Sotomayor hearings: Gay marriage makes its way into questioning
Finally, same-sex marriage.
The subject was raised indirectly by Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa). Grassley did not mention same-sex marriage directly, but that was the implication when he asked Sonia Sotomayor about a court ruling that said Minnesota could deny a marriage license to two men. Did she agree, he asked, that the case, Baker vs. Nelson, reserved the question of marriage to the states?
In Baker, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that two men could be denied a marriage license because Minnesota law limited marriage to men and women.
As she has with other topics, Sotomayor said she couldn’t comment because questions about marriage are pending in many courts and might reach the Supreme Court.
Grassley challenged her on that point. He wondered aloud why she couldn’t comment on Baker because it’s legal precedent. He noted that on Tuesday she said that Roe vs. Wade, which legalized abortion, was an established legal precedent. If she could characterize the status of Roe, he asked, why not Baker?
The judge replied that she had not reviewed Baker in some time but offered to review the case overnight and report on it Thursday. Grassley said he would welcome that.
-- Steve Padilla
Don't miss a single Ticket item on any political issue. Click here for Twitter alerts. Or follow us @latimestot
Kudos to New England and Iowa for supporting civil marriage.
If marriage is reserved for the states, then what's DOMA all about on the federal level?
For the marriage foes and sexually phobic, just find something else to do with your time, because life's too short. Find love.
And remember, in America we have freedom of religion, and freedom from religion too. And marriage licenses are issued by town halls not church halls.
Kudos to civil marriage. It's time America.
Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
Washington, Connecticut USA.
Posted by: Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace | July 16, 2009 at 04:09 AM
The "Baker v. Nelson" that Grassley referred to was NOT the Minnesota decision itself. It was the subsequent one-paragraph dismissal of a pending federal appeal by the Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), "for want of a substantial federal question."
The precedential value of such a dismissal (a very rare move) can be, and is, debated in and of itself. But the real point, the point that any constitutional law scholar not appearing before a Senate confirmation panel will tell you, is that Zablocki v. Redhail (1978), Romer v. Evans (1996) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003) -- not to mention DOMA (1996) -- have clearly and unambigiously rendered Baker v. Nelson a nullity. Anti-gay discrimination generally, and same-sex marriage specifically, are now obviously "substantial federal questions," period.
Posted by: KipEsquire | July 16, 2009 at 06:51 AM