If BSA v. Dale were reversed...

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Yep, too much equal protection and the wrong sorts of people will think they're equal...

[evmori]

Some are more equal than others!

[NJCubScouter]

I don't know, Beavah, we have never had elected judges (or retention elections) in the New Jersey state court system either, and when I hear what goes on in other states that do, I am very happy we don't. That is not to say there isn't politics in the appointment process anyway, in fact I have heard people argue that New York has LESS politics in its judicial appointments because judges are elected, but I don't buy it. There are politics either way, but it just seems so much more unseemly -- not to mention more prone to corruption -- to have judges depend on an election for appointment or retention. (While I realize NJ has a reputation for corruption, the vast majority of that is the elected officials, not the judges. Sort of a lefthanded expression of pride in my state I guess, but there it is. And besides, I think other states are just as corrupt. Makes me want to start singing the state song, if we had one.)

[acco40]

They were on the court of seven justices who unanimously decided last year that an Iowa law restricting marriage to one man and one woman violated the state's constitution.

 

I am not a scholar wrt the Iowa constitution. But, I'm a firm believer that judges should interpret laws wrt to their constitutionality, not there popularity. If the Iowa court were unanimous in their decision, maybe it was the correct, albeit unpopular, decision?

 

I like the fact that supreme court justices are immune to the vagaries of the popular vote.

[BrentAllen]

Gern wrote: "That statement right there should send chills down your spine. The courts are now bought and controlled by the big spenders and special interests. So much for blind justice."

 

I disagree. If we learned anything last night, it is that you can't buy an election. Just go ask Whitman, Fiorina, McMahon and Angle.

 

Beavah,

I'm surprised because here in Georgia, those positions get very little attention in elections. I'm surprised that one issue doomed all three. That is about as clear of a message that could be sent by the voters in a single election.

 

I did hear a radio ad for a Supreme Court Justice here in Georgia a few days ago (only heard it once). The ad mentioned he was an Eagle Scout, which is probably why it grabbed my attention. I voted for him, but he ended up third in a 3-way race; the incumbent won. I never saw any yard signs for the Eagle Scout, but I did see a lot for the incumbent.

[GernBlansten]

Brent, those judges were defeated after the spending of hundreds of thousands of dollars of campaign money to defeat them. You think its wise to have judges having to look over their shoulders when rendering justice on who might campaign against them? That is not the America I want to live in.

[Bando]

What would happen? The BSA would look a whole heck of a lot more like the rest of America than the current, evangelical/conservative/Mormon-dominated organization it is today.

 

The BSA digging in its heels on issues of sexuality only moves it farther and farther away from a lot of boys it should be reaching. Gay rights is our generation's civil rights movement. It's a generational issue. I'm thinking a lot of you who were coming of age in the 50's and 60's felt a little differently about racial inclusion and civil rights than your parents did. In 40 or 50 years, we're going to be looking at the current landscape of America, where gays and lesbians are treated as if they're going to attempt to have sex with anyone at any minute, where they cannot serve in the military, can't serve as a scout leader, can't marry their partner, and wonder "just what were we thinking?" It's the "Colored-only" drinking fountains and theater sections of the modern day.

 

It's time for the BSA to realize that pandering to the fears and anxieties of the most conservative portions of their membership further alienates it from an America that is largely becoming more inclusive of the LGBTQ community. What would Baden-Powell think of an organization that doggedly hung on to a set of beliefs that alienated large portions of its funding, its access to public schools, many other chartering organizations, and most importantly, the trajectory of society itself?(This message has been edited by bando)

[sheldonsmom]

I live in Iowa. My best friend is an attorney and has studied this case and knows the three justices. The chief Justice, Ternus, was incompetent and a lousy manager. She needed to go for many reasons!

As far as the gay marriage case: if they had ruled on the law passed by the general assembly that would not have been a problem. They went further, however, and ruled on the right of marriage which is separate and does legislate from the bench. Read the whole decision and then decide for yourself how they handled themselves. I did.

[packsaddle]

Since sheldonsmom didn't favor us with a link to the decision, here it is in case someone wants to read it:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/assets/pdf/D213209243.PDF

 

Edited to add: OK, I've read it. Sheldonsmom, I'd be interested in reading your reasoning as to how the court was in error with regard to the central Equal Protection aspect of this case. Could you provide some additional detail to help out?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[NJCubScouter]

This decision in Iowa is very similar to the one made by the New Jersey Supreme Court several years ago, essentially that the state constitution guarantees citizens equal protection of the laws, and in order to give a right or opportunity to one group and not another, the government must show that it is necessary to do so in order protect one or more governmental interests, and the government was unable to do so. The difference is that in New Jersey, while the Supreme Court was unanimous in declaring that the straights-only marriage law was unconstitutional, the court then split on what the state had to do about it. Three justices in New Jersey (including the Republican Chief Justice, by the way) said what the Iowa Supreme Court said: The state can comply with the constitution only by allowing same-gender couples to "marry". Four justices, however, said the legislature could come up with some other "status" that would have all the same rights as marriage, but not be called marriage. So the legislature passed a civil union law. Since then, there has been quite a bit of evidence that same-gender couples don't actually get ALL the same rights as "married" couples, so if another case comes along in a few years, the result may be different, and New Jersey will have "gay marriage." Or the legislature may make the change itself, though it's unlikely that our current governor would sign such a bill. But in both Iowa and New Jersey, the Supreme Court looked carefully at this issue and decided that their constitution does not allow the legislature to make the distinction that it was making. Like it or not, that is the role of a Supreme Court, whether federal or state. Whether you agree that they drew the line in the right place is, of course, a different story. I think they did. It would be nice if the legislatures would make these decisions so courts didn't have to, but in the end a statute has to comply with the constitution.

[Lisabob]

"Since then, there has been quite a bit of evidence that same-gender couples don't actually get ALL the same rights as "married" couples"

 

I'd be curious to hear more about what you meant here. There is a lot of support in many places for civil unions (or call them whatever, so long as it isn't "marriage!"). Most of these supporters begin with the assumption that civil unions would provide the same basic legal rights as marriage. If that is turning out not to be the case in NJ, then that's both interesting, and problematic for the more moderate crowd who are seeking compromises on this issue.

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

Lisa,

 

This page has some information on the subject:

 

http://www.gardenstateequality.org/issues/marriage.html

 

It should be said that Garden State Equality is not exactly objective on the subject, although I agree with them. They are the main advocacy group on the subject in New Jersey. However, there is a report of a government commission linked on that page (it is the top item in the blue box on the right) which studied the subject about two years after civil unions were introduced, and reached the same conclusion.