Justices Appear Deeply Divided on Right to Same-Sex Marriage
Source: NYTimes
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
BREAKING NEWS Tuesday, April 28, 2015 12:02 PM EDT
Justices Appear Deeply Divided on Right to Same-Sex Marriage
The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed deeply divided about one of the great civil rights issues of the age: whether the Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry.
They appeared to clash over not only what is the right answer but also over how to reach it. The questioning illuminated their conflicting views on history, tradition, biology, constitutional interpretation, the democratic process and the role of the courts in prodding social change.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said he was concerned about changing a conception of marriage that has persisted for millennia. Later, though, he expressed qualms about excluding gay families from what he called a noble and sacred institution. Chief Justice John C. Roberts Jr. worried about shutting down a fast-moving societal debate.
In the initial questioning, which lasted about 90 minutes, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked whether groups of four people must be allowed to marry, while Justice Antonin Scalia said a ruling for same-sex marriage might require some members of the clergy to perform the ceremonies, even if they violate their religious teaching.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer described marriage as a fundamental liberty. And Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan said that allowing same-sex marriage would do no harm to the marriages of opposite-sex couples.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html?emc=edit_na_20150428
PSPS
(13,512 posts)He probably had to bite his tongue to keep himself from mentioning animals in his question.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)(Which I guess is kind of what you were saying in your own comment.) Cheers.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)Mira
(22,378 posts)like: why not make the whole farm a married family
wordpix
(18,652 posts)animal-human hybrids definitely a no-no for public ruminations
Chan790
(20,176 posts)I mean well okay, if that's what you want...fine by me.
truthisfreedom
(23,113 posts)NYC Liberal
(20,132 posts)The only problem is that legalizing it entails a whole lot more than just replacing "husband and wife" with "spouses" in laws and policies which is literally all that legalizing same-sex marriage requires.
There are very complicated issues that arise with polygamous arrangements that would require an entire rewrite and rethinking of many existing policies and laws. But figure those out, and I have little issue with the whole thing if that's what people freely choose to do. ("Freely choose" is obviously the key phrase.)
samsingh
(17,571 posts)villager
(26,001 posts)samsingh
(17,571 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)when they don't know what justice means?
jmowreader
(50,451 posts)elleng
(130,145 posts)weird.
Hope to see/hear more, but if their 'anti-' positions don't amount to more than this, we win, imo.
underpants
(182,274 posts)Equal protection and due process. Am I missing something?
Maybe the conservatives (really Alito? that was a talk radio question) just wanted go on record to protect their speaking fees when they retire. I never understood why they even took this case other than that.
cstanleytech
(26,080 posts)because there is no way in hell that a ruling for equal protection for gay couples under the constitution would force a member of the clergy for any church to perform a wedding ceremony for a gay couple at all, the possibility just does not exist.
elleng
(130,145 posts)even IF he was 'kidding.'
That 'authority' doesn't exist NOW, no court could 'force' a member of any clergy to do anything. We can prohibit them from taking actions that are against the laws.
cstanleytech
(26,080 posts)like say if a religion wanted to practice human sacrifice or tried to practice having sex with young underage girls.
elleng
(130,145 posts)HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)Scalia? End of argument there. He should know better than that.
cstanleytech
(26,080 posts)he should retire such as http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/antonin-scalia-blunder-unprecedented-epa
Zorra
(27,670 posts)would even consider it worth mentioning.
It's childish, in fact.
catrose
(5,047 posts)How anyone could think that. Churches have always decreed who they would or would not marry.
marshall
(6,661 posts)Of course, the sacrament of marriage is different than the civil contract of marriage.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)former9thward
(31,802 posts)A recording of the proceedings is made immediately available online. You can hear anything anyone said.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Did you hear 73 year old Bernie Sanders is running for President.....is that too old?
former9thward
(31,802 posts)But yes, he is too old. Need younger people in that job. Look what it has done to Obama and he still has about a year and a half to go. BTW if you equate watching Justices in a courtroom banter with lawyers to television and movies you really need to get out more....
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Thank you though for your concern about my health.
BobTheSubgenius
(11,535 posts)Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)It used to be tradition to own slaves. It used to be tradition to own a musket. Tradition has NO place in this argument. Fuck tradition.
LibertyLover
(4,788 posts)thinks, yep, thinks. Honestly was there ever a bigger waste of space on the SC?
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Asks a question or a comment. I used incredibly on purpose even though wrong way to use.
NYC Liberal
(20,132 posts)Yet I can bet you he will vote to allow states to continue banning same-sex marriages.
He is a hypocrite of the worst kind.
LibertyLover
(4,788 posts)It's something I don't understand about Thomas, Carson, West and some other African-American Republican politicians - they received immense assistance from government programs intended to try and combat racism and discrimination both growing up and as they started out in their careers, yet they are hell-bent on making sure other young African-Americans don't receive the same help as they did. It seems so very short-sighted on their part.
still_one
(91,951 posts)bet they say states can decide the issue, which really is bullshit. This is really a civil rights issue, and I hope I am wrong, but I really sense the SC is going to rule against saying states much allow same sex marriage.
We are not progressing in the country, we are moving back in time, and it isn't just on this issue
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Hardly when 38 states have gay marriage. Back in time we had none. Heck the president only recently started to support it. We have made great strides. More to go I will agree.
still_one
(91,951 posts)Political considerations he timed it
The point is this should NOT be a state's rights issue. It is a civil rights issue, and it should be governed by Federal law. Even though as you point out 38 states allow it, that still does not dissuade me from arguing that it isn't a states rights issue.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)court rulings that struck down unconstitutional laws. NC SPECIFICALLY voted to DENY gay marriage rights here and so did many of the others in that 38 states. If they make this a states' rights issue, we can kiss any chance of marriage equality for all goodbye.
Reter
(2,188 posts)Of those 38 states, how many were passed on their own? Maybe 5? So if the ruling doesn't go well, do those state bans go back in place to the states that recently had bans struck down?
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)I don't know why I am so confident but I am on this.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Regardless of the courts final decision, I think this argument will be *the* cornerstone debate of the Presidential 2016 election. A conversation the GOP does not want to engage in, but will be forced to respond to with a lose/lose answer.
Whomever the final Democratic nominee is, it's a wonderful opportunity to illustrate the intransigent will and regressive behavior of the far right, and an effective means to prevent the GOP from expanding its own voter base beyond its current membership-- and may even remove any youth votes it would have otherwise received.
Paladin
(28,202 posts)Those of you who are doing your best to kneecap the Democratic Party's best shot at the presidency in 2016 really need to consider the sort of Supreme Court with which we're saddled, now and in the future.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)They are in discussion. Ever word disected. I think they should stop having info reported on from the Supreme Court. It gets everyone all upset for nothing. Wait and you will see.....6-3.
Paladin
(28,202 posts)Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)Which one are you predicting?
I wouldn't put anything past SCOTUS as long as so many conservatives are still there. The fact that they are already asking stupid ass questions about four people in a marriage, which has nothing to do with gay marriage, shows they could go either way at this point. I, for one, am not sure how they will rule.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Many reasons for it but not all because they love the idea or even support it. But it will pass.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)Response to Mira (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)You do realize that if you strike down Gay marriage you will basicly hand Hillary her campaign issue for 2016, right? Considering the one reason many of us are holding our nose and trying to swallow her bitter pill is because we know you do not need any helpers, and that yous tirkign down Gay marriage will remind the voters WHY.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)They have a job for life.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)The states defending their ability to prohibit same-sex marriage are trying to argue they have an interest in doing so, but some of the arguments they're advancing are so bogus I can't believe they aren't embarrassed to stand in front of the highest court in this country and claim they are looking out for the welfare of children, protecting "diversity" in the family environment, etc. The way it looks to me, they know they have no real legal footing, and they're just hoping five of the justices will sort through their bizarre justifications and pick out a couple to support. Scalia, for example, knows nothing can force any church to perform weddings that violate the religious teachings of a particular faith. Alito's question about groups of four is just incomprehensible, more evidence of right wing justices casting about for something to grab onto and use as justification for what they feel like doing, even though it has no legal basis.
Myrina
(12,296 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)so that if one argument is dismissed as invalid, there are other arguments included which may have merit and thus may win the case for the petitioner.
displacedtexan
(15,695 posts)As usual.
Truly heavy sigh.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)It has NOTHING to do with gay marriage. It would help if he could focus only on the issue at hand instead of asking insulting questions. We all know that question is a dog whistle and how his vote will go. Bastard.
Skittles
(152,964 posts)not most of the ones I see
happyslug
(14,779 posts)One of the things thats truly extraordinary about this whole issue is how quickly has been the acceptance of your position across broad elements of society, he said.
Justice Scalia agreed. The issue, of course, is not whether there should be same-sex marriage, but who should decide the point. The right answer, he said, was the people or their elected representatives, not the courts.
On this point, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, a member of the courts liberal wing, had his own reservations.
Suddenly you want nine people outside the ballot box to require states that dont want to do it to change what marriage is to include gay people, he said. Why cannot those states at least wait and see whether in fact doing so in the other states is or is not harmful to marriage? Later in the argument, though, Justice Breyer indicated support for same-sex marriage as part of basic liberty. Marriage is about as basic a right as there is, he said.
Equal protection of the law when adopted in the post Civil War Amendment was designed to protect newly freed slaves. The term was quickly taken over by Corporate America to defeat efforts to regulate and control Corporations, and such lawsuits to protect corporation by giving them "Equal Protection of the law" became the overwhelming prime use of Equal Protection
Woman have have had a hard time using Equal Protection clause, relying on the 1964 Civil Rights Amendments and state's Equal protection of the laws instead (Thus woman can be restricted from being in the Military, since that is a FEDERAL FUNCTION and thus the only constitutional clause are these same equal protection clauses that the courts have long rule can differentiate between the sexes).
Thus Churches would required to perform weddings, that it causes harm or no harm to opposite sex marriages are all ill-relevant issues (They are relevant to the debate on same sex marriage, if this was being debated in a State Legislature or the Federal Congress, but NOT in the US Supreme Court).
The only issue is does the equal protection clause of the US Constitution permit states to BAN same sex marriages? That is the issue in this case. You may agree with it, you may disagree with it, but that is the issue. I hate how the court has expanded Equal Protection to protect corporations and I hope the court restricts what the Equal Protection Clause means, so that maybe in the future the court will decide equal protection permits the states to regulate Corporations. Thus I hope the court rule that the states can BAN gay marriage for I can then use that to show equal protection does NOT exclude state regulations of Corporations.
In many ways that is the heart of this fight, are they any restrictions on the concept of Equal Protection? Is it Equal protection of the law to permit a bum on the street or a corporation to both be able to give a million dollars in political donations? (This is a variation of the old saying about the "Magistry of the law, it forbids both poor people and rich people from sleeping underneath bridges" . I.e is it equal protection to say millionaires can donate millions to get what they want, because people on welfare could do the same if they had the money.
We need to restrict the power of Wall Street and that means restrictions on Wall Street that the courts have ruled violate Wall Streets Equal Protection of the law. This case MAY provide a step in that direction, but lets see.