|
News: Audio: Supreme Ct.'s Gay Marriage Hearing, Decision Soon!
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 14,321
|
From SCOTUSBLOG:
Quote:
“Super-cuts” from same-sex marriage arguments
The Court heard two-and-a-half hours of oral argument regarding same-sex marriage today. We’ve condensed that into thirty-six minutes of the most interesting and informative questions and answers. We identify the core themes in the argument, the key Justices’ questions, and the advocates’ strongest moments. And as a bonus, we’ve got audio of a protester screaming his head off.
|
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-con...rcut-Small.m4a
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/16/2011
Posts: 50,981
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Eric.
The Michigan kid was good. I won't deny that. He had a central argument and kept coming back to it all the time and, rather smartly, expressed some compassion for the LGBT community.
|
... You don't mean Bursch, do you? He was a messT.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 14,321
|
The man who interrupted the court has a history of interrupting big events:
Quote:
Today's Supreme Court hearing was momentarily disrupted by a man in the gallery who repeatedly screamed "homosexuality is an abomination" before being carted out by federal police. It turns out that the man is a well-known crackpot named Rives Miller Grogan, seen above in October 2011 when he ran on the field during a National League playoff game between the Cincinnati Reds and the San Francisco Giants.
In 2012 Grogan was arrested by DC police after he climbed a tree during Obama's second inauguration to scream anti-Obama slogans. Grogan has disrupted many events around the nation and has been ejected from the US House and Senate galleries for screaming. In 2013 a DC district judge permanently banned Grogan from the city, spawning a freedom of speech debate.
|
Do you think the Supremes will reinstate his ban now?
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/16/2012
Posts: 13,657
|
Quote:
Originally posted by JakeKills
... You don't mean Bursch, do you? He was a messT.
|
Well, I liked the way he argued the States position.
One messy thing I found were his hypothetical stories about an utopia where there was no marriage (and assisted reproduction, I guess) and straight couples would procreate. Does he think gay people won't couple as well, even if they can't procreate and might even develop to raise the children that some straight couples reject?
He did became a mess also when he sort of said marriage was not about dignity and Kennedy snapped back with "I thought that was the whole purpose of marriage!"
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/16/2011
Posts: 50,981
|
His position was based on arguing that marriage as an institution evolved to form a lasting connection between children and their biological parents. Aside from the fact that that's debatable from a sociological perspective, it feels like a dumb argument to make when the Chief Justice is adopted.
Didn't he also say that marriage is more about having children than it is about uniting two adults that love each other? That's just... ugh. There are plenty of people who don't want to have children, or are biologically incapable of having children, but they're able to marry and have their marriage seen as just as legitimate and dignified as that of a couple who have children.
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/16/2012
Posts: 13,657
|
Another problem I had, even though it was not really her fault, is that Bonauto was not ready for this history lesson and talking about what people a "millennia" ago thought about same-sex couples marrying in different societies.
I think she should've been more ready for the fundamental questions about same-sex marriage in other cultures and the different purposes marriage has served throughout history (there was even a brief about that by the American Historical Association).
This might be a legal issue, but some Justices are obviously concerned by the precedent they could set with their decision. It's the United States of America after all.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 14,321
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Eric.
Another problem I had, even though it was not really her fault, is that Bonauto was not ready for this history lesson and talking about what people a "millennia" ago thought about same-sex couples marrying in different societies.
I think she should've been more ready for the fundamental questions about same-sex marriage in other cultures and the different purposes marriage has served throughout history (there was even a brief about that by the American Historical Association).
This might be a legal issue, but some Justices are obviously concerned by the precedent they could set with their decision. It's the United States of America after all.
|
Yeah she was the weaker attorney.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 14,321
|
Kennedy was mostly quiet during the second question so his mind is probably made up on everything just based on the first question
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/16/2011
Posts: 50,981
|
Quote:
Originally posted by LuLuDrops
Kennedy was mostly quiet during the second question so his mind is probably made up on everything just based on the first question
|
We can hope.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 14,321
|
This paper predicts the moment the opposing lawyer lost his case, we can only hope so...
Quote:
One justice who did not join Alito’s dissent was Justice Kennedy. As Bursch started to lay out his view that child-centered marriage is different than adult-centered marriage, Kennedy balked. Same-sex couples, Kennedy insisted, want to say that “we too” should be able to enjoy the “dignity” of marriage. He also accused Bursch of presenting an argument which wrongly implied that same-sex couples cannot bond with their children.
Bursch’s response to Kennedy’s concerns was a disaster. After Bursch insisted that marriage was never intended to be “dignitary [sic] bestowing,” Kennedy quipped back “I thought that was the whole purpose of marriage!” Kennedy’s opinion in Lawrence, which outlawed a sex ban targeting a gay couple, explained that “personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education” involve “choices central to personal dignity and autonomy,” and “are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.” So when Kennedy starts accusing a lawyer of denying dignity to gay couples, that’s a major sign that lawyer is in trouble.
|
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...alked-victory/
Let it be the end of May so I can enjoy my Eurovision then fast forward to the end of June
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 14,321
|
Quote:
Originally posted by TheGreatestThing
Marriage + acknowledgement + protected class status, please, SCOTUS sis.
|
That would be a dream come true
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/2/2011
Posts: 4,285
|
I hate to jinx it, but I think they're going to punt on Question 1 and accept Question 2.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 14,321
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Espresso
I hate to jinx it, but I think they're going to punt on Question 1 and accept Question 2.
|
Ugh, the mass confusion that would do :|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/2/2011
Posts: 4,285
|
Quote:
Originally posted by LuLuDrops
Ugh, the mass confusion that would do :|
|
Yeah it will.
I mean...Kennedy's was so close to the chest and a lot of the most liberal judges had scenario's and arguments that genuinely surprised me (not in a good way).
I'd love to be proven wrong, but y'all can bookmark me.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 14,321
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Espresso
Yeah it will.
I mean...Kennedy's was so close to the chest and a lot of the most liberal judges had scenario's and arguments that genuinely surprised me (not in a good way).
I'd love to be proven wrong, but y'all can bookmark me.
|
According to what I read once, the 6th en banc Circuit Court has a chance of approving it, but they skipped the full appeals court and went to the Supremes to try and get it all over with soon.
5th Circuit according to the media will rule in favor of gays, bad news is that the full court will put the ban back.
8th Circuit, probably a repeat of 2006 and lose with just the three judges, full court - forget about it.
11th just wanted people to leave them alone, but has higher chances than 5th and 8th to say yes so Georgia will probably fall if another case is brought up. The current case has a bad judge so it was it stayed because of a request from both sides.
Puerto Rico's the only left in the 1st Circuit so that ban is probably as good as dead.
Arkansas state court case is a mess and it looks like the Governor is stacking up replacement judges in his favor.
IF the Supremes punt, I only see gay marriage having a chance in Florida/Georgia/Alabama/Puerto Rico and maaaybe Michigan/Kentucky/Tennesee/Ohio.
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 8/8/2008
Posts: 21,933
|
Quote:
Originally posted by JakeKills
Why are they even discussing polygamy and incest in a case about same-sex marriage
|
Incest is gross and should never be legalized or encouraged but is polygamy really that bad (if all parties consent)?
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 6,060
|
Polygamy can become bad if there isn't a system in check to determine who has the decisions in case of a medical emergency of another member or event of death etc.
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/16/2012
Posts: 13,657
|
Quote:
Originally posted by LuLuDrops
IF the Supremes punt, I only see gay marriage having a chance in Florida/Georgia/Alabama/Puerto Rico and maaaybe Michigan/Kentucky/Tennesee/Ohio.
|
Under what precedent though? It's always been Windsor and the 14th Amendment, if the Court rejects those precedents then what will the Circuit judges use to rule the bans unconstitutional?
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 14,321
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Eric.
Under what precedent though? It's always been Windsor and the 14th Amendment, if the Court rejects those precedents then what will the Circuit judges use to rule the bans unconstitutional?
|
There are always judges who see through the animus, at least I hope they're still enough around in case of a punt.
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/16/2012
Posts: 13,657
|
I think the animus point could've been forwarded and pushed way more. Three of those bans were put in place during the 2004 elections (just like the vast majority of them), right after Massachusetts allowed same-sex couples to marry (with Mary Bonauto's own case) and I'm sure there are quotes and public statements proving that they were put in place, not to enshrine any "millennia" definition, but to keep same-sex couples from marrying in their own States.
Brusch said the State doesn't care about your sexual orientation, but they clearly did and do now.
The fact that these states don't even allow same-sex couples to enter civil unions is a good argument for animus towards their unions if the state of Michigan "doesn't intend to take away dignity from anyone."
If Michigan placed the children with DeBoer and Jayne Rowse (as legally single women), then the claims that (a) there is an interest to link children with their biological parents (and in their defect, I suppose, a married man and woman) and that (b) the state "respects all parents" fall flat on their face.
|
|
|
|
|