Author Topic: The Supremes argue gay marriage  (Read 544 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online shnozzola

The Supremes argue gay marriage
« on: March 26, 2013, 06:29:05 PM »
http://www.npr.org/2013/03/26/175351429/audio-supreme-court-arguments-on-california-gay-marriage-ban

Quote
Yet the liveliest moments came when Scalia asked Ted Olson, President George W. Bush's solicitor general and the lawyer for the two same-sex couples challenging Prop 8, "When did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791 [when the Bill of Rights was ratified]? 1868, when the 14th Amendment was adopted?"

Olson pushed back against Scalia's originalist view, asking him in return, "When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages?"

"It's an easy question," Scalia said. "At the time that the equal protection clause was adopted. That's absolutely true. But don't give me a question to my question."

"There's no specific date in time," Olson ultimately answered. "This is an evolutionary cycle."

Alito's issues with Olson's argument were more pragmatic. "You want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cell phones or the Internet," Alito said. "On a question like that, of such fundamental importance, why should it not be left for the people, either acting through initiatives and referendums or through their elected public officials?"

The fact that the justices are asking why they should even be expected to make a ruling is willful, horrible, political posturing on their parts.  Discrimination is discrimination, whether racism or sexism or tribalism or class warfare or whatever.  Do  your job, even if it means entering the 21st century - pompous beaurocrats.
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10312
  • Darwins +180/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Supremes argue gay marriage
« Reply #1 on: March 26, 2013, 06:40:47 PM »
They did not have a problem giving us George W. Bush.
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +263/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: The Supremes argue gay marriage
« Reply #2 on: March 26, 2013, 09:44:23 PM »
The title of this thread had Me expecting a rousing chorus of "Everybody's Got the Right to Love" or "Someday We'll Be Together."  ;)
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10312
  • Darwins +180/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Supremes argue gay marriage
« Reply #3 on: March 27, 2013, 05:23:40 AM »
Heard on TV yesterday the comment that, "the gay marriage question was to be decided by 3 women and 6 men all in black dresses".
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!

Offline Quesi

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1986
  • Darwins +371/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Supremes argue gay marriage
« Reply #4 on: March 27, 2013, 06:21:24 AM »



I have really enjoyed all of those red equals signs on my fb page.  While embracing something on social networking is not exactly equal to activism, I can't help but feel that social networking has been a powerful tool in educating the masses on this issue. 


Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 723
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Supremes argue gay marriage
« Reply #5 on: March 27, 2013, 06:25:55 AM »
It's interesting that Christians abhor gay sex so much, that promoting a mostly monogamous marriage is as bad as sex with a different partner every night. I guess all gay sex is bad.

Offline Lazarus

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Supremes argue gay marriage
« Reply #6 on: April 02, 2013, 11:55:07 PM »
If you really think about it, it's incredibly disturbing that modern society still makes laws to punish people to please a fictional character in a book of fairy tales.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6491
  • Darwins +846/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: The Supremes argue gay marriage
« Reply #7 on: April 03, 2013, 05:18:20 PM »
Piss off Thor at your peril. Because he wears your mother's drapes.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Tonus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
  • Darwins +28/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
    • Stuff I draw
Re: The Supremes argue gay marriage
« Reply #8 on: April 03, 2013, 06:25:47 PM »
Mid-1970s Iron Man comics are what made me want to be a comic book artist when I was a child[1].  The Iron Man films are pure joy for me because I just love the whole concept, but the scene where he stood (mostly) toe to toe with Thor made me downright giddy.  Iron Man, for a time, lived up to the "Invincible" part of his title.  But in the 80s they started to chip away at him and I haven't read the book regularly in a very long time.  The movies returned him to the greatness that I remembered as a child, and I can't love them enough.
 1. George Tuska was the artist, and I think it's criminal that he isn't as highly regarded as many of his contemporaries, but that's a rant for another day.