Skip to main content

I Hope Elena Kagan Is Gay

It’s really none of my business. Really. But I hope Elena Kagan is gay.

The U.S. District Court in San Francisco struck down California’s Proposition 8 on the grounds that, among other arguments, it violated the Equal Protection Clause because there was no rational basis for discriminating against gays and lesbians. For those of you non-lawyers out there, rational basis analysis is the weakest test applied to discriminatory laws. If you were comparing rational basis analysis to limbo, let’s just say it would be ankle-high: not a hard hurdle to overcome. And yet the proponents of Proposition 8 failed to overcome it.

So imagine how lame Judge Vaughn Walker thought the justifications for Proposition 8 were that he ruled that they didn’t pass rational basis analysis, to wit:

1) Preserving the institution of marriage as between a man and a woman;
2) Proceeding with caution when implementing social changes;
3) Promoting opposite-sex parenting over same-sex parenting;
4) Protecting the freedom of those who oppose same-sex marriage;
5) Treating same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples; and
6) Any other conceivable interest.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger, (2010) No, C-09-0299 VRW (N.D. Cal.) at p. 123. So let me get this straight – you’re going up against Ted Olsen and David Boies, two veritable legal giants who have appeared numerous times before the U.S. Supreme Court, most notably against each other in Bush v. Gore, and this is the best you can come up with? I hope those Prop. 8 supporters didn’t spend a lot of money on their legal talent.

Depending on the patchwork of state and federal court decisions determining whether prohibiting gay marriage violates equal protection and due process under our federal Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court might be enticed to take this case to settle the law once and for all. Maybe.

And if it does, I hope Elena Kagan is gay. I wonder how many gay people the Justices know. I wonder if they know that gay people aren’t trying lessen the meaning of marriage for others; they’re just seeking equal rights under the laws. If states hadn’t gotten into the business of regulating marriage in the first place, we wouldn’t be in this position. Everyone would just go to their church, synagogue, supreme leader, open pasture or whatever, declare themselves married, and prepare to get screwed by the IRS. But nooooooo . . . . the states had to get all up in our business and license and regulate marriage. Well, guess what? The state doesn’t get to play favorites, even if a majority of people want it to. That’s what the Constitution is for – to protect the rights of people who happen to be in them minority, no matter what you think of them. Once the government got involved in marriage, it ceased to be just a religious rite. Now it’s an individual right. And that, in a nutshell, is why you shouldn’t be able to discriminate as to who gets to enjoy that right.

If Elena Kagan is gay, I want those Justices who think it’s okay to discriminate based on sexual orientation to look her in the eye and make that argument.

And then prepare for the legal smackdown of a lifetime.

We’ve heard similar arguments before, folks, and so has the U.S. Supreme Court -- in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), where the State of Virginia had the audacity to argue the constitutionality of its anti-miscegenation laws. In holding Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law up the Court had this to say:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 at 12. If gay and lesbian people love their mates half as much as I love Black Man Not Blogging (BMNB), well, then, their right to marry is worth fighting for. I wish them well.

And I’m hoping against all hope that Elena Kagan is gay.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

When You Leave The Ghetto, Don't Bring It With You

NBA player Gilbert Arenas brings a gun to an NBA locker room. NBA player Ron Artest lets his pit bulls run wild and free in Loomis, California while playing for the Sacramento Kings. NFL player Michael Vick did time for fighting dogs. And NFL player Plaxico Burress is doing time for shooting his damn self.

What do all these men have in common? BMNB would say an inability to make a profound paradigm shift. I’m less eloquent than BMNB is, so I’ll say it differently: The inability to leave the ghetto behind.

Yes, call me saditty, bourgie, elitist, stuck-up, whatever. I don’t care. Until you’ve had a tweaker ruin your Thanksgiving turkey, you don’t even know (more on that later), and I’m not trying to hear you.

Living in Western Placer County, my husband and I continue to hear stories from folks like us who had to flee “those who can’t leave the ghetto behind.” You know these people, and they come in all races. In our case, we had returned to Sacramento in 2004 and 2005, respective…

Hillary Clinton Can Stop Trump -- If She Releases Her Electors

Hillary Clinton isn't going to be President of the United States.  At least not yet.  And not in 2017.

But she can possibly stop Donald Trump from being President by releasing her pledged electors  in the Electoral College to vote for a compromise Republican candidate.

This is part of the strategy of the Hamilton Electors, members of the Electoral College who see that Donald Trump is not qualified to be President.  They argue that the Electoral College's role is not to rubber-stamp the popular vote -- which, in this case, would belong to Clinton -- but to serve as a check on the popular vote to make sure that no one who is unfit assumes the office of President.

According to the Hamilton Electors, named for Founding Father Alexander Hamilton (Yes, he of the very popular musical for which I can't get tickets) Hamilton stated that the Electoral College's test for fitness to be the President was as follows (and I'm quoting):

Election of a Qualified Person: As Hamilton s…

Malia's Hair is Off Limits! So is Sasha's!

I read a snippet of a New York Times article in which there was criticism of the hairstyle Malia Obama wore to Italy. Twists, to be precise. Said twists were criticized as not befitting someone representing the United States abroad.

Hold up. Slow your roll, America. You don't get a say in this. Neither Malia nor Sasha "chose" to represent the United States in any way, shape, or form. And their hair, and how they wear it, is off limits. Back the eff off.

I was hotter than a hornet reading this. The whole black woman's hair thing? That's personal with me. We black women have more than enough issues and neuroses about our hair and how we wear it. It is not open to debate within wider circles, especially when there's a child involved. The choices we have, other than wearing our hair in its natural state in twists, dreads, braids, cornrows or afros, are painful -- chemical relaxers, also called "creamy crack," and searing hot straightening combs. If Malia …