Supreme Court: debate over same-sex marriage.

[Procrustes Stretched]

That sound in the distance at the Supreme Court these days is the debate over same-sex marriage.
Sidebar - Before Same-Sex Marriage Fight, Clashes on Free Speech - NYTimes.com

Using the First Amendment as a weapon.
Another proxy battle in the culture wars will arrive this month. The Supreme Court will hear arguments in Doe v. Reed, No. 09-559.

Here is what is in the news today...

the opponents of gay marriage and those who want names on public petitions kept from the public...

But a supporting brief filed by the American Civil Rights Union, a group that says it supports “all constitutional rights, not just those that might be politically correct,” warned that openness could have dire consequences and likened gay rights activists to Nazis.

“There must be no place in our democracy for Brownshirts seeking to force their way through thuggery and violent intimidation,” the brief said.

a brief said the above? and some conservatives accuse liberals of using language that is over the top?

.
the gay marriage proponents and those who want public documents to be public...

Advocates of traditional marriage say their free speech rights are under assault, as a brief in Monday’s case put it, for holding views “contrary to the reigning zeitgeist.” Proponents of same-sex marriage say their adversaries mistake debate for harassment and have a lot of nerve to claim the mantle of victim.

“More than a million names of signers of petitions for referenda and initiatives opposing gay marriage have been posted on the Internet,” the political scientists’ brief said. “Yet there is no evidence that any of these signers has faced any threat of retaliation or harassment by reason of that disclosure.”

a creepy aside by a conservative Justice that should bother all sides of a Free Speech debate...

The Supreme Court has, however, been receptive to arguments based on fear of retaliation. It shut down camera coverage of the same-sex marriage trial in San Francisco in January, partly on the theory that witnesses might be subject to harassment.

Laws requiring disclosure would be unconstitutional, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote, “if there were a reasonable probability that the group’s members would face threats, harassment or reprisals if their names were disclosed.”

My issue is with Justice Kennedy's statements. Laws requiring disclosure have been used by conservatives, moderates and liberals, libertarians, and others to put a spotlight on issues and people. If Kennedy's thoughts are law, I can see people demanding names of registered sex offenders, police logs, and more being denied access to or publication of the public documents that contain these things.

I can't wait to hear the arguments on all sides.


dD