Comments on: Obama’s “Short List” pick for SCOTUS might be anti-gay marriage

By: Frijondi

Frijondi — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:34:45 +0000

Is it just me, or is there something disturbingly prurient about Sears’s remarks? This woman sees the law as a means to “influence the erotic behavior of young men and women” — yikes.

I wonder how many heterosexuals out there are comfortable with the idea of a Supreme Court justice who wants to “influence their erotic behavior.” (Of course, if she’s friends with Clarence Thomas, it’s a pity she wasn’t able to influence his, before he began his career as a sexual harasser.)

By: Donnchadh

Donnchadh — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:23:54 +0000

It seems to me she agrees with you on most points about marriage: it should be strengthened, it is important for society, it is more than a civil contract, it is better for raising children. The only difference is about coverage of a few percent of couples. Surely that is a minor disagreement. Much worse would be someone who thinks marriage is no different from civil unions, or one who thinks the state should not recognise marriage at all.

By: 7 Supreme Court Nominees — Who Are They? « SpeakEasy

7 Supreme Court Nominees — Who Are They? « SpeakEasy — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:31:52 +0000

[...] be a lot of analysis of his record. Another new name on this list, Leah Ward Sears, is raising concern because of her strong support for “traditional” marriage, including a 2006 op-ed in [...]

By: customartist

customartist — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:19:54 +0000

Re:

“A prime goal of marriage and family law should be to identify new ways to support marriage as a social institution, so that each year more children are protected by the loving marital unions of their mother and father.”

Here is quite enough for me to be concerned.

It seems that Sears, with this view, confuses the role of the Judicial Branch, with that of the Legislative Branch.

Justices do not Direct Law, they follow and Adhere To the Law.

It is not for the Judicial side to be “identify(ing)” or “support(ing)” any direction or agenda, but it is the duty of this branch to Adjudicate; to make judgements based upon Current Law which includes the Constitution of the United States, and specifically Equal Protection, as it relates to this topic.

While there may very well be many dynamics to implementing Marriage Equality, the fact remains that this is about Civil Rights for Gays, period.

She has overstepped her bounds, shown her true colors, and there is no good reason to believe that she will do anything other than the same if given a Lifelong Appointment.

Obama, if he nominates her, would then truly be talking out of two different sides of his face, IMHGO.

By: SCOTUS Nominee List Updates | Second Reagan Revolution

SCOTUS Nominee List Updates | Second Reagan Revolution — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:33:40 +0000

By: Fred in the UK

Fred in the UK — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 04:55:52 +0000

Apologies, the seventh line of my post contains an error, it should have been encourages rather than discourages.

or actually ~~discourages~~ encourages gay and lesbian couples from having children themselves,

By: Fred in the UK

Fred in the UK — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 04:45:41 +0000

From those quotes I would agree that Sears does not support same-sex marriage, in the sense that she does not appear to regard it (or childless heterosexual marriage) as a moral good in its own right. Clearly, she believes that children being born outside of heterosexual wedlock is a bad thing, and by corollary anything that promotes that is to be avoided if possible. However that only makes same-sex marriage wrong if it encourages heterosexuals to have children outside of marriage or actually discourages gay and lesbian couples from having children themselves, is there any evidence that she thinks either of those to be the case? Also I don’t see anything in the quotes to offer a guide as to how, as a jurist, she would balance what she may regard the ‘moral bads’ of same-sex marriage with the principle of equality. How bad would same-sex marriage need to be to be that she couldn’t accept it as a necessary corollary of the principle of equality? (If I have missed anything in the quotes then please point it out.)

That she upheld the constitutional amendment on same-sex marriage in Georgia is to me, at first sight, troubling. However suppose that, as a Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia, she thought that the constitutional amendment was valid according to Georgian laws, but fell foul of the U.S. Federal Constitution. In the absence of clear precedent from the Supreme Court of the United States, should she have voted to invalidate the amendment or should she have left questions of the Federal Constitution to the Supreme Court of the United States? If the latter is the case then I don’t see what, about her views on same-sex marriage, can be read from her ruling.

By: Tony

Tony — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 01:47:53 +0000

@TampaZeke
Hillary Clinton may be opposed to gay marriage personally, but at the same time, she knows that it’s an immutable trait. That’s what we’re really looking for here. Someone who understands the nature of gay people, and who will uphold the Constitution as protecting everyone. So she may not like it, but I honestly can’t see her ruling against gay marriage. She’s way too smart for that.

By: Cole

Cole — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:56:11 +0000

She supports heterosexual-only marriage. That’s it. Don’t fool yourself into thinking she will change or that the opinion she wrote wasn’t personal. She hides behind children as the reason she supports heterosexual-only marriage yet she divorced the husband of her children and married another man. Obviously she has no conflict with those actions and her beliefs because in reality what she wants in heterosexual-only marriage i.e. man + woman, that’s all. The same goes for Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for (Heterosexual-only) Marriage who never married the man of her child and then later married another man. The reason she is in this debate is to keep marriage heterosexual-only.

By: TampaZeke

TampaZeke — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:55:45 +0000

I’m sorry David, but I missed the report on Hillary’s change of heart on same-sex marriage and her public declaration of her new position. Could you please provide a link to a report on Hillary’s new position in support of marriage equality?

Last I heard, even before the election, Hillary’s position was the exact same as Obama’s. I’m ecstatic to hear that she has changed her mind but I would like to hear it from her lips rather than your second hand account.