So much for “judicial activism”

The New York Court of Appeals yesterday issued a 4-2 decision upholding the state prohibition of same sex marriage.

Let’s be clear on what we’re talking about here. The unequivocally liberal New York Court of Appeals has stated that the issue of marriage equality is best left to the legislature.

Ironically, this is not the outcome hoped for by the anti-gay right here in Virginia. Sadly for them, the red herring argument that somewhere in Virginia, a conservative judge, appointed by a conservative legislature, who must be re-appointed by that conservative legislature, is going to overturn thirty years worth of Virginia law that prohibits same sex marriage, was just rendered even more silly.

(Hey, it could happen, right? Hey! Eyes front and center! Don’t look over there!)

This was the thinnest of improbable arguments to begin with, and has been spectacularly ineffective in concealing the true objectives of the Marshall-Newman amendment: Its use as a rationale for the complete dismantling of our basic rights. This amendment is not viewed by its proponents as a goal in and of itself, but merely a starting point.

Consider the fact that in the campaign to adopt the Ohio amendment, the amendment’s proponents were making the same arguments that the Virginia proponents are making now, that concerns about “unintended consequences” for unmarried victims of domestic violence were merely a “fear tactic.”

After passage of the amendment, those same proponents (Citizens for Community Values) filed an amicus brief in the case that has resulted in unmarried domestic violence victims being denied protective orders, arguing that unmarried victims should not be protected under Ohio’s domestic violence laws because such protection was now in violation of the constitution.

Does anyone really believe that their Virginia counterparts will behave differently?

This entry was posted in Commentary, News and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to So much for “judicial activism”

  1. Jonathan says:

    Ohio provides a good glimpse into the future [sic]. Ohio’s Citizens for Community Values (CCV) organization is a Focus on the Family (FOF) parallel to Virginia’s Family Foundation. CCV believes that a state university may not grant domestic partner benefits. Such benefits violate the Marriage Protection Amendment. See Brinkman.

    The language cited in Brinkman’s suit is:

    “This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.”

    Oh, my. That sounds familiar.

  2. Pingback: Equality Loudoun » It’s official; they lied.