Those crazy Mor Mons.

Please be more slanted in your political coverage.

Ok. Let's show ATL something. Make the comments end here. Otherwise you naysayers just prove you ain't going anywhere and don't care.

let the fat and/or cock comments begin in 3, 2, 1

This is not the HuffPo.

Clearly you're yearning to unleash your liberal viewpoints more than you are to discuss the state of the legal field. Elie, please leave and go write for the HuffPo. They will take anyone, seriously. Even you.

Not that the banning gay marriage crowd has a great leg to stand on, but picking their worst argument as their viewpoint is a bit shallow, don't you think? Should I vote for the Republicans because of the insane MoveOn.org people? Should I vote for the Dems in response to Jerry Falwell and Focus on the Family? Come on.

"Thanks to the voters of California, we now live in a time where previously granted rights can be snatched away from law abiding citizens on the strength of majoritarian domination."

That, of course, is so much worse than when previously granted rights are snatched away from law abiding citizens on the strength of nine liberals. See, e.g., all post-Lochner substantive due process cases.

I'm confused. The point of this post is what, exactly?

Look guys, I linked to some pretty conservative arguments in the post. There is a lot of information, about both sides of the issue, if you drill down through this post.

Get off the soapbox

If you have to explain your post in the comments, Elie, you're doing a sucky job as a blogger. Please rant elsewhere and use this site for things that actually merit reading.

where are all the cock comments?

fuck the haters. i don't really see why people bitch so much about your editing Elie, especially when it is obvious they continue to come back for more. i also never really felt the need to voice support, but good post. and to all those whining about bias - your lawyers aren't you? you like opinions so you can argue your viewpoint down in the comment section.

Mystal, why would we waste our time 'drilling down through' your sloppy writing, you worthless hack?

I thought this post was fantastic. Seriously. On the one hand, civil unions are not marriage. I also agree that religious marriages are different from civil marriages.

On the other hand, if you put something like this up for election, OF COURSE anti-gay activists are going to work hard to pass it.

And I agree that blacklisting is totally destructive to that same democracy. We shouldn't coerce and shame people to believe as we do. Leave the Mormons alone.

Its too bad that this can't be resolved more peacefully.

Haha, nice try Elie - totally slanted slam on more than half of the voters of California. You gave the Yes on 8 people the total straw man treatment. If you want to post this sort of venting crap, do it on a comment at the huffington post.

-Big Law Associate, L.A.

Howabout the practical argument that nobody discusses. Don't we want to encourage gay people to settle down and create a stable home environment? I mean lets call it like it is. Roughly 4-8% of the general population is gay. That is a fact. What would you like them to do? Continue to be discriminated against for all eternity? Since this community will never just go away (like the right wingers wish will happen)... maybe we should go out on a limb here and allow them the same opportunities to create a stable home environment with the person they love. Maybe we should also concentrate on spending the $100 million dollars spent to litigate this nonsense somewhere else.... like education... and the homeless. Also, I am still confused at how on earth allowing "John and Paul" to get married takes away from "Judy and Mark's" marriage? They only way it takes away is if Mark is one of those closeted faggots who went on to marry a chick because he subscribes to the same right wing religious crap that President Bush, Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin subscribe to. Oh yeah, Dick Cheney.... deserves the Worst Father of the Decade Award. What a piece of shit. Has a bull dyke daugher who has a partner and a baby... and he can't even utter the word gay. There is a special place in hell for them.

14 here: cookie to first person who criticizes me for using your instead of you are; whoever you are, anonymous, you clearly are far more perfect than me

But Obama (the Messiah) doesn't agree w/ gay marriage, so it MUST be wrong. Isn't he right about everything? Or just taxes?

Elie, look to Canada for those "substantial effects":

A British Columbia court awarded damages to two lesbian women who claim they were discriminated against by a Catholic men's organization when they booked a hall for their wedding reception in the fall of 2003.

In 1997, Hugh Owen, a Saskatchewan prison guard, published an advertisement in the Star-Phoenix that referenced Bible verses related to homosexuality (without quoting them) and drew a line through an image representing a gay couple. A complaint was lodged with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Board of Inquiry. The Board ruled against Owen and that decision was also upheld by a lower court. Thankfully it was overturned on appeal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_freedom_in_Canada#Refusal_of_service

Oh and btw... have we not learned in history... that the "majority" never ever blesses the social rights of the "minority"? Have we forgot the lessons of the black civil rights movement? If segregation was put up for a general vote our President Elect would be riding to the White House at the back of the bus.

20 - you really do conservatives a disservice by arguing like that. leave those posts for anti-intellectuals and freepers.

"But when you do you expect to happen when rights are taken away?"

Yeah, remember that line when the new régime re-enacts the Assault Weapons Ban.

cmon elie, at least get your catholic terminology right..."go to confessional"?

How exactly is this "oppression" by the majority?

Exactly what substantive rights are gay couples losing out on by being denied the label of "marriage" as opposed to "domestic partnership", which we have now?

This is the most pathetic excuse for oppression I've ever heard of.

I love Cheney. I don't mean that sarcastically I'm serious. The fact that he has a lesbian daughter in no way caused him to soften on the gay marriage issue. That's commitment.

Slanted for sure, but I enjoyed it for a change.

21 -- Catholic men's organization =/= Catholic Church.

Prison guard = state actor.

Try again,
--Elie

27 - LOLOLOLOLOLOL. Fucking genius.

- 18

I used to be in favor of gay marriage, but that was before I learned homosexuals cause global warming! Shame on them for what they've done to the polar bears!

Elie didn't post any good conservative arguments because there are none. Priests will be arrested for not marrying gays? Straight people will stop getting married? Children will become gay based on the fact that homosexuals will have marriage certificates instead of RDP's?
Lies and idiocy, not even TTT

21, what's your point? Are you suggesting we keep same-sex marriage illegal so (1) Catholic men's organizations can feel free not to rent halls to lesbian couples and (2) prison guards can publish advertisements without fear of lawsuits?

Can you draw the connections?
Thanks

Posts like this will make me much less likely to read ATL in the future. This isn't because I necessarily disagree with the post. It's because ATL's purpose is to provide commentary about the legal market, law firms, and trends in the law. Its purpose is not to be a left-leaning political blog. The more ATL drifts into politics, the less useful it becomes. HTH.

26,

"Nearly one in eight couples who have had civil unions have been turned down for company benefits [Garden State Equality's Steven] Goldstein said. Among the cases that have come to Garden State Equality, said Goldstein is one involving a woman who told her employer she and her partner had a civil union and was told by the company, 'We're not going to provide benefits. We still need the word 'marriage' and you two aren't married.' Goldstein said the couple have been together 16 years and have adopted three special needs children. 'New Jersey should be celebrating such couples,' said Goldstein. 'Instead, civil-unioned couples across New Jersey are still being denied equal protection of the law.' Goldstein said it is time the Legislature amended the law to provide for marriage."

Added Goldstein, "For those who ask, 'So long as same-sex couples get the rights, who cares what it's called?' the New Jersey experience has answered the question once and for all."

http://www.towleroad.com/2007/05/nj_civil_unions.html

26, if you actually read the posts you might not have to ask such stupid questions in the future. Oh, I forgot, there are no stupid questions, just stupid people.

errr i meant that towleroad link to be directed to #27; whatever

Elie,

It appears to me that you have made ZERO effort to determine what "substantial effect" redefining marriage might have on religious liberty. There are lots of examples. A good place to start is an article from June on npr.org entitled: "When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash" Find it at: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191

I'll quote just the opening paragraph (which underscores the fact that you have made no effort to research the validity of your claims in this post):
" Armed with those legal protections [from redefining marriage to include same-sex unions], same-sex couples are beginning to challenge policies of religious organizations that exclude them, claiming that a religious group's view that homosexual marriage is a sin cannot be used to violate their right to equal treatment."

The article goes on to cite various examples.

Liberals love the "legal sword" that slashes my paycheck, just don't like it when that sword, weilded by the same majority, cuts in a different direction. These are both symptoms of the same disease, and both left and right are infected.

26: gay spouses lose out on all kinds of federal benefits that only granted to husbands and wives.

also, there is no reason that i should be pointing out the typos and/or grammatical errors to the editor, but this is horrible: "I've yet to talk to a supporter of gay marriage who wants TO the state to force a priest or a reverend or a rabbi to perform a gay marriage in a house of worship."

really, elie, i will edit your posts for you for a very modest sum.

cock

"If you don't like gay marriage, than don't get gay married."

If you don't like incestious marriages, don't get incestiously married?

If you don't like cocaine, don't do cocaine?

If you don't like child predators, don't be a child predator?

Here is an example from NYC where marriage is legal between a husband and wife:

Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state's highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City's ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191

Elie, thanks for saving me the trouble of arguing against 21's inane argument

Hmmm... If the California constitution determines California constitutional rights, a constitutional amendment would seem to be conclusive. If the proponents of recognizing relationships between sodomites with the word marriage don't like the outcome (and they appear not to), they should act on their alleged confidence that the future is on their side and wait. If they're right, in twenty years this will be a speed bump. If they're wrong, well, then they were premature in describing state recognition of their depraved relationships as a "right."

vagina

I stopped reading after paragraph 2 or so. The title plus the byline should have been fair warning, I suppose.

For those who live in their own little world with blinders on... have you not noticed, we are your policemen/women, firemen/women, teachers, doctors, nurses, lawyers, accountants, secretaries, pilots, stewards, janitors, analysts, sanitation workers, judges, CEOs, CFOs, waiters, hairstylists, makeup artists, producers, actors, musicians, senators, congressmen/women, governors, mayors, writers, TV anchors, weathermen/women, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, children, aunts, uncles, cousins... and the list goes on and on. We are everywhere and we are not going away. The LGBT community is an integral and necessary part of the fabric of this country just like the "majority" is.

Imagine the OUTRAGE if any one of us donated money or supported: 1. a ban on women voting; 2. the segregation of blacks and whites; and/or 3. a ban on interracial marriages.

Our rights are no different. No matter how you construct your arguments or rationalize the discrimination against the LGBT community - our rights are no different than yours. They just aren't.

And one day, when the LGBT community gets their act together, becomes more organized, and has a serious uprising that includes violence.. only then will they be recognized.

"Posted by Elie Mystal | Permalink
Tuesday, November 18, 2008 7:33 PM

21 -- Catholic men's organization =/= Catholic Church.

Prison guard = state actor.

Try again,
--Elie"

Please, please tell me that you aren't really a HLS grad.

*Catholic Men's Organization = private religious organization;
Catholic Church = private religious organization:
Catholic Men's Organization = Catholic Church, in so far as the law goes. Could a church refuse to employ a gay janitor? What about a gay priest?

*Prison guard acting as private citizen by publishing an article in his private capacity =/= state actor. You never took Con Law, did you?

In sum, don't try again--you'll just embarrass yourself.

Remember that part of the support for Prop. 8 comes from the backlash against court decisions. Marriage, defined as a relationship between one man and one woman, has been around for a long time. Four judges vote to change the definition and people are just supposed accept that and move on? Many people voted Yes on Prop. 8 because they felt marriage is a stronger institution when limited to one man and one woman. Whether you agree or not, voting Yes for marriage does not make one a bigot, regardless of Elie's views.

I stopped reading after the first few sentences. Honestly, what is wrong with this blog now? Since when did it become a pedestal for the editor's ideological beliefs? This is supposed a tabloid about "law firms and the legal profession." You're citing an article from "BeliefNet." Seriously?

This is the last straw. I'm done with this TTT blog.

RE: 47,

You do have the same right to get married that every other American has. You are right when you say "our rights are no different than yours."

You are arguing that the definition of marriage should be changed. You have the right to promote that change, but it is offensive for you to compare the act of retaining the traditional definition of marriage to supporting a ban on women's suffrage or racial segregation.

47 writes:

"And one day, when the LGBT community gets their act together, becomes more organized, and has a serious uprising that includes violence.. only then will they be recognized."

Right. All of the other successful civil rights movements have relied heavily on violent uprisings. In the famous words of Susan B. Anthony, "I harbor some expectation that Providence shall in time bestow the Justice due the fair sex, but I fear that to see such Justice in my Lifetime shall require me to cut some fucking throats."

47 = Elie releasing the rest of the incoherent rage that didn't make it into the post.

51 -

I dont have the same rights as you do. I don't give a shit what its called to be honest. If you want to call it a domestic partnership or a civil union .... then call it that. But what I want under that heading is every single right afforded to straight couples under state and federal law. We don't have that. I can't die and leave my partner of 10 years everything that I have with the same tax ramifications as you and your wife. If I am dying in a hospital it is conceivable for my partner not to be allowed to see me. And the list goes on and on....

If you want to keep marriage as to you guys... then so be it. But don't you be so naive to think we have the same rights as you do. Because we don't.

FIND ME. A POST. LAT EVER MADE. LIKE THIS.

The reason we read this blog is NOT FOR YOU. It was never even for Lat. It was for the content. You aren't Andrew Sullivan. You aren't Maureen Dowd. Your opinions are a dime a dozen on the web, by writers who can manage to avoid typos.

You're an editor at Engadget. You're the Law Blog. You present material cleverly, and that is what ATL is. LAT, PLEASE, HELP.

BOOOOOOO
Terrible, Terrible Post.

It is true that domestic partners do not have exactly all of the same rights yet as married couples in CA - for instance, a common complaint is that domestic partners don't get the same visitation rights as "spouses" at hospitals. BUT, these issues are gaps that can be easily fixed at the legislative level but the demo controlled state legislature will NOT because that takes away a lot of the ammo for the No on 8 crowd.

- CA 2L

53, you're confused: you have the same right as every other American does--to marry one person of the opposite sex.

HTFH

52 -

You need a bit of a history lesson if you think civil rights movements of the past had no violence.

And for the 70% of the black community that voted for Prop 8 maybe they should have listened to the words of Coretta Scott King.... here is just one of her supportive quotes...

"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group."

53- I'm happy for you to have the right to leave your partner everything with the same tax ramifications as between husband/wife, have hospital visitation rights, etc.

My point is that there is plenty of proof that LGBT advocates will go after religious institutions (i.e., sue them) to get "equality."

-47

a violent, gay uprising...that's rich.

reminds me of last week's South Park..."you're about to get slapped!"

Wow, just wow. Elie didn't just jump the shark, he kept it in a pen, fattened it up on a steady diet of liberal dreck, slathered it in a jar of Obama frosting and choked it down whole in one gulp. And I voted against Prop 8.

Oh, and cock.

Engineer 1: Why do straight people care if gays get married? I don't get it.
Engineer 2: Yea, whoever supported prop 8 is a douche.
Engineer 1: Yea, I wo...hey, get your hand off my wiener.

Legal Department: Yeeaaa, I'm pretty sure you can't sue each other over a hotdog.

You should really only post SSM posts at your other blog: iwannataglatsass.blogspot.com

Wow, just wow. Elie didn't just jump the shark, he kept it in a pen, fattened it up on a steady diet of liberal dreck, slathered it in a jar of Obama frosting and choked it down whole in one gulp. Then he crapped it out, and jumped the shit that that was the shark. And I voted against Prop 8.

Oh, and cock.

Elie, dailykos.com's comments sections are open.

There are probably at least 20 better-written versions of your post in the comments here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/5/13351/5326/393/654565

Gays are racist trouble makers, ironically very similar to Mormons.

Wow. This is beyond bad. I'm seriously thinking about switching to full-time law blog. They announce bonii, right?

This is so pathetic... There are many, many, many non religious arguments why gay marriage should not be called marriage - the fact that you are illiterate and don't know/care about them doesn't mean they don't exist.

I'd love to see this same crap being written about anti incest arguments...

What about all the people out there who are pro nature? Every single cell of your body has gender identification for a reason... homosexuality is flat out contrary to the genetic makeup of the body. I'm not arguing that there aren't people born with same sex attraction, but, it isn't natural by any stretch. We should clearly accomodate the tiny minority with these attractions, but to redefine a critical social institution to call it something it isn't clearly strikes the overwhelming majority of Americans as incorrect.

Elie sucks.

I am bisexual. I have a fundamental right to marry a man and a woman. How dare you try to take that away.

When did this blog turn into a gay loving porn shop owning soapbox. Gay fucking MysTTTal has got to go. Gay ass posts with shitty I am gay written all over it. Go sleep under you rainblow and enjoy your skinpops.

I think everyone should cut Elie some slack. Check the time of the post...he even posted a few comments. I hate the spelling errors (although I think most of them are done on purpose to get more comments out of the anal-retentive types). I came back to ATL at 8pm just to check if there were any funny submissions for the caption contest. Boom! A new post this late in the day (on an interesting topic no less, a topic that has many legal ramifications). Just saying.

-Not Elie.

37, I have read the npr article and the "religious liberties" being affected were predominantly economic and were essentially saying "we are open for business to everyone in the public except for gays/lesbians." Selling goods on the open market is not recognized as bona fide religious activitiy like performing a religious marriage ceremony or spreading their religious beliefs.

Economic religious liberties have been restricted for decades by the constitutional rights of the public. This is absolutely no different.

Challenge: Show me an example where a bona fide, non-economic, religious liberty was substantially affected by same-sex legislation.

another example from NPR:

"Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination" — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191

Michelle Obama is a man and married another man. They are now a high profile power couple. How do you feel now Mormons? Hmmmm. Michele Ewing Obama gunna kick yo ass, fool!

So gays are now the new blacks in the 1950's?

Its gunna rain men!

14/19-
Wheres you're cookie?
-Elie

outstanding post. well done elie.

73,

Are you suggesting that Catholic Charities had an economic interest in running an adoption service?

Once again, ATL commenters are whiny assbitches.

Once again, ATL commenters are whiny assbitches.

Once again, ATL commenters are whiny assbitches.

Ya know something. You are all right. I am going to try to live a straight life now. Just like jesus said I should. Any of your daughters available and of age? Or your fat single sisters? I think that is the answer. I want to be just as miserable as the rest of you.

68... what a fag. anyone against gay marriage is just a closet 'mo... like all the republicans getting found in bathrooms trying to suck on some dak. please strap a bomb to yourself and detonate it in church this sunday. thx.

Damn, 73, I hope 79 bought you a drink before that!

fuck this. and fuck cocks. in my ass.

79 -

NEWSFLASH: Anything Catholic has an economic interest.

51 - the traditional definition of voting didn't include women. it's the same thing. god you anti-gay marriage people will stoop to any and all levels to hide your latent homophobic tendencies.

Elie,
You miss the point. Gay people are not just asking to be left alone to engage in relationships of their choice. They already have that right. They are demanding that the government officially approve those relationships. Iin a government "of the people," what is wrong with a person choosing (by their vote) not to officially sanction and promote a relationship they believe is immoral and ultimately bad for society (for example, because it furthers the view that kids are just as well off without a married mom and a dad)?

It is reasonable to think there are effects on society of normalizing immoral conduct. "It's not immoral in my view," you respond. Well, confining chickens in a small box is not immoral in the view of some farmers, but the voters of California thought differently. That is their right as the sovereign. Insider trading is not immoral in my view, but the U.S. government has decided differently.

Many people vote for laws they think protect the environment or protect animals because they think certain conduct is immoral and bad for society. No one ever accuses them of trying to impose their religious values on someone else.

56, 53: Wrong-
Have you ever read California Family Code Section 297.5?

Elie, let me award you your first 180.

Is Barney Frank ghostwriting for Elie?

Sorry 90.

Howabout I blow you for being wrong on the Cali Family Code 297.5?

Your girlfriend/wife won't mind. It would save her from doing something she can't stand.

Way too much homosexual agenda propaganda on this blog. Terribly biased.

Elie,
Do a little research rather than just citing a misinformed blog. If your complaint is about federal rights, that has nothing to do with Prop 8. As to state rights:

Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.

Cal Fam Code § 297.5

Taking this crap blog off my google reader.

we don't need gay marriage. we need gay premarital sex.

elie = fatass faggot

can you stop yourself from posting about cock FOR ONE FUCKING DAY?

FUCK ME IN THE ASS

Wow, after slamming prop 8 supports for making straw man arguments, Elie.....makes straw man arguments. Great legal reasoning out there. "Well derrrr if you just don't like gay marriages derrrrr don't get one!!!!!!"

If I wanted to here a bunch of gratuitous left-wing nonsense, I would have stayed in law school.

I'm cancelling the RSS feed. I'm sure that if something important comes up, Bitter Lawyer or the other blogs will pick up on it.

98 - fuck that. we need MORE cock. more cock in the ass and throat.

ENOUGH WITH YOUR FAG RANTS.

please keep the religious satire out of your posts Elie. First of all, its offensive to those of us who actually do believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Second, you truly do not know enough about what you're bashing when you make fun of Christianity or the bible because a) Jesus didn't preach tolerance, he preached love (which is actually NOT the same thing), and b) not every Christian is Catholic.

Who cares what Elie thinks about gay marriage? Maybe he gets paid by the comment and that is why he has posted so many times on something he knows will stir up controversy. How about some law firm news?

COCK. COCK. SWEET, DELICIOUS COCK.

COCK. COCK. SWEET, DELICIOUS COCK.

I'm done with this blog.

From Elie's introduction post 08/19/08:

"I believe that my personal opinions and beliefs should be as far removed from the content that I post as possible. However, I'll let the readers be the judge of whether I am doing a good job at maintaining intellectual and professional impartiality."

http://abovethelaw.com/2008/08/meet_new_editor_elie_mystal.php

FOLLOW THROUGH YOU FUCKER

I'm sorry, I couldn't make it past the first paragraph. As soon as I read "...previously granted rights can be snatched away ..." I just sort of gave up on the rest of it.

Rights can neither be given nor taken away. Once you realize that, you can come to a couple other realizations:

There is marriage, and then there is marriage. One is a religious ceremony performed by a church that chooses to do so. Thanks to the Establishment Clause, churches can choose whether or not they want to do them, and they still can, and the government's not stopping them.
The other marriage is a contract formed between two people, for some reason the government decided to give it the exact same name to sow confusion amongst the masses.
Guess what it worked, most people don't really distinguish between a stupid piece of paper which confers certain government benefits and a holy ceremony performed by a member of the clergy.
Did I mention that a government certificate conferring benefits happens to be a privilege not a right? I mean, I'm only a lowly 2L who never pays attention so I could be rather off base, but that's why I'm posting on here rather than doing my homework.

Oh, but you're right that the government should not discriminate between whether the contracting parties are male or female. So the choices stand: give gays a piece of paper that says "marriage" or take it away from everyone and let the churches handle the religiously named ceremony.

-anonnemo

From Elie's introduction post 08/19/08:

"I believe that my personal opinions and beliefs should be as far removed from the content that I post as possible. However, I'll let the readers be the judge of whether I am doing a good job at maintaining intellectual and professional impartiality."

http://abovethelaw.com/2008/08/meet_new_editor_elie_mystal.php

FOLLOW THROUGH YOU FUCKER

where is Glass Cock to weigh in?

Anti-gay black list?!?! Good lord. So, christian conservatives can boycott any corporation that grants gay couples domestic partner benefits but gays are prevented from boycotting companies that support Prop 8? This makes no sense.

Anyone has a right to freedom of speech. And any gay has a right to criticize that speech with their dollars and words.

Hey 95 -- you're missing their point. You should go read their entire post. They're talking about the disconnect between California law and federal law definitions which they think will screw things up federally. And if you read the comments you'll see that Doug Kmiec didn't think they were so misinformed - he even suggested a way around the problem, and Doug Kmiec should know because he's law-nerd famous.
Signed,
The Guy Who told The Johnny California People About Above the Law.

oh schnap!

PS Here's my new theory of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution that I think may fly with a conservative Supreme Court -- apply the principles of corporate law to rights of groups. In corporate law, the people in control of a corporation (officers, directors, controlling shareholders) owe a fiduciary duty to shareholders and minority shareholders. In particular, a controlling shareholder, officers and directors are restricted from self-dealing (i.e., giving themselves better benefits than non-control stakeholders in the corporation). Such dealings must be approved by disinterested directors or a majority of the minority of shareholders.

Applying these principles to the Equal Protection Clause and the ownership society concept beloved by conservatives, imagine America as a corporation in which each citizen is a stakeholder. By virtue of majority rule, certain groups (e.g. straights) have control over the corporation, leaving certain other groups (e.g. gays) on the sidelines. In order to vote themselves benefits that are not extended to the minority group, the majority group must get the approval of a majority of the minority (or a majority of gays must approve the measure). That is, the majority has certain duties and responsibilities to minority groups.

Conservatives love this because, as the majority group, their power is recognized (that's all they really want -- to feel in control). Of course, this power is restricted by duties to others (conservatives love duty and responsibility as a social ordering construct).

Using the fiduciary duty concept of corporate law, a marriage law that benefits only straights (the majority) would be valid only if a majority of the minority approved it (not gonna happen). Otherwise, the straights violate their duties to us.

This of course is a work in process -- but it is striking that minority shareholders in America have more rights under law with respect to corporations than minority groups such as gays currently have under the Constitution.

-113

Elie,

There actually are fairly important and severe religious liberty issues with allowing same-sex marriage. One of the world's preemminent religious liberty scholars, Doug Laycock of the University of Michigan Law School, just published last month a book entitled "Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts." The book is a collection of scholarly essays by people from both sides of the conflict. One thing is clear to all of them: someone's rights will be trampled. Either religious rights and practices will be trampled, or the rights of homosexuals will be trampled. The book provides an in-depth scholarly analysis of the religious liberty implications, and it ends by a thorough essay by Professor Laycock discusing what he thinks might be a sustainable middle ground. He begins his essay by stating outright that he is supportive of gay rights, but that he thinks it is necessary to find a way to respect religious beliefs as well. I recommend the book to anyone who wants to truly understand the issues. Elie, I respect your position, and you are right that no one intends to force religious groups to perform gay marriages, but I think you are wrong to call the First Amendment argument a red herring. Many other religous liberty rights will be affected, Indeed, the First Amendment issue is front and center in this debate.

*gives elie high five for posting a story about prop 8 to appease the late night cock posters*

*slips resume in elie's back pocket while giving him a high five*

:)

-nervous T-10 1L
email job leads to nervoust101l@yahoo.com

So is society oppressing those who want 3 wives or 7 husbands?

The same arguments that legitimize gay marriage also legitimize polygamy.

So who wants a harem?

Elie-

As a gay man, I beg of you - STOP. You're doing way more harm than good. See, e.g., Gavin "whether they like it or not" Newsom.

Elie-

I appreciate the fact that you posted this after hours. Even though I didn't read your post I enjoyed the comments.

Elie-

Hypothetical question-if my husband were to offer you the position of White House donut taster would you be willing to take the job and glaze my donut on the side?

M. O.

I'm done. Elie you managed to turn a once-decent site into an incoherent mess that is utterly indistinguishable from literally thousands of other half-assed liberal blogs. Same thing happened to Wonkette a few years back, but at least they're still funny once a f*cking week. Have fun with your incessant bitching about gay law, black law, global warming law, union card check law, capital gains tax cut law, and how Obama's your personal hero.

33 - That's exactly what I think. I agree with his viewpoint on this issue (I think not letting gays be married is pretty stupid), but increasingly he's been using the blog as a soapbox for political points instead of gossiping about the law, which is the reason this blog exists. The fact that this post wasn't even what I would consider average political commentary didn't help. His retort in comment 10 that the anti-gay marriage side's information was there (buried on purpose through the links while bringing over only the stupidest arguments) was laughable too.

If i wanted to read about politics, I'd be at RCP or Politico, not reading something that looks like the average comment on DailyKos.

120 is right. The goal should be to get the majority to be ok with gay marriage, not to tell them we don't care what they think.

Elie - your legal "blacklist" analysis is way off base. As is all of your legal analysis. But who cares? You're not being paid to be a lawyer. You're being paid to write engaging, substantive posts on legal gossip. Wait, what's this? You're not writing engaging and substantive posts on legal gossip? You're writing hackneyed, dull posts in atrocious prose? Lat-Houston...we have a problem.

PPS This religion argument is such a canard. It's not about what the Bible says or God thinks. It's about social order. Conservatives are scared of anything that disrupts the traditional order of things -- everything in its place. They basically have obsessive compulsive disorder -- the slightest thing out of places drives them crazy. It's really a control/power thing.

It all boils down to, not God, but power and control. Maintaining the traditional social order is of course going to be a priority for those at the top of the traditional social hierarchy. Meanwhile, us untouchable gays must maintain our place at the bottom holding all the straights up and making them feel better about themselves.

I'm pretty sure Jesus was not into social hierarchies. I believe he was an earth is flat kind of guy -- everyone is equal in God's eyes.

- 113 redux

God should just make everybody gay for a week. Not only might this cure some bigots, but my James Franco/me/Seann William Scott sandwhich fantasy might be realized.

Thanks to the voters of California, we now live in a time where judicial fiats derived from penumbras formed by emanations can be restored to principled rule of law through clear textual directives initiated by the people, the sovereigns of American government.

128 - do you also have a fantasy where you can spell "sandwich" correctly?

113/116/127:

Shutup. I mean, I kinda agree with your premise....but shutup. You're annoying.

Thanks.

When "rights" are created out of state constiutional provisions that -- undisputably -- never were intended to confer such "rights" by the drafters, by common understanding, or by centuries of constitutional jurispurdence, then don't be surprised when they are taken away. House of cards fall quite easily.

Dick Cheney Indicted

Begich Wins Alaska Senate seat

---. back to arguing about same-sex marriage

118 - fuck yeah. love that cock.

Besides the editorializing, what is amazing about this post is that it's on a legal site and the editor fails to understand the basic legal argument that supporters of Prop 8 were making. The point is, churches cannot refuse to marry a couple today based on, for example, the husband is white and the wife is black. Because gay marriage was decided by judges as a right under the California Constitution, the same concern would apply to religious institutions. Could there be a different result? Maybe. But it would have to be tested in court first and, I suspect, there would be at least one gay couple willing to try and get married in a church just to test it in court.

Again, the editor seems to lack a basic understanding of legal concepts.

Why thank you, 131, you're sweet.

-- 113, 116, 127

135: You are an idiot. Here's why -

Churches can refuse to marry anyone. For example, I'm not Mormon, Therefore, a Mormon church would never agree to marry me. In fact, I can't even step inside a Mormon church when there is a wedding ceremony taking place.

Nothing about Prop 8 changes church's ability to select who they will marry.

Get a library card.

Elie:
First the "black list" only contains people that donated 1000 or more.

More importantly, how would you feel to be Nathan Jensen from MoFo who had 10K sitting around to go to fight the "evil" homosexuals and then have his name published. . . . . thoughts of e-mail bombing mo fo come to mind.

Typo: supporter of gay marriage who wants TO THE state to force a priest or a reverend or a rabbi to perform a gay marriage in a house of worship.

What does any of this have to do with being gay?

123 nailed him! I mean, it! In the ASS!

130 is a pretentious fucktard and closet homo (because that would explain the irrational anger over a blog typo)
this is a BLOG not a Law Review article. who cares about the typos?!

Elie, I think we all deserve cookies for not jumping on 14/19's obvious yet immaterial grammatical mistake!

127 - what it actually "boils down to" is that the people of CA have AGAIN, for the second time in 8 years, decided that they don't want their state to marry homosexuals. The rights of homosexuals to marry did not become a "fundamental right" in CA until May of this year when FOUR people said it was a fundamental right under the CA constitution - and then those FOUR people refused to stay their decision pending a constitutional amendment. Yes on 8 will surely argue that had the CA Sup Ct believed that an amendment would have been insufficient to effectively reverse its decision, which No ON 8 requires a revision to effect, the CA Sup Ct could have - and certainly should have - made that clear in May.

Before you give me some BS about "the constitution is there to protect the minority against the majority," just stop and save your breath. You're wrong - plain and simple, and that argument is desparate and overly simple. If enough people want to get something done, they will get it done. In fact, using the most extreme and vile example, if we as a nation were depraved enough to do so, we could reinstate slavery in this country within a couple of years (it would take some time to set up the constitutional convention in Congress and for the state conventions to ratify). The Courts would be powerless to stop it.

You may be correct if your position were that a constitution protects minorities from the CAPRICIOUS will of the majority. But, here, it's hard to say that the majority is acting capriciously when this is the second time over a multi-year period that they've made the same decision.

ELIE - THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL BLOG. IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE (AND USED TO BE WITH LAT) AN INFORMATIVE SOURCE FOR LEGAL EVENTS, HAPPENINGS AND GOSSIP. YOUR LIBERAL LEANINGS AND SHALLOW EDITORIALS ARE BETTER SUITED FOR MOVEON.ORG AND NOT HERE!!!! In sum, you suck!!!

great post, thanks elie.

Ellie,

When the Supreme Court struck down interracial marriage bands in Loving v. Virginia, it resulted in Bob Jones University, which was religiously opposed to interracial marriages, losing its tax exempt status. Yet, according to you, gay marriages will have no impact on religious organizations.

Try again,

Former ATL fan

142 = 128 = not impressive.

143. You misspelled desperate. You wrote "desparate." When I saw your mistake, I stopped reading and discounted your opinion. I'm serious.

Using caps lock doesn't help, either.

The state should not be in the business of granting "marriages" at all. Have the state give civil unions to any two people who want one, accompanied by all of the legal rights that marriage currently affords. That's all the state should be concerned with.

That way, no one can be upset by gay people getting "married." Let the churches marry whoever the fuck they want. If you're a bigot, well then, when your religion of choice denies gays the right to marry, you can satisfy yourself that they're not *really* married.

Two things that were mentioned earlier, but no one seems to pay attention to.
There is blatant mischaracterization of love, which the Jesus guy you mentioned actually taught about, and tolerance, which you kind of threw in there on your own, as complete acceptance of action. Actual reading of the Bible as opposed to stereotypical generalizations about Judeo-Christian thought would quickly cover that.
Love is not a decision to accept all your actions, it is a decision to accept you in spite of your actions.
Second, where is the public outcry when the government raids polygamist compounds? Does the fact that there happens to be a larger majority against that just make it easier to stomach? If we are arguing about sexual tendencies deserving all rights and being immune from the moral/societal/whatever control of the majority, shouldn't someone be fighting just as hard for polygamist rights?

145-

And that strikes you as a solid argument?

147 -- good for you. continue to ignore any post with typos. that will make atl a much quicker read. thnks

PS - you are a complete douchebag. luckily, i know you weren't able to read that last sentence because there was a typo preceding it. TOOL!!! You didn't read that either, did you?

Wow - where were all of these ass clowns when Lat was heaping praise on Monica Goodling for the really cute way that she destroyed the integrity of the White House?

I guess it's only unacceptable if (1) you're actually making a serious point, as opposed to laughing about the utter evisceration of DOJ and the rule of law and (2) you're a liberal.

Seriously, where were all of you fuckers when Lat was pumping up the pre-school kids that Bush installed at DOJ?

I didn't mind it at all, frankly. But I'm thinking some of you might want to go back a year or so and post some angry comments or something.

And stop with this bullshit about Elie's Harvard degree and his writing ability. This is a fucking blog. Relax. Seriously. It's OK.

Yes, this is Elie's mom. Yes, I'm gay. Yes I'm a TTT. I'm sure others will remind me of things I've left out here.

Thank you, 145, for illustrating exactly how I hope religious institutions will be punished for practicing their homophobic bigotry (now) and racism (then).

FIRE MYSTAL NOW! Or, better yet, three weeks ago....

stupid post, elie.

149: No one is arguing about "sexual tendencies deserving ALL rights."

People are arguing that adults should be able to decide what other consenting adult they want to enter into an arbitrary social construct with to get the benefits of such things as health insurance, family sick leave, intestate succession, and being able to visit each other in emergency rooms should something terrible happen.

But you can rest easy because now in cali two gay men will not be able to visit each other in the hospital if one gets in a car accident and is about to die. Good job!!!!

151:

I read your post in its entirety. You raised several valid points. Like when you capitalized the word "tool." I liked this.

-147

Where my battered women at?

Elie,

Richard Ford of SLS recently published this piece in Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2204661/pagenum/all/).

The main argument is that (1) race is not the right metaphor or frame to understand support for Prop 8 in California and (2) if we could only appreciate that some people earnestly believe that gay marriage threatens traditional gender roles (i.e., men = beat chest + scream + make money, women = smile + cook + take a lot of bullshit from men), we'd start to see that it will be very difficult to convince supporters of Prop 8 to change their minds.

I think for is right on the following:

- Supporters of Prop 8 are hard to bring over to the other side.

- There is a sense in which Prop 8 cannot be understood in terms of race, since the civil rights movement was directed specifically toward enabling rights that had historically been denied to people simply because of their skin color. (But notice, to say this is simply to say that race is not the same thing as gay marriage. How far does that get us?)

But, I think Ford - a professor from Stanford Law who is, one would assume, capable of better thoughts than those articulated in the above Slate piece - is dead wrong because:

- Denying gay marriage to homosexuals will do nothing FURTHER to erode traditional gender roles. In fact, the two biggest causes of changing gender roles arguably have already placed deep roots in our society, namely economics (men can no longer play the chest-beating, all-knowing authoritarians they once did) and modern social ethics (e.g., the notion that women should not only have the opportunity to do whatever they want, they should actually obtain roles traditionally reserved for men).

- If we do not allow gay marriage, we are allowing the State to dictate the content of gender roles. On what political theory is this an appropriate power for the State to have?

Sincerely,

Your friend ShortBus

@149: I think the difference with polygamist compounds is that generally (whether valid or not), there's a concern that children are being harmed, which leads to raids. Personally, I have no problem with polygamy, and never have, so long as all parties are of age and able to consent. It's not my thing, but that doesn't mean it's evil.

From Elie's introduction post 08/19/08:

"I believe that my personal opinions and beliefs should be as far removed from the content that I post as possible. However, I'll let the readers be the judge of whether I am doing a good job at maintaining intellectual and professional impartiality."

http://abovethelaw.com/2008/08/meet_new_editor_elie_mystal.php

156-
That's where a very fine line is having to be developed and walked by people who are trying to maintain religious views. Even if I don't condone gay marriage, I don't wish abject suffering on a couple who cares very deeply for each other, whether or not I agree with their lifestyle. Both concerns weigh heavily on anyone with a heart.
I think the crux for me is that you view marriage as an "arbitrary social construct" and I view it (in a religious light) as something a little more involved. Maybe that's the view that needs to be discussed. I certainly don't presume to have all the answers.

160- Good point. The point may have been better expressed leaving the raids out and just pointing out state laws against polygamy, and the general lack of concern for those people's rights.

this blog bites

Fucking hack.

Can someone just start a different blog where we comment about how much Elie sucks so that we don't help his ad revenue by bashing him?

159 - What part of "plenary" don't you get?

Elie is clearly drunk.

good to see Elie take a position on an issue in which the correct side of the argument is blindingly obvious

Voting YES on 8 means hot gun-toting Korean vampire lesbians can't get married. And THAT, my fellow Donut-Loving-Americans, would be a crime:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1707388&postcount=6098

This post is icing on the cake. There has to be something we can do to get Lat to get a new editor. Elie is just horrible and this blog is turning into something like Auto Admit. Anybody have any good ideas on how we can get our point across to Lat that we are ready for change. Just because people are reading the blog and commenting doesn't mean that it is going in the right direction. This has just gotten to the point where it is ridiculous.

How the hell did this make it onto the blog? Elie, if you're interested in telling us your political beliefs--start a personal blog. I'm here for legal gossip.

Also the notion that the law is either a shield or a sword is retarded and you should be ashamed for repeating that banality. Anything you say is a sword i can recast as a shield. don't be retarded elie. you can do better.

We have to leave, 170.

Do it cold turkey, and don't check, much less post. Period. Put up or shut up.

I've put it off too long, and I'll be trying to make tonight my last time on ATL for a week.

172, I'm with you. I've decided that I'll check the blog on Sunday's and that is it. I've deleted it from my bookmarks. One person isn't going to do much but hopefully more people will do it when Lat can still save the Blog and bring it back to what it once was. I've spent the last 30 minutes or so reading some of the old posts and comparing it with this type of crap (or the repetitive posts that have repeatedly made) and it's mind boggling that Lat hasn't done anything yet. Well so long to ATL for me.

There are no good arguments against gay marriage. Only religious ones.

people, leave Elie alone. you are all fucking small-minded children.

give me some fucking cock now. Right now. Cock. Long, thick, veiny, smooth cock.

Man, Proposition 8 is SOOOOO GAY. And by gay I mean stupid.

With this and the sexism post earlier it's obvious that someone has stolen Elie's password and is playing a prank on him. Elie is being punk'd.

150,

Yes.

145

ps. I am not saying that the religious views practiced by Bob Jones University are right or wrong, I am just saying that their ability to practice them was inhibited by the Supreme Court finding a fundamental right.

this post sucks. This site sucks. ATL is becoming a TTT. I once read this blog daily. Now, once a week at most.

176 - um, I agree with the sentiment but damn, show some restraint.

listen, who cares about this anyway. live and let live.

The Glass Cock here, very confused by Elie's confusion. Elie's post argues the points as if Proposition 8 was a wrongly decided court case, but it was in fact a proposition voted on by California's voters.

Argue all you want about whether the majority of California voters are bigots or not, but the only question is whether the procedure for amending the CA constitution was properly followed.

Suck the big glassy cock.

ah, the Glass Cock in his infinite glassy wisdom. let's all suck on the glassiness.

153,

It is not homophobic bigotry, it is called morality. You do not think the church's views on something are right, just like the church does not think your views on something are right. That does not make either a bigot. The great thing in this country is that people are allowed to have a difference of opinions.

Also, there are very logical arguments that interracial marriage is against God's will and that the belief is not just founded on racism. For example, why would God put people of different races on different continents if he intended them to interact? That said, God made some many beautiful women of color that I don't mind if it wasnt his intention.

Fuck you Glass Cock. You are a stupid frat boy who thinks it's funny to post these shitty comments.

ATL is moving away from what it was and becoming an adjunct of the Kos Krowd (or maybe the ABA). This site is off my list of reads because it no longer does any one thing better than other sites. If I wanted to read posts like this, there are a dozen sites that would make the argument in a more cogent and mature way.

Brand dilution is a bitch. Especially when the barrier to entry for future competitors is zilch.

With all the recent and pending lay-offs in the legal world, I trust someone with time on his or her hands will fill the void. I look forward to it.

so many*

185

Elie is trying to be the Jay Mariotti of the law blogging world. He wants to drive up hits and comments by posting ridiculous shit designed solely to piss people off.

Pissing people off = more $$$.

Unfortunately, with his useless political commentary he has ruined what was once a pretty interesting blog that was actually useful.

Elie could care less. He's an asshole - and a stupid one at that. The sooner people realize his game - write stuff to piss people off to drive up hits - the better off this blog will be.

you people claim that you will stop reading ATL. Bullshit. You'll come back.

This blog fucking sucks. Fire ELLIE! We don't want to stop reading ATL, we want the talent that made ATL worth reading to come back.

you know what fucking sucks? people who suck cock.

186 is jealous of the Glass Cock and it's smooth, thick, transparent, glassy wisdom. Typical.

BRING BACK SEN!
BRING BACK SEN!
BRING BACK SEN!
BRING BACK SEN!
BRING BACK SEN!
BRING BACK SEN!
BRING BACK SEN!
BRING BACK SEN!
BRING BACK SEN!
BRING BACK SEN!
BRING BACK SEN!
BRING BACK SEN!
BRING BACK SEN!

BRING BACK SEN!
BRING BACK SEN!
BRING BACK SEN!
BRING BACK SEN!
BRING BACK SEN!
BRING BACK SEN!
BRING BACK SEN!
BRING BACK SEN!
BRING BACK SEN!
BRING BACK SEN!
BRING BACK SEN!
BRING BACK SEN!
BRING BACK SEN!

BRING BACK SEN!
BRING BACK SEN!
BRING BACK SEN!
BRING BACK SEN!
BRING BACK SEN!
BRING BACK SEN!
BRING BACK SEN!
BRING BACK SEN!
BRING BACK SEN!
BRING BACK SEN!
BRING BACK SEN!
BRING BACK SEN!
BRING BACK SEN!

Yes, yes, I concur. It would be MOST GOOD to bring back SEN.

Yes, yes, I concur. It would be MOST GOOD to bring back SEN.

Guess what: MYSTAL doesn't suck -- the ATL readers suck.

This blog sucks not only because it's not doing the job it once did, but also because it sucked when it was doing that job. It was a rag tabloid, at best, and a virtual office break room for all the douchenozzle legal types who aren't cool enough to have actual social skills.

Also, that Nervous T10 1L is getting on my nerves. I miss that other guy... what was his name? DePaul 1L? Loyola 1L? Whatever... I miss that guy.

Nervous T10 1L is a lame substitute for that Loyola kid, just like MysTTTTTTTal is a lame substitute for SEN. Back in the day, this blog knew how to suck in subtle ways and now it's just over-the-top.

This is a legal tabloid not a legal editorial. Elie, nobody cares what your opinion is. Especially when you present it so poorly.

Goodbye ATL, you were great until a loser Harvard grad who couldn't do anything productive with his degree decided to start blogging on gay marriage, glass ceilings, and the oppressed black masses. You are now like Oprah in html. Farewell.

Elie,

People have written entire law review articles that explain the potential religious freedom/free speech problems raised by gay marriage. Perhaps you are over-stating your case just a bit. Maybe before you dismiss arguments out-of-hand you should try to understand them.

Harvard Journal of Public Policy pwns Elie.

http://www.becketfund.org/index.php/article/722.html

From Elie's introduction post 08/19/08:

"I believe that my personal opinions and beliefs should be as far removed from the content that I post as possible. However, I'll let the readers be the judge of whether I am doing a good job at maintaining intellectual and professional impartiality."

http://abovethelaw.com/2008/08/meet_new_editor_elie_mystal.php

i want the benefits of marriage just for sitting on my ass. anyone with me?

Even though I agree with Elie, this blog is not the place for op-eds.

I'm officially done with this blog. After 18 months, it's over. I've said that before, but this time I'm actually done. I will be blocking the site out of my HOSTS file just so that I don't come here out of habit by accident.

Elie, you've taken a spectacular blog and turned it into a gigantic piece of trash in a very short period of time - congratulations. In this post alone, you've managed to show an incredible degree of ignorance, offensiveness, and the ever-present poor writing ability.

I hope that you will please look at my IP address - see the many hundreds of times I've visited this site over the past 18 months, and notice that this is the very last time I will ever visit it.

Peace out, ATL.

as someone who supports gay marriage, it is not hard to make the argument that the "right" to gay marriage is found nowhere in the CA constitution. the unelected judges that made up that right were acting outside the scope of their constitutional powers. therefore, the will of the people, as made clear in two referenda, governs.

is that such a difficult logical argument to understand?

Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that homosexuals are some sort of immutable minority akin to women or minorities. Let's also not delude ourselves into thinking that "equal protection" means every man, woman, and child in the country gets to do whatever they want whenever they want. EVERY law "discriminates" against those subject to its restrictions or excluded from its benefits! The fact is there are rational (maybe even compelling) justifications for promoting the nuclear family. Come on gays, at least ADMIT THIS MUCH! I know it's not the lifestyle you want, but AT LEAST be honest enough to admit that the rest of society has a legit interest in promoting it! Also, please stop accusing the majority of "bigotry" or "hatred."

http://counteredmajoritarian.blogspot.com

Elie -

I have read a lot of entries on this site. This is the worst entry that I have ever read. You have done ATL a great disservice.

This is a 3L, not a lawyer commenting. Elle, I am an infrequent reader, so I cannot comment on your specific opinion on this issue as compared to the blog generally. However, comment 116 raises an interesting point, albeit misguided.

Yes, a corporation holds many of the legal rights of an individual, and shareholders represent the "soul" of the corporation. Majority shareholders do indeed owe a fiduciary duty to both the corporation and the minority shareholders. The corporate standards, however, are inapplicable to this situation. This is not a matter of the majority owing a fiduciary duty to minorities. A major purpose of the judicial branch, at least of the federal government, is to protect minority rights. That's also the entire purpose of the Equal Protection Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment. What we're talking about here is something different.

I should state that the Prop. 8 passage marks a dark day for me. But not for gay rights. Not for the right to marry. I'm a straight, Catholic man. It is the Equal Protection Clause of the federal Constitution that will suffer. Unfortunately, any lawyer that seeks to challenge Prop. 8 under the U.S. Constitution, as opposed to the California state Constitution, has done his client a great disservice. Whether for or against the measure, we all know that any attempt by the state's highest court to declare the proposition federally unconstitutional will surely meet with failure. It will also help create a federal precedent that will do nothing more than stagnate the issue for several decades.

I pray that the California Court will find the measure unconstitutional as a matter of state law. As for 207's argument, consider whether the requirements for a change to the California State Constitution square with your concepts of what a constitutional amendment should require.

This is a 3L, not a lawyer commenting. Elle, I am an infrequent reader, so I cannot comment on your specific opinion on this issue as compared to the blog generally. However, comment 116 raises an interesting point, albeit misguided.

Yes, a corporation holds many of the legal rights of an individual, and shareholders represent the "soul" of the corporation. Majority shareholders do indeed owe a fiduciary duty to both the corporation and the minority shareholders. The corporate standards, however, are inapplicable to this situation. This is not a matter of the majority owing a fiduciary duty to minorities. A major purpose of the judicial branch, at least of the federal government, is to protect minority rights. That's also the entire purpose of the Equal Protection Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment. What we're talking about here is something different.

I should state that the Prop. 8 passage marks a dark day for me. But not for gay rights. Not for the right to marry. I'm a straight, Catholic man. It is the Equal Protection Clause of the federal Constitution that will suffer. Unfortunately, any lawyer that seeks to challenge Prop. 8 under the U.S. Constitution, as opposed to the California state Constitution, has done his client a great disservice. Whether for or against the measure, we all know that any attempt by the state's highest court to declare the proposition federally unconstitutional will surely meet with failure. It will also help create a federal precedent that will do nothing more than stagnate the issue for several decades.

I pray that the California Court will find the measure unconstitutional as a matter of state law. As for 207's argument, consider whether the requirements for a change to the California State Constitution square with your concepts of what a constitutional amendment should require.

This is a 3L, not a lawyer commenting. Elle, I am an infrequent reader, so I cannot comment on your specific opinion on this issue as compared to the blog generally. However, comment 116 raises an interesting point, albeit misguided.

Yes, a corporation holds many of the legal rights of an individual, and shareholders represent the "soul" of the corporation. Majority shareholders do indeed owe a fiduciary duty to both the corporation and the minority shareholders. The corporate standards, however, are inapplicable to this situation. This is not a matter of the majority owing a fiduciary duty to minorities. A major purpose of the judicial branch, at least of the federal government, is to protect minority rights. That's also the entire purpose of the Equal Protection Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment. What we're talking about here is something different.

I should state that the Prop. 8 passage marks a dark day for me. But not for gay rights. Not for the right to marry. I'm a straight, Catholic man. It is the Equal Protection Clause of the federal Constitution that will suffer. Unfortunately, any lawyer that seeks to challenge Prop. 8 under the U.S. Constitution, as opposed to the California state Constitution, has done his client a great disservice. Whether for or against the measure, we all know that any attempt by the state's highest court to declare the proposition federally unconstitutional will surely meet with failure. It will also help create a federal precedent that will do nothing more than stagnate the issue for several decades.

I pray that the California Court will find the measure unconstitutional as a matter of state law. As for 207's argument, consider whether the requirements for a change to the California State Constitution square with your concepts of what a constitutional amendment should require.

As a vociferously pro-gay marriage lawyer and longtime reader of this blog, let me just say: Elie, you're killing ATL. Cut the crap.

What?

No attack on the "Yes on 8" vote ever raised the salary of a BigLaw Associate.

From now on, all I'm reading is the WSJ Law Blog. I'm taking this piece of shit off my favorites.
Good job Elie, you've killed what was once a good blog.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/

um... hullo? *is this thing on?*

uh, yes. i'd just like to say that -- uh... two gay guys swapping feces is just wrong. (and disgustingly perverted.)

ty

From Elie's introduction post 08/19/08:

"I believe that my personal opinions and beliefs should be as far removed from the content that I post as possible. However, I'll let the readers be the judge of whether I am doing a good job at maintaining intellectual and professional impartiality."

http://abovethelaw.com/2008/08/meet_new_editor_elie_mystal.php

Elie is a fat disgusting idiot

217, you make me sick. Have you no respect for the Constitution? EP? I'm going to bed, but I'll check the blog in the morning. Please explain to me how blacks, women and every other "minority" are different from gays. Have you heard what happened in Lawrence v. Texas? Go back to law school.

Awful. Elie should be ashamed at what he has done to this blog. There has to be a way to beg Lat to fix this.

first

221 - LOL!!

221: no, men swapping feces is what should make you sick.

219: no, men swapping feces -- THAT should make you sick.

Well, that's 10 minutes of my life I'd never get back. Nice touch throwing the Christians and pro-family types under the bus. As if they don't have any decent arguments worth printing. Good balance to the write-up; did Dailykos approve this first?

I agree with 218. My verdict: fail. If this was a law school final, the professor would burn it in front of the whole class and announce the grade of the supplicant as an example of how not to succeed. Or, at least, my professors would pass it around and wonder what the heck admissions was thinking.

At least 211-12 tried to be coherent, but appears he/she is a legacy at an Ivy League school who somehow survived the 1L year. Likely with money in paper bags on the professor's stoop.

This debate is interesting and all, but for the life of me, I can't figure out what it has to do with WILDMAN HARROLD.

Glass Cock here, wondering whether Elie will receive an annual review where Lat says "hey, fatboy, you weren't earning any brownie points with all that pro gay marriage nonsense. I'm the guy who wrote this, lardass:

National Coming Out Day is just another event in the recent rash of identity-based pride rallies. These alleged celebrations of diversity have devolved into mutual masturbation festivals. They reassure people who are still deeply troubled by their lifestyle choices and are desperately seeking a stamp of approval. We have a duty to deny them this approval."

Dear Elie,

Why do you use a picture of me as your icon? Please use a picture of Pinky from now on.

Sincerely,
The Brain

How about writing about LAW? I've read posts by nonlawyers wholeheartedly opposed to prop 8 who expressed the legal issues better (paraphrased briefly below).

One question is whether prop 8 was an amendment or revision (or something like that) and last I read there was some issue whether the challenge on that basis would go directly to the California Supreme Court or not.

There, that brief comment was more informative than your whole post.

For that matter, some states (not California) forbid first-cousin marriage, some allow it; some allow marriage at obscenely young ages, others don't; they have to give full faith and credit to other states, of course, but merely because a state does or does not allow certain people to marry does not automatically get me spewing bile (and let's not get started on whether forbidding polygamy is discrimination...).

Incidentally, to be political, demographics shows that e.g. black (last survey I read the % in that group who preferred "black" vs. "African-American" were about equal) voters tend to be more socially conservative than the average, so increased voter turnout and voting for President-elect Obama helped pass prop 8. But let's blame Mormons instead...

SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT POLITICS YOU FAT FUCK.

SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT POLITICS YOU FAT FUCK.

SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT POLITICS YOU FAT FUCK.

SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT POLITICS YOU FAT FUCK.

SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT POLITICS YOU FAT FUCK.

SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT POLITICS YOU FAT FUCK.

SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT POLITICS YOU FAT FUCK.

SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT POLITICS YOU FAT FUCK.

Nice work Elie, you officially ruined ATL with one VERY controversial post.

Dear ATL Commenters,

I know you feel frustration at Elie's writing, and at him in general. Trust me, I know the feeling.

But in the long run, it is only counterproductive to harp on the fact that he is of below average intelligence, that he likes to post about random things relating to a Queer Afro-Asian Post-Neo-Retro-Modernist Literature class he took in college, or that he alternates recycled posts from DailyKos and the Wall Street Journal Law blog.

You may think you're going to change things. But you don't know Elie. I know Elie. When he gets criticized, he gets mad. He jiggles around, quickly working up a sweat (which I have to cope with, sometimes for days afterward). He loses his Cheezy-Poofs, lodging them between me and my brethren. All around, it's no fun for anyone, especially me. The best way to cope with things is just to let him tire himself out on his tangents - it doesn't take long, and it's more peaceful for us all in the end.

Sincerely,

Elie's Fat Roll

Bah, Elie's fine. If you don't like the post, skip it. If you find that all the posts suck, quit looking up ATL. If I were Elie, I'd put in more typos just to make you fuckers suffer a cerebral hemorrhage or two.

Douchebaggery abounds.

Elie - I second every comment about your faTTT rolls, typos, and turning a blog about the legal industry into a left-leaning bowl of crap.

Elie - I second every comment about your faTTT rolls, typos, and turning a blog about the legal industry into a left-leaning bowl of crap.

elie -- please keep posting stuff like this until all the conservative racist assholes who read this blog stop coming here and wasting my time with their ridiculous comments. i loved it. if this can become both a great legal gossip blog and an awesome politically commentary blog, i think you'll find yourself with a very happy audience.

From Elie's introduction post 08/19/08:

"I believe that my personal opinions and beliefs should be as far removed from the content that I post as possible. However, I'll let the readers be the judge of whether I am doing a good job at maintaining intellectual and professional impartiality."

http://abovethelaw.com/2008/08/meet_new_editor_elie_mystal.php

236:
Audience = You. I'm out; later fuckbags.

220 - Beg Lat to fix this? You want to fight flaming with flaming?

Yeah, it's much better to just let judges legislate from the bench instead.

Your blatant anti-Catholic trolling is disgusting.

237, good point. Mystttal won this post with false promises. I feel betrayed.

I skipped Elie's post entirely and went straight to the comments -- far more entertaining.

Congratulations, Elie, you got your comments and page views...

...at the cost of any credibility you had left.

And remember, some 70% of African Americans in CA didn't think specifically defining "marriage" as between a man and a woman is ANYTHING akin to jim crow.

And they are absolutely right.

245! (I didn't see this till now.) Elie, your best opinion post ever!!!! Thanks for reiterating my point: if you're against gay marriage, don't get one and shut th &%#@ up!

This site used to be enjoyable and fun - a relief from this sort of slanted editorial opinion. Now, Elie is using this platform to give second-rate stump speeches. .

Is this happening because Elie doesn't understand why people come here? Or is this a purposeful attempt to move the site in another direction?

Elie,

First off, good post.

Second off, keep posting this stuff, because not only is it good reading, but it drives away the idiots who continue to post about how they are leaving the site. Soon we will have a comments section that will be filled with substantive posts rather than "OMG WTF I'M OUT OF HERE THIS BLOG SUCKS BLAH BLAH BLAH".

You have absolutely no impartiality and your posts are not even factually correct.

First, no lies about contraception or practices need be told to anyone to get married in the Catholic Church. Priests encourage couples to consider the teachings of the Church, but do not refuse to marry you because you do not follow every teaching. You're just plain wrong on that point. The Church will not marry homosexuals and will not marry couples whose marriages would not be recognized by the Church, but in terms of individuals' beliefs and practices, you're just wrong.

Second, the Catholic Church requires you to attend classes, yes, but no religious "indoctrination" occurs in these classes (but even if it did, would it be problematic in some to have the Church marrying you preach its teachings to you before you get married before God in their house of worship?). The classes teach you what marriage is all about and help point out problems that unsuspecting couples may face. (e.g., how finances will be handled, who is going to take out the trash, am I in an abusive relationship?) The classes are intended to get couples talking, help them with conflict resolution, and help set the foundation for a long and healthy marriage.

This whole quote is just plain wrong and clearly an off-the-cuff comment with absolutely no research or personal knowledge. "Heck, in the Catholic church at least, you can't get straight-married by a priest in a church unless you submit yourself to hours of religious indoctrination and lie about your relationship with contraceptives." If you're going to post biased rants, at least get your facts straight.

Mystal: The title of this blog is "ATL: A Legal Tabloid -- News, Gossip, and Colorful Commentary on LAW FIRMS AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION," not Elie's personal editorial space.

Lat: You should can this fool b/c he's tanking what used to be a fun site to visit at work.

Mystal: The title of this blog is "ATL: A Legal Tabloid -- News, Gossip, and Colorful Commentary on LAW FIRMS AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION," not Elie's personal editorial space.

Lat: You should can this fool b/c he's tanking what used to be an enjoyable web site. If I want political messages, I know where to find them and they shouldn't be at ATL.

Mystal: The title of this blog is "ATL: A Legal Tabloid -- News, Gossip, and Colorful Commentary on LAW FIRMS AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION," not Elie's personal editorial space.

Lat: You should can this fool b/c he's tanking what used to be an enjoyable web site. If I want political messages, I know where to find them and they shouldn't be at ATL.

Mystal: The title of this blog is "ATL: A Legal Tabloid -- News, Gossip, and Colorful Commentary on LAW FIRMS AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION," not Elie's personal editorial space.

Lat: You should can this fool b/c he's tanking what used to be an enjoyable web site. If I want political messages, I know where to find them and they shouldn't be at ATL.

"I believe that my personal opinions and beliefs should be as far removed from the content that I post as possible. However, I'll let the readers be the judge of whether I am doing a good job at maintaining intellectual and professional impartiality. Here are some of my identification labels."

--Elie Mystal's introduction to ATL readeres, Aug. 19, 2008

Has ATL always been a place for political losers to grouse about how much democracy sucks compared to the rule of progressive courts? In the freaking POSTS?

I've never complained about posters before, but Elie is epic fail.

Elie - stop using the blog to whine and promote your agenda.

And when have you you ever been "oppressed by an otherwise free society"? Last I check you got a ride to Harvard.

Posted by guest | Permalink
Wednesday, November 19, 2008 5:23 AM

elie -- please keep posting stuff like this until all the conservative racist assholes who read this blog stop coming here and wasting my time with their ridiculous comments.
__________________________________________

Please--you think these mouthbreathing xoxo refugees are going anywhere? They've been driving up hits on this board with their MysTTTal and bring back Sen rants since Elie got here. They will continue to do so, because no other board is going to tolerate their crap.

248, I disagree with your assessment of pre cana, or at least not all Catholic churches have the same goal. When I attended it last year, it was condensed to a single day, and there were about 80 couples, each paying a tidy fee. That church cleared just under ten grand that day. All the lecturers were volunteers doing their spiritual duty, so there was virtually no overhead. Nice racket.

219, did you even go to law school?

Do you really think that every minority in America is akin to Women and African Americans? Under your logic smokers, alcoholics, pedofiles, etc. are all equal minorities. They just come out of the womb with their predilictions. Society has nothing to do with shaping the habits of these people, right? You sir, are a horse's ass.

As certain posters have indicated on this blog time and time again, there is no evidence that gayness, for lack of a better word, is genetic. As far as I am aware, there is no gay chromosome. Unlike Women and African Americans, gayness is not present at birth and only rears its head later in life. While I have to admit there may be SOME genetics in play, gayness is a function of society and upbringing. As such, gays are just like any other group in society that is free to be "normal" but choose not to. Women and African Americans, not so much.

As for your reference to Lawrence v. Texas, I don't see your point. That case simply struck down a sodomy law. Nothing more. Two guys are free to check each other's oil without going to jail for sodomy. How does this extend to them the right to marry?

Whatever the right answer is on Prop 8, I can't believe a liberal is complaining about the law being a sword. That's nauseatingly rich.

gay people like butt sex

Whatever the right answer is on Prop 8, I can't believe a liberal is complaining about the law being a sword. That's nauseatingly rich.

Elie - stop using a strap on.

I am done with ATL for the rest of the week.

I am done with ATL for the rest of the week.

I don't understand why everyone's such an ass. I found this post to be insightful and funny even. Thanks for an enjoyable post, Elie.

I am done with ATL for the rest of the week.

I am done with ATL for the rest of the week.

I can't even believe how ridiculous and biased this post is. Leaving aside the substantive issues re: gay marriage, it's absurd to say that our overseers in black robes can "grant" "rights" (which usually appear nowhere in the text of the relevant document) but that the people in our democracy must never question such rights or the ability of judges to do whatever they want. Talk about tyranny of the minority!

I love when Elie posts in the comments! hahaha. You rule. Keep up the good snark.

Dear Lat:

Unlike the rest of us, you do not need to wait until 2012 to remove an unqualified stooge whom you mistakenly -- but in good faith -- selected for high office.

Sincerely,

A Reader Who Used to Enjoy ATL

Hey, look, the Daily Kos swiped ATL's url and got even dumber than usual!

Wow Elie was PWNED today

This blog is starting to suck. Can anyone recommend another blog that focuses on layoffs, law firm personnel changes, bonuses etc., and leaves the politics and catholic-bashing out?

67--the only thing worse than mistakenly thinking the plural of bonus is "boni" is including an extra 'i". For the love of god:
bo⋅nus
   /ˈboʊnəs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [boh-nuhs] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -nus⋅es.
1. something given or paid over and above what is due.

Anyone who thinks the plural of bonus is "boni" doesn't deserve one.

biased much? and, the "previously granted rights" were not something enmeshed in history, it was something that was granted by a vote of 1 unelected judge overturning the vote of the people. under CA law, domestic partners have the exact same rights as married couples. there's nothing at stake here other than semantics.

You act as if there has never been a law passed to overturn a court decision...

The attack on religious liberty argument IS a red herring. Examples from Canada or other nations that have recognized same sex rights don't apply. They just don't have the same history of protecting religious freedom and speech that we do.

Besides, when did the focus of the Bible become gay sex? The New Testament says little about homosex. It does say a lot about divorce and adultery, though. I just don't get why the religious don't campaign against those issues? Why hasn't the Mormon or Catholic churches attempted to get Props on the ballot to outlaw those? Hey, what about contraception, too? Should we try to outlaw that? I mean, as a Catholic, it's ones duty, right?

Homosexuality is not the world's most grievous sin. (I don't remember the thou shalt not fuck your friend in the ass commandment). Rather, it's the target for those for feel like they are losing control. It's the only issue on which they think they can win. Why? Because people are scared of things they don't know.

It really is reprehensible, regardless of your religious beliefs, to deny equal rights to another group based on an immutable characteristic. (And don't get me started on ex-gay--sure, you can act one way, but you're never not gay). I implore those of you who use your religion to justify it to reread the Bible and highlight all of the Biblical mandates that you do not follow. Why are they any less important?

Just to be clear... if "gay" were a gene then evolution would immediately weed it out right? Because ummm... uhhh... if you can't have kids you can't pass on your genes right? So no, gayness is (probably) not a gene. Maybe a mutation that affects your attraction to men and women but certainly not a gene.

275, you're clearly not gay. What is at stake is governmental recognition that my marriage (and yes I was married when it was legal) is as valid as yours. It has NOTHING to do with religion. Do you know that when California struck down it anti-miscegenation law it rejected the idea that the State could grant the same rights under a different name like "transracial union?" And don't started with the one unelected judge BS. That's what they're there for. That's why we have Courts. Most of you twits never reference the "activist" decisions of the Rehnquist Court when you talk about "activist" judges. Get a better argument. Their JOB is to interpret the State Constitution.

278, you're misguided and your statement is overly simplistic. Read a genetics book. First off, there's not one gene that controls complex traits. It's likely a series of genes that play a part, and sometimes they function in an additive nature (e.g. you're tall b/c you got a series of genes that contribute to height). Second, plenty of genes are carried by one parent and not expressed (i.e. recessive genes). Third, some traits are not expressed until two dominant genes are found or two recessive genes are found. And sometimes they are partially expressed, if you have one of each. Fourth, there is likely an environmental component (as with all complex traits). It may be in utero hormones, other environmental exposure, upbringing, who knows. Fifth, ummmm...plenty of "homosexual" people are married with kids or pass on their genes otherwise (though their kids are generally straight). Sixth, most LGB people are the children of straight people (do you know any gays?). Finally, you wholly fail to understand the concept of a mutation. Mutations are not necessary bad. Sometimes they produce preferable traits. Human evolution, in fact, is the result of arguably positive mutation. Additionally, what do you think mutates? it's a gene, my friend.

Ugh...I could go on forever. Get a book.

Here's my sober assessment of ATL under Elie.

1) He's clearly taken it in a more partisanly political direction than Lat. However, while a lot of commenters complain, they keep coming back. Since running a successful website is about generating hits, Elie's new direction seems to be working out.

2) Elie does have a genuine problem with typos and grammar. While this too generates a lot of comments, I doubt it generates hits to the site. People who would visit anyway simply choose to comment on Elie's poor writing - it's not as though the poor writing draws people to the site. This is something Elie needs to work on.

3) The critics who call Elie stupid have a point. Elie is not a bumbling moron as many claim, but he clearly has trouble with reading comprehension and logical reasoning. His repeated wage discrimination posts show this most clearly. Elie points to a study that says that there is a gender-wage disparity among all associates, all partners, and all judges. Elie reads this to mean that a comparison was done between all second year associates at similar firms. That is clearly not the case, as a careful reading would have indicated. Elie also insists that the wage gap reported in the study cannot be explained by women leaving firms in higher numbers for family reasons. Even after several commenters point out that the study's broad category comparison DOES leave open the possibility that the wage gap is due to women voluntarily leaving the workforce, Elie posts in a manner that shows he does not understand the logic behind this point at all.

I'm strongly suspect the poor writing is mere laziness, but the lack of reading comprehension and lack of ability to understand logical arguments is probably more fundamental.

4) I can't call Elie a coward, because he endures a lot of criticism, and keeps on posting. However, there is something disconcerting about his hit-and-run reply tactics. In this thread, Elie replies to a commenter and makes two claims. When a later commenter replies and points out - rightly - that Elie's first claim is immaterial, and his second claim is flatly wrong, Elie is nowhere to be found. Elie's failure to admit his errors is probably frustrating for many readers.

5) Elie's legal posts are generally good, but he needs to do more original research rather than recycling stories from other legal blogs. Lat used to call up firms and get comments on layoffs, megers, and bonuses. Elie should do more of that. Original reporting is what makes a site worthwhile.

279:

"most LGB people are the children of straight people."

Ya think? And therein lies one of the best arguments against enshrining (or being required to enshrine) gay marriage.

Elie says no one ever names any "concrete effect" that same-sex marriage will have on religious liberty.

That's not true.

The Heritage Foundation recently published a carefully-sourced paper that cites burden after burden that same-sex marriage will impose on the religious liberties of individuals and institutions that continue to believe in traditional marriage.

See here: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/upload/bg_2201.pdf).

In addition, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty recently organized a book on this same topic, in which several scholars -- including scholars who favor or are neutral on same-sex marriage -- predict massive conflicts with religious liberty.

See here: http://www.becketfund.org/index.php/article/792.html.

If all the commenters spewing vitriol have time to waste neither doing good in the world nor billing but getting up in arms against this issue and relying on prejudice, illogic, and recyled platitudes, they would do well to read the Massachussets marriage case, Goodridge, and its careful analysis of the arguments against gay marriage, particularly those about promoting family stability and the protection of children. In a nutshell: forbidding gay marraige is not going to get more people into opposite sex marriages that raise children.

Let's talk about kids for a moment. Some kids are gay. Kids have been coming out of the closet at younger and younger ages. It's better for gay kids to have models of committed relationships between gay people than soley models of a 1950s sitcom-style family wih play actors performing according to stereotypes. Lurking beneath the surface of those wholesome families is instability (50% divorce rate) adultery (including that committed by such public figures as Michael Bowers, the GA attorney general, and Eliot Spitzer...), closeted homosexuality practiced on the dl (see e.g., Jim McGreevy and the slew of conservative politicians), and most grave of all, child abuse and neglect. Some memebers of a group voting in large numbers for Proposition 8 exist in single parent families with no fathers in sight. Opposite sex marriages are hardly bastions of family stability and optimal child rearing. In states with safe haven laws, opposite sex parents have been dumping unwanted teenagers on the state.
The Proposition 8 campaign which focused on school children and fairy tales was very interersting in light of the fact the very Disney movies featuring princes charming and pneumatic princesses were created by gay graphic artisits. Exactly where is the harm in letting gay little girls know that two princesses may marry rather than forcing them to subscribe to the notion that their goal in life is to be rescued by Prince Charming? Where is the harm in letting gay little boys know that two princes may marry rather than forcing them to subsribe to colonial rape fantasies?

[282 - with corrected hyperlink]

Elie says no one ever names any "concrete effect" that same-sex marriage will have on religious liberty.

That's not true.

The Heritage Foundation recently published a carefully-sourced paper that cites burden after burden that same-sex marriage will impose on the religious liberties of individuals and institutions that continue to believe in traditional marriage.

See here: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/upload/bg_2201.pdf

In addition, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty recently organized a book on this same topic, in which several scholars -- including scholars who favor or are neutral on same-sex marriage -- predict massive conflicts with religious liberty.

See here: http://www.becketfund.org/index.php/article/792.html

Catholic priests have nothing against homosexuality--they just prefer to think of it as an extra special relationship between them and choir boys. Speaking of those innocent little boys, wouldn't it be better for them to learn that gay people exist through being taught in school that monogomous gay couples may commit to each other and receive state benefits than to learn it through a priest shoving a dick down their throat?

The Heritage Foundation? Now there's a source you can trust.

Canada doens't protect religious freedom? That's funny, coulda sworn it was in the Charter of Rights. WHat you really mean is that Canada doesn't let religious bigots impose their will on everyone else.

Perhaps all you anti-gay marriage people would like to move to Saudi Arabia or Afganistan where your views would be most welcome.

Canada's Charter of Rights includes a "notwithstanding" clause that allows a legislative override of the "rights" protected in the Charter.

So, yeah, Canada does not protect (at least by means of a bill or charter of rights) religious freedom (or freedom of speech, etc.) in the same way or to the same extent the U.S. does.

281,

Certainly hope you're not a litigator. If you are, it would behoove you to take a logic class. Your post makes no sense.

284, Citing the Heritage Foundation for such info is like citing godhatesfags.com.

With much platonic, legally condoned love,

279

The notwithstanding clause has NEVER been used. Moreover, it does not apply only to the guarantee of freedom of religion - it applies to all Charter rights and freedoms, including the right to equality.

In any event, making rules for civil society based on what religious fundamentalists want is not "protecting religious freedom", it's called "copying Iran".

219 - are you a lawyer? you cite Lawrence v Texas -- did you ever actually read the case, or even the syllabus? if you had, you would know that it is irrelevant and, frankly, supports in part (only the reasoning behind it, not the rule of law establshed) the position of the Yes on 8 crowd. Again - I understand that Lawrence v Texas was decided under the Federal Constitution, which is of no moment in the CA fight because Prop 8 is directed at curbing rights arising under the CA constitution.

In any event, it's still persuasive (at least to me) because in Lawrence the Supreme Court had to jump through hoops to decide (wrongly, in my opinion) that Lawrence had a substantive due process right to engage in private acts of intercourse within his own home. And that the government - as a matter of due process - could not invade that private space to enforce a statute that was based on morality issues alone. Since we've gotten to the point where now - despite the "conservative" Rehnquist court - morality-based statues (i.e. the will of the people) do not even pass muster under the rational basis scrutiny (see Romer v Evans), the Sup Ct struck the statute down because it could not stand up to strict scrutiny analysis.

The backflips the Sup Ct took in Lawrence were to avoid having to decide the case on Equal Protection grounds. They simply did not want to have to go through the (creative thinking) process of having to create another "protected" class of people. In addition, based on where the BS protected class nonsense came from in the first place - carolene products footnote 4 - it seems to me that homosexuals would have a very difficult time showing that they are indeed a "discrete and insular" minority.

In other words, Lawrence v Texas has abosolutely nothing to do with this case. Period.

The CA Sup Ct says that (a) homosexuals are a protected class that deserve equal protection and (b) the right to marry is a fundamental right of which you cannot be denied in a discriminatory way (at least if the discrimination is to a protected class -- CA doesn't have to marry polygamists, minors, etc...) It's a state law thing that will be decided by state courts - the us sup ct - and the federal constitution - have nothing to do with this.

I hate that this blog is supposedly focused on legal issues and gossip - for lawyers and those interested in the legal market - but you end up with comments that remind me of 10th grade civics class, or, at best, 1st year of torts. I don't give a shit what you "think" is right. Who cares. There are plenty of people that have an opinion and the if you're interested in making decisions based on your moral compass then become a politician.

'In any event, making rules for civil society based on what religious fundamentalists want is not "protecting religious freedom", it's called "copying Iran". '

Best comment I've read all day. Thanks for posting!

281 - "most lgb people are the children of straight people" who were sexually abused during their childhood.

contain the disease

281 - "most lgb people are the children of straight people" who were sexually abused during their childhood.

contain the disease

281 - "most lgb people are the children of straight people" who were sexually abused during their childhood.

contain the disease

good assessment, 280.

Lat, at best this post is juvenile. At worst it is bigoted. On american idol, some winners couldn't hack it when it comes to album sales. That's what will happen with this blog and its similar contest. Traffic is probably high now because of all of the lay-offs, but this blog is headed in a horrible direction.

"Homosexuality will end the human race, smiled Satan."

oh that does it.
that's it!
i'm done.
i'm not coming back here for AT LEAST another hour.

I don't remember the ATL idol contest well. Are we sure that Elie wasn't a performance-related layoff that needed any job he could get?

THIS IS SPARTA!

The Gay-as-New-Black formulation is not only in error. It is not meaningful. It assumes that gays must win the Gold Medal in some sort of Oppression Olympics before basic rights are awarded.

Here is a better case.