Excerpts of delicious gay marriage decision from Reagan judge

The US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit struck down Wisconsin’s and Indiana’s gay marriage bans last night.

The judge who wrote the opinion is Richard Posner, a Reagan appointee.

To call Posner’s opinion “delicious” would be an understatement.

Here are several excerpts. Enjoy. I know I did.

We’ll see that the governments of Indiana and Wisconsin have given us no reason to think they have a “reasonable basis” for forbidding same-sex marriage. And more than a reasonable basis is required because this is a case in which the challenged discrimination is, in the formula from the Beach case, “along suspect lines.” Discrimination by a state or the federal government against a minority, when based on an immutable characteristic of the members of that minority (most familiarly skin color and gender), and occurring against an historical background of discrimination against the persons who have that characteristic, makes the discriminatory law or policy constitutionally suspect. …

Judge Richard Posner, by chensiyuan.

Judge Richard Posner, by chensiyuan.

Our pair of cases is rich in detail but ultimately straight-forward to decide. The challenged laws discriminate against a minority defined by an immutable characteristic, and the only rationale that the states put forth with any conviction — that same-sex couples and their children don’t need marriage because same-sex couples can’t produce children, intended or unintended — is so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously. To the extent that children are better off in families in which the parents are married, they are better off whether they are raised by their biological parents or by adoptive parents. The discrimination against same-sex couples is irrational, and therefore unconstitutional even if the discrimination is not subjected to heightened scrutiny, which is why we can largely elide the more complex analysis found in more closely balanced equal-protection cases. …

[T]here is little doubt that sexual orientation, the ground of the discrimination, is an immutable (and probably an innate, in the sense of in-born) characteristic rather than a choice. Wisely, neither Indiana nor Wisconsin argues otherwise. …

Because homosexuality is not a voluntary condition and homosexuals are among the most stigmatized, misunderstood, and discriminated-against minorities in the history of the world, the disparagement of their sexual orientation, implicit in the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples, is a source of continuing pain to the homosexual community. Not that allowing same-sex marriage will change in the short run the negative views that many Americans hold of same-sex marriage. But it will enhance the status of these marriages in the eyes of other Americans, and in the long run it may convert some of the opponents of such marriage by demonstrating that homosexual married couples are in essential respects, notably in the care of their adopted children, like other married couples. …

The sole reason for Indiana’s marriage law, the state’s argument continues, is to try to channel unintentionally procreative sex into a legal regime in which the biological father is required to assume parental responsibility. The state recognizes that some or even many homosexuals want to enter into same-sex marriages, but points out that many people want to enter into relations that government refuses to enforce or protect (friendship being a notable example). Government has no interest in recognizing and protecting same-sex marriage, Indiana argues, because homosexual sex cannot result in unintended births. …

[I]f channeling procreative sex into marriage were the only reason that Indiana recognizes marriage, the state would not allow an infertile person to marry. Indeed it would make marriage licenses expire when one of the spouses (fertile upon marriage) became infertile because of age or disease. …

The state tells us that “non-procreating opposite-sex couples who marry model the optimal, socially expected behavior for other opposite-sex couples whose sexual intercourse may well produce children.” That’s a strange argument; fertile couples don’t learn about child-rearing from infertile couples. And why wouldn’t same-sex marriage send the same message that the state thinks marriage of infertile heterosexuals sends — that marriage is a desirable state? …

If the state’s only interest in allowing marriage is to protect children, why has it gone out of its way to permit marriage of first cousins only after they are provably infertile? The state must think marriage valuable for something other than just procreation — that even non-procreative couples benefit from marriage.

Indiana has thus invented an insidious form of discrimination: favoring first cousins, provided they are not of the same sex, over homosexuals. Elderly first cousins are permitted to marry because they can’t produce children; homosexuals are forbidden to marry because they can’t produce children. The state’s argument that a marriage of first cousins who are past child-bearing age provides a “model [of] family life for younger, potentially procreative men and women” is impossible to take seriously.

Indiana’s government thinks that straight couples tend to be sexually irresponsible, producing unwanted children by the carload, and so must be pressured (in the form of governmental encouragement of marriage through a combination of sticks and carrots) to marry, but that gay couples, unable as they are to produce children wanted or unwanted, are model parents — model citizens really — so have no need for marriage. Heterosexuals get drunk and pregnant, producing unwanted children; their reward is to be allowed to marry. Homosexual couples do not produce unwanted children; their reward is to be denied the right to marry. Go figure. …

At the very least, “a [discriminatory] law must bear a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose.” Romer v. Evans, supra, 517 U.S. at 635. Indiana’s ban flunks this undemanding test. …

Indiana has not tried to explain to us the logic of recognizing marriages of fertile first cousins (prohibited in Indiana) that happen to be contracted in states that permit such marriages, but of refusing, by virtue of the 1997 amendment, to recognize same-sex marriages (also prohibited in Indiana) contracted in states that permit them. This suggests animus against same-sex marriage, as is further suggested by the state’s inability to make a plausible argument for its refusal to recognize same-sex marriage. …

Wisconsin points out that many venerable customs appear to rest on nothing more than tradition — one might even say on mindless tradition. Why do men wear ties? Why do people shake hands (thus spreading germs) or give a peck on the cheek (ditto) when greeting a friend? Why does the President at Thanksgiving spare a brace of turkeys (two out of the more than 40 million turkeys killed for Thanksgiving dinners) from the butcher’s knife? But these traditions, while to the fastidious they may seem silly, are at least harmless. If no social benefit is conferred by a tradition and it is written into law and it discriminates against a number of people and does them harm beyond just offending them, it is not just a harmless anachronism; it is a violation of the equal protection clause, as in Loving. See 388 U.S. at 8-12. …

The state elaborates its argument from the wonders of tradition by asserting, again in its opening brief, that “thousands of years of collective experience has [sic] established traditional marriage, between one man and one woman, as optimal for the family, society, and civilization.” No evidence in support of the claim of optimality is offered, and there is no acknowledgment that a number of countries permit polygamy — Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Morocco, and Algeria — and that it flourishes in many African countries that do not actually authorize it, as well as in parts of Utah.

To return to where we started in this opinion, more than unsupported conjecture that same-sex marriage will harm heterosexual marriage or children or any other valid and important interest of a state is necessary to justify discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. As we have been at pains to explain, the grounds advanced by Indiana and Wisconsin for their discriminatory policies are not only conjectural; they are totally implausible. …

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

25 Responses to “Excerpts of delicious gay marriage decision from Reagan judge”

  1. wmforr says:

    Ah! The Scalia Method. Who needs to even read the arguments. There are only two important things in deciding a case:

    1. Catholic Church doctrine.

    2. Which attorney took the Judge on a an expensive vacation trip.

  2. rmthunter says:

    Yeah, well it’s still pretty obvious that he never read it.

  3. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    Well he does look really old. Maybe he was around when it was adopted in 1868.

  4. rmthunter says:

    Posner, like many judges, has little patience for bullshit. Unlike many judges, he is not at all reticent about it.

  5. rmthunter says:

    Even better was his claim that the Fourteenth Amendment was specifically directed at racial discrimination — which is not mentioned, or even implied, in the Amendment itself.

  6. ComradeRutherford says:

    A small blog posted links to the recordings of he oral arguments, and they are *well* worth listening to. Posner and the other two judges make it very clear that the states have NO reason for these amendments, other than ‘hate’ and Posner put it. The two recordings run an hour and a half, and, again, they are well worth listening to.

    The links are embedded in paragraph three:

  7. Mike F says:

    The legal equivalent of a body slam. That was a fun read, to be sure. Dissects, eviscerates, disembowels, keel-hauls, and just plain flays the anti-human rights feudalists who are at the heart of this movement.

  8. TruthNotReligion says:

    Logic and facts don’t always trump religion and stupidity, as Judge Feldman’s opinion shows.

    But sometimes they do, as Judge Posner’s opinion shows.

  9. HeartlandLiberal says:

    I just called my wife over to read her that sentence, just for the sheer pleasure of finding such delicious snark in a judicial decision. Slam dunk statements by the judge throughout the decision.

  10. UncleBucky says:

    I never thought that reading a legal document would be so entertaining… When I saw “Go figure…” I knew I had to peruse the doc. :)

  11. crazymonkeylady says:

    Best. Argument. EVER.

  12. AJayne says:

    Many parts of the order left me laughing, but this part —

    “Because homosexuality is not a voluntary condition and homosexuals are among the most stigmatized, misunderstood, and discriminated-against minorities in the history of the world, the disparagement of their sexual orientation, implicit in the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples, is a source of continuing pain to the homosexual community” —

    brought me to tears to read that from federal court judges.

  13. nicho says:

    Feldman sits on the Oil Company Court. So just consider the source.

  14. Drew2U says:

    …Maybe the judge is purposely trying to break the “tradition” mindset that the anti-ssm folks base their entire arguments on.

  15. Bodhi says:

    “What happened to our stately Legalese?” It has become mute, or is that moot?

  16. BeccaM says:

    As with Judge Feldman’s ruling (Lousiana), the only rationale the homophobes can seem to come up with ends up being curiously a rationale not for voluntary marriage, but for shotgun weddings for those sexually irresponsible young heteros.

  17. BeccaM says:

    The funniest thing about Feldman’s ruling is he couldn’t even describe or define rational basis vs heightened scrutiny. Feldman had a conclusion to reach and by gum, he was gonna get there no matter what.

  18. Tor says:

    The contempt came through very clearly.

  19. MyrddinWilt says:

    Very rare to see that sort of language. And only when the judge is showing complete contempt for the argument being made.

    These decisions aren’t even close any more. They are just an excuse for the judges to put themselves on the record against bigotry. Feldman is the only Judge who has gone with the bigots so far.

    Even the GOP has abandoned the issue. It isn’t a vote winning wedge issue for them any more, its a vote loser. The hater generation is dying out.

  20. Tor says:

    They actually used the phrase “go figure,” and the word “flunk?” What happened to our stately Legalese?

  21. gratuitous says:

    This sounds like a strange argument (quoting from the opinion): “The sole reason for Indiana’s marriage law, the state’s argument continues, is to try to channel unintentionally procreative sex into a legal regime in which the biological father is required to assume parental responsibility.” It sounds like Indiana views marriage as a method of discipline for men who father children (“required to assume parental responsibility”).

    Just bizarre, the legal knots these people tie themselves into trying to justify their bigotry.

  22. KenRob says:

    I’ll second that! Actually we all should send this ruling to Feldman.

  23. Jimmy says:

    Man, he completely eviscerated the states’ arguments for disallowing same-sex marriage.

  24. KenRob says:

    Spectacular decision Judge! You really covered all the bases and should be held high on all our shoulders & applauded. American Taliban heads exploding…. What a wonderful sound.

  25. bkmn says:

    I hope that Judge Posner emails a copy of his ruling to Judge Feldman in Louisiana.

© 2020 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS