December 20th, 2013
Congrats to my sister, their two children and "new" sister in law on their marriage today! #utpol pic.twitter.com/6sW4andQhb
— Adam Gardiner (@agardiner14) December 21, 2013
Court Judge Robert J. Shelby, in striking down Utah’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, gave this shout-out to everything-gay opponent and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in Windsor v. U.S., in which the Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. Shelby’s first shout-out is at page 13:
The Constitution’s protection of the individual rights of gay and lesbian citizens is equally dispositive whether this protection requires a court to respect a state law, as in Windsor, or strike down a state law, as the Plaintiffs ask the court to do here. In his dissenting opinion, the Honorable Antonin Scalia recognized that this result was the logical outcome of the Court’s ruling in Windsor:
In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion . . . is that DOMA is motivated by “bare. . . desire to harm” couples in same-sex marriages. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.
133 S. Ct. at 2709 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The court agrees with JusticeScalia’s interpretation of Windsor and finds that the important federalism concerns at issue here are nevertheless insufficient to save a state-law prohibition that denies the Plaintiffs their rights to due process and equal protection under the law.
Also, at page 15:
…And Justice Scalia even recommended how this court should interpret the Windsor decision when presented with the question that is now before it: “I do not mean to suggest disagreement … that lower federal courts and state courts can distinguish today’s case when the issue beforethem is state denial of marital status to same-sex couples.”
Judge Shelby also goes to Scalia’s classic dissent in 2003’s Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down sodomy laws nationwide. At page 31:
The court therefore agrees with the portion of Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion in Lawrence in which Justice Scalia stated that the Court’s reasoning logically extends to protect an individual’s right to marry a person of the same sex:
Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribingthat conduct, . . . what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “the liberty protected by the Constitution”?
Id. at 604-05 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (citations omitted).The Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence removed the only ground—moral disapproval—on which the State could have at one time relied to distinguish the rights of gay and lesbian individuals from the rights of heterosexual individuals.
Latest Posts
Featured Reports
In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.
When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.
In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.
On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"
At last, the truth can now be told.
Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!
And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.
Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.
Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.
Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.
Ben In Oakland
December 20th, 2013
Thank you, judge, for hoisting Scalia on his own legal petard. I sure there was no animus involved…
…though the legal principle known as “sublato in medium, ut omnes a anum” does come to mind.
Bose in St. Peter MN
December 20th, 2013
I got the same thing out of reading the decision, with the Lawrence cite about “moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct” being my favorite.
But, there’s just so much fun stuff here… a pre-holiday Friday afternoon ruling with no stay… the first post-prop-8 federal ruling on a state constitutional amendment… dampening any faint hopes of ultimate success for a newly-launched NM or Hoosier state amendment… another nail in the coffin of 2004 amendment wins… Brian Brown’s head exploding to the extent he had to divert his attention from family night to direct attention to a totally unexpected press release…
I’m not a big holiday-oriented guy, but this feels like a day worth celebrating big.
Rick2L
December 20th, 2013
Is it wrong of me to find this too delicious?
Ben in Oakland
December 20th, 2013
It is only wrong if you find it just too, too, too delicious. Otherwise, you,re fine.
TampaZeke
December 20th, 2013
Absolutely BRILLIANT!
MattNYC
December 20th, 2013
Here’s to you, Tony!
Have fun at your next Federalist Society fundraiser…
Lord_Byron
December 20th, 2013
Oh I am sure that Scalia loved the judge using his reasoning in this case. Such schadenfreuden can never be under appreciated.
gar
December 20th, 2013
Took the words right out of my mouth, Ben. Hoist away!
Gene in L.A.
December 21st, 2013
I wonder, considering what we know of Scalia, if we can look forward to him saying “But that’s not what I meant by what I said!”
Lord_Byron
December 21st, 2013
Just curious Ben, but what does that latin translate into? I know that Ut Omnes Unum can be translated into all maybe one
Plaintom
December 21st, 2013
Yes Utah, there IS a Santa Claus and he’s pro equality.
Sir Andrew
December 21st, 2013
I wasn’t sure what I would voice in my Solstice observance on Saturday, but the courts of New Mexico and Utah (!) have given me all the gratitude for life at this time that I need.
Will this stop Scalia from being so snarky in his dissenting opinions? Maybe, at the very least, he’ll stop to think how those words can be used by those he hates. But for right now, the irony is just delicious.
Ben in Oakland
December 21st, 2013
Byron, ANUM, not UNUM.
It translates in to “raising a middle finger to a total asshole.”
Lord_Byron
December 21st, 2013
ah that’s why google wasn’t able to translate it and switched anum to unum.
Ben In Oakland
December 21st, 2013
Byron, strike while the irony is hot. I used google translate to go from the English to the latin.
Soren456
December 21st, 2013
@Ben: That is church Latin, right?
Paul Douglas
December 21st, 2013
I don’t care if Scalia does turn out to be the reason marriage equality becomes legally justified, I will always despise him.
Tor
December 21st, 2013
Brilliant!!
Ben in Oakland
December 21st, 2013
God knows. I don’t speak Latin. But the , neither does god.
Jons
December 21st, 2013
That is genius, real-life trolling. Love, love, love it.
Leave A Comment