Same Sex Marriage Thread-Part 2

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
sounds like Kennedy wants to punt this down the road. which is fine, and small "c" conservative, and perhaps prudent. the citizens of CA will have their rights restored, and we'll continue to fight and make arguments and come out and change hearts and minds and the change we'll create will be real and enduring.

but then everyone thought the ACA was doomed. so who knows?

DOMA tomorrow.
 
seems reasonable:

The Proposition 8 oral argument

Much will be written about the Proposition 8 oral argument. The bottom line, in my opinion, is that the Court probably will not have the five votes necessary to get to any result at all, and almost certainly will not have five votes to decide the merits of whether Proposition 8 is constitutional.

Several Justices seriously doubt whether the petitioners defending Proposition 8 have “standing” to appeal the district court ruling invalidating the measure. These likely include not only more liberal members but also the Chief Justice. If standing is lacking, the Court would vacate the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

The Justices seem divided on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 on ideological lines, four to four – i.e., all the members other than Justice Kennedy. For the more liberal members of the Court, there was no clarity on how broadly they would rule.

But Justice Kennedy seemed very unlikely to provide either side with the fifth vote needed to prevail. He was deeply concerned with the wisdom of acting now when in his view the social science of the effects of same-sex marriage is uncertain because it is so new. He also noted the doubts about the petitioners’ standing. So his suggestion was that the case should be dismissed.

If those features of the oral argument hold up – and I think they will – then the Court’s ruling will take one of two forms. First, a majority (the Chief Justice plus the liberal members of the Court) could decide that the petitioners lack standing. That would vacate the Ninth Circuit’s decision but leave in place the district court decision invalidating Proposition 8. Another case with different petitioners (perhaps a government official who did not want to administer a same-sex marriage) could come to the Supreme Court within two to three years, if the Justices were willing to hear it.

Second, the Court may dismiss the case because of an inability to reach a majority. Justice Kennedy takes that view, and Justice Sotomayor indicated that she might join him. Others on the left may agree. That ruling would leave in place the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

The upshot of either scenario is a modest step forward for gay rights advocates, but not a dramatic one. The Court would stay its hand for some time for society to develop its views further. But combined with a potentially significant ruling in the DOMA case being argued tomorrow, the Term will likely nonetheless end up as very significant to gay rights.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/03/the-proposition-8-oral-argument/#more-161733
 
I think people who don't support it should pay more taxes, and gays should pay less until they're treated equally. :up:

Politcians against same-sex marriage probably have no issue with gays paying taxes though, aka paying their salary.
 
I think people who don't support it should pay more taxes, and gays should pay less until they're treated equally. :up:

Politcians against same-sex marriage probably have no issue with gays paying taxes though, aka paying their salary.

Mmmm, I don't think that will be necessary. I think seeing their world turn upside down and being defeated is enough. Of course, that won't make them change their minds and you really can't force anyone to change their minds.
 
JUSTICE SCALIA: When did it become unconstitutional to ban same-sex marriage? Was it 1791? 1868?

TED OLSON: When did it become unconstitutional to ban interracial marriage?

JUSTICE SCALIA: Don’t try to answer my question with your own question.


GFY, Scalia. seriously.
 
He's a dick. I can't think of anyone I disagree with, or even dislike more on the bench than him.
 
I am listening to an audio of the hearing today on my local public station, the host does a decent job of narrating, without disrupting.
Later, I will post a link to a podcast of it.
 
Why aren't the same arguments being used against single parents then? Where are the protests against single parents?

They have been actually for decades. But you could start with Dan Quayle and Murphy Brown 20 years ago and the hundreds of books on the unintended consequences of the Great Society poverty programs and no-fault divorce.

And though I've asked many people many times no one yet has been able to answer why children need a mother and father and anything else is an abomination.

Who says they are abominations? What we argue for is a conjugal concept of marriage that recognizes the ideal of a mother and father raising a biological child in a stable union.
 
I'm sure I read the same article as you did. Where did it say that everyone is against SSM?

I didn't even read that article and I certainly never said "everyone is against SSM." What's the point of a protest if everyone is in agreement?

There are other news reports out there and in fact there was another protest just like this in Paris several months ago during my FYM hiatus or I would have commented on that protest back then. My main observation from several articles then and now is that this protest is led by a much more diverse representation of French society then the stereotypical opponents of SSM in America. Draw your own conclusions from that fact.
 
I didn't even read that article and I certainly never said "everyone is against SSM." What's the point of a protest if everyone is in agreement?

You said this on posting #890:

Interesting in that gay and straight, religious and secular, conservative and leftist, can all join together against same-sex marriage in Paris because France has rejected the ad hominem attack of "homophobe" as a way of silencing and intimidating all opposition to the legal and moral recognition of same-sex marriage.

There are other news reports out there and in fact there was another protest just like this in Paris several months ago during my FYM hiatus or I would have commented on that protest back then. My main observation from several articles then and now is that this protest is led by a much more diverse representation of French society then the stereotypical opponents of SSM in America. Draw your own conclusions from that fact.

It wouldn't hurt to post those articles, no matter how old they are.
 
Who says they are abominations? What we argue for is a conjugal concept of marriage that recognizes the ideal of a mother and father raising a biological child in a stable union.



And some of us have a less reductivist view if humanity think that it's about the quality of the individuals in the relationship and not the mere presence of one penis and one vagina.

After all, 45 years ago, it would have been "one father and one mother of the same race in a stable union" because think of those poor confused biracial children.

The anti-adoption ethos that come out of the anti-gay side is breathtaking, and as Kennedy pointed out today, what about the 40,000 children in California alone who have SS parents? Are they to be punished because their parents don't fit your ideal?
 
Guys, get off Indy's back. He just thinks his ideals are more important than another person's life. Is that so bad?

He believes he's more American than you are. Deal with it. That's your problem
 
It wouldn't hurt to post those articles, no matter how old they are.

English Manif: : Interview with Xavier Bongibault, head of gay group opposed to gay marriage

ttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/frigide-barjot-france-comedian-gay-marriage_n_2455573.html

PARIS, Jan 11 (Reuters) - When the opponents of gay-marriage take to the streets in Paris on Sunday, their protest will be led neither by politicians nor priests, but by a sassy comedian in a pink T-shirt who goes by the stage name Frigide Barjot. With her on the march, expected to be one of the capital's biggest demonstrations in years, will be a young gay man who campaigns against homosexual marriage and an an older activist from the right-to-life movement.

Here's just two. Now does that even remotely sound like the American opposition to SSM depicted as mostly dying, old, white, Republican men bitterly clinging to their Bibles?
 
You should read the anti-equality websites. They do everything they can to trot out people who aren't old. But it's a challenge. The NYT did an article recently on 20-somethings who are anti-gay, and it's brilliant reading:



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/u...marriage-remain-undaunted.html?pagewanted=all


Really, a 29-year old executive director? Must be quite an established organization.

If you look at the polls, indeed, it is the Bitters who remain opposed. But not by much, and not for long.
 
Who says they are abominations? What we argue for is a conjugal concept of marriage that recognizes the ideal of a mother and father raising a biological child in a stable union.

That's really interesting from somebody who is pro-life.

Fuck those adopted, unideal, non-biological children.
 
If only: Supreme Court On Gay Marriage: 'Sure, Who Cares' | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

WASHINGTON—Ten minutes into oral arguments over whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry one another, a visibly confounded Supreme Court stopped legal proceedings Tuesday and ruled that gay marriage was “perfectly fine” and that the court could “care less who marries whom.”

“Yeah, of course gay men and women can get married. Who gives a shit?” said Chief Justice John Roberts, who interrupted attorney Charles Cooper’s opening statement defending Proposition 8, which rescinded same-sex couples’ right to marry in California. “Why are we even seriously discussing this?”

“Does anyone else up here care about this?” Roberts added as his eight colleagues began shaking their heads and saying, “No,” “Nah,” and “I also don’t care about this.” “Great. Same-sex marriage is legal in the United States of America. Do we have anything of actual import on the docket, or are we done for the day?”

Before Roberts officially ended proceedings, sources confirmed that all nine justices were reportedly dumbfounded, asking why the case was even coming before them and wondering aloud if some sort of mistake had been made. Calling marriage equality a “no-brainer,” members of the High Court appeared not just confused but irritated when Proposition 8 defenders argued that gay marriage was not a national issue but a state matter.

Moreover, when Attorney Cooper said that gay marriage could harm the moral fabric of the country and hurt the institution of marriage, Associate Justice Sotomayor asked, “What are you even talking about?” while Justice Anthony Kennedy reportedly muttered, “You got to be fucking kidding me,” under his breath.

“I have to interject, Mr. Cooper,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said as the attorney argued that the government has legitimate reasons to discourage same-sex couples from getting married. “Do you honestly care this much about this issue? Because if you do, you’re a real goddamn idiot. Actually, you sound as dumb as dog shit, and you are wasting our time.”

“Should gay marriage be legal?” Ginsburg continued. “Yes. Done. Case closed. Goodbye. Christ, were we seriously scheduled to spend the next few months debating this?”

Even the typically conservative wing of the court maintained that, despite their personal views, it would be “downright silly” for them to rule that same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

“I’m a strict Originalist, Mr. Cooper, and I’m looking at a 14th Amendment that forbids any state from denying any person equal protection of the law,” Associate Justice Antonin Scalia said. “So, unless we are the most uncivilized society on the face of God’s green earth, I think we can all agree that a gay person is in fact a person. So what I’m saying is, who the fuck are we to tell a person who he or she can get married to? This is dumb. Can we talk about a real case now, please?”

Before adjourning the court, Roberts said there would be no official opinion on the case because it’s just “common goddamn sense,” and then addressed gay men and women directly.

“Get married, don’t get married, do whatever you want,” Roberts said. “It’s the opinion of this court that we don’t give two shits what you do.”

“C’mon, let’s go get some food,” added Roberts, as the eight other justices followed him out the door.

For the record, I do not subscribe to the belief that all SSM opponents are "dumb as dog shit".
 
Two people! There's a reason to ban gay marriage for millions.

Not only that, but the guy's argument is completely idiotic

"Marriage for all exists already in France. We speak of equality before the law. That's equality between individuals, not equality between groups. There is equality in the sense that anyone can get in a male-female couple. There is not equality between couples, but there is equality for individuals."

You must feel proud to have this guy on your side, Indy.

It's a shame. I bet you were so excited when you first read about him
 
New Zealand's gay marriage bill passed through committee unaltered. :up:

Now there's just the third reading to go; it should pass and New Zealand will join the 21st century. I will be absolutely gobsmacked if the 77-44 vote in favour of the second reading changes so dramatically that the bill does not pass.


Fuck, that's brilliant.

For the record, I do not subscribe to the belief that all SSM opponents are "dumb as dog shit".

For the record, I do subscribe to the opinion that anybody who opposes marriage equality is dumb as dog shit.
 
I think it's too easy to label SSM opponents as "dumb as dog shit". I think using words like overly stubborn, irrational, or even downright hateful is better. But that's just me.
 
I think a good word is tortured. Watching the anti-SSM "logic" "evolve" is fascinating -- the lengths people will go to to either justify a prejudice, cling to an interpretation of whatever religious text, or both, in the face of enormous evidence to the contrary, is amazing.

At the end of the day it's a thuddingly simple issue. I hope it ends so we can go back to talking about issues that are much more complicated.
 
That's really interesting from somebody who is pro-life.

Fuck those adopted, unideal, non-biological children.

If one were interested in respectful, informative discourse from the sole dissenting voice they would inquire into the reasoning for specifying biological child over just child.

I note you elected not to pursue that route but instead chose to twist and pervert my words.

Typical of "debate" on this forum which more and more reads like just another Left-wing hate blog.
 
If one were interested in respectful, informative discourse from the sole dissenting voice they would inquire into the reasoning for specifying biological child over just child.

I frankly don't need to inquire into the reasoning as it's offensive no matter how much lipstick you slap on that pig.

You were not the first/only anti-SSM person this week to make comments about biological children. It is interesting that it came on the heels of comments about the Chief Justice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom