Posted on 03/26/2013 10:05:42 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
Today the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for about 80 minutes in Hollingsworth v. Perry, which is the lawsuit regarding California's Proposition 8. Two gay couples brought suit on the grounds that the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Since the State of California refuses to defend Proposition 8, opponents of gay marriage sought to enforce it in Hollingsworth v. Perry. Generally, citizens do not have legal standing to enforce laws with which they agree. Several justices expressed doubt that gay marriage opponents have standing in this case.
"I don't think we've ever allowed anything like that," said Chief Justice John Roberts.
"I just wonder if this case was properly granted," said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
"Why is taking a case now the answer?" asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Addressing the merits of the case, Justice Anthony Kennedy focused on the "imminent injury" to children in California.
"There’s some 40,000 children in California that live with same-sex parents. They want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important."
Justices Alito and Kennedy raised the possibility that the court is moving too fast to address whether or not same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.
"We have five years of information to pose against 2,000 years of history or more," said Justice Anthony Kennedy.
"You want us to step in and assess the effects of this institution, which is newer than cellphones and/or the Internet?" asked Justice Samuel A. Alito.
On the subject of how same-sex marriage harms traditional marriage, Justice Elena Kagan asked, "How does this cause and effect work?"
On the subject of procreation being the state's key interest in the insitution of marriage, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said, "There are lots of people who get married who can’t have children."
>>> On the subject of how same-sex marriage harms traditional marriage, Justice Elena Kagan asked, “How does this cause and effect work?”
If I say what I want to say, I will be banned.
He didn’t.
While I believe that gay-marriage is legally a states’ rights issue, my Christian faith leaves me firmly against the idea. So as a Christian, I was somewhat disappointed in Cooper’s defense because he refrained from a direct attack on gay marriage. As a states’ rights advocate, I appreciated the fact that he tried to convince the court that important, democratic, timely, public debate should continue as is with various states banning and allowing gay marriage.
Agreed.
Agreed. Again.
There was a particulary “funny” exchange between Scalia and Kagan on this subject.
Why?
The two women are , no question. I am convinced that Roberts is homosexual as well.
The two women are , no question. I am convinced that Roberts is homosexual as well.
I’m not disagreeing with your reasoning, but a caller to Rush, and Rush himself, just got through saying that if the 9th circus granted standing to an entity that didn’t deserve it and heard the case and ruled, that the entire proceeding of the 9th circus could be invalidated, which would leave in place prop 8.
I don’t know. I’m quoting what I heard. Rush said this is one reason for a lot of confusion in this case.
Link to transcript: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-144a.pdf
Link to Real Audio audio: http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/realplayerfiles/12-144.ra
Link to Windows Media audio: http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/wmafiles/12-144.wma
Link to MP3 audio: http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/12-144.mp3
Felatious arguments?
Yes, but the 9th Circuit granted standing and so did a lower court. One of those rulings will prevail as I understand legal experts. (I am assuming that each court grants or denies standing for itself.) But ... IANAL! :)
Maybe LL will share what he thinks, legally speaking.
??? Too much twisted reasoning for my taste.
“Regular folks” would not have come to the same conclusion.
The CA State AG really is the source of the standing issue.
After Prop 8 was passed and became part of the CA Constitution, the 9th Circuit [actually just 1 judge] overturned it. BTW: The judge who overturned it is gay ...
The CA AG then declined to appeal it - something he is SUPPOSED to do for the people. Prop 8 proponents then went to the CA Supreme Court and it found that they did have standing when the CA AG declines.
Prop 8 proponents then went to the 9th Circuit and asked for an en banc hearing. It declined and pooch-punted it directly to SCOTUS.
If the CA AG had stood up for the people and appealed, like he is supposed to do, standing would not be an issue at SCOTUS today.
Chicago Tribune: Supreme Court wary of broad ruling endorsing gay marriage
LA Times: Supreme Court appears split on Prop. 8, broad gay marriage ruling
Washington Post: Supreme Court justices conflicted on gay marriage case
Fox News: Justices indicate interest in narrow ruling on gay marriage
USA Today: Supreme Court justices question gay marriage bans
ABC News: Supreme Court Justices Struggle With Federal Right to Gay Marriage
I fear for this country. We are indeed as Judge Bork pointed out, "Slouching Towards Gomorrah". We have become a nation not of laws but of "judges in black robes". What the people think is only preliminary. Our votes mean nothing until some "court" says so.
From the Fox News article:
Chief Justice John Roberts told Olson that it seemed supporters of gay marriage were trying to change the meaning of the word “marriage” by including same-sex couples.
Interesting. Didn’t see that coming from Roberts.
Thank God for Scalia.
And Thomas. The two of them are a triumph for conservatives. Brilliant legal minds and conservative.
Absolutely.
That came to mind. :0)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.