A vote for Elena Kagan is a vote for finding a constitutional right to gay marriage that will overturn marriage laws in every state. Maggie Gallagher at the Corner:
A vote for Elena Kagan is a vote for “marriage equality,” which features in two key cases that will shortly be before the Supreme Court: Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which arises out of California’s Prop 8 but will apply to all 50 states, since it seeks to establish a federal constitutional right to gay marriage; and Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management, which seeks “only” to overturn the federal laws defining marriage as one man and one woman.
Asked on a questionnaire in connection with her appointment as Solicitor General, “Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to samesex marriage?” Kagan answered, “There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.” But Ann Althouse points out:
If the meaning of rights can grow or evolve or change over time, then one could say “There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage” one day and, later, say that there is.
See also William Jacobson, “Will Kagan dispute what the meaning of “is”, is?”
Gay marriage has failed in every state, whether by the voters themselves or by their state legislature. Even the state legislatures of such liberal bastions as New York and New Jersey have rejected proposals for gay marriage. If the proponents of gay marriage persuaded their fellow citizens that it was a good idea and it then became the law through the democratic process even opponents such as I would accept that we had our say and we lost. We’ll come back and fight another day. But to have fundamental changes in centuries old traditions jammed down our throats by nine lawyers in black robes who don’t care a fig for Democracy or the rule of law is judicial tyranny.
Read all of Maggie Gallagher’s comments here.