WWTBAM Bored

In a 5-4 vote with the usual liberal/conservative split, the Supreme Court struck down provisions in the DOMA that deny federal benefits to same-sex married couples. Same-sex couples married in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage will now be eligible for the same federal benefits, including tax breaks, that other couples receive. Justice Kennedy wrote the decision.

In another gay rights case, the Court dismissed a challenge to a lower court decision that Proposition 8, the California initiative that prohibited same-sex marriages, was unconsitutional. As a result of the ruling, the lower court decision stands and Proposition 8 is gone. This was decided on procedural grounds, not consitutional, that the private parties who brought the appeal lacked standing to do so. The constituionality in general of othe state laws like Proposition 8 may still be in question. This was also a 5-4 decision, written by Chief Justice Roberts with Scalia and three of the liberal justices in the majority. The other justices wanted the court to decide the case on the merits. This was an unusual factual situation since the State of California declined to defend the proposition in the lower court or bring an appeal and private parties were allowed to do so on behalf of the state.

Scalia, Roberts and Alito wrote 47 pages of dissent. The ruling itself was only 26 pages.

Bob Juch wrote:Scalia, Roberts and Alito wrote 47 pages of dissent. The ruling itself was only 26 pages.

Scalia's homophobia was highly evident today.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:Scalia, Roberts and Alito wrote 47 pages of dissent. The ruling itself was only 26 pages.

Scalia's homophobia was highly evident today.

It's not fear, it's hate: homomisia.

Bob Juch wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:Scalia, Roberts and Alito wrote 47 pages of dissent. The ruling itself was only 26 pages.

Scalia's homophobia was highly evident today.

It's not fear, it's hate: homomisia.

A lot of hatred of gays is rooted in a deep fear in many men that they might become homosexual themselves (or even worse, from their point of view, that they might already be homosexuals).

I hope Bill Clinton learned his lesson

Unless you agree with the philosophy and, in this case, ruling, one is a homophobe? Or worse?

That sure seems a convenient bit of logic.

To the untrained eye, Scalia's arguments weren't against homosexuality, but arguments of law.

Obviously, I missed the homophobia and wonder abuot Bill Clinton's since he signed this into law. Or Obama's oh-so-very-recent conversion.

A little less psychoanalysis, please. It may even be on-target, who knows, though people don't usually accuse female anti-gays of being closet lesbians.


My whole take on the marriage issue is that marriage is a contract with a world of benefits, many financial, others the right to make life-or-death decisions for a loved one attached to it.


So why should it be denied to a whole segment of the population if that segment wants it.


Most contracts are a lot more narrow & specific, & have the terms spelled out in the contract, & you sign it or you don't.


My understanding is that the ruling makes it very clear that religious marriage is not covered. Just civil marriage. But by calling it civil marriage instead of "civil union" as has been done previously, magically (actually, by law) the members in the contract don't have to pay extra inheritance taxes, they get federal benefits where federal benefits go to partners in a marriage, etc etc etc.


They get to show up at the hospital when their partner wants them to, which in my opinion is the most important, though often the saddest part of it all.

silverscreenselect wrote: A lot of hatred of gays is rooted in a deep fear in many men that they might become homosexual themselves (or even worse, from their point of view, that they might already be homosexuals).

And a lot of the heterosexual men who support gays, support them only because they really are gay and want the gays to like them, as they are one of them.

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: A lot of hatred of gays is rooted in a deep fear in many men that they might become homosexual themselves (or even worse, from their point of view, that they might already be homosexuals).

And a lot of the heterosexual men who support gays, support them only because they really are gay and want the gays to like them, as they are one of them.

Let's ask Ted Haggard what he thinks about that.

silverscreenselect wrote: Let's ask Ted Haggard what he thinks about that.

Let's start with you - you wrote that Scalia is either homophobic or a repressed homosexual due to his legal arguments against this ruling.

Yes or no?

We can vilify a nobody with no ability to actively influence anyone's life unlike a Supreme Court justice and his or her vote later.

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: A lot of hatred of gays is rooted in a deep fear in many men that they might become homosexual themselves (or even worse, from their point of view, that they might already be homosexuals).

And a lot of the heterosexual men who support gays, support them only because they really are gay and want the gays to like them, as they are one of them.

Let's ask Ted Haggard what he thinks about that.

Why do we need to ask him?

Flybrick wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: Let's ask Ted Haggard what he thinks about that.

Let's start with you - you wrote that Scalia is either homophobic or a repressed homosexual due to his legal arguments against this ruling.

Yes or no?

We can vilify a nobody with no ability to actively influence anyone's life unlike a Supreme Court justice and his or her vote later.

It's not what I have to say; it's what a lot of legal experts have to say. His dissent went way beyond the pale.

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/ ... _20130626/

And it's not the first time he's reacted this way in gay rights cases.

Roberts and Alito also wrote dissents but you won't find language anywhere near what Scalia was saying.

silverscreenselect wrote: It's not what I have to say;

It is absolutely what you have to say.

You wrote that Scalia is a homophobe because of his dissent on this ruling.

You later intimated more by saying that homophobes are that way because they are repressing their own homosexuality.

I didn't see any of the other justices writing their analysis here on this thread, but I did see you write it.

That the law can be argued, interpreted, and discussed seemed to be irrelevant. So, is it your belief that anyone who disagrees with this ruling is a homophobe or a repressed homosexual?

Flybrick wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: It's not what I have to say;

That the law can be argued, interpreted, and discussed seemed to be irrelevant. So, is it your belief that anyone who disagrees with this ruling is a homophobe or a repressed homosexual?

It's not the fact he dissented (Roberts and Alito also wrote dissenting opinions). It's not his legal arguments, once you could find them underneath all the shouting in his opinion. It's the entire tenor of the opinion and his other comments in other gay rights cases.

Having a lesbian daughter who lives with us and knowing and talking to some of her gay and lesbian friends, we're probably more in tune with gay issues than a lot of people. Not everyone who opposes gay marriage or the decision in this case (and a lot of Scalia's argument was based on procedural grounds that the Court shouldn't have taken up the issue in the first case for standing reasons) is a homophobe.

Scalia is. And a lot of men who are homophobes are very insecure about their own sexuality. And when they discuss gay issues they often get very panicky, as Scalia has demonstrated in more than one of his legal opinions.

A picture worth a thousand words:

Spoiler

silverscreenselect wrote: Having a lesbian daughter who lives with us and knowing and talking to some of her gay and lesbian friends, we're probably more in tune with gay issues than a lot of people.

How about you are probably more prejudiced and less likely to listen to any argument, well reasoned or not, for an opposing view.

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: Having a lesbian daughter who lives with us and knowing and talking to some of her gay and lesbian friends, we're probably more in tune with gay issues than a lot of people.

How about you are probably more prejudiced and less likely to listen to any argument, well reasoned or not, for an opposing view.

Well he does share some traits with Republicans but does listen to opposing arguments. He is a lawyer after all.

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: Having a lesbian daughter who lives with us and knowing and talking to some of her gay and lesbian friends, we're probably more in tune with gay issues than a lot of people.

How about you are probably more prejudiced and less likely to listen to any argument, well reasoned or not, for an opposing view.

The opposing views on gay rights very often boil down to people trying to impose their views of religion and morality on matters of tax, estate, evidence, contract, and a wide variety of other areas of the law that have nothing whatsoever to do with religion and morality.

No one is telling the Baptist church or the Catholic church what marriages to sanction, and no one is telling you what to believe is a moral or immoral act. But if the US or a state government says that certain couples are allowed to file a joint tax return, then other couples should not be denied that right because of yours or Scalia's view of morality.

The couple in the DOMA case lived together for over 40 years and legally married in Connecticut when gay marriage was legalized. For their troubles, the surviving spouse was hit with a six-figure inheritance tax bill that a heterosexual spouse would not have to pay. That's not a question of morality; that's a question of equal protection.

silverscreenselect wrote: The opposing views on gay rights very often boil down to people trying to impose their views of religion and morality on matters of tax, estate, evidence, contract, and a wide variety of other areas of the law that have nothing whatsoever to do with religion and morality.

No one is telling the Baptist church or the Catholic church what marriages to sanction, and no one is telling you what to believe is a moral or immoral act. But if the US or a state government says that certain couples are allowed to file a joint tax return, then other couples should not be denied that right because of yours or Scalia's view of morality.

The couple in the DOMA case lived together for over 40 years and legally married in Connecticut when gay marriage was legalized. For their troubles, the surviving spouse was hit with a six-figure inheritance tax bill that a heterosexual spouse would not have to pay. That's not a question of morality; that's a question of equal protection.

Your arguments support incestuos marriage, also. And polygamous marriage. Everything you've said to counter the DOMA supporters is usable as an argument for those relationships. Everything. Other than perhaps the line you draw based on your own personal morality.

"The opposing views on polygamous or incestuous couples' rights very often boil down to people trying to impose their views of religion and morality on matters of tax, estate, evidence, contract, and a wide variety of other areas of the law that have nothing whatsoever to do with religion and morality."

BackInTex wrote: Your arguments support incestuos marriage, also. And polygamous marriage. Everything you've said to counter the DOMA supporters is usable as an argument for those relationships. Everything. Other than perhaps the line you draw based on your own personal morality.

"The opposing views on polygamous or incestuous couples' rights very often boil down to people trying to impose their views of religion and morality on matters of tax, estate, evidence, contract, and a wide variety of other areas of the law that have nothing whatsoever to do with religion and morality."

The answer to polygamous marriates is simple. Marriage is a releationship between two people; it's not a blank check to allow any number of people to throw themselves together to get a free pass on estate taxes or to piggyback on someone's health insurance.

Incest is a similar argument. Because marriage is a relationship that provides special benefits on the people involved, the state can place limits on those benefits (one obvious one being establishing minimum ages to get married). What they cannot do is arbitrarily place limits based on an improper classification such as race or sex. Saying that a gay man can marry some men does not mean he is allowed to marry every man. Incest laws would prevent a gay man from marrying his father or brother, just as they now prevent a man from marrying his mother or sister.

Morality has nothing to do with tax and estate benefits. A law that said a black spouse could not get the same estate tax exemption as a white spouse would never hold up.

You are trying to blur the line between marriage as a religious institution and marriage as a civil institution. The day is long gone when anyone can say that marriage is simply a matter of morality or religion. It imparts a whole lot of civil benefits and has to be subject to our civil laws for that reason.

silverscreenselect wrote:The couple in the DOMA case lived together for over 40 years and legally married in Connecticut when gay marriage was legalized. For their troubles, the surviving spouse was hit with a six-figure inheritance tax bill that a heterosexual spouse would not have to pay. That's not a question of morality; that's a question of equal protection.

I thought they married in Ontario, and the marriage was expressly legally recognized by their domicile of New York (before New York decided to start performing same-sex marriages, it expressly recognized same-sex marriages performed in jurisdictions that permitted them. Pretty much the exact opposite of what Romney did as governor of Massachusetts. --Bob

Well stated Silverscreen.

And, the argument of the opponents that same sex couples can not have children and therefore should not be allowed to marry is just insane. Does that mean that older folks past the age of child rearing shouldn't be allowed to marry either? Or persons like my husband and I that chose not to have children?

BackInTex, I don't know if you are disagreeing with the Court's decision, expressing opposition to same-sex marriage in general, or just having fun poking holes in liberals' arguments. But since you usually oppose Federal government overreach, I think you wouldn't object to a Court decision that lets the states define marriage, as they traditionally have, even though some states' definitions are far from traditional.

The 9th Circuit Court ruled today that same-sex marriages can resume immediately in California.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... e/2474109/