http://twitter.com/Camerus/status/8209307418
Though a couple is not required to have kids in order to get married or be married, procreation is still a big deal in marriage.  You can get an entire marriage annuled (as if it never happened legally), even after 30 years if you find out that your spouse lied about their ability to have children and you married them thinking that you’ll have kids eventually.  Furthermore, if procreation was NOT a big deal when it comes to marriage, then why do we prohibit brothers and sisters from marrying each other?

http://twitter.com/Camerus/status/8208540360
From a legal standpoint, interracial marriage is completely different from gay marriage.  There is something called strict scrutiny applied to constitutional issues of laws that discriminate or treat differently by race.  The government has to have a compelling reason for the law and the law must be narrowly tailored.  It’s a high bar to meet.  However, issues of discrimination against sexual orientation are given the rational basis test; if the government has a rational basis for the law and the law is designed to support that, then usually the law passes constitutional muster. It’s the lowest bar to meet.  This is the same test given to bigamy, and we all know how that turned out.  The first hurdle that the lawyers in the Prop 8 federal trial are going to have to do is either (1) say there is NO rational basis or (2) say that a higher scrutiny should govern discrimination against sexual orientation.  IMO, either is a tough sell.

[BTW, a line from Lawerence v. Texas which invalidate criminal laws against sodomy: "That this law as applied to private, consensual conduct is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause does not mean that other laws distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals would similarly fail under rational basis review. Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage."  So, in essence, the Court is implying that protecting the institution of marriage IS a rational basis.  ]

Also, I understand that a lot of people quote to Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court decision that banned prohibition against interracial marriages.  Yes, there are many instances in that case where you can just substitute in a gay couple.  BUT, the history going into that case is also important to keep in mind.  By the time Loving was decided, only 16 states had laws like this, and most of those laws were dormant.  That means that the majority of the states had already decided that the prohibition was asinine.  Currently, only FIVE states recognize gay marriage and less than 20 have civil unions/domestic partnerships.  This is definitely not the track record you want to confront the Supreme Court with, IMO.

http://twitter.com/Camerus/status/8213622086
I completely agree that the state should get out of the marriage business and only enforce what are, essentially, contracts between people.  BUT, that’s not going to happen any time soon.  If people are having this many issues just letting go of the word “marriage”, I don’t think they’re going to give it up completely.

—

My thoughts on the current Prop 8 trial is that it’s going to fail in the end run.  The California federal court and probably the Ninth Circuit court of appeals will say that it unconstitutional to ban gay marriage.  But, the Supreme Court is known for overruling the 9th Circuit AND it doesn’t like being backed into a corner like this.  Heck, the federal government didn’t want to touch the issue back in the day (remember the time Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act?).

I understand what the proponents are trying to do, but I think they’re trying for too much too soon.  I would rather see them go state by state and get equal rights and obligations. Call it whatever but just not marriage; get most of the states on board to actually treating same-sex couples the same. THEN start going for the word “marriage” or, maybe by that time, the word doesn’t mean anything. [I don't get why people want to buy into an institution that discriminates against you, why not just get another institution established? I have a far more eloquent explanation of that, but I just woke up from a nap.]

http://bit.ly/6Ew12R

I somewhat agree with the assertion that the First Amendment does limit the government’s ability to regulate free speech. However, a completely textual argument would suggest that government can only be limited when it “abridges” (deprive, diminish, reduce in scope – http://m-w.com/dictionary/abridge) rather than expands free speech.  If the net neutrality regulations are promulgated under the FCC authority in order to protect free speech/access to information, then I don’t think that the ISP companies would have much of a chance by challenging the constitutionality of it on 1st amendment grounds. There is precedent for this type of regulation.  Turner Broadcasting v. FCC.  I doubt that a regulation on how much ISP companies charge its customers will fall under strict scrutiny because the law isn’t directly regulating speech per say.

Essentially, it would come down to whether the net neutrality rules actually do have a chilling effect on free speech/access to information.  So, how do you measure the chilling effect other than less users of the internet?  Would net neutrality cause less users?  Also – the United States isn’t the only one using the Internet, so how will anyone be able to show less speech without doing a headcount (on the internet?!).

On the flip side, do we have the right to FAST Internet access or access?  I remember a time when I was suffering through 56k modems, when it took me 1 hour to download a 3MB song (even when it was legal).  Do we even have the right to access the Internet at all?  Not everyone has free internet. We pay for services provided by a company.  If IPS companies wanted to charge me more based on how much bandwidth I used, I wouldn’t have a 1st Amendment complaint against the cable company (since the 1st Amendment only applies against the government).

HOWEVER, I think it’s unfair how I have to pay the same amount of money for my use of the internet (mostly Twitter, Hulu, and various message boards) while my neighbor can download seasons upon seasons of television shows.  Maybe a tiered system would give me more control of how much bandwidth I use and I can end up spending less money in the long run.   BUT, I like having the choice of using more bandwidth if I want to. So, really, it’s all just trade-offs.

Of course, I wouldn’t mind regulations on charging me more money for Internet use regardless, mostly because ISPs/cable companies/phone companies have easements on my property and they probably didn’t have to pay much for it.  [And believe me, I doubt those companies were complaining when those easements were taken under some kind of statute.]