It’s not embeddable, but here’s a link to a video (may not work in all browsers) of today’s panel on the Marriage Cases at Cato, with Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry, former Republican National Committee chair Ken Mehlman, and Cato’s Ilya Shapiro, with me as moderator.
P.S. Okay, now we’ve got a proper video up:
Alternative video at Cato site (parts one, two). Coverage: Luca Gattoni-Celli, American Spectator; Lou Chibbaro Jr., Washington Blade; Kevin Glass, TownHall.com; Adam Polaski, Freedom to Marry.
I’ve got a flash reaction op-ed up at the New York Daily News site.
P.S. @gideonstrumpet: “I was indeed joking.“
I’m set to be a commentator this afternoon on the Fox radio network, discussing the Supreme Court’s marriage cases. Speaking of which, I’ve got a new roundup at Cato at Liberty summarizing recent writings on Perry and Windsor by Cato stars including Roger Pilon, Ilya Shapiro, and Richard Epstein.
On Tuesday and Wednesday the Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to California’s Proposition 8, and U.S. v. Windsor, the challenge to Section 3 (federal definition of marriage) of the Defense of Marriage Act. A Ninth Circuit panel, with liberal Judge Stephen Reinhardt writing, had invalidated Prop 8 on relatively narrow grounds; a Second Circuit panel, with conservative Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs writing, had invalidated Section 3 of DOMA on Equal Protection grounds.
The range of possible outcomes for the two cases is quite wide. At one end, the Court could reverse both appellate decisions, restoring the California ban on gay marriage and confirming the legal definition of marriage as opposite-sex-only for purposes of federal programs such as taxation (at issue in Windsor) and federal employee pensions. At the other end, the Court could apply Equal Protection Clause principles to declare that marriage licenses must be available in all states to all otherwise qualified couples regardless of sex. In between are many intermediate outcomes. Both cases, especially Perry, raise issues of litigant standing that might enable or require the Court to set aside the ultimate merits and render a decision with little or no precedential impact on future cases.
[click to continue…]
My new article at The Blaze, based (among other things) on a precinct analysis of the election results last month in Prince George’s County, Maryland: “the black precincts in P.G. with the strongest inclination toward social conservatism… gave Republican candidates a vote percentage more often associated with Libertarian candidates and rounding errors.” Although some Republicans have been keeping the runways clear and waving at every dot on the horizon for 20 years or more, the planes still aren’t landing (& welcome David Frum/Daily Beast readers).
But don’t be surprised if the Court decides to punt one or both cases, I conclude in a new online opinion piece at USA Today. P.S. Other commentators independently thinking along somewhat similar lines: Adam Serwer/Mother Jones, Daniel Fisher/Forbes. Note also that I should have described the problem for Edith Windsor as being denial of the spousal inheritance exemption, rather than estate tax.
I joined “Talk of the Nation” host Neil Conan and “political junkie” Ken Rudin today live in NPR’s Washington studio to discuss my findings on the large number of suburban Romney voters who voted in favor of ballot measures to recognize same-sex marriage (in Maryland and Maine) or opposed a measure to ban it (in Minnesota). Update: now that NPR has posted the show online, you can listen or read a transcript here (earlier)
One important reason same-sex marriage won on three state ballots last month is that many Republican voters, especially in affluent suburbs, crossed over to vote in favor of it. I’ve continued to document this phenomenon in a piece in this weekend’s Washington Post “Outlook” section (incorporating precinct-level detail on Minnesota and Maine) as well as in a second Huffington Post piece (with precinct-level detail on Maryland; my earlier HuffPo piece is linked here). Also, this Cato podcast:
One correction on the podcast: I mistakenly said Question 6 carried the two biggest Romney counties in Maryland, but I should have said two of the biggest three.
P.S. Mine was the second-most-popular article on WashingtonPost.com as of early morning Dec. 2.
I’m pleased to report that I filed a friend-of-the-court brief, on behalf of the Cato Institute, Dale Carpenter, and myself, arguing that wedding photographers (and other speakers) have a First Amendment right to choose what expression they create, including by choosing not to photograph same-sex commitment ceremonies. All the signers of the brief support same-sex marriage rights; our objection is not to same-sex marriages, but to compelling photographers and other speakers [to create] works that they don’t want to create.
As Ilya Shapiro explains further at Cato, the litigation before the New Mexico Supreme Court hinges in substantial part on whether the photographers are entitled to claim religious-liberty protection against the discrimination claim, but the Cato amicus brief advances a distinct alternative theory under which they deserve to prevail:
Our brief explains that photography is an art form protected by the First Amendment because clients seek out the photographer’s method of staging, posing, lighting, and editing. Photography is thus a form of expression subject to the First Amendment’s protection, unlike many other wedding-related businesses (e.g., caterers, hotels, limousine drivers).
The amicus brief in Elane Photography v. Willock is here; I’m happy to say I played a bit part in helping to advance it. Earlier on the case here, here, and here; and more from George Will.
Romney voters swung in large numbers to provide the decisive margin for Maryland’s approval of same-sex marriage, according to county-level data I analyze in this new Huffington Post piece. In my own precinct Question 6 ran 14 points ahead of the vote for President Obama, a margin not uncommon in other parts of the state that could be described as economically conservative and socially moderate.
Voters in four states will decide same-sex marriage ballot questions on Nov. 6. As many readers know, I’ve been writing actively on the Maryland question, and those interested in catching up on that can follow the links here to find, among other things, my recent interview on the subject with the Arab news service Al-Jazeera, my thoughts on Judge Dennis Jacobs’s decision striking down Section 3 of DOMA (the federal Defense of Marriage Act), and my reaction to the other side’s “bad for children” contentions.
The Cato Institute has been doing cutting-edge work on the topic for years from a libertarian perspective; some highlights here.
Yet more: Hans Bader on religious liberty and anti-discrimination law [Examiner, CEI] And my letter to the editor in the suburban Maryland Gazette: “Civil society long ago decoupled marriage law from church doctrines.”
Get ready for the cognitive dissonance among many on both left and right: Second Circuit chief judge Dennis Jacobs, long a favorite of the Federalist Society (and of mine), has written the opinion striking down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in Windsor v. U.S. I have more at my Maryland for All Families blog.