Gay Marriage Arguments Go to Supreme Court

Link

Quote :

The Supreme Court will hear arguments this week in two cases that have the potential to transform American society and the status of gays and lesbians in it.

Same-sex marriage has been legalized in several states. Society didn't fall apart in any of them. It's been legalized in a number of countries, too--they didn't fall apart, either.

Quote :

In oral arguments on Tuesday morning the 9 justices will consider whether California’s voter approved ban on gay marriage, Proposition 8, unfairly discriminates against gay people. On Wednesday, they’ll consider whether the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act barring the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even in states that allow them, constitutes federal overreach.

I am of the opinion that Prop 8 is unfair, and I demonstrated and then voted against it in 2008. People should be able to marry whomever they please, so long as both parties are consenting. As to the Defense of Marriage Act--I still don't understand how same-sex marriage could possibly threaten opposite-sex marriage. (One of my colleagues married her girlfriend when same-sex marriage was legal in California. Her marriage in no way threatens the opposite sex marriages of the people she works with.)

Quote :

Both cases could change the everyday lives of gay people and transform the larger, decades old gay rights movement, which has pursued both a court-based and political strategy to gain more legal protections for gay people.

All people should have the same rights, protections, and responsibilities under the law, regardless of sexual orientation, gender, race, religion, ethnicity, etc. We're all the same species.

Quote :

John Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University and the chairman for the anti-gay marriage group the National Organization for Marriage, also sees the potential for big, but negative, changes should the court decide to invalidate Prop 8. He says a Supreme Court decision in favor of gay marriage will "forever sever the ties between marriage and children" and discourage heterosexual couples from marrying.

Bullshit. Heterosexual couples marry whether they plan upon having children or not. Heterosexual couples fuck whether children are planned or not--and lots of children are born outside of marriage. Gay couples are entirely capable of raising children, whether adopted or biologically the offspring of one or the other. (For that matter, people can raise children together without being in a romantic-type relationship, be they the same sex or the opposite sex--my youngest sister and her female BFF raised my sister's son together for years--and they both prefer men. One of my students grew up with his father and aunt, along with his brother and two cousins. There was no romantic relationship between the adults--they just found it convenient to raise the kids together after divorcing their spouses. At the house next door, there are three families with children living there--and all the adults take of all the kids. A few years ago, I knew a teenage boy who was raising his five younger siblings because his father was in prison and his mother was working three jobs to keep them all fed and sheltered. He was openly gay, but it had no effect on the sexuality of the younger ones--his middle school age sister was interested in boys and wrote badfics starring a Mary Sue version of herself and her favorite male TV characters.)

Quote :

“It's hard to imagine a more compelling interest than the survival of the species," Eastman said of why the government should be able to limit marriage to opposite sex couples. "We would survive in a way, but without the institution of marriage...you commodify children when you take away the intimate family structure.”

Commodify children? WTF? That...makes no sense whatsoever. Best case scenario is that each child is loved and wanted by whoever is raising them--whether it's in a nuclear family with biological mom and dad together or some other arrangement. Yes, children are used as commodities sometimes. It has nothing to do with whether or not same-sex marriage is legal. Some parents are just fucked up.

Quote :

Just 40 years ago, the Supreme Court tersely refused to hear a case brought by a gay couple who wanted to get married in Minnesota, writing that that their claim raised no significant legal issue. At the time, legal opinions often treated homosexuality as criminal, sexually deviant behavior rather than involuntary sexual orientation.

Some people still think that way, but a lot of progress has been made. I just hope that whatever decisions the Supreme Court now makes, it doesn't set us back 40 years (or more).

Quote :

Justice Anthony Kennedy, the current court's conservative-leaning swing vote, departed from that tone when he wrote the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas opinion striking down state sodomy laws. Gay people have a right to privacy in their own homes to practice whatever consensual sexual behavior they wish, Kennedy wrote, in a decision that substantially expanded gay rights in the U.S.

Advocates hope that decision may mean Kennedy will side with them on marriage this time around.

I share in that hope (as do most people on this site, judging from the comments over the years).

Here's to hoping this thread can soon be moved to antidotes, so we can derail it and insult each other with something good happening in the U.S., rather than derailing it and insulting each other here while those of who care worry about it or mourn the presence of morons on the Supreme Court.

"TEH EBIL GAYS WILL DESTROY OUR CHILLUN MAKING ABILITIES!"

That's what I get from "It's hard to imagine a more compelling interest than the survival of the species". WTF people. Because gay marriage is going to make hetero people suddenly sterile or something.

I hope we can move this to antidotes as well.

Also like there are shit tons of children as is how is that even a concern?

Prop 8 should be allowed to stand as there is nothing in the US Constitution that says a state can't discriminate based on sexual preference, nor is there anything even hinting at a "right" to marriage.

The defense of marriage act should probably be struck down because the Feds have no authority on such matters.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

nor is there anything even hinting at a "right" to marriage.

In that case, someone should start a campaign to prohibit all marriage.

For science.

grmblfjx wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

nor is there anything even hinting at a "right" to marriage.

In that case, someone should start a campaign to prohibit all marriage.

For science.

I don't think there's anything forbidding a state to do that.

Now that you mention it, that sounds like a great idea. For lulz.

God knows the fucking idiot rednecks that make up 99% of KY (Mikey is the one percent ) shouldn't be encouraged to procreate.

Wait are we going to just sterilize everyone too or just keep them from marrying?

isnt the divorce rate in the us like 50% or sth

shouldnt ppl ban divorce if they want to save marriage and shit

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

I don't think there's anything forbidding a state to do that.

Now that you mention it, that sounds like a great idea. For lulz.

That's what I mean. Someone should come up with some obviously ridiculous but logically watertight argument as to why marriage is a bad thing and needs to be banned (and I don't mean LULZ IT'S A TOOL TO OPPRESS MEN), and start a petition.

grmblfjx wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

I don't think there's anything forbidding a state to do that.

Now that you mention it, that sounds like a great idea. For lulz.

That's what I mean. Someone should come up with some obviously ridiculous but logically watertight argument as to why marriage is a bad thing and needs to be banned (and I don't mean LULZ IT'S A TOOL TO OPPRESS MEN), and start a petition.

You do this, because you're smarter than me (there's no medal for that, btw, there's not enough gold available to make all that we'd need).

I'll go around and "sell" it because I'm charming and everyone hates Germans.

You be the brains and I'll be the face.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

grmblfjx wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

nor is there anything even hinting at a "right" to marriage.

In that case, someone should start a campaign to prohibit all marriage.

For science.

I don't think there's anything forbidding a state to do that.

Didn't Texas accidentally do that not too long ago?

grmblfjx wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

nor is there anything even hinting at a "right" to marriage.

In that case, someone should start a campaign to prohibit all marriage.

For science.

Oh, absolutely. After all if you let a man marry a woman then where will it lead? A man might want to marry another man, or a woman another woman. From there, you could easily end up with people marrying multiple partners or even animals. We should withdraw from this very dangerous step we have taken in allowing the institution of marriage.

Lady Anne wrote:

.. a law professor at Chapman University.. He says a Supreme Court decision in favor of gay marriage will [snip] discourage heterosexual couples from marrying.

A professor, oh my. Did he manage to say it with a straight face?

grmblfjx wrote:

Someone should come up with some obviously ridiculous but logically watertight argument

Logic will achieve nothing against cold fear. What we need is special underwear to protect straight couples from the gay radiation.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

I'll be the face.

...and that's where we're going to fail.

Anon wrote:

if you let a man marry a woman then where will it lead? A man might want to marry another man, or a woman another woman. From there, you could easily end up with people marrying multiple partners or even animals. We should withdraw from this very dangerous step we have taken in allowing the institution of marriage.

Excellent point.

So is anyone going to tell these yayhoos that only calling a union between a man and a woman a marriage is illegal because it's gender discrimination?

Seriously...I want to see the reaction.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

So, some good news.  The DOMA was kicked to the curb.

ny times wrote:

The ruling overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, which passed with bipartisan support and which President Bill Clinton signed.

Yeah, go fuck yourself Clinton. Bi-partisan support... this country sometimes I swear.

ny times wrote:

“The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”

No shit!!!

ny times wrote:

The decision will immediately extend some federal benefits to same-sex couples, but it will also raise a series of major questions for the Obama administration about how aggressively to overhaul references to marriage throughout the many volumes that lay out the laws of the United States.

Well, here is hoping that all goes well...

They also basically told Cali that there was nothing they could do about Prop 8 being overturned.

They were not, however, willing to say that people had a constitutional right to same sex marriage :\

Still, same-sex couples can get federal bennies so that is p cool.

Also you should Google gay marriage :D

Incidentally:

Seattle Out and Proud wrote:

While the Mariners play against the Chicago Cubs on Sunday June 30, Safeco Field will fly the rainbow Pride flag, making Major League Baseball history as the first MLB Team to publicly fly the Pride flag at a game.

Oh Mariners, I knew there was a reason I loved you more than any other sports team. <3

Unfortunately this doesn't mean that bans on same sex marriage has been ruled unconstitutional, but hey, at least it's something.

Congratulations, America. You've taken your first baby steps into the 21st century.

Quote :

They were not, however, willing to say that people had a constitutional right to same sex marriage :\

There is one reason for this. The reason is because there is no constitutional right to same sex marriage. Fucking deal with it. You're better off simply convincing regular people to support (or at least get out of the way of) same sex marriage in a legislative manner at the state level (because that's the way the tides are shifting anyway) than you are trying to convince a majority of literate people that there is a constitutional right to same sex marriage.

Lady Anne wrote:

Quote :

“you commodify children when you take away the intimate family structure.”

Commodify children? WTF? That...makes no sense whatsoever.

Don't worry, it's just noise. Sometimes they need to string a few buzzwords together, and none of the verbs in the English language allows for a meaningful sentence, so they use verbs that don't mean shit on their own.

When I took the pre-marriage course, we were told that "artificial contraceptive methods... thingify women".
I wrote "thingify" because the word used in the pamphlet was not on any of the dictionaries I consulted either. It's become an inside joke, i.e. "Would you like me to thingify you if the kid goes to bed early tonight?

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Quote :

They were not, however, willing to say that people had a constitutional right to same sex marriage :\

There is one reason for this.  The reason is because there is no constitutional right to same sex marriage.  Fucking deal with it.  You're better off simply convincing regular people to support (or at least get out of the way of) same sex marriage in a legislative manner at the state level (because that's the way the tides are shifting anyway) than you are trying to convince a majority of literate people that there is a constitutional right to same sex marriage.

All depends on how you interpret the first part of the 14th Amendment, Mikey.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. wrote:

^
That would depend entirely on how you define "liberty." Clearly, the government can restrict some activities, such as murder, arson, and jaywalking, so you can't say liberty translates into "WHATEVER THE FUCK YOU WANT."

I think it's generally taken to mean "liberties established elsewhere in the Constitution," such as free speech and bearing arms.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

^
That would depend entirely on how you define "liberty."  Clearly, the government can restrict some activities, such as murder, arson, and jaywalking, so you can't say liberty translates into "WHATEVER THE FUCK YOU WANT."

I think it's generally taken to mean "liberties established elsewhere in the Constitution," such as free speech and bearing arms.

Read a little closer.

Quote :

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

You are granted the privilege of marriage (and then in turn the slew of privileges the legal title provides) by the state.  Provided the other person involved is a consenting adult you have the right to marry who you please.  But the person who I wish to marry will never be a woman, and because of this, I am therefore not allowed to marry any consenting adult I might want to, depending on which state I live in. You are granted a privilege that I am not, and not based on something meritorious like the VA or government-funded scholarship; you are granted this privilege because you were lucky enough to be born a man who enjoys sex with women.

In what way is that not a state making or enforcing a law which abridges my privileges and immunities?  You can marry whomever you please provided they say yes, but I have to do without because some old men from the south think it's gross and louts like you draw on your vast reserves of intentional, flyover-state denseness to support them?  Nah b.  Slow your roll.

god I understand the impulse to play the devil's advocate but you always do it with the ickiest shit in the most boneheaded fashion imaginable goddamn

EDIT for additional ranting:
I find it hilarious that people are all 'BUT BUT BUT THEY'LL GET MARRIED FOR THE INSURANCE' because as the current laws stand that's pretty much my only option?
Don't even say 'CIVIL UNIONS.' Separate is not equal, and that train of thought is unconstitutional re: Brown vs. the Board of Education.

Also like het couples get married for the bennies all the time, who gives a fuck?

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

bennies

haha that means something different here

quick everyone say 'water' it'll be just like freshman year in the dorm

TheHedonist wrote:

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

bennies

haha that means something different here

quick everyone say 'water' it'll be just like freshman year in the dorm

what?
never mind I have google too sorry