Posted on 03/26/2013 10:13:22 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
The Supreme Court has finished hearing the arguments in the Proposition 8 case, and prognosticators are busy reading the tea leaves for what they might be thinking. Here's what went down:
After Roberts flip flopped and supported Obamacare...i no longer trust the Supreme Court to uphold the founders interpretation of the Consitution....the leftward slide of the Titanic that is America slowly sinks into some sort of twilight zone...
Freegards
LEX
Surprisingly??? I'd be surprised if Roberts doesn't as his queer cousin says he will do and vote FOR gay marriage.
“At one point, Cooper argued that procreation was a vital state interest, and that same-sex couples don’t address it, the Washington Post reports.”
Of all the good arguments arguments against gay marriage, Cooper took up the worst which is that same sex couple should not be able to marry because they cannot procreate.
Older couples cannot procreate, infertile couples cannot procreate and prisoners who are permitted to marry cannot procreate.
Bad argument and one that was easily shot down.
It’s no surprise that Roberts is going with the liberals here. He’s Bush’s Earl Warren, a bait and switch.
I have zero confidence in Roberts at this point. He seems like he is sliding left - like so many other supposedly conservative justices do. Funny how it always works that way. Many supposedly conservative nominees end up "evolving" into lefties, but liberal judges almost never move the other direction.
so the govenmental elites can invalidate a valid vote by refusing to do their job?
Why have referenda?
Why does california have the ability to refuse at the state court level but jump in at the appelate level?
Roberts is going left. We’re doomed in the SCOTUS.
Roberts has a lot in common with Souter.
blackmailed?
I find it damning that the MSM is not mentioning Roberts reserved one of his personal seats for a cousing of his who is a homosexual.
Roberts is a George Bush Jr. ringer..
On the contrary, it's a good argument. People claim that they want marriage 'equality', but a homosexual relationship is not the equal of a heterosexual relationship because one of them produces children, one of them does not. I don't have to show that heterosexual unions ALWAYS produce children, I just have to show that homosexual unions NEVER produce children. And that's just simple biology. Game. Set. Match.
As far as parsing heterosexual marriage based on procreation, do you really want to try to go down that road? Do you really want the courts to go down that road? And why should we be going down that road in the first place? Are you saying that the motivation for parsing marriage is the fact that homosexuals cannot have children? It that suppose to be some kind of compelling argument? I don't think so.
It was a poor argument presented to the Court and one that was easily shot down.
“I just have to show that homosexual unions NEVER produce children.”
And the other side only needs to show that couple over 65 never produce children.
The argument is states’ rights, the argument is morality, the argument is Freedom of Religion.
But at one point, if they were not in a previous same-sex relationship, they could. Or have in the past...and infertile couples have the plumbing and presently, science, to procreate with the girl bits and the boy bits.
Same-sexers don’t have the proper plumbing period...
If you’re using the procreation argument....
Ya, they don't produce children, and therefor what......we start parsing marriage? Again, why? Your statement is technically true, but it's hardly a compelling argument for parsing heterosexual marriages or for supporting homosexual marriages.
The argument is states’ rights, the argument is morality, the argument is Freedom of Religion.
And the argument is that a homosexual relationship is not the equal of a heterosexual relationship. That shoots down their whole 'marriage equality' argument (that's kind of a biggy).
It was a poor argument presented to the Court and one that was easily shot down.
...sorry, it’s really the only point that can be made in this argument...if you’re denying that proscription against homosexuality is based on a moral premise, being that the race will die out without the ability to procreate, and subsequently reducing it to a state’s right issue, you’ve lost...there is a fundamental morality in the argument that procreation is impossible with same sex unions, while there is no morality whatsoever in asserting state’s rights...if you’re rejecting the Biblical injunction against homosexuality, what remains to you to argue with? The assertion that one government trumps another? Not an issue to win hearts and minds...
And we as a society are far beyond the concept that marriage is a necessity for procreation as almost 50% of the children born today are born out of wedlock.
Argue the case on the First Amendment’s Freedom of Religion as it inhibits people’s right to practice their religion if gays are allowed to marry.
And, argue it on States’ Rights.
“perhaps surprisingly, John Roberts”
Nothing suprises me about this guy. Dubya was not the first president to get fooled by a stealth candidate. Not to mention Roberts is probably being blackmailed for his likely illegal adoption of 2 Irish children.
That is the narrower tack of that argument. The far better one is that there is a “compelling state interest in family and procreation which is served by the traditional definition of marriage and undermined by the expansion.”
Allowing oneself to get blown out of the water re solely procreation is poor lawyering. The argument was a softball served up to a softball playing justice : )
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.