blargblog
An expulsive extension of
Attorney General Hardy Meyers is still looking through the books on the constitutionality and legality of same-sex marriages in Oregon. Attorney General Eliot Spitzer—who breathes fire down the necks of corporate defrauders and dishonest accountants—has taken a more hesitant view of New York law: while affirming that state law disallows recognition of same-sex marriages, his own opinion that the law should be changed to reflect reality has probably restrained his hand from enforcing the law in an overly punitive way; for instance, while he has charged New Paltz mayor Jason West with 19 criminal violations charges, Spitzer has taken imprisonment off the table.
And in Pennsylvania? Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce L. Castor, who is running for Attorney General, has already threatened gay couples who wed and the local registrar of wills in Norristown with arrest. From our friends (cough) at WorldNetDaily:
"Should you, as clerk of the Orphan's Court, permit to be issued a marriage license to a gay or lesbian couple, you and your office would potentially face criminal liability," Castor wrote.No word yet on what PA's actual attorney general has to say on the matter. Posted by kevinmoore at March 4, 2004 09:41 AM | TrackBackHe also stated homosexual couples "holding themselves out to be married ... are possibly committing frauds actionable by criminal prosecution," the paper reported.
Castor noted those issuing or seeking same-sex marriage certificates could face a misdemeanor charge of obstructing administration of law or other governmental function.
Castor ought to be careful, a criminal charge could force the issue to be before the Supreme Court. I'm not saying the Supreme Court would necessarily decide in favor of gay marriage, and it probably wouldn't (remember the 5-4 decision allowing Boy Scouts to discriminate against gays) but it would force the issue to be on the table like nothing else. Which is bad for anti-SSM forces, of course.
Posted by: Raznor at March 4, 2004 11:21 PMNot necessarily. It would be a mistake to assume that a high court battle will only or primarily involve engagement with religious reactionaries. Once we get past the grand-mal diversion of "defending sanctity," the real demagoguery can begin in earnest: we would all do well to remember that nationwide legitimation of SSM places a new set of fiscal demands on SS, the Federal health trusts and Big Insurance by asking all three to recognize a new group of spousal dependents. This is, in legal terms, one of the two substantive differences between marriage and "civil unions" (the other being HHS recognition standards in adoption proceedings) and the only one which carries enough political potential to really threaten the cause if intimations of economic panic are left unaddressed by the gay rights lobby.
We should at the very least expect a high-profile pocketbook appeal from conservative legislators in midwestern union strongholds (Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin) where SS & Medicare viability is an overwhelming priority, arguing that SSM is an unsustainable burden to the trusts. I have no difficulty imagining Ashcroft suddenly rising to the defense of SS as an "established social contract," a controlling interest which supercedes 4th Amendment recognition of SSM. As a purely economic matter I don't buy it, but I'll bet every dollar in Moore's trust fund (read: beer money) that we're going to hear that appeal loudly and at length.
Even if that argument should fail to galvanize the Rehnquist Five, the Hartford fathers will almost certainly mount a substantial legal and PR campaign on the grounds that nationwide recognition will destabilize their businesses, and that as consequence consumer costs will rise substantially and progressive health care reform will be categorically (read: conveniently) untennable. Those of us who find the prospect of a constitutional amendment implausible today need to reconsider the political force that set of threats is capable of generating.
The task is to prove that such threats are corporate fictions. What are the lobbyists being paid for, if not to do that heavy lifting?
Posted by: WG Glomski at March 10, 2004 12:52 PM