General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDefense gets pounded by Supreme Court Justices
The lawyer defending Californias ban on same-sex marriage drew skeptical questioning from swing justices Tuesday as the Supreme Court began two historic days of oral arguments considering the rights of gays and lesbians.
Charles J. Cooper, whose clients include citizens who voted for Californias 2008 Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage, tried to convince the justices that states should have the right to limit marriage to heterosexual couples because they can produce children. Cooper warned that expanding marriage could have unkown but harmful effects.
But that drew sharp interrogation from the courts liberal justices, and an emotionally tinged question from Justice Anthony Kennedy, widely seen as a key swing vote in the case.
Kennedy, while acknowledging that the long-term effects of legalized gay marriage are unknown, suggested that the tens of thousands of children of gay and lesbian couples in California have a voice in the case as well. They want their parents to have full recognition, he said.
<snip>
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-defense-prop-8-supreme-court-20130326,0,2077603.story
niyad
(112,424 posts)escapes them.
cali
(114,904 posts)in MA, of any harm done. Same in VT where civil unions that granted all the state rights of marriage have been in place for 13 years.
niyad
(112,424 posts)Fearless
(18,421 posts)Was to the views of people who thought "teh gays" were scary or evil. They've lost pretty hard, and they're the ones trying to do us in now.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)I was pretty sure it was going to, at least that is what everyone said?
... just in case ...
Nope.
NoQuarter
(577 posts)was to the wallets of divorce lawyers.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Same-sex marriage opens up a whole new market.
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)1.Gay people will get married.
indeed
niyad
(112,424 posts)good for the economy?
REACTIVATED IN CT
(2,965 posts)marriage itself is basically an economic arrangement.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)I should be able to enjoy the same economic stability straight couples have.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Which will make more money for lawyers.
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)We have:
"Cooper warned that expanding marriage could have unkown but harmful effects."
and then we have:
"suggesting that it is unclear whether the children of gay couples may suffer long-term damage."
So they're gong to decide this thing because something, we don't know what, might happen.
Uh huh....
Isn't that true of every action of every day? Perhaps we should just do nothing....then we know what will happen.
And all this "what about the children????" wringing of hands...pu-leez. Hetero couples are sometimes dreadful parents. They also can decide not to have children. Gay couples, if biologically sound, can have just as many children as heteros. People who are NOT married can have lots of children. Children are a red herring. (Spawn are a red herring?)
and if they wanted they could do long term studies now, because for years and years there have been gay couples who have been raising children even tho they haven't been married. Do the idiots think that all these couples are just going to start producing millions of kids as soon as they get married. Also, why worry about the heteros producing when we have OVER population in the world anyway.
It is just crazy non thinkers that come up with lame ass crap.
Heather MC
(8,084 posts)People who are against gay Marriage believe if it is made legal God will bring destruction to the earth.
Nevermind al the Child Molesting priest, murders, rapist, war, drug abuse, stealing, and wife beating etc. No no the one thing, the only that will cause God to.pull the plug is making Marriage equality legal for all.
Now they can't say that, because they would sound nuts so instead they say, "unknown effects" lol
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Elderly couples incapable of producing children should also be banned from getting married...does California already do that?
Logic fail of enormous proportions.
This guy is an attorney, correct?
Oy.
bluedigger
(17,077 posts)There should be fertility tests for both partners as part of the marriage application process as well.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Of course there nothing inherently infertile about being gay....
A gay couple could easily pass such a test.
bluedigger
(17,077 posts)Not biologically compatible, of course, but I didn't think I needed to get in the weeds for snark.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)I know you were being facetious.... but the absurdity of the argument seems to have escaped the attorney and others who should know better.... and it's really even more ridiculous the more you apply it.
bluedigger
(17,077 posts)They have neither logic nor reason on their side.
REACTIVATED IN CT
(2,965 posts)I am way past my childbearing years. . That should not bar me from entering into the economic arrangement we call marriage if I should want to do so.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I have used this argument to great confounding effect on foes. They don't really know what to make of it.
Probably doubly so, because males normally don't say anything that might cast doubt upon their 'virility' or whatever. I don't give a shit. I don't define myself by my sperm count. And I have PRECISELY the same desires and capability to have and raise a child, as any same-sex couple. And the children of each have PRECISELY the same NEED for state and federal recognition of survivorship, shared property, medical decisions, even fifth amendment immunity and the thousand plus odd federally recognized rights that marriage confers.
I can adopt. I can have a surrogate. Sperm donor. Child from a former relationship. Etc. There are many paths to having a dependent child. If simple human decency/equality doesn't motivate our foes, at least taking care of kids ought to, and there are a LOT of kids out there with same-sex parents. They NEED these protections just as surely as my wife and I did. REGARDLESS of our ability to conceive.
ArcticFox
(1,249 posts)sarge43
(28,939 posts)Mine's is much more elementary: What state in this country requires verification of fertility in order to obtain a marriage license?
None. Try again.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)and fidelity as the reasons for marriage.
There are two reasons for marriage today: 1) announcing publicly especially before family and friends that you share an emotional commitment (applies even if you have a tiny, tiny wedding because your marriage is recorded in the public record); 2) enjoying the financial advantages (and disadvantage) of marriage.
That's how I see it. And I cannot think of a reason for excluding same-sex couples from enjoying the benefits and burdens of marriage. There aren't any rational ones.
Thanks!!
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)I'm cautiously optimistic that the Court will get it right.
The Warren Court did a great deal for civil rights at a time when elected officials were unwilling or unable to act. Could it be that the Supreme Court will once again lead the way on civil rights?
SoonerPride
(12,286 posts)No
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)SoonerPride
(12,286 posts)and won't help me and my partner in Oklahoma.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Precedent will be set at the USSC level for all states.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)It might take a bit for things to get sorted out, but it will occur.
SoonerPride
(12,286 posts)Unless there is a broad ruling on this, I will be denied marriage equality in OK.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)In that case that poster might gain something in OK, some day, if they legalize it like Washington and a few other states have, but there would still be no equal federal recognition.
SoonerPride
(12,286 posts)DOMA is so clearly unconstitutional it must fall.
The court can't have the federal government invalidate rights granted by the states.
The conservatives should all line up to strike down DOMA on federal overreach alone.
Though knowing those creeps they'll contort themselves into a pretzel to let it stand.
ugh.
I loathe our current SC.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The 14th amendment makes the destruction of Prop8 obvious to me, but it only applies to the states. It doesn't flow uphill, or isn't 'incorporated' against the federal government, to my knowledge. Maybe it is, in that case, both Prop 8 and DOMA should go down in flames.
Here's hopin'.
wryter2000
(46,016 posts)AFAIK, California is the only state where we had marriage equality and then lost it. It created two classes of gays and lesbians. They could rule that illegal without changing anything else in the country.
I'm wondering, though, if states that don't have marriage equality will be required to recognize marriages from other states. It's in the Constitution that states have to recognize each others' contracts.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)California isn't defending Prop 8. The state government refused to appeal the district court case throwing Prop 8 out. So a "group of CA citizens" have taken it upon themselves to appeal the district court ruling against Prop 8.
The SCOTUS could rule that those citizens don't have standing to appeal the district court decision. That would only result in Prop 8 being thrown out, making "gay marriage" legal in CA, but not affect any other state.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)The case today is focused on CA. Tomorrow will be the next bite of the apple. We should get a sense tomorrow about how the DOMA challenge will come out. That will at least force the feds to recognize same sex marriage from state that have it. That will, in my opinion, open the flood gates for several more state to join,
But, as I see it, we are still a long way from nation wide marriage equality.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)We shall soon see.
angrychair
(8,592 posts)Not being funny, I really don't understand the hair-splitting on this. If prop 8 isn't Constitutional, as the 9th Circuit ruled, than it isn't. I hate to sound stupid but I don't understand how a SCOTUS ruling only can be applied to a single state. I have always been under the impression that case law, which this would become, is the basis for interpretation and "the ruler" by which other laws are measured by to decide outstanding issues of a similar nature. Why wouldn't even a narrow ruling impact the issue every state? Isn't SCOTUS the "one ring to rule them all" as it were?
SoonerPride
(12,286 posts)The CA SC granted same sex marriages then Prop 8 took it away.
I and my partner never had such a right here in OK so the CA situation is unique.
Also the SC could punt on the issue of standing, saying the plaintiffs are not the state of CA or Atty Gen and have no legal standing to appeal the case before the court, thus letting the 9th circuit ruling to stand, which was that Prop 8 is invalid.
Neither of which helps me in OK.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)... without making an actual decision.
I was encouraged by Kennedy's comment because it seemed to be espousing a general principle, not some technicality about standing and jurisdiction, but you bring up a good point.
angrychair
(8,592 posts)But then I really don't. Doesn't OK have a law that prevents your marriage from being legal? I may not be remembering all the specific facts but i thought the jest of the 9th Circuit ruling stated that prop 8 was unconstitutional. If allowed to stand doesn't that impugn the laws of others states if challenged? So I do disagree with you on one point. CA residents were not given a right that was then taken away. A state has no power to abolish a right given by the US Constitution. You can't "give" someone something they already have. Consenting adults have the right to marry. I wish you and your partner the very best.
SoonerPride
(12,286 posts)I think it opens the door for new suits from couples like us, who must go to a different state, get married and come home and sue for equal protection.
I don't think the 9th circuit ruling has any effect on OK's constitution.
I think only the SC making a sweeping ruling could toss that out. And I don't see that happening.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)California did not appeal the district court case that threw out Prop 8. The state government refused to appeal the ruling.
So a 'group of concerned citizens' appealed the ruling. The SCOTUS could rule that only the state can appeal the district court's ruling. That ruling would affect every state, but it would not make "gay marriage" legal in every state - because it's only a ruling on standing.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)I could very well be wrong, but even to make their docket, standing of the appelant must first be established?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The only way the SCOTUS could rule on that is by hearing the case. And the SCOTUS did ask both sides to discuss standing in their briefs. Plus they asked a lot of standing-related questions today.
It's a way for the SCOTUS to have an "easy out". They don't have to set a "Brown v. Board of Education"-scale precedent while fixing a clear problem in CA (some homosexuals got married while it was legal and those marriages weren't annulled by the law, so there's a huge equal protection problem independent of homosexual vs. heterosexual marriage).
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)I know it is of little comfort, but legalizing same sex marriage in California would be a big step.
I have confidence that Oklahoma will recognize marriage equality soon, too, but it will likely have to happen as a consequence of something at a national level.
Best wishes and cheers.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)having a family member who is gay might give him some empathy in this.
Hekate
(90,189 posts)The "logic" about marriage being "for procreation" really bites for infertile couples -- and older couples as well. It's hurtful and stupid both -- but you just never know.
louis c
(8,652 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 26, 2013, 02:34 PM - Edit history (1)
We both have chosen to be childless throughout our lives. We both decided to get married late in life.
So, by the reasoning of Atty. Cooper, I should not be enjoying my tenth wedding anniversary on April 15. My marriage should have been prohibited by law.
Here's our photo and we both believe that our marriage is not at risk if people of the same gender marry each other.
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/specials/bill_brett/nov08seen2?pg=27
LoisB
(7,072 posts)and congrats to you both for finding each other.
csziggy
(34,119 posts)I had my tubes tied before my SO and I became legally entangled. We've been together since 1977 with no children, no plan to have children and no regrets that we did not have children - except maybe when I think of all the slave labor I could have gotten out of a herd of rugrats.
niyad
(112,424 posts)mercymechap
(579 posts)and if they are going to use bearing children as the basis for marriage, many couples (heterosexual) may not qualify.
sarge43
(28,939 posts)Himself: voluntarily, me: I didn't want to die of cancer. We were 39 when we made it legal. We passed the big 3 oh in September.
Of the many stupid arguments against same sex marriage, that one tops the list. Moreover, it's insulting and demeaning.
One other fun fact, Atty Cooper, not all of us marry to have children. Many of us don't want children. Get it? Got it? Try something else.
99Forever
(14,524 posts).. this blatant and ugly discrimination will finally be ending.
But with what has come out of the SCOTUS in recent years, I remain skeptical that they will do the right thing.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)I hope they don't blow it.
This could be the Brown versus Board of Education of our time.
LoisB
(7,072 posts)all childless heterosexual marriages be overturned? Should women who have had hysterectomies and men who have had vasectomies be denied the right to marry? How about post-menopausal women?
NYC Liberal
(20,132 posts)without making a religious argument, which wouldn't fly in a court.
And it's such a terribly weak argument that they've really got nothing. Should infertile couples not be allowed to marry? Older couples? People who've had vasectomies or other surgery?
It would take astounding logical gymnastics to say equal protection applies to race but not to sex/gender.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Remember? Denny Crane is dying from Alzheimer's, and he wants to leave his money to set up a legal-aid foundation. For reasons too complicated to explain, the only way he can do this with the assurance his wishes will be properly carried out, is to marry his drinking and cigar-smoking buddy Alan Shorr so he can leave his all his money to him. Why not, Shorr says. But there's an injunction. And eventually, off they go to the Supreme Court, where all the questions about procreation and all that are soundly put to rest. And you don't have to even "love" each other, because no one asks that question of straight people when they apply to get married.
Yay, they win the case and plan their wedding in Maine. And who do they get for the judge to perform the ceremony? Antonin Scalia, of course!!
It was a great show, and I don't know why we need to reargue this at the Supreme Court again.
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)Myrina
(12,296 posts)n/t
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)Enforcement by the IRS should go a long way to helping with the budget.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)And the fact that women cannot have babies after a certain age.
He seemed to be unaware of that fact.
These guys live on a woman-free planet. They know nothing of the mechanics of the female body.
Hekate
(90,189 posts)... that it (the mechanics of the female body) never occurs to them to apply any of it to real life. Very weird.
sheshe2
(83,319 posts)Thanks cali, for the update.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)tkmorris
(11,138 posts)Not cool, and kind of juvenile to boot.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)or brother and sister?
You do know that in a lot of states, you can still marry your first cousin.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)niyad
(112,424 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Speaking of another fine tradition,...are shotgun weddings okay with Fat Tony?
Logical
(22,457 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)They should be allowed to marry. Then they can be as miserable as the rest of us..!!!!
niyad
(112,424 posts)as the rest of us.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Good grief. Wouldn't that destroy the "sanctity of marriage?"
I'm surprised someone with legal expertise actually uttered such stupidity.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Marriage is between two people that love each other enough to make it legal imo.
wryter2000
(46,016 posts)Men have been marrying men and women marrying women for years in some states. No harmful effects, only good.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts) Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Lex
(34,108 posts)pokerfan
(27,677 posts)Same sex marriage is like forcing a child to call someone a Friend...
If you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say this is my friend. but it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend. And thats, it seems to me, what (supporters) of Proposition 8 are saying here. All youre interested in is the label, and you insist on changing the definition of the label. ~Chief Justice John Roberts
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chief-justice-john-roberts-compares-gay-marriage-to-forcing-a-child-to-call-someone-a-friend/
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Opus Dei must be pulling out all the stops on this one if that is all they got.
NYC Liberal
(20,132 posts)statement.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Including heterosexuals?
angrychair
(8,592 posts)That passes for "sound legal reasoning" when giving arguements before SCOTUS? It should be beneath the court to engage him on his arguement. It is without merit. It's almost an arguement for eugenics. It's making the point that a person that can't procreate is not worthy of marriage. If you're not worthy of marriage, your not worthy to procreate. The dark place you have to go to for that reasoning is very, very dark. As a society, we should be better.
Lex
(34,108 posts)I think it was brought up today just so it could be shot down once and for all by the court.
Alcibiades
(5,061 posts)"Several justices, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts, sounded skeptical Tuesday that Hollingsworth as a private citizen could defend the states laws.
I dont think we have ever allowed something like that, Roberts said."
Conservatives are supposedly noty in favor of the court doing things they have not done before. At least we know Roberts' vote.
ArcticFox
(1,249 posts)That is what Justice Kennedy's comment seems to say, as interpreted by the NY Times:
But Justice Kennedy said he was uncertain about the consequences for society of allowing same-sex marriage. We have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more, he said, referring to the long history of traditional marriage and the brief experience of allowing gay men and lesbians to marry in some states.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-case.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp
nikto
(3,284 posts)As in (directed to DOMA supporters),
"Exactly HOW does gay marriage hurt conventional marriage?"
The response...
Chirp! Chirp! Chirp!
That is their (anti-gay marriage) case, in its entirety.
That is their evidence.
That is their argument.
That embodies all of their reasoning.
How could a case with so little merit even get to The Supreme Court?
DOMA supporters and anti-gay marriage people are delirious, nasty, ignorant pieces of shit.
Always have been.
I respect their fake religious "values" exactly 00.00%.
Oops.
Sorry to insult shit.