Same-Sex Marriage

At the end of August, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled in Elane Photography v. Willock that a Christian wedding photographer violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA) when it refused to photograph a lesbian couple’s commitment ceremony. (New Mexico does not currently permit same-sex marriage, though all the parties and the court frequently refer to the ceremony as a wedding.) This week, one of the parties in a similar controversy in Oregon, Sweet Cakes Bakery, announced that it would be closing shop, citing its opposition to baking wedding cakes for same-sex couples.

Elane Photography argued that it did not violate the NMHRA but, if it did, this application of the law violated the photography business’s Free Speech and Free Exercise rights under the First Amendment. The court disagreed, writing that “when Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the NMHRA in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races.”

Personally, I’d vote for same-sex marriage if I lived in a state considering such laws. Polygamy too, for that matter. If you are listening for a full-throated defense of traditional, heterosexual marriage to the exclusion of state recognition of any other arrangement, you won’t hear it here. I’m inclined to support religious understandings of traditional marriage, but I’m libertarian enough to let everyone — straight, gay, or otherwise — suffer through the headaches of having the government divide your assets when you get divorced.

Still, using anti-discrimination laws to mandate that all businesses operating as public accommodations provide services to same-sex couples’ weddings sounds like an unnecessary imposition on the sincere religious beliefs of others — and a great way to end up with lousy wedding photos….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Why Using Anti-Discrimination Laws Against Wedding Photographers Doesn’t Work”

Amanda Knox

* Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was chatty this week. In terms of same-sex marriage, the Notorious R.B.G. thinks “[t]he court handled both of those cases just the way they should have.” [Bloomberg]

* And just like a mean girl, Ruthie’s claws were out. After calling the Roberts Court “one of the most activist courts in history,” she offered comments on Justice Samuel Alito’s eye-rolling. [New York Times]

* Don’t cry for Argentina, the truth is it never respected you. After losing an appeal at the Second Circuit, the country has vowed to defy any of the court’s rulings with which it doesn’t agree. [Reuters]

* Texas takes the bull by the horns: the state’s Supreme Court will consider if it has the power and jurisdiction to grant gay divorces despite the fact that it bans gay marriage. [Houston Chronicle]

* “I have a temperament that doesn’t adapt well to politics. It’s because I speak my mind so much.” Joaquim Barbosa, chief justice of Brazil’s highest court and one of the most influential lawyers in the world (according to Time), isn’t afraid to tell it like it is. [New York Times]

* Since she was already acquitted of the murder of Meredith Kercher, Amanda Knox (fka Foxy Knoxy) will not be returning to Italy for her retrial. That would be as silly as admitting to participation in orgies. [CNN]

* Following a settlement on undisclosed terms, the suit filed against Paula Deen has been dismissed. It’s too bad that the Baroness of Butter’s career sunk like a spoiled soufflé in the process. [Businessweek]

* New York’s AG filed a $40M suit against Donald Trump, a rich man who can’t afford a decent hairstylist and allegedly makes students at Trump University weep with his “bait-and-switch” tactics. [NBC News]

Or at least his laptop. After a conservative state court judge in Kentucky wrote an op-ed for the local paper arguing that the Supreme Court’s recent rulings on gay marriage didn’t affect the definition of marriage under Kentucky law, a retired federal judge called him on the carpet.

Benchslappery ensued. Let’s take a look….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Benchslap Of The Day: Federal Judge Tells State Judge To Shut His Mouth”

* Former Patriots TE Aaron Hernandez arrested. In other news, that Patriots offense was killing people last year. [NBC News]

* Elie appeared on HuffPo Live to explain how today’s rulings changed his marriage. [Huffington Post Live]

* For all the role-playing game nerds out there, a guide to the SCOTUS alignments. I’m not sold that Scalia isn’t “Lawful Good” and Alito “Chaotic Good,” but the point remains. [It's a Great Life If You Don't Weaken]

* Aaron Zelinsky has a solution for the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the VRA formula — force every jurisdiction to adhere to Section 5 preclearance. That would make way too much sense. [Concurring Opinions]

* Iowa’s Supreme Sausage Fest to reconsider “irresistible attraction” ruling, which you may remember from stories like this or this. [On Brief: Iowa's Appellate Blog]

* Ilya Somin on the strange bedfellows emerging on questions of standing. [Volokh Conspiracy]

* Congratulations to Saccharomyces cerevisia, the newly minted Official State Microbe of Oregon. The bacteria is also known as “brewer’s yeast,” so it makes a lot of sense when Portland has the most breweries per capita in the country. [Lowering the Bar]

* This judge makes important observations about rodent control. Or at least some clerk slipped footnote 5 in because Caddyshack deserves more legal citation. Unfortunately it does not conclude with, “By Order of this Court, We’re All Gonna Get Laid.” Opinion below…

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Non-Sequiturs: 06.26.13″

Looking at my notes from today’s United States v. Windsor argument on DOMA at the U.S. Supreme Court, “$Q” is everywhere. That’s my shorthand for “money quote.” The merits part of the argument was $Q after $Q, moments that made an impact, in some cases if only to show where a justice might be headed.

Here are five. Look forward to bringing you more in-depth analysis of the argument in the next couple of days.

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “The DOMA Arguments at SCOTUS: Five Money Quotes”

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard arguments on California’s Proposition 8. Today, they’re hearing oral arguments about the Defense of Marriage Act. If you didn’t already know that, you’ve reached the wrong website, Brazzers is thataway.

High-profile Supreme Court cases attract large numbers of protesters who congregate on First Street, and yesterday was no different. Honestly, I don’t know why. I guess seeing gay people in drag humping each other makes for good television. I guess filming some dour-looking woman who appears to be locked in a loveless, frumpy marriage is a fine way to establish the “conservative” side of the argument. That stuff may work on your average “I must find out where my people are going so I can lead them” Congressperson. But I’m positive that nine unelected judges appointed for life who think this “institution” of gay people loving each other in committed relationships is “newer than cellphones” don’t give a damn about the shenanigans on the courthouse steps.

If these protests are useful, they’re useful to make a point to the media and those watching from home about the issues at play. Towards that end, a group of five law students staged a protest that really added something to the discussion here that even most talking-head court watchers didn’t bring up. Of course, it’s a point that went way over the heads of at least 90 percent of the television audience…

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Law Students Show Themselves As The Smartest People Out On First Street”

The scene outside One First Street after the argument.

Dearly beloved, we were gathered together at SCOTUS today to argue about these fourteen words: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

But we talked a lot about standing. And we did a lot of standing.

What time did I get to the Court?

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “The Proposition 8 Supreme Court Arguments: Standing and Standing”

Ed. note: Lawyer and journalist Michelle Olsen, a member of the U.S. Supreme Court bar, attended today’s oral arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the constitutional challenge to the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage in California.

Her write-up of the proceedings will appear shortly. In the meantime, check out the photographs she took while at the Court, after the jump.

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “The Proposition 8 Supreme Court Arguments: A Photo Essay”

Don’t try to answer my question with your own question.

– Justice Antonin Scalia, in response to Ted Olson’s attempt to ask the justice a rhetorical question during today’s oral arguments on California’s Proposition 8 at the Supreme Court.

(We’ll have additional analysis of the Hollingsworth v. Perry proceedings later today, courtesy of Michelle Olsen of Appellate Daily. You can follow Michelle’s real-time coverage on Twitter.)

Ted Olson

May those arguing on behalf of same-sex “marriage” present their arguments in an inept, confusing and unconvincing way. May they fail to gain traction in the minds of the Justices. May the right of Californians to amend their state constitution to protect marriage be confirmed by the Court, and may the Defense of Marriage Act be ruled constitutional (Lev 20:all; 1 Sam 2:8-10; 2 Chr 14:11; 20:12-27; Pr 22:28; 24:21; Is 8:18-20; Dan 7:25-27; 2 Cor 2:5).

– the Family Research Council, in a public message to “praying friends” regarding next week’s arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry. (Gavel bang: Good As You.)

Page 1 of 3123