Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

cali

(114,904 posts)
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 11:51 AM Mar 2013

Defense gets pounded by Supreme Court Justices

The lawyer defending California’s 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 California’s 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 court’s 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

101 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Defense gets pounded by Supreme Court Justices (Original Post) cali Mar 2013 OP
if the effects are "unknown", then we cannot know that they are harmful. logic apparently niyad Mar 2013 #1
add to that that there is no evidence, after nearly 9 years of marriage equality cali Mar 2013 #2
I keep trying to figure out how such braindead types manage to function at any level. niyad Mar 2013 #4
The only harm done in MA Fearless Mar 2013 #25
You mean this did not happen? Agschmid Mar 2013 #47
Lol. Fearless Mar 2013 #89
the only harm done NoQuarter Mar 2013 #68
How so? JDPriestly Mar 2013 #76
I know EXACTLY what the effects will be. cliffordu Mar 2013 #3
+1 SoonerPride Mar 2013 #5
and the wedding industry will make a few more dollars, possibly creating jobs. wouldn't this be niyad Mar 2013 #6
Yep. cliffordu Mar 2013 #7
Absolutely REACTIVATED IN CT Mar 2013 #26
Hopefully with a dash of "love" or a pinch of "lust"... but yes it is. Agschmid Mar 2013 #49
2. Gay folks will get divorced RoccoR5955 Mar 2013 #59
Always the hopeless romantic.... cliffordu Mar 2013 #92
if the effects are "unknown", then we cannot know that they are harmful. logic apparently AlbertCat Mar 2013 #43
+ 1 truegrit44 Mar 2013 #94
Maybe they are referring to the "GOD" effect Heather MC Mar 2013 #79
Infertile hetero couples should then be banned from getting married, too. Ikonoklast Mar 2013 #8
And as soon as their offspring attain majority their marriages should be disolved. bluedigger Mar 2013 #14
There should be fertility tests for both partners as part of the marriage application process as wel AlbertCat Mar 2013 #51
er, yeah. bluedigger Mar 2013 #58
I needed to get in the weeds for snark. AlbertCat Mar 2013 #61
Indeed! bluedigger Mar 2013 #62
Agereed ! REACTIVATED IN CT Mar 2013 #27
As an infertile heterosexual AtheistCrusader Mar 2013 #33
+1 ArcticFox Mar 2013 #98
Excellent argument, but it would probably fly right over the mouth breather's heads. sarge43 Mar 2013 #100
Well put. blackspade Mar 2013 #36
The pro-8 lawyer should have been embarrassed to mention procreation JDPriestly Mar 2013 #77
Good news. lark Mar 2013 #9
Kennedy's question was very encouraging. BlueCheese Mar 2013 #10
Could it be that the Supreme Court will once again lead the way on civil rights? SoonerPride Mar 2013 #11
Explain-- you don't think they'll rule the right way on this? BlueCheese Mar 2013 #12
I think it will be a narrow decision applying only to CA SoonerPride Mar 2013 #16
They would have a hard time keeping you from marraige in OK then, when California loses. Ikonoklast Mar 2013 #19
Precisely Sherman A1 Mar 2013 #22
Not necessarily. SoonerPride Mar 2013 #30
Well, a possible scenario is Prop8 goes down, but DOMA stands. AtheistCrusader Mar 2013 #34
That seems less likely SoonerPride Mar 2013 #39
They should but they won't because they want to control this. AtheistCrusader Mar 2013 #46
Prop 8 could be a very narrow ruling that applies to CA only wryter2000 Mar 2013 #65
No, they could rule that the people protecting the law lack standing jeff47 Mar 2013 #38
Not quite. morningfog Mar 2013 #86
My feeling is that DOMA is dead for two reasons; the Fourteenth Amendment and Loving vs Virginia. Ikonoklast Mar 2013 #87
But why? angrychair Mar 2013 #21
Because they had a right and then that right was taken away by Prop 8 SoonerPride Mar 2013 #29
Unfortunately, the courts often do seem to find a way to weasel out of tough spots... BlueCheese Mar 2013 #32
I see your point angrychair Mar 2013 #48
Thank you. 27 years and counting.... SoonerPride Mar 2013 #54
Standing jeff47 Mar 2013 #41
It was my belief that the USSC does not hear cases filed by those with no standing. Ikonoklast Mar 2013 #66
Appellate courts decided they did have standing jeff47 Mar 2013 #70
Thanks for the answer. You may be right. BlueCheese Mar 2013 #31
And John Robert's is a wild card... awoke_in_2003 Mar 2013 #83
You never know. I thought it was his adopted children that might Hekate Mar 2013 #93
My Wife had a hysterectomy at age 47, just before we got married louis c Mar 2013 #13
Beautiful couple. LoisB Mar 2013 #18
Great photo TBF Mar 2013 #23
You look great together! csziggy Mar 2013 #52
an early happy 10th anniversary to a beautiful couple, and wishing you many, many more. niyad Mar 2013 #73
Thanks for sharing such a beautiful picture mercymechap Mar 2013 #78
Both my husband and myself are surgically sterile. sarge43 Mar 2013 #101
Fingers crossed that... 99Forever Mar 2013 #15
The Supreme Court really has a chance to make history here and do the right thing. Nye Bevan Mar 2013 #17
So...should everyone be tested for fertility before a marriage license is issued? Should LoisB Mar 2013 #20
The "procreation" argument is the only thing they've got NYC Liberal Mar 2013 #24
This case was already decided in the last episode of Boston Legal frazzled Mar 2013 #28
Vasectomy is an automatic annulment then? One_Life_To_Give Mar 2013 #35
... and menopause ... Myrina Mar 2013 #42
Alot of Tax revenue One_Life_To_Give Mar 2013 #50
Justice Sotomayor was educating Mr. Cooper about menopause. Manifestor_of_Light Mar 2013 #91
They probably do know it in theory, but it is so remote from where they live... Hekate Mar 2013 #95
Scalia...figures! sheshe2 Mar 2013 #37
Keeping in mind that THIS is perfectly okay... Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #40
Making fun of people's appearance now? tkmorris Mar 2013 #44
+1 n/t Agschmid Mar 2013 #53
You just described the picture perfectly. Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #57
Are they cousins, RoccoR5955 Mar 2013 #60
Some families are so broken they don't even KNOW if they are related. Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #64
this is for real? cousins? a renfaire gag? please identify. niyad Mar 2013 #75
You decide.... Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #82
Why make fun of people? n-t Logical Mar 2013 #90
Maybe because they feel they're superior. Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #96
tigerram Tigerram Mar 2013 #45
welcome to DU--that is what one of my friends says--they have the right to be as miserable niyad Mar 2013 #74
This quote is from a lawyer? Fantastic Anarchist Mar 2013 #55
There is no defense against social injustice. Rex Mar 2013 #56
How can the effects be "unknown" wryter2000 Mar 2013 #63
Loving v. Virginia really should have settled this issue once and for all. ohheckyeah Mar 2013 #67
Olson mentioned it a lot in his argument. nt Lex Mar 2013 #80
Roberts dissapoints pokerfan Mar 2013 #69
This guy actually got a degree? That is the most asinine statement I've ever read. Ikonoklast Mar 2013 #84
Even the procreation "logic" is better than whatever reasoning led Roberts to make that idiotic NYC Liberal Mar 2013 #85
Does that mean that people who can't, or choose not to, have children are barred from marriage? Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2013 #71
Procreation??? angrychair Mar 2013 #72
It is an argument opponents of same-sex marriage make all the time. Lex Mar 2013 #81
The standing issue is what will own them Alcibiades Mar 2013 #88
Is discrimination ok as long as it has a long history? ArcticFox Mar 2013 #97
Crickets going, "Chirp chirp chirp" tell the story... nikto Mar 2013 #99

niyad

(112,424 posts)
1. if the effects are "unknown", then we cannot know that they are harmful. logic apparently
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 11:54 AM
Mar 2013

escapes them.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
2. add to that that there is no evidence, after nearly 9 years of marriage equality
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 12:02 PM
Mar 2013

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.

Fearless

(18,421 posts)
25. The only harm done in MA
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 01:52 PM
Mar 2013

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)
47. You mean this did not happen?
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 02:53 PM
Mar 2013


I was pretty sure it was going to, at least that is what everyone said?

... just in case ...

niyad

(112,424 posts)
6. and the wedding industry will make a few more dollars, possibly creating jobs. wouldn't this be
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 12:06 PM
Mar 2013

good for the economy?

Agschmid

(28,749 posts)
49. Hopefully with a dash of "love" or a pinch of "lust"... but yes it is.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 02:54 PM
Mar 2013

I should be able to enjoy the same economic stability straight couples have.

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
43. if the effects are "unknown", then we cannot know that they are harmful. logic apparently
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 02:49 PM
Mar 2013

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?)

truegrit44

(332 posts)
94. + 1
Wed Mar 27, 2013, 12:38 AM
Mar 2013

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)
79. Maybe they are referring to the "GOD" effect
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 07:22 PM
Mar 2013

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)
8. Infertile hetero couples should then be banned from getting married, too.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 12:13 PM
Mar 2013

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)
14. And as soon as their offspring attain majority their marriages should be disolved.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 01:11 PM
Mar 2013

There should be fertility tests for both partners as part of the marriage application process as well.

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
51. There should be fertility tests for both partners as part of the marriage application process as wel
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 02:55 PM
Mar 2013

Of course there nothing inherently infertile about being gay....

A gay couple could easily pass such a test.

bluedigger

(17,077 posts)
58. er, yeah.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 03:01 PM
Mar 2013

Not biologically compatible, of course, but I didn't think I needed to get in the weeds for snark.

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
61. I needed to get in the weeds for snark.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 03:11 PM
Mar 2013

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.

REACTIVATED IN CT

(2,965 posts)
27. Agereed !
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 02:03 PM
Mar 2013

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)
33. As an infertile heterosexual
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 02:28 PM
Mar 2013

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.

sarge43

(28,939 posts)
100. Excellent argument, but it would probably fly right over the mouth breather's heads.
Wed Mar 27, 2013, 07:12 AM
Mar 2013

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.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
77. The pro-8 lawyer should have been embarrassed to mention procreation
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 06:28 PM
Mar 2013

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.

BlueCheese

(2,522 posts)
10. Kennedy's question was very encouraging.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 12:55 PM
Mar 2013

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)
16. I think it will be a narrow decision applying only to CA
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 01:12 PM
Mar 2013

and won't help me and my partner in Oklahoma.

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)
19. They would have a hard time keeping you from marraige in OK then, when California loses.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 01:21 PM
Mar 2013

Precedent will be set at the USSC level for all states.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
34. Well, a possible scenario is Prop8 goes down, but DOMA stands.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 02:30 PM
Mar 2013

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)
39. That seems less likely
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 02:45 PM
Mar 2013

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)
46. They should but they won't because they want to control this.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 02:52 PM
Mar 2013

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)
65. Prop 8 could be a very narrow ruling that applies to CA only
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 03:24 PM
Mar 2013

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)
38. No, they could rule that the people protecting the law lack standing
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 02:43 PM
Mar 2013

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)
86. Not quite.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 09:11 PM
Mar 2013

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)
87. My feeling is that DOMA is dead for two reasons; the Fourteenth Amendment and Loving vs Virginia.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 09:35 PM
Mar 2013

We shall soon see.

angrychair

(8,592 posts)
21. But why?
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 01:26 PM
Mar 2013

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)
29. Because they had a right and then that right was taken away by Prop 8
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 02:03 PM
Mar 2013

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)
32. Unfortunately, the courts often do seem to find a way to weasel out of tough spots...
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 02:25 PM
Mar 2013

... 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)
48. I see your point
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 02:54 PM
Mar 2013

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)
54. Thank you. 27 years and counting....
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 02:58 PM
Mar 2013

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)
41. Standing
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 02:46 PM
Mar 2013

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)
66. It was my belief that the USSC does not hear cases filed by those with no standing.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 03:38 PM
Mar 2013

I could very well be wrong, but even to make their docket, standing of the appelant must first be established?

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
70. Appellate courts decided they did have standing
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 03:48 PM
Mar 2013

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)
31. Thanks for the answer. You may be right.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 02:23 PM
Mar 2013

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)
83. And John Robert's is a wild card...
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 08:28 PM
Mar 2013

having a family member who is gay might give him some empathy in this.

Hekate

(90,189 posts)
93. You never know. I thought it was his adopted children that might
Wed Mar 27, 2013, 12:36 AM
Mar 2013

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)
13. My Wife had a hysterectomy at age 47, just before we got married
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 01:07 PM
Mar 2013

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

csziggy

(34,119 posts)
52. You look great together!
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 02:56 PM
Mar 2013

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.

mercymechap

(579 posts)
78. Thanks for sharing such a beautiful picture
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 06:50 PM
Mar 2013

and if they are going to use bearing children as the basis for marriage, many couples (heterosexual) may not qualify.

sarge43

(28,939 posts)
101. Both my husband and myself are surgically sterile.
Wed Mar 27, 2013, 07:26 AM
Mar 2013

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)
15. Fingers crossed that...
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 01:12 PM
Mar 2013

.. 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)
17. The Supreme Court really has a chance to make history here and do the right thing.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 01:15 PM
Mar 2013

I hope they don't blow it.

This could be the Brown versus Board of Education of our time.

LoisB

(7,072 posts)
20. So...should everyone be tested for fertility before a marriage license is issued? Should
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 01:25 PM
Mar 2013

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)
24. The "procreation" argument is the only thing they've got
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 01:46 PM
Mar 2013

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)
28. This case was already decided in the last episode of Boston Legal
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 02:03 PM
Mar 2013

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.

 

Manifestor_of_Light

(21,046 posts)
91. Justice Sotomayor was educating Mr. Cooper about menopause.
Wed Mar 27, 2013, 12:29 AM
Mar 2013

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)
95. They probably do know it in theory, but it is so remote from where they live...
Wed Mar 27, 2013, 12:41 AM
Mar 2013

... 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)
37. Scalia...figures!
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 02:40 PM
Mar 2013
On the conservative wing of the court, Justice Antonin Scalia jumped most forcefully to Cooper’s defense, suggesting that it is unclear whether the children of gay couples may suffer long-term damage.

Thanks cali, for the update.
 

RoccoR5955

(12,471 posts)
60. Are they cousins,
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 03:04 PM
Mar 2013

or brother and sister?
You do know that in a lot of states, you can still marry your first cousin.

niyad

(112,424 posts)
74. welcome to DU--that is what one of my friends says--they have the right to be as miserable
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 05:05 PM
Mar 2013

as the rest of us.

Fantastic Anarchist

(7,309 posts)
55. This quote is from a lawyer?
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 02:58 PM
Mar 2013
Cooper responded that even in that case, at least one member of the marriage would likely still be fertile, a suggestion that drew laughter from the courtroom.


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)
56. There is no defense against social injustice.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 02:59 PM
Mar 2013

Marriage is between two people that love each other enough to make it legal imo.

wryter2000

(46,016 posts)
63. How can the effects be "unknown"
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 03:14 PM
Mar 2013

Men have been marrying men and women marrying women for years in some states. No harmful effects, only good.

ohheckyeah

(9,314 posts)
67. Loving v. Virginia really should have settled this issue once and for all.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 03:42 PM
Mar 2013
Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:
“ 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.

pokerfan

(27,677 posts)
69. Roberts dissapoints
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 03:46 PM
Mar 2013

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 that’s, it seems to me, what (supporters) of Proposition 8 are saying here. All you’re 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)
84. This guy actually got a degree? That is the most asinine statement I've ever read.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 08:49 PM
Mar 2013

Opus Dei must be pulling out all the stops on this one if that is all they got.

NYC Liberal

(20,132 posts)
85. Even the procreation "logic" is better than whatever reasoning led Roberts to make that idiotic
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 08:53 PM
Mar 2013

statement.

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
71. Does that mean that people who can't, or choose not to, have children are barred from marriage?
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 03:49 PM
Mar 2013

Including heterosexuals?

angrychair

(8,592 posts)
72. Procreation???
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 04:54 PM
Mar 2013

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)
81. It is an argument opponents of same-sex marriage make all the time.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 07:34 PM
Mar 2013

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)
88. The standing issue is what will own them
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 09:55 PM
Mar 2013

"Several justices, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts, sounded skeptical Tuesday that Hollingsworth as a private citizen could defend the state’s laws.

“I don’t 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)
97. Is discrimination ok as long as it has a long history?
Wed Mar 27, 2013, 01:36 AM
Mar 2013

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)
99. Crickets going, "Chirp chirp chirp" tell the story...
Wed Mar 27, 2013, 05:57 AM
Mar 2013

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Defense gets pounded by S...