Jeffrey Toobin has a blog post up at The New Yorker looking at the relationship between the challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the Prop 8 challenge that the Supreme Court may choose to hear in the coming months and the marriage initiatives in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington. It’s an interesting read that essentially argues that electoral wins may provide the cover for the court to move forward on marriage.
The real world, however, works very differently. The courts, especially the Justices of the Supreme Court, are acutely aware of how their rulings reflect (or conflict with) public opinion. Even Justices who are sympathetic to legal claims worry when their positions put them too far out of step with the voters…
…It was not until 1967, in Loving v. Virginia, that the Justices got around to declaring that states could no longer ban interracial marriage. Many (but not all) such laws were ignored or obsolete by that point. This is not to diminish the significance of Loving. The case was and remains a key practical and symbolic statement about race and the constitution. But by 1967, the hard work of changing the country on this issue had already been done by the civil-rights movement. The Court was a lagging indicator of where the country already was.
And so while both cases, as I wrote recently, are potential landmarks, neither may turn out to be as important as four ballot initiatives. The votes will give us the best picture of where the country is on same-sex marriage. The snapshot will be imprecise, of course. All four states are generally Democratic in their orientation, so they are not a true cross-section of country. But given the Court’s history, even the more liberal justices may be reluctant to impose same-sex marriage on the country if the people—the voters—repeatedly say that they do not want it. The polls predict close races in all four states. The results will echo well beyond their borders.

Pingback: Buster Merando
Pingback: Avis Parekh
Pingback: Cherish Guzzardo
Pingback: Trinidad Holsing
Pingback: Paulette Bean
Pingback: Myra Alvino
Pingback: Diego Lehrian
Pingback: Chas Rodnguez
Pingback: Nettie Olmedo
Pingback: Maurice Woodberry
Pingback: Judi Derobertis
Pingback: Onita Cusano
Pingback: Lindsey Pass
Pingback: Faviola Trumpp
Pingback: Claudia Spraker
Pingback: Fallon Duresky
Pingback: Bridgett Guillereault
Pingback: Chau Fenimore
Pingback: Magaret Driscoll
Pingback: Josie Menendez
Pingback: Rosamond Alanko
Pingback: Joella Batte
Pingback: Enrique Huskin
Pingback: Lillie Thelemaque
Pingback: Marcy Payseur
Pingback: Janessa Ramming
Pingback: Cedrick Ingraham
Pingback: Randy Segui
Pingback: Arlean Bouffard
Pingback: Harrison Bruton
Pingback: Breanna Pierri
Pingback: Lavinia Nanas
Pingback: Lizette Wobig
Pingback: Eddy Landing
Pingback: Kirsten Lambuth
Pingback: Isabell Debo
Pingback: Chester Longford
Pingback: Verline Labre
Pingback: Mohammad Finneran
Pingback: Paulina Sonny
Pingback: Casey Barstow
Pingback: fat loss factor secret
Pingback: Shaniqua Flatau
Pingback: Deetta Morton
Pingback: Elenora Gormally
Pingback: Eve Federer
Pingback: Van Kasal
Pingback: Leonardo Sinkler
Pingback: Homer Koulabout
Pingback: Russ Kieft
Pingback: Donovan Boman
Pingback: Charmain Sprott
Pingback: Raymond Fritzler
Pingback: Mellisa Gillert
Pingback: Nicky Griffies
Pingback: browse anonymously
Pingback: vpn reviews
Pingback: Santos Warnix
Pingback: Joi Makepeace
Pingback: Ronnie Carstensen
Pingback: Danial Besco
Pingback: Tu Shrum
Pingback: Scott Beakley
Pingback: Cher Baruffi
Pingback: Nicolas Heslin
Pingback: Enrique Bartosz
Pingback: Kyoko Dansbury
Pingback: vpn connection
Pingback: Benito Millar
Pingback: Sal Wershey
Pingback: Hailey Warbington
Pingback: Avery Ingalls
Pingback: Vena Chenet
Pingback: Vivan Preato
Pingback: Rolando Homan
Pingback: Iola Roider
Pingback: Leslie Hay
Pingback: Elke Fontecchio
Pingback: Nathan Deisch
Pingback: Nathan Sibrian
Pingback: Owen Mcgahen
Pingback: Antony Chenier
Pingback: Tiara Mulero
Pingback: Arnulfo Duchemin
Pingback: Roderick Provins
Pingback: Harriett Cheshier
Pingback: Antony Kalbach
Pingback: Anamaria Caspersen
Pingback: Gena Smeathers
Pingback: Jon Altmann
Pingback: Eusebio Pressimone
Pingback: Teodoro Carias
Pingback: Natacha Lachiatto
Pingback: Felipe Bandyk
Pingback: Fernando Sacramento
Pingback: Nichole Baeskens
Pingback: Shu Studstill
Pingback: Gary Wilison
Pingback: Korey Leiferman
Pingback: Mikel Hehir
Pingback: Sherman Tazewell
Pingback: Angel Stribley
Pingback: Michael Bassetti
Pingback: Ahmed Stolarik
Pingback: Joesph Campanella
Pingback: Maudie Mcclellon
Pingback: Brendan Haggan
Pingback: Ammie Vanschaick
Pingback: Rufus Lacorte
Pingback: Caleb Woyahn
Pingback: Bernetta Rebeiro
Pingback: Mildred Homans
Pingback: Michelle Barters
Pingback: text your ex back review
Pingback: Alysha Laraway
Pingback: Gilberto Frietsch
Pingback: Birgit Schuckman
Pingback: Alonzo Dague
Pingback: Frederica Labat
Pingback: Dallas Culbertson
Pingback: Virgina Wehbe
Pingback: Vallie Steinhaus
Pingback: Diego Kneisley
Pingback: Penelope Alecca
Pingback: Dorsey Buday
Pingback: Clyde Minogue
Pingback: Lou Wadlinger
Pingback: Jettie Applebury
Pingback: Jacinda Bomstad
Pingback: Karima Fife
Pingback: web hosting
Pingback: North Carolina
Pingback: xbox 360
Pingback: Stefani Johanningmeie
Pingback: Manuel Benoist
Pingback: DOMA Likely to Get Supreme Court Hearing This Session | International Fertility Law Group
Pingback: affability angiotonic bondholding
Pingback: mountain dew xbox giveaway
Pingback: buy edu backlinks
Pingback: DOMA Likely to Get Supreme Court Hearing This Session - International Family Law Group
Pingback: DOMA Likely to Get Supreme Court Hearing This Session - International Fertility Law Group
Pingback: DOMA Likely to Get Supreme Court Hearing This Session | International Fertility Law Group Blog