I do not necessarily disagree with what you assert. However, I look for the affirmative argument, and whether SSM furthers procreation or not is not the legal issue in my eyes. It may be the sympathetic one. I know that my brother and his mate deliberately traveled to Iowa just to have that document, a Marriage Certificate, even though it conferred no added privileges to them back in their home state. There they have to do it the incremental way. But I clearly understand the "feel-good" nature of it. I was happy that it made my brother happier. I did not really care otherwise.
I also understand those who oppose what they see as a denigration of the meaning of a Marriage. So I am content with letting the most local folks (the States) decide.
Now that it is in front of SCOTUS, it is a great listen.
Scalia's argument, which was advanced by Chief Justice John Roberts before him, was that when the institution of marriage developed historically, it was not done with the explicit intent of excluding gay and lesbian couples.
"We don't prescribe law for the future," Scalia said. "We decide what the law is. I'm curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868? When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?"
Olson countered that with a question of his own, bringing up two past high-profile cases involving discrimination.
"When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools?" Olson asked.
The two went back and forth, with Scalia repeatedly questioning when, specifically, it became unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marrying. Olson argued back, but ended up conceding that there was no specific date.
"Well, how am I supposed to how to decide a case, then, if you can't give me a date when the Constitution changes?" Scalia said.
"Because in the case that's before you today, the citizens of California decide — after the California Supreme Court decided that individuals had a right to get married irrespective of their sexual orientation in California — then the Californians decided in Proposition 8, wait a minute, we don't want those people to be able to get married."
Read more: Scalia On Gay Marriage: 'When Did It Become Unconstitutional?' - Business Insider
Isn't 52% about what obama got, he acts like he has some kind of mandate.
Contrary to what a few liberals said, I believe that Scalia's argument was simplistically brilliant:
Simply put, it is not a Constitutional issue.
Why should I have to make an affirmative argument regarding individual liberty? Shouldn't you have to make the argument against it?
The response is also brilliant. When did it become unconstitutional to ban interracial marriage? Scalia says it was the adoption of the 14th amendment. Yet that's not when it became legal.
Same-sex marriage bans became unconstitutional with the adoption of the 14th amendment. We're just way, way overdue in recognizing that.
Scalia is a dip**** and people should really stop relying on him.
You made the argument that SSM in no way impacted the ability of others to procreate. That is not an argument for "liberty".
I also defer to Scalia's argument. Look, SSM was first adopted all of 13 years ago in the Netherlands. Hardly a situation that has been long-defined as a denial of liberty. Seems much more a political issue.
Except that's not so. The 14th was drafted to give Congress the constitutional backing to backfill on the changes they had already made following the Civil War. They had passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the SCOTUS was signalling that perhaps they didn't have the authority for that. The 14th was drafted to give them the authority.
The response is also brilliant. When did it become unconstitutional to ban interracial marriage? Scalia says it was the adoption of the 14th amendment. Yet that's not when it became legal.
Same-sex marriage bans became unconstitutional with the adoption of the 14th amendment. We're just way, way overdue in recognizing that.
Scalia is a dip**** and people should really stop relying on him.
So when did it become unconstitutional to ban interracial marriage?
When SCOTUS ruled it so - Loving v. Virginia 1967. Otherwise you're asking one of those, if a tree falls in the forest questions.
You are getting silly now. Scalia answered the question specifically. And correctly. Others added context to the very same argument, showing the overwhelming difference of valid legal concerns between mixed-race marriages and the issue of SSM. Olson could not answer the question, as he was trapped into admitting it was a political concern more than a Constitutional one. He just could not say so directly.
Hey, I think Olson brilliant. Boies too. My heart will always bleed with Olson because of what happened to his wife. He had a tough case to make today.
Scalia is probably the smartest Justice on the Court. Its why liberals despise him ........... much as you do.
Yes it is. Without grounds to deny same-sex marriage, the state should have to recognize it, thereby granting liberty to individuals.
Society didn't think slavery was a denial of liberty. Why should I use past definitions to decide that?
He's a man who thinks someone proven to be innocent should not be released from prison if their conviction happened properly under due process of law.
IMHO, Prop 8 was an act of 70% of the voters of California and the Fed courts should never have become involved. Less than 2% of Californians are trying to overturn the will of the majority. Is this what this nation has become?
Provide a link. Otherwise, the basis for the state to promote and regulate propagation is long established. Although clearly, many other issues, such as inheritance, divorce, etc., are residual issues.
Not true at all.For this to be valid, one must deny that the state has any basis upon which to establish the societal basis for Marriage. That argument has never held water.
False and ill-informed. For millennia, society felt that the slave was a second class citizen, not worthy of the same liberties. Every society, to include blacks enslaving other blacks. Muslims enslaving non-Muslims.
However, that changed over time. Even our Founders recognized such. If you read of their debates, you would know this. Clearly the Civil War was fomented in part due to abolitionist agitation.
Your post was pretty ignorant. A stupid strawman. Why bother if that is all you got ?
What is with the red-herrings and strawmen and nonsense ? Can't debate the issue anymore ?
Pffffft ............
Why are victims irrelevant? If you can't articulate any harm whatsoever done to people by allowing same-sex marriage, doesn't that drastically weaken the argument for banning it? You keep talking about a decline in values, definition changes, etc, but can you quantify any actual negative impact of any sort?
You've made a very good case for polygamy.
Wrong. Polygamy is not SSM, and has it's own problems that SSM does not have: The Problem of Polygamy | Thom Brooks - Academia.edu. False comparisons are false.
No, victims are a clear distinguishing point. Animals and minors cannot consent, and so are victims. No one is a victim in a SSM. You have no right to not be offended, nor will I ever make any argument otherwise, so you can pack that straw man away. Your opinions are irrelevant in regards to the law.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?