Interesting blog analysis:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/03/th...oral-argument/
Transcript:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...ts/12-144a.pdf
Audio:
https://soundcloud.com/afer-3/oral-a...at-the-supreme
I found the standing arguments particularly compelling.
Arguments re: DOMA are tomorrow.
I find Justice Kennedy's contention that it isn't time yet to make a determination to be rather off-kilter: He's correct, perhaps, that we don't know the long-term impact but that cuts both ways: The harm to same-sex couples and their families are actually well-understood; the only question Justice Kennedy is raising is whether there are balancing harms on the other side. We've had same-sex marriage here for years, and there isn't even an inkling of such a thing. When comparing harm-we-know against the baseless specter of harm-we-don't-know, the latter should never prevail.
Being generous toward its proponents, Prop 8 puts in place an obviously opportunistic barrier to where the next generation, of left to their own devices, would overwhelmingly go. If lack of knowledge is the crux of the matter for the court, then, at the very least, the court should hold that such things should not be embedded in state constitutions while Justice Kennedy's "question" remains unanswered. That would scuttle Prop 8 and other states' efforts to enshrine anti-gay bias into state constitutions, while allowing it to prevail in legislatures, leaving the matter as an issue covered only by statute, and therefore changeable via statute.
Especially given that CA itself no longer stands behind Prop 8!!
To me the SC shouldn't even be discussing this as a "marriage issue" or a "gay issue", they should focus on what it is - an unconsitutional denial of rights to a certain group of people. If Prop. 8 had been about re-enacting "different" rights for Blacks, and even if a majority of Calif voted for it, that would have been seen as unconsitutional and been shot down by the SC asap without any long winded disscussions about social issues. Equal rights is equal rights. Simple.
The (leftie) website Watchdog Causes has a nifty graphic showing picketers protesting interracial marriage in 1957 juxtaposed with anti-gay marriage protests: http://www.watchdogcauses.com/
I've always been interested in the concept of rights, as interpreted by law. Don't homosexuals already enjoy the same "rights" that heterosexual couples enjoy, the ability to marry a member of the opposite sex, given that the person is not a close relative or already married? In a case such as this, I'm wondering what makes marriage to a specific person a right, and also, should there be any form of restrictions on exactly who can marry whom.Originally Posted by Spartana
If everybody enjoys the same "right" to marry and, as you say, "Equal rights is equal rights", are anyone's rights being violated?
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Exactly, Alan. Blacks used to have the same marriage rights as whites, they could marry someone of their own race and be happy...
Come now.
Thanks for the input bae, but that didn't answer my question.
For the record, I think that cultural norms should dictate who has the ability to marry who. If the culture is tolerant of same sex marriage, who is the government to intervene and on who's behalf? My question has to do with "rights".
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
No. They don't have the same rights IMHO with regards to "who" (as 2 consenting, single, non-related adults) they want to marry. At least not rights that are legal in every state, and recognized as a legal in every state and by the feds - and the legal benefits and obligations at all levels that heterosexual marriage has. It is different and not equal. And I personally consider that a violation of their consitutational rights plain and simple. Of course YMMV :-)!
Of course it is true that *some* of the difficulty same sex couples face is just the same stuff single people deal with all the time. Single people get no tax advantages, no spousal discounts on health insurance, etc.. But they can just marry? That's beyond bizarre, noone just up and finds someone to marry so they can get tax advantages or cheaper health insurance.
Trees don't grow on money
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote