (see, for example, Prop 8). And they absolutely do use "poli-sci theories" to accomplish their goals, because they are experienced and trained activists and because these methods can be very effective (again, see Prop 8).
posted by en forme de poire at 4:12 PM on January 17, 2015 [1 favorite]


I mean I suppose all those badass dykes and drag queens should have asked for a nice dialogue at Stonewall.

You realize that is exactly what you are saying? And it's betraying a serious lack of knowledge about the history of queer rights in North America to be promulgating this 'just have a nice conversation' nonsense, because that's not actually what has moved opinion. Being around queer people has, and being around queer people has come about because a whole lot of queer people shoved their beglittered cocks and leather-harnessed tits into the faces of the people trying to keep us down and said "No, fuck you." It's because queer people threw rocks and chained themselves to fences and got beaten up and over and over and over kept saying "We will not be silent, we will not be polite, and we will not shut the fuck up until you do."

So... you appear to know nothing about the history of queer rights, and yet you arrogate to yourself the responsibility of telling us how to behave? Fuck that noise with a chainsaw.

For an encore, you should probably go tell some feminists to tone it down.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:13 PM on January 17, 2015 [1 favorite]


I don't understand you, Palindromedary. There are people here, right here, who have been Actually Getting Shit Done with regards to gay rights for decades. They've been remarkably successful. They've been mindblowingly successful, really. The pace of change has been truly incredible Why do you think they need you to educate them on how to be successful? What are your qualifications to lecture people on how to get shit done?

It's not really a fair set of questions, in that it implies I need special qualifications or permissions to talk. I have no more or less right than anyone else, just my direct experience that minds can be changed, and the obvious fact that insults and caricaturist thinking tends not to sway people who have otherwise shown an ability to be swayed. There's no bar for being allowed to express your opinion.

When I read (what started this) that a group of civil rights leaders are lazy pseudo-objectivists (Fuck You Got Mine) who, having achieved what they want, are now simply being selfish rather than operating out of some genuine belief in their religion, I find it frustrating because you can see another group of people being tossed aside as wrong. Of course they're in the wrong; that's hardly the point. The point is, how does labelling them with the caricatures of your side get any of them to help you? The act of assuming your opponents cannot be reasoned with can't be compared to never protesting or anything else people keep dragging in; it instead literally helps you not at all. There's lots of Christians out there that are sympathetic or outright allied to the cause of queer rights, living proof that they can be convinced despite (or, they would probably say, because of) their religion.

I do hope you're out on some other message boards saying exactly that to people who declare that gays only want to rape children and destroy the family. That's all I ask.

I tend not to hang around on Free Republic and that, where you'd see the worst of it, but that's fine, because in general, you want the weakly aligned, those that have only absorbed it from their wider surroundings rather than those that actively fight for it. But yes, I do try to reach them in other boards, or when I'm talking to someone in person and it comes up. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. It didn't cost me anything other than time, used when I had it to spare.

I mean I suppose all those badass dykes and drag queens should have asked for a nice dialogue at Stonewall. ... For an encore, you should probably go tell some feminists to tone it down.

So despite the fact I literally said that that's not what I'm arguing for, you would prefer to believe that that's what I'm arguing for.

Nothing you're describing has anything to do with what I'm saying.
posted by Palindromedary at 4:29 PM on January 17, 2015


You are telling us that we are doing our lives and our activism wrong.

It is not okay for you to be doing that when:

1) it appears as though you aren't queer
2) you don't actually seem to understand queer history

So, in conclusion, please stop telling us how to have conversations with the people who think we are subhuman. Thank you.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:33 PM on January 17, 2015 [1 favorite]


There's no bar for being allowed to express your opinion.
You can say whatever you want. Nobody is going to stop you. But you are taking a tone that makes it sound like you have greater expertise and can educate everyone here, and it might behoove you to show a little bit of humility when you're dealing with people who I think probably have a lot more investment, knowledge and experience than you do about the issues you're discussing here.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:37 PM on January 17, 2015 [3 favorites]


You are telling us that we are doing our lives and our activism wrong.

Are you incapable of performing your activism wrong? Does merely being queer give you an unchallengable guide to activism? Does the fact that you are being counterproductive only apply if you are told as such by a queer person?

That I don't think your arbitrary references to Stonewall have anything to do with our conversation doesn't mean that I don't have some understanding of queer history. Queer history doesn't even really apply to what I'm talking about, as I've said and attempted to demonstrate.

I'll drop this if you wish, because I don't think it's getting us two anywhere and I don't think it's going to.

But you are taking a tone that makes it sound like you have greater expertise and can educate everyone here, and it might behoove you to show a little bit of humility when you're dealing with people who I think probably have a lot more investment, knowledge and experience than you do about the issues you're discussing here.

That I'm only talking about what I do have direct experience with, and am arguing against people who seem not to (for want of thinking it could make a difference) makes this strange. I'm not lecturing on how to solve all queer problems; I'm not even really talking about queer problems. I'm talking about the idea of convincing someone that you're right when they're inclined not to hear it, something that applies to all sorts of things. How many laughs have you had at the notion of Obama the Gay Muslim Kenyan Communist Atheist? No one on the left was ever convinced by that sort of thing, but that doesn't stop it from making the rounds.

You can call people crazed militiamen, or you can talk about guns and understand that some people really believe that owning a weapon is a reasonable proposition. You can call it the War On (Some) Drugs and leave it at that, or you can try to convince someone of the harmful effects of that war. It's worth treating people with respect, because it's possible to be a person worthy of respect with an opinion that is not, and there's absolutely nothing in that that precludes you from marching in the street, suing the state, or directly confronting violence aimed at shutting you up.
posted by Palindromedary at 4:57 PM on January 17, 2015 [1 favorite]


Please look up the concept of privilege before you start wittering on about respecting oppressors.

It's seriously grotesque.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:01 PM on January 17, 2015 [1 favorite]


And references to Stonewall in the context of a discussion about queer rights is hardly 'arbitrary.' It was more or less the defining moment when the modern era of queer rights began.

So you're really showing off how much you don't know about queer history while doubling down on telling us what to do.

Are you incapable of performing your activism wrong? Does merely being queer give you an unchallengable guide to activism? Does the fact that you are being counterproductive only apply if you are told as such by a queer person?

Well see the thing is the way we've been performing our activism is mainly by living loud and proud and not bothering to give the haters the time of day but since you know have "some understanding of queer history" surely you must know this.

You're really--aggressively--refusing to understand why it's not okay for the majority to tell the minority how to protest. Do you also tell feminists that they need to be nicer? How about the people protesting in Ferguson today, do you tell them they really need to sit down and understand the racist cops' position?

Because that is a mountain of horseshit and you need to learn that, pronto, because you are being actually offensive.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:07 PM on January 17, 2015 [3 favorites]


tl;dr when you are not a member of an oppressed group, shut up and listen when we tell you something
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:10 PM on January 17, 2015


I find it frustrating because you can see another group of people being tossed aside as wrong.

This is a total false equivalence. Do you really not see any difference between on the one hand, being dismissive of a group of people suffering concrete harms because of how society views their sexuality, and on the other, being dismissive of a group of people brought onto a TV show to discuss civil rights who immediately go out of their way to distance themselves from and denigrate the first group?

No one on the left was ever convinced by that sort of thing, but that doesn't stop it from making the rounds.

Ironically, this supports the opposite of your point, because it demonstrates that any given cultural meme doesn't have to be remotely convincing or sympathetic to the opposite side, or in this case even at all reasonably argued, in order to be effective and to take hold in society.
posted by en forme de poire at 5:10 PM on January 17, 2015 [1 favorite]


That I'm only talking about what I do have direct experience with, and am arguing against people who seem not to (for want of thinking it could make a difference) makes this strange.

Both clauses in bold above are big and unwarranted assumptions.

When I read (what started this) that a group of civil rights leaders are lazy pseudo-objectivists (Fuck You Got Mine) who, having achieved what they want, are now simply being selfish rather than operating out of some genuine belief in their religion

What evidence do you have that they were operating purely out of genuine belief in their religion? Do you think it's impossible that people who feel that they have achieved some measure of social legitimacy and power through a social institution like religion might be afraid to contemplate criticizing the structure that empowered them?
posted by en forme de poire at 5:23 PM on January 17, 2015


And references to Stonewall in the context of a discussion about queer rights is hardly 'arbitrary.' It was more or less the defining moment when the modern era of queer rights began

It was and continues to be arbitrary because it has nothing to do with what I'm arguing. You keep stating that I'm telling people to be quiet, good little dissenters, despite my repeated direct claims otherwise and my showing how the two concepts--individual respect/the willingness to accept that some can be changed, and aggressive large-scale dissent--can easily co-exist. Since I've never argued that Stonewall was a bad thing, or didn't help, or wasn't influential or admirable, it has no relevance to what I actually am talking about.

You're really--aggressively--refusing to understand why it's not okay for the majority to tell the minority how to protest.

I think you're wrong. If you are, being queer is neither here nor there. Nor does calling me the majority somehow salvage your argument.

This is a total false equivalence. Do you really not see any difference between on the one hand, being dismissive of a group of people suffering concrete harms because of how society views their sexuality, and on the other, being dismissive of a group of people brought onto a TV show to discuss civil rights who immediately go out of their way to distance themselves from and denigrate the first group?

Of course I see the difference. I'm afraid I don't understand your point.

Ironically, this supports the opposite of your point, because it demonstrates that any given cultural meme doesn't have to be remotely convincing or sympathetic to the opposite side, or in this case even at all reasonably argued, in order to be effective and to take hold in society.

It does not, because I've said multiple times that there's always an unreachable element. You're after the ones that can be reached; I've covered this in multiple posts.

I have to leave. If anyone wishes to discuss this further, feel free to mail me.
posted by Palindromedary at 5:24 PM on January 17, 2015


It was and continues to be arbitrary because it has nothing to do with what I'm arguing.

Talking about queer rights while claiming Stonewall is an arbitrary thing to mention is like claiming slavery is an arbitrary thing to mention in a discussion about Black rights in America.

You're really--aggressively--refusing to understand why it's not okay for the majority to tell the minority how to protest.

I think you're wrong.


We do not live to your whims, is the point, and the majority doesn't get to tell the minority how to protest because we are sick and fucking tired of being told how to live by the majority.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:27 PM on January 17, 2015 [2 favorites]


That I'm only talking about what I do have direct experience with, and am arguing against people who seem not to (for want of thinking it could make a difference) makes this strange.

It's strange because your understanding of this topic is limited.

To begin with: everyone here has tried talking it out. The normal human reaction, when confronted by a family member or respected authority figure when they demonstrate bigotry, is to try and talk it out. We've all made the attempt many, many times. A number of people here still espouse that philosophy. I'm not one of them, but I respect a number of folks who do.

When you come here talking like you're the only person who made an honest effort at communication, you come across as immensely insulting because not only have they tried, they were spurned for it.

Second problem is that the defining characteristic of bigots? They don't listen to the people they are bigoted *against*. It's the common thread in all these things. Sexist men don't listen to women. Homophobes don't listen to gays. Racist white folks don't listen to POC about systemic injustice. I only know one of these from personal experience, but stories from the other two categories sound about the same.

A straight person can hope to talk to a homophobe about it and not have their opinion immediately discarded, thus allowing them to maybe make a point. A gay person doesn't have that luxury. There are times and places where a gay person making that effort might risk actual physical violence, dismissal from a job, or other serious repercussions.

This is where discussion of privilege comes up: you have it, they don't. It's wonderful that you want to use yours to make the world a better place, and you should continue to try, but it isn't okay to tell everyone else that they should do it your way. They can't, or the problem would've been solved a long time ago.

Anyway, tl;dr: one more voice for, "Listen to the oppressed about what they need, they've been at it longer than you."
posted by mordax at 5:54 PM on January 17, 2015 [8 favorites]


You're after the ones that can be reached; I've covered this in multiple posts.

And they have been reached by people doing much more in-your-face stuff than saying "fuck those guys!" on the internet. Can you acknowledge that? That even with the ashes-over-the-White-House-fence kinds of actions, we are where we are today! Obviously, those weren't the only things happening, just like now, the only things pushing queer rights forward are some gay Canadian dude (and friends!) going "Fuck the haters!" People are talking and door-knocking and chaining themselves to things and blogging and coming out to their families and all over the map.

You want us to acknowledge that there's more than one group to reach. We want you to acknowledge that we know, and have always known.

I personally would rather let the cream of those groups sort itself than lecture My People to lower themselves to the lowest common denominator. People who believe I deserve rights just like any other human being are going to believe that, and work for it, even if some portion of My People are going "Fuck those guys!" Because they are going to understand that they are not among those guys.
posted by rtha at 6:01 PM on January 17, 2015 [2 favorites]


Of course I see the difference. I'm afraid I don't understand your point.

Your original post said that you were frustrated because "another group" of people was being dismissed. My reply stated that these two groups were not comparable. If you agree, why make this comparison to explain your frustration?

Are you incapable of performing your activism wrong? Does merely being queer give you an unchallengable guide to activism? Does the fact that you are being counterproductive only apply if you are told as such by a queer person?

I like how you phrased this: the "fact" that you are being counterproductive, as if that weren't the exact point of contention. Anyway, of course queer activists are going to be more skeptical of people who appear not to have much experience with either queer activism or experience of daily life as a queer individual. This skepticism is certainly not insurmountable, but would involve presenting a case that was well-researched as opposed to just repeatedly stating "you're wrong."

...I've said multiple times that there's always an unreachable element. You're after the ones that can be reached; I've covered this in multiple posts.

On the contrary, swaying the "movable middle" is far from the only (and arguably, not even a central) part of activism. Other important aspects are, for instance: forcing people in power to respond to specific issues (see ACT UP on AIDS research), redefining what the middle ground is in the first place, forcing conversations about things that were previously considered taboo, enabling people who feel disempowered, giving people the support and vocabulary to articulate the ways in which they feel they have been wronged, getting enough political victories so that people can live their lives in peace and potentially have the conversations you prize above all else without risking losing their jobs or being imprisoned, etc.
posted by en forme de poire at 6:07 PM on January 17, 2015 [5 favorites]


Palindromedary: I often wonder how people can do this and not understand that that's exactly what the other side is doing in return

That's a fair question in certain respects. Look at Daryl Davis as an example of what Palindromedary is driving at.

I'm all for outreach and education.

BUT, when the "other side" is leading with that hand, what should I do? When someone says my marriage is "undermining the family" or the dudes on the sidewalk are screaming "Hey, look - it's a couple of faggots! Hey, faggots!" and rounding up their buddies to give chase, this sort of engagement is kind of hard to execute.

So you end up with:

A straight person can hope to talk to a homophobe about it and not have their opinion immediately discarded, thus allowing them to maybe make a point. A gay person doesn't have that luxury. There are times and places where a gay person making that effort might risk actual physical violence, dismissal from a job, or other serious repercussions.

Sometimes it's just a straight-up street fight.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 11:28 PM on January 17, 2015 [2 favorites]


Aside from this massive derail about who's qualified to say what:

When marriage for all is the law of the land - as it will be, sooner or later, and hopefully a lot sooner than most of us ever expected - my fondest hope is that someone prints out the whole stack of paper, ties it in a pink ribbon, and leaves it on Jesse Helms' grave, just like this.

Think of the amount of clean energy we could generate from deceased bigots spinning in their graves!
posted by RedOrGreen at 10:22 AM on January 27, 2015 [2 favorites]


« Older “I have great faith in fools - self-confidence my...   |   A Sticky Wicket Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments