Connect with us

Dissenting 6th Circuit Judge: Anti-Gay Marriage Ruling ‘Fails’ On ‘Constitutional Question’

Published

on

The dissenting judge in today’s 2-1 6th Circuit decision upholding marriage bans in four states has written a stunning rebuke of her colleagues’ work.

The author of the majority opinion has drafted what would make an engrossing TED Talk or, possibly, an introductory lecture in Political Philosophy. But as an appellate court decision, it wholly fails to grapple with the relevant constitutional question in this appeal: whether a state’s constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, the majority sets up a false premise—that the question before us is “who should decide?”—and leads us through a largely irrelevant discourse on democracy and federalism. In point of fact, the real issue before us concerns what is at stake in these six cases for the individual plaintiffs and their children, and what should be done about it. Because I reject the majority’s resolution of these questions based on its invocation of vox populi and its reverence for “proceeding with caution” (otherwise known as the “wait and see” approach), I dissent.

So begins the dissenting opinion – over 20 pages long – in today’s stunning 6th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that finds states can ban same-sex marriage. The ruling sets off a constitutional challenge that most likely will go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

(The complete ruling is embedded above, thanks to Equality Case Files.)

Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey wrote the dissent.

Readers may remember the audio of Judge Daughtrey’s fiery questioning during the case.

“It doesn’t look like the sky has fallen,” Judge Daughtrey told the court, in the ten-plus years same-sex marriage has been on the books in Massachusetts. 

Daughtrey’s opinion continues:

In the main, the majority treats both the issues and the litigants here as mere abstractions. Instead of recognizing the plaintiffs as persons, suffering actual harm as a result of being denied the right to marry where they reside or the right to have their valid marriages recognized there, my colleagues view the plaintiffs as social activists who have somehow stumbled into federal court, inadvisably, when they should be out campaigning to win “the hearts and minds” of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee voters to their cause. But these plaintiffs are not political zealots trying to push reform on their fellow citizens; they are committed same-sex couples, many of them heading up de facto families, who want to achieve equal status— de jure status, if you will—with their married neighbors, friends, and coworkers, to be accepted as contributing members of their social and religious communities, and to be welcomed as fully legitimate parents at their children’s schools. They seek to do this by virtue of exercising a civil right that most of us take for granted—the right to marry.

Bam!

She then slams “what has come to be known as the “irresponsible procreation” theory: “that limiting marriage and its benefits to opposite-sex couples is rational, even necessary, to  provide for ‘unintended offspring’ by channeling their biological procreators into the bonds of matrimony. When we asked counsel why that goal required the simultaneous exclusion of same-sex couples from marrying, we were told that permitting same-sex marriage might denigrate the institution of marriage in the eyes of opposite-sex couples who conceive out of wedlock, causing subsequent abandonment of the unintended offspring by one or both biological parents. We also were informed that because same-sex couples cannot themselves produce wanted or unwanted offspring, and because they must therefore look to non-biological means of parenting that require  planning and expense, stability in a family unit headed by same-sex parents is assured without the benefit of formal matrimony.”

But, as the court in Baskin pointed out, many “abandoned children [born out of wedlock to biological parents] are adopted by homosexual couples, and those children would be better off both emotionally and economically if their adoptive parents were married.” Id. How ironic that irresponsible, unmarried, opposite-sex couples in the Sixth Circuit who produce unwanted offspring must be “channeled” into marriage and thus rewarded with its many psychological and financial benefits, while same-sex couples who become model parents are punished for their responsible behavior by being denied the right to marry. As an obviously exasperated Judge Posner responded after puzzling over this same paradox in Baskin, “Go figure.”

And Judge Daughtrey goes on to denigrate — appropriately — the testimony given by none other than Mark Regnerus.

To counteract the testimony offered by the plaintiffs’ witnesses, the defendants presented as witnesses the authors or co-authors of three studies that disagreed with the conclusions reached by the plaintiffs’ experts. All three studies, however, were given little credence by the district court because of inherent flaws in the methods used or the intent of the authors. For example, the New Family Structures Study reported by Mark Regnerus, a sociologist at the University of Texas at Austin, admittedly relied upon interviews of children from gay or lesbian families who were products of broken heterosexual unions in order to support a conclusion that living with such gay or lesbian families adversely affected the development of the children. Regnerus conceded, moreover, that his own department took the highly unusual step of issuing the following statement on the university website in response to the release of the study: [Dr. Regnerus’s opinions] do not reflect the views of the sociology department of the University of Texas at Austin. Nor do they reflect the views of the American Sociological Association which takes the position that the conclusions he draws from his study of gay parenting are fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds and that the findings from Dr. Regnerus’[s] work have  been cited inappropriately in efforts to diminish the civil rights and legitimacy of LBGTQ partners and their families. In fact, the record before the district court reflected clearly that Regnerus’s study had been funded by the Witherspoon Institute, a conservative “think tank” opposed to same-sex marriage, in order to vindicate “the traditional understanding of marriage.”

And then, bam! again.

Presented with the admitted biases and methodological shortcomings prevalent in the studies performed by the defendant’s experts, the district court found those witnesses “largely unbelievable” and not credible.

 

Image via YouTube

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

White House Mum After Classified Info Reportedly Appears on Musk’s DOGE Website

Published

on

The White House has yet to comment after classified information reportedly appeared on Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency website — information related to one of the federal government intelligence agencies his SpaceX company does business with.

“Elon Musk’s team at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency has posted classified information about the size and staff of a U.S. intelligence agency on its new website, raising bigger concerns about where Musk’s programmers got this information and what they are doing with it,” HuffPost reported Friday afternoon.

“DOGE’s database provides details on the National Reconnaissance Office, the federal agency that designs, builds and maintains U.S. intelligence satellites. Not only are NRO’s budgets and head counts classified, but the prospect of Musk’s tech team meddling in sensitive personnel information is setting off alarms for some in the intelligence community,” HuffPost explained. “Musk can’t claim he wasn’t aware that the National Reconnaissance Office is one of the nation’s intelligence agencies. His company, SpaceX, has a $1.8 billion contract with NRO to build hundreds of spy satellites.”

READ MORE: ‘United States of Extortion’: New Trump Ukraine ‘Shakedown’ Called ‘Cheap Mafia’ Move

A Senate staffer who works on intelligence matters told HuffPost that DOGE sharing this information “is absolutely a problem under the current intelligence standards.”

“These 25-year-old programmers, I don’t think they have enough experience to know what they don’t know,” the aide said. “Really, the question is: Where did they get this information and what are they doing with it?”

HuffPost also reported that a White House spokesperson “did not respond to a request for comment on where DOGE workers got this information, why they are sharing it publicly and if the president is concerned about DOGE workers accessing sensitive data.”

National security and civil liberties journalist Marcy Wheeler directed her ire at U.S. Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR), the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

“I’m curious if you’re at all alarmed that one of USG’s Satellite Contractors, Elon Musk, just leaked details about satellite intelligence agency NRO on his DOGE site?” she asked in a social media post.

READ MORE: ‘Disgust’: Vance’s ‘Disturbing’ Speech Alarms Europe, Sparks Foreign Policy Fears

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘United States of Extortion’: New Trump Ukraine ‘Shakedown’ Called ‘Cheap Mafia’ Move

Published

on

Just weeks into his second term, President Donald Trump’s administration is not only grappling with a growing colossus of self-inflicted crises, but is now igniting international tensions as well. The administration is pressuring Ukraine to relinquish rights to half of its valuable precious metals—just as Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin prepare to begin negotiations to end Russia’s illegal war against Ukraine.

“Multiple lawmakers here in Munich told me the U.S. Congressional delegation presented Zelensky with a piece of paper they wanted him to sign which would grant the U.S. rights to 50% of Ukraine’s future mineral reserves,” Washington Post foreign policy and national security columnist Josh Rogin reported Friday afternoon from the Munich Security Conference.

“Zelensky politely declined to sign it,” he added.

Trump has made it clear he expects Ukraine to hand over the rights to its rare earth minerals, which are extremely valuable.

READ MORE: ‘Disgust’: Vance’s ‘Disturbing’ Speech Alarms Europe, Sparks Foreign Policy Fears

“Rare earths are a group of 17 metals used to make magnets that turn power into motion for electric vehicles, cell phones, missile systems, and other electronics. There are no viable substitutes,” Reuters reported. The news outlet also noted that Trump “said on Monday he wants Ukraine to supply the United States with rare earth minerals as a form of payment for financially supporting the country’s war efforts against Russia.”

“We’re telling Ukraine they have very valuable rare earths,” Trump said. “We’re looking to do a deal with Ukraine where they’re going to secure what we’re giving them with their rare earths and other things.”

Trump’s expected haul: “close to $300 billion,” or more.

“We are going to have all this money in there, and I say I want it back. And I told them that I want the equivalent, like $500 billion worth of rare earth,” Trump said Monday, CBS News reported. “They have essentially agreed to do that, so at least we don’t feel stupid.”

The New York Times on Wednesday suggested Kyiv may be willing to play ball with the billionaire businessman.

“President Trump says he wants to make a deal for minerals from Ukraine in exchange for aid. That followed a long effort by Ukrainian officials to appeal to Mr. Trump’s transactional nature.”

Earlier this week Bloomberg reported on Trump’s call with Putin, saying, “European leaders, who were broadly aligned with Washington under Biden, were stunned to learn of the call and some said it appeared to signal that Trump was selling out Ukraine.”

“Trump is skeptical of providing more aid,” Bloomberg continued, “and if he does then he wants the US to be compensated – perhaps in the form of access to Ukraine’s mineral wealth. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was in Kyiv today to work on that part of the deal.”

READ MORE: ‘Brazen Criminality’: Allegations of ‘Quid Pro Quo’ Fly After Border Czar’s Admission

Garry Kasparov, the internationally famous Russian chess grandmaster and now vice president of the World Liberty Congress, likened Trump’s demand to that of a Mafia don.

“Trump wants to give Russia something for nothing and expects Ukraine to give America something for nothing. Cheap mafia behavior,” he charged.

Olga Lautman, a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) and researcher of organized crime and intelligence operations in Russia and Ukraine, deemed the move “extortion.”

“This extortion by the [Trump] regime is outrageous. Europe needs to step up asap and help Ukraine,” she urged.

Professor Roland Paris, director of the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa, doubly mocked the administration: “The United States of Extortion. (Can Google update its maps with this new name?)”

The Atlantic’s David Frum, a Bush 43 speechwriter, declared it, “Gangsterism.”

Jay Nordlinger, a senior editor for the right wing National Review, blasted the administration:

“The United States ought to back Ukraine because it is the right thing to do, morally, and, above all, because it is in the hard U.S. interest to do so. To shake down a country that is struggling for its very existence is, to my sense, repulsive.”

The New Yorker’s Susan Glasser called it simply, “A shakedown.”

READ MORE: Trump Admin Orders Immediate Mass Firing of Some Federal Workers — 200,000 Possibly at Risk

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘Disgust’: Vance’s ‘Disturbing’ Speech Alarms Europe, Sparks Foreign Policy Fears

Published

on

JD Vance’s speech on Friday at the Munich Security Conference deeply offended European leaders, drawing widespread criticism and fueling serious concerns about President Donald Trump’s foreign policy.

“Hard to convey the level of disgust with and rejection of Vance remarks,” explained veteran foreign policy journalist Laura Rozen, “which included lecturing Europe to be more open to Musk promoting the German far right party and which ignored Russia.”

Vance’s speech, Rozen continued, “was not about Europe doing more to protect European security. It was telling them how to be internally—more open to right wing/ hate speech/techno oligarchd/Russian election interference.”

“Truly disturbing,” she concluded.

READ MORE: ‘Brazen Criminality’: Allegations of ‘Quid Pro Quo’ Fly After Border Czar’s Admission

The New York Times did not hold back. Its headline reads: “Vance Tells Europeans to Stop Shunning Parties Deemed Extreme.”

A member of France’s armed services committee “could not believe [Vance] did not mention Ukraine/Russia,” Rozen noted, while adding that “the German defense minister was the most forceful in expressing his rejection.”

Indeed, Tom Nutall, the Berlin Bureau Chief for The Economist wrote: Blistering response by Boris Pistorius, Germany’s defence minister, to JD Vance’s speech.”

Nutall quoted the minister as saying: “Democracy does not mean that a vociferous minority can decide what truth is…democracy must be able to defend itself against extremists.” 

Pistorius continued, describing himself as “a staunch believer in the Transatlantic Alliance,” and “a staunch ally and friend of America,” Real Clear Politics reported.

“The American dream is something that has always fascinated me and influenced me, and this is why I cannot just ignore what we heard before, I cannot not comment on the speech we heard by the U.S. Vice President.”

“This democracy … was just called into question by the U.S. vice president. And not just the German democracy, but Europe as a whole, he spoke of the annulment of democracy and if I understood him correctly, he compares the condition of Europe with the condition that prevails in some authoritarian regimes.”

“Ladies and gentlemen, this is not acceptable. That’s it. This is not acceptable,” Pistorius declared.

Damian Boeselager, a member of the European Parliament, wrote: “JD Vance speech at the MSC was a disgrace. Telling Europe how to run a democracy and free speech while centralizing all power in the hands of a couple of power hungry people is a horrible cynicism.”

READ MORE: Trump Admin Orders Immediate Mass Firing of Some Federal Workers — 200,000 Possibly at Risk

The Guardian reported that the European Union’s “foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, reacting to US vice president JD Vance’s speech, said it felt like Washington was ‘trying to pick a fight’ with Europe.”

Other experts also agreed with Rozen’s remarks.

“This is definitely how most foreign policy elites in Europe interpreted US Vice President Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference,” wrote Dr. Leslie Vinjamuri, director of the U.S. and Americas program at the London-based think tank Chatham House, and a professor of international relations at the University of London.

“Exactly this. Another disturbing glimpse into MAGA thinking,” added David Hartwell, a former UK Ministry of Defense intelligence analyst.

“Shocking hypocrisy from Vance – lecturing Europe on democracy when he serves as vice president to a man who attempted a coup in the US,” wrote Gideon Rachman, chief foreign affairs commentator for the Financial Times.

“It does not appear,” noted former Marine fighter pilot Amy McGrath, who has a Master of Arts in international and global security studies from Johns Hopkins University, “that Vance, Hegseth or Trump on the same page when it comes to Europe, Ukraine, Russia. No coherent message. The world has no idea what American foreign policy is right now. I don’t think [the Trump] team knows either.”

Watch a portion of Vance’s remarks below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Corruption’ Claims Fly Over Musk’s Modi Meeting as Trump Shrugs: ‘I Don’t Know’

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.