Senate Homosexuality: the Thread

Discussion in 'Community' started by zombie, Jan 24, 2006.

  1. wannasee Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2007
    star 4
    http://www.npr.org/2013/03/26/175351429/audio-supreme-court-arguments-on-california-gay-marriage-ban

    gays lost today IMO. Here are the main points (paraphrased) that I felt the Supreme Court made:

    1) We must be cautious in throwing out traditions. There could be unforeseen consequences.
    2) If we can't deny marriage to gays, who can we deny marriage to? (sotomayor actually brought that up. she mentioned incest lol)
    3) why now? we allowed segregation for 50 years. Why should we go from civil unions to marriages in only 4? We need more data.
    4) How are the children of gays harmed by having parents in a civil union and not in a marriage? The answer was not at all.
    5) And then there was a legal point. Something about this decision would require states that grant civil unions to also grant same-sex marriage. Then it was argued that that would discourage other states from adopting civil unions, and would actually hurt gays and their children....
    6) there was also something about "when did it become unconstitutional to deny homosexuals the right to marry?" to which no good reply was made.

    One thing in favor of the gays was that the ability-to-reproduce argument was made... smh

    I just scribbled this out, so if it doesn't make sense, just ask and I'll elaborate.
    Last edited by wannasee, Mar 26, 2013
  2. Juliet316 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 8
  3. Lady_Sami_J_Kenobi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 31, 2002
    star 6
    You can't make a conclusion based on the questions being asked. I think the more likely ruling in this case will be that the people supporting Prop. 8 do not have legal standing to bring the case before the Supreme Court. Thus, the ruling will only affect California, as the lower court's ruling will stand that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional.
    Last edited by Lady_Sami_J_Kenobi, Mar 26, 2013
  4. Alpha-Red Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 25, 2004
    star 5
    Let me guess, Scalia asked all six of those.
    anakinfansince1983 likes this.
  5. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    I really don't see how we can, in solid grounding, deny marriage to incestuous, but consenting, couples. Sotomayor bringing that point up, from that, actually is quite a valid question. And it can't just be "well, we like homosexuality but not the other things".

    Ulitmatlely, though, I think this is going to come down to why I've been annoyed at the California government for some time.... it may be thrown out on a technicality that those who defended it couldn't 'really' defend it, since the state refused to. And I think that was a dereliction of duty, as well as undermining the broader point which is the introduction of same-sex marriage in an uncontroversial fashion.
  6. Juliet316 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 8
    Wouldn't surprise me given that he's compared homosexuality to murder, beastiality among other things before.
    anakinfansince1983 likes this.
  7. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Am I the only one that read Wannasee's post before commenting on it?

    Also from the Wall Street Journal live blog: If marriage is a fundamental right, can any other limits on it survive? Justice Sotomayor asks. In other words, are there also constitutional rights to incest and polygamy? This is the slippery slope argument that some opponents of same-sex marriage, if not Mr. Cooper, have raised.
    Bacon164 and wannasee like this.
  8. wannasee Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2007
    star 4
    Perhaps it would have been accurate for me to say "these are some of the questions for which the pro-gay guys didn't have good answers IMO"...

    I did say that I just scribbled it out. jeez.......
    Last edited by wannasee, Mar 26, 2013
  9. Juliet316 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 8
    Yeah, but there's been evidence over the years that there is often real, psychological harm from most incestious relationships. Can the same be said from most same sex relationships?
  10. Lady_Sami_J_Kenobi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 31, 2002
    star 6
    You did say gays lost today. My post was mainly in reference to that. As for the other 'slippery slope' questions, there are scientific reasons why incest is bad--it concentrates bad DNA in families and polygamy should not be illegal, imo, as it is up to the individuals involved. That it has been misused to make the younger wives basically servants isn't a good objection to it.
  11. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    yeah, the standing discussion is really fascinating.
  12. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    And what portion of that has looked at consenting adults, and what portion of that is situations that involve children that are not able to give consent?

    Since when did marriage require children? For that matter, since when were children only possible through marriage? I've got at least one friend that I know has health issues that would be genetic and she's said she definitely would never have a child because that would pass on to the kid. Should she be barred from marriage in an attempt to keep her DNA from being passed along?
    MrZAP and anakinfansince1983 like this.
  13. Lady_Sami_J_Kenobi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 31, 2002
    star 6
    No, she shouldn't. Kudos to her for making that decision, which was probably very painful.

    The taboos against incest are very strongly rooted, more so than the aversion to gays being allowed to marry. I don't think the USSC would rule a ban on incestuous relationships was unconstitutional. Gay marriage is based on a set of different reasons.

    And I know people can adopt.
  14. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    That's the thing, though, is the question brought up of where the line is? Just because something is taboo doesn't make it something that shouldn't be allowed, just as the taboo (albeit weaker) with same-sex marriage is any justification to prevent that, either. There is a very good reason that polygamy and incest both come up in this discussion (although too often, it's because people are trying to use one prejudice to reinforce another)

    It is, incidentally, somewhat fun to have protesters opposed to same-sex marriage ask if incest or polygamy should be allowed and answer yes. They don't expect that.
    Last edited by Lowbacca_1977, Mar 26, 2013
  15. Lady_Sami_J_Kenobi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 31, 2002
    star 6
    Most states do not allow relatives closer than 1st cousins to marry and no one has filed a court case to force the issue.

    There was a case involving a brother and sister that got married. They had been adopted by different couples and did not know that they were related. I forget how they found out, but that was an extreme case. In the Appalachian country in the South, inbreeding happened a lot and babies are born with horrible birth defects. So, the state does have a vested interest in keeping closely related people from marrying, which is not the case with gay couples.
  16. harpua Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2005
    star 8
    Meh... while I personally wouldn't get romantically involved with somebody I was related to, I'm not against it. The whole consenting adult thing is valid, as far as I'm concerned. Polygamy... whatever... that's fine with me, as well. I think we should get out of the business of telling people who they can or can't love and marry.
    anakinfansince1983 and Blithe like this.
  17. shinjo_jedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 5



    That was from this:

    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.


    So, I wouldn't really consider that a strong point for either side.



    "We allowed racism for 50 years, so why should gays get a shortcut?" isn't an actual argument (especially a legal one).


    4) How are the children of gays harmed by having parents in a civil union and not in a marriage? The answer was not at all.

    This isn't about the children. It's about the legal rights attributed to same-sex couples as opposed to opposite couples. Most data as far as I'm aware shows children are perfectly fine being raised by same-sex couples. And, even if it weren't, there is no legal basis for denying equal rights to same-sex couples because children are "harmed" - it assumes the entire basis for marriage is children (which is false) while ignoring other causes of social harm to children (divorce, unmarried pregnancies, a parent walking out, poverty).
    Last edited by shinjo_jedi, Mar 26, 2013
    anakinfansince1983 and V-2 like this.
  18. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    Please keep posts to contributing to the discussion at hand, not stand alone media
    Last edited by Lowbacca_1977, Mar 26, 2013
  19. Juliet316 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 8
    That actually sounds like a good comeback from Olson. I'd be interested to actually hear an audio of that to see if what Scalia's tone was with that last sentence. I'm betting it wasn't monotone.
  20. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Conversely, though, it's not caused horrible problems in the countries where incest is legal. For example, France, where there are laws focused on sex with a minor that one is related to that is specifically singled out, but there isn't a law against consenting adults. And they've had that for around 200 years, without society falling apart there. It would be uncommon in the US, yes, but the US can be very puritanical in our laws still.
  21. shinjo_jedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 5
    Turns out is was slightly light-hearted. I pulled the original quote from Andrew Sullivan, but the person he linked to cut out some of the other lines. Here's the entire exchange:

    JUSTICE SCALIA: You — you’ve led me right into a question I was going to ask. The California Supreme Court decides what the law is. That’s what we decide, right? We don’t prescribe law for the future. We — we decide what the law is. I’m curious, when - when did — when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted? Sometimes — some time after Baker, where we said it didn’t even raise a substantial Federal question? When — when — when did the law become this?
    MR. OLSON: When — may I answer this in the form of a rhetorical question? When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools.
    JUSTICE SCALIA: It’s an easy question, I think, for that one. At — at the time that the Equal Protection Clause was adopted. That’s absolutely true. But don’t give me a question to my question. (Laughter.)


    And for anyone to predict that gay marriage is in danger because Scalia asked this question is ridiculous. Scalia's argument over the ACA was that if you can mandate insurance, you can mandate someone eat broccoli. And we saw how that case was decided.
    There is no easy way to predict how these two cases will end up or what it will mean for the state of gay marriage. Any speculation over the questions being asked or insight it may have is meaningless, really. Toobin and many others predicted Obamacare would be struck down because of the oral arguments and what did we get? And, also, many of the points brought up by Wannasee that make it seem "the gays" lost is also ridiculous. Some of those questions were raised by Sotomayer or Scalia and, unless they stun the legal world, everyone knows what side of the issue those two will rule on. Roberts & Kennedy are really the only two to watch at this point, and their opinion will remain unknown until late June. Kennedy did seem skeptical, but has always sided with the pro-gay rights side in the past. Roberts allotted 2 of his personal tickets to his lesbian cousin and her partner and broke ranks with conservatives on the last major SCOTUS ruling.

    As for the "what about incest or polygamy" argument, I've never understood the legal justification for denying same-sex couples the right to marry because of....incest. They're not the same legal question. I don't really care if incestual relation couples can marry; it's none of my business. But they're not the same. And polygamy there is a legal justification for denying it (as it creates a disaster in terms of allocating property and other rights, such as SS benefits, when one partner dies or wants a divorce).
    Last edited by shinjo_jedi, Mar 26, 2013
  22. wannasee Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2007
    star 4
  23. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Ultimately, though, the standing issue may be the most important. If they decide there was no standing for supporters of prop 8 to defend it in court, then it really won't matter what they think about same sex marriage as an issue, since it won't be something that they can rule on.
  24. Juliet316 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 8
    Never said gay marriage was in trouble because of the questions, but without knowing who asked the questions and answers wannasee posted or the context of the, it was readily easy to assume Scalia asked some, if not all of the questions; especially since the last time he was interviewed he referred to gay marriage as 'homosexual sodomy' and has previously compared homosexuality to beastiality and murder among a few other things.
  25. Lady_Sami_J_Kenobi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 31, 2002
    star 6
    Juliet316 likes this.