Comments on: Will SCOTUS punt on gay marriage?

By: sharpie

sharpie — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 15:38:00 +0000

I agree with Geoffrey Britain that the Supreme Court will not affirm the will of the Californian people and uphold Prop 8. The Supreme Court will rule this way because Kagan, Ginsburg, Sotomayer and Breyer will “pragmatically” apply judicial activism to effect a moral cause and because Justice Kennedy’s one abiding and coherent principle is a principle of liberty defined in accordance with the view that human nature is not something to be freed from but valued and expressed in all forms.

Does it look like tyranny yet?

http://www.nolanchart.com/article1061-what-does-it-mean-this-word-liberty.html

By: sharpie

sharpie — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 15:13:42 +0000

A more nuanced thought about “sterile” marriages and a sensible justification of them derived from the idea of “incidental powers:”

Under Founding-Era law, an “incidental” power was an implied power that was (a) less important than an express power, and (b) customarily or reasonably necessarily used as a way to carry out the principal power.

Sterile marriage is an “incidental” marriage that was reasonably necessary to carry out “procreative” marriage. If one were to give “incidental” status to same sex marriage, as others (see Lurch above) have pointed out, the extension cannot be logically halted. And even more basic, on what grounds can same sex marriage be deemed reasonably necessary to carry out procreative marriage?

By: Lurch

Lurch — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 13:39:50 +0000

If you will indulge me, the term “gay marriage” has always been a pet peeve of mine. Here at my University, we have the “LGBT” community (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered). So this gay marriage thing only applies to homosexual men? I note SCOTUS is using the term “same-sex marriage”. I salute them for being more precise.

On another note, how soon before bisexuals demand polygamy? It seems like they are being left out. I say bisexuals (if they really exist) should be allowed to marry in groups of up to four (two men and two women). Such an arraignment would allow for which ever coupling is desired at any given moment. How can we deny them such a basic right?

By: Geoffrey Britain

Geoffrey Britain — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 03:44:06 +0000

I am not at all confident that this court will not rule against proposition 8. It will distress me but not at all surprise me, if this Court rules that the banning of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional based upon the 14th amendment.

Should they do so, it will be prima facie evidence that all three branches of our government have passed the tipping point into irredeemable dysfunction.

By: sharpie

sharpie — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 02:58:48 +0000

What awful things have already been done to the rules of judicial interpretation. As in Justice Kennedy in Lawrence v Texas writing, “Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and in its more transcendent dimensions.” That’s not interpreting the law; it’s just argument, and very vague argument that justifies where it wants to go. I can realistically posit that the statement could justify the Muslim rape of women who violate the transcendent dimensions of the Quran.

By: expat

expat — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 02:03:00 +0000

I too am worried to about the effects on our long traditions, and I get upset that the gay rights lobby never mentions them. In fact, you mostly get me, me, me arguments. I’ve read people talking about IVF and surrogates as if they were nothing, but the way they talk is demeaning to women and to motherhood. (I can remember gays using the term fag hag, which makes me think that a subset of gays have no trouble demeaning women.) I don’t trust any of the studies about the effect on children, nor do I see real numbers of gays that have children and identifies how they came by them.

I also don’t like that the more stable gay pairs don’t take on the flakes among the advocates who don’t see a reason for monogamy. I don’t like the words mother and father being distorted or displaced by parrent one and parent two.

Perhaps some of these issues can be resolved over time, but right now the push seems similar to Cuomo’s gun control law–a rush to jump on a bandwagon but in the end a poorly thought out measure with far more lasting consequences than the size of a magazine.

I agree that a SCOTUS change now would have an effect like Roe vs Wade and would stop serious further consideration of the issue and produce more name calling and restrictions on those who don’t believe that marriage should be redefined.

By: Jim Nicholas

Jim Nicholas — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 00:42:38 +0000

Absent evidence to the contrary, I assume that the predominant family structure evolved because it was the most effective in preparing the next generation to survive. Therefore, I have been distressed that the focus of this debate has been on the desires and rights of the adults rather than on the welfare of the children and the cultural institution that has evolved to support their development.

Having said that, I have to acknowledge that heterosexuals have inflicted great damage to the institution of marriage–and for the same reason, a focus on the desires and rights of the adults more than on the welfare of the children. So perhaps homosexuals will not add much to the havoc that heterosexuals have already created.

By: sharpie

sharpie — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 00:19:50 +0000

That’s the gist of it Tesh, and is the reason why the gay lobby seeks a judicial and not a democratic remedy. But to get that remedy what awful things have to be done to judicial interpretation and construction? The DOMA established the constitutionality of limiting federal recognition of marriage to heterosexual marriage. It was signed into law by President Clinton. Reid, Pelosi and Leahy supported it. Both houses of Congress voted approval in significant majorities. The DOJ defended it. No tradition or common law defies it, and as M Adams noted, the Supreme Court banned polygamy which illustrates that the condition of one man and one women is unique.

And why one man and one women? For the rearing of children.

What then about the sterile exception, or as Justice Breyer put it:

“What precisely is the way in which allowing gay couples to marry would interfere with the vision of marriage as procreation of children that allowing sterile couples of different sexes to marry would not?”

In other words, as articulated by the gay lobby, ‘hey, they get to, and they’re not having children. How come we can’t?’

I’ve got to say, this is a conundrum and the best answer I can come up with is that the sterile couples received a windfall and really shouldn’t qualify for the benefits and protections afforded. So, if the gay lobby really wants equality, they need to convince the populace enough to amend the constitution or start bringing lawsuits to rescind marriage for sterile marriages.

By: Tesh

Tesh — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 23:49:46 +0000

What amuses/saddens me is that they tend to argue that marriage is a “right”… which has specific meanings given the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Specifically, they are God-granted, not a mere construct of government.

…and God does not approve of homosexuality.

By: Ed Bonderenka

Ed Bonderenka — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 23:29:50 +0000

5000 years of male/female marriage and all of a sudden, it’s a marriage if two of the same sex want it so?

A marriage is a joining together.
Men and women were designed for that.
Men and men weren’t, and neither were women and women.
It’s not hate to point to common sense.

Or biological reality.
But no, we’re expected to say black is white and round is square.
Or Arbeit Macht Frei.