Discussion for article #235752
Alabama submitted a brief ⌠but the Supreme Court refused to accept a document written in crayon.
9 Likes
. These briefs were written by people who studied the Constitution in order to become lawyers? Facepalm!
4 Likes
âŚnot if they got their Laws-a-Mercy degree from Liberty U or Oral Roberts UâŚ
1 Like
The article forgot Michigan. Michigan is defending itâs ban on gay marriage on a 2004 election proposal that voters supported indicating that marriage is between a man and a woman. That was eleven years ago folks. We here in Michigan have evolved on marriage equality too, but our AG doesnât give a damn. The Michigan case is came about because two lesbians with special needs adopted children wanted to make sure that both of them were the parents. So they sued to be able to both adopt them equally. The judge told them they would be better suing over getting married. So that is what they did. I hope this comes out for marriage equality. I am so embarrassed by the RWNJs that have taken over Michigan.
3 Likes
Lawyers mostly donât freelance on their own causes.
These briefs werenât written by the top appellate counsel in the top firms made up of the smartest of the top graduates from the top law degree mills exactly, but thatâs not the only or even necessarily the main reason they come across as so dumb. Part of the reason they look dumb is that they were ordered up for dumb causes and dumb positions with the only arguments available all being dumb ones.
The Kentucky brief is wondrously hilarious for the fundamentally denialist logic underlying its argument being nothing less than, A state law is constitutionally fine that requires throwing babies out to prevent the filthy little bastards from dirtying up our God-given bathwater.
It might take a little time to work thru the eye-stabbingly moronic rational for those relatively unfamiliar with the nature and precepts of The Rule of Law (which, IMO, most folks figure is like art, sure theyâre not experts but they know what they like so WTF cares their opinions are as good as anyones). Suffice to say that the sort of twisted logic that says that a law that condemns to death all Jews is entirely constitutional because religion is a choice and the law itself applies to everyone, is actually MORE logically rational than whateverâs behind this Kentucky position if gender attraction and self-identification are NOT matters of so-called âpreferenceâ or at all analogous to religious choice.
The Ohio brief basically says, thereâs basically no problem because stupid people assume itâs not just easier for LGBT types to get on cable talk shows to whinge, but that the combination of that access plus the whingeing is âconstitutionally sufficientâ, to ⌠something. I mean the first part is unsupported and nuts, and the second goes into another universe to avoid doing anything, but the third part, where the roomâs supposed to be all tied together, itâs just completely missing. This is just to placate the religiots and teapster crazoids by saying some stuff they think and say aloud on phone-in shows and post on Reddit and freerep and several hundred equally inane sites where a person can bathe in excrement and garbage and claim theyâve cleaned upâŚ
The SC arugmentâs not new to the SCOTUS, and itâs actually the one the wingnuts on SCOTUS, Scalia and Thomas, would like the best of this pathetic array. Problem is, while Thomas doesnât give a shit, Scaliaâs still got a few agendas down the line to protect and he actually DOES give a bit of a shit about getting his own words shoved down his throat in later cases; and beyond those 2, it might be possible to find some cleverer way to game Alitoâs vote and if so Roberts would be in too, but Kennedy just HATES the implications of these sorts of Moses with the tablets arguments for his precious living breathing constantly evolving COMPLETELY FICTIONAL concept pet dog olâ Liberty. And part of that distaste prevents from ever happening what Roberts and Alito would know is necessary to using this view of the 14th amendment, which is renewal of the Civil War.
The one place Iâd disagree with the author of this post on is the pretty clear implication that these arguments are way off past Pluto into the Ort Cloud compared to the âbetterâ arguments that gay marriage opponents have available. No so.
The problem is all those other presumably more rational, coherent or sensible arguments require a SCOTUS majority that torches the separation guarantee, of a state separate from control by the religion of the majority, of churches separate from being arbitrarily destroyed by the state, and of there being multiple church choices in the first place.
Once thatâs appreciated, one can more readily understand why there are other dumber arguments being advanced, because the âbestâ ones turn the USA into a theocracy.
8 Likes
Not sarcastic:
Kentuckyâs marriage laws treat homosexuals and heterosexuals the same
and are facially neutral. Men and women, whether heterosexual or
homosexual, are free to marry persons of the opposite sex under Kentucky
law, and men and women, whether heterosexual or homosexual, cannot
marry persons of the same sex under Kentucky law⌠- Gov. Beshearâs lawyer
Sarcastic:
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. - Anatole France
3 Likes
A little backgroundâŚMethinks Beshear might throw his hat in the ring for the Senate in 2016 against Rand Paul. He doesnât want to be seen as at all supporting gay marriage in a state where support for marriage equality has (sadly) declined. Itâs really unfortunate that he doesnât have the backbone of Jack Conway. Conway is the current AG in KY. He refused to defend the ban any longer saying it wasnât right legally and it wasnât right morally, so the governor had to go find some other lawyer to do so. Conway is also the most likely Democratic candidate for governor this year. Itâll be interesting to see how this all shakes out and if gay marriage becomes a bitter pill in this fallâs election.
5 Likes
Thatâs some pretty impressive circular logic right there.
âThe ban on gay marriage is not unconstitutional because gays are allowed to marry⌠people of the opposite sex only.â
Wow. I hope these briefs get laughed out of the Supreme Court, but I doubt it.
Thanks, Plucky, as always for your on-the-ground analysis from KY. I agree that the KY brief looks like someone trying to defend the law without actually getting to the merits or policy reasons behind it - a purely political statement aimed at preserving his standing in front of the voters. Whether it resonates with them remains to be seen. Conwayâs position is impressive given the politics. It will be very interesting to see how this shakes out in the next cycle.
1 Like
these are almost beyond pitiful, something a high school civics student, having just read the constitution for the very first time would put together. all of the attorneys who wrote these briefs should be disbarred, for egregious malpractice. whatever law schools they graduated from should strike their names from the alumni rolls, if they had any self respect.
mention 14A, but neglect to note the âequal protectionâ clause. brilliant!
gay & lesbian citizens arenât asking for âspecial protectionsâ moron, they are asking to be treated the same under the law as everyone else. just outstanding lawyering!
Kentuckyâs is so convoluted, it isnât at all clear what the idiot who wrote it actually meant, if they even know.
these briefs are just downright embarrassing.
Ah, so this article explains what we already knew: Republicans are dumb as f*ck.
May I suggest that these briefs are intentionally ludicrous though made with straight faces? The AGs (and governors) pro forma -ly defend the âtraditional marriageâ laws as many of their constituents and state legislators want, which also inoculates themselves against future political attacks. However, they want SCOTUS to make the issue disappear permanently; so they present arguments invitingly refutable.
Wild onions spring up early in parts of the country.
2 Likes
They may be intended to be thus.
1 Like
"Kentuckyâs marriage laws treat homosexuals and heterosexuals the same and are facially neutral. Men and women, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are free to marry persons of the opposite sex under Kentucky law, and men and women, whether heterosexual or homosexual, cannot marry persons of the same sex under Kentucky law," Leigh Gross Latherow, Beshear's lawyer, wrote in the brief.
Itâs worth noting that the people of Kentucky had to pay for this ludicrous opinion because Kentuckyâs AG refused to defend the stateâs ban on the recognition of gay marriages and the Governor had to hire outside counsel for the task.
1 Like
Of course these arguments are stupid.
Itâs a tautology: the arguments are crap because itâs an idiotic cause; and itâs an idiotic cause because all the arguments for it are crap.
1 Like
Thereâs a theory that the argument is so preposterous that itâs a way of throwing the case without, as you imply, inflaming the stateâs anti-marriage-equality majority. Wouldnât surprise me â Beshear and that lawyer are as likely to be as familiar with the famous Anatole France line as the rest of us.
1 Like
Thanks you for that, it made for a most enjoyable read, taking at least a little bit of the edge off the psychic pain I experienced reading the âeye-stabbingly moronicâ positions of these three states.
You know that phrase, âthe stupid, it burnsâ?
We should have saved it for these briefs.
A logical extension of Kentuckyâs "reason"ing:
Heterosexual marriage is unconstitutional, because, while it allows adult males to marry adult females, it doesnât allow adult females to do the same.
Ohio in plain speak:
It is getting harder and harder to discriminate against gays, so we need the courts to jump in and help us hold the line here.
South Carolina in plain speak:
[unpossible]
South Carolina in SC twist-speak:
The writers of the fourteenth amendment really, really didnât want women voting, which South Carolina considers an archaic and incorrect stance. South Carolina also just knows that, while gay marriage isnât mentioned in the fourteenth amendment, the authors, in their timeless wisdom, really, really did not want gay marriage. South Carolina seeks only to honor and obey these unwritten, enduringly wise thoughts.
2 Likes
Interesting (upthread) about the Kentucky governor. Still his motivation suggests that all those Kentucky jokes Iâve heard from people in Cincinnati (and even from Hoosiersânot the brightest bulbs) have some basis in reality. DeWine is a second generation Ohio state house hack and the argument sounds like it. South Carolinaâcould the bar be any lower?