Posts Tagged ‘same-sex marriage’

“Why Betting You’ll Win Minorities on Social Issues Is the GOP Cargo Cult”

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).

Supreme Court agrees to hear DOMA, Prop 8

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.

Welcome NPR “Talk of the Nation” listeners

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)

How GOP votes carried same-sex marriage to victory, cont’d

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.

Compelled-wedding-photography case reaches New Mexico Supreme Court

Eugene Volokh:

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.

My new HuffPo piece: GOP votes carried Maryland Question 6 to victory

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.

Notes on the election

  • Thank you, California voters, for ignoring the advice of Michael Pollan and Mark Bittman and turning down Prop 37, the badly (or deliberately-badly, depending on your level of cynicism) drafted initiative on labeling of genetically modified foods.
  • Any time a political wave comes crashing in, as it did last night, you lose some outstanding candidates along with the rest. Of Republicans defeated last night, I am particularly saddened by the loss of Nan Hayworth in Westchester and by that of Richard Tisei in Massachusetts, who would have greatly improved the character of representation for the North Shore compared with the present incumbent.
  • Ten Commandments judge Roy Moore, with backing from the plaintiff’s bar, won narrow approval from Alabama voters. Three Florida high court justices with a record of tendentious rulings easily won retention, backed by a wave of money from lawyers who practice before their court. On the brighter side, top-notch Michigan Supreme Court Justice Steve Markman survived another Democratic/union attempt to oust him. So there’s that.
  • Longtime subject of Overlawyered reportage Judy Cates won the judgeship in the downstate Illinois area across from St. Louis for which the term “problem jurisdiction” might have been invented.
  • Readers bored or bothered by the same-sex marriage issue should keep scrolling: four states had it on the ballot, I was deeply involved in the campaign in my home state of Maryland, and we appear to have won in all four states.
  • Readers bored or bothered by libertarian stances should keep right on scrolling because I am also very happy about Colorado’s and Washington’s removal of criminal penalties for marijuana use and California’s modification of its draconian “Three Strikes” law;
  • One of the most curious features of the presidential contest was the way both sides by seeming consent appeared to set aside the issue of Supreme Court appointments, which never even came up at the debates. Perhaps this silence is good for the institutional interests of the Court, whose public image could use some recuperation after years of Democratic attacks over decisions like Citizens United. But it strikes me as factually inaccurate, because the differences in likely court appointments remain one of the starkest and potentially most significant differences between the candidates, and would have made one of the more compelling themes for the Romney candidacy.
  • Go Wolverines: “Michigan voters soundly defeated a measure that would have given public-sector unions a potent tool to challenge any law — past, present or future — limiting their benefits and powers.” [Shikha Dalmia, Bloomberg]
  • More post-election thoughts from Ken at Popehat.

Maine Question 1, Maryland Question 6, Washington Referendum 74, Minnesota Amendment One

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.”

Gallaudet U. diversity officer suspended for signing marriage petition

Get ready for the next round in the who’s-persecuting-whom culture wars, following Chick-Fil-A and Burns-vs.-Ayanbadejo. I’ve got a write-up at Maryland for All Families reacting to initial reports by Chris Geidner at BuzzFeed and Annie Linskey at the Baltimore Sun; David Bernstein also comments. Regarding the unique status of Gallaudet, the national university for the deaf, a commenter at NRO offers the following:

Gallaudet cannot sell or transfer any of its real property without Congressional approval.

All Gallaudet diplomas are signed by the President of the United States.

Three members of Congress are statutorily required to sit on the school’s Board of Trustees.

Gallaudet is required to submit an annual report on its operations to the Department of Education and has purchasing authority through the General Services Administration.

Gallaudet receives a direct, annual Congressional appropriation, rather than mere federal student loan funds, and that direct appropriation accounts for the overwhelming majority of the school’s income.

More: Ken at Popehat; Huffington Post D.C.