Traditional marriage gets a SCOTUS smackdown: The incomprehensible right-wing logic that’s poised to

[DonViejo]

Traditional marriage gets a SCOTUS smackdown: The incomprehensible right-wing logic that’s poised to go down in flames

Even a typically conservative majority can't save gay-marriage opponents now. At least one of these men will break

ANDREW KOPPELMAN

Nothing is stronger than an idea whose time has gone. Yesterday’s Supreme Court argument showed as clearly as anything could have that same-sex marriage will prevail, not only because of the strength of its arguments, but because those arguments meet no resistance: The opposing view has become incomprehensible.

Justice Stephen Breyer, who usually has a lot of respect for legislative judgments, here found it difficult to find anything to defer to. When states try to justify denying same-sex couples the right to marry, “the answer we get is, well, people have always done it,” observed Breyer. That answer won’t do, because it was used to justify racial segregation. “Or, two, because certain religious groups do think it’s a sin.” That can’t justify a law either. “And then when I look for reasons three, four and five, I don’t find them. What are they?”

There was a time, not long ago, when same-sex marriage was unimaginable. But the meaning of marriage has changed. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg observed, traditionally, “marriage was a relationship of a dominant male to a subordinate female.” In recent decades, it has become less gender-specific, and sexual satisfaction has become a more important part of it — so it made less and less sense to try to force gay people into heterosexual marriages. It increasingly plausible for same-sex couples to claim that they were not distinct from heterosexual couples in any way that mattered. The older, gender-specific understanding of marriage has faded so far that it is not merely rejected. It is not even understood.

John Bursch, the attorney defending Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage before the court, argued that the purpose of marriage was “to encourage children to be bonded to their biological mother and father.” And that clearly is an important part of the historical justification for marriage. If our species did not reproduce sexually, we wouldn’t have the institution. But several of the justices pressed him on how same-sex marriage could possibly frustrate that purpose. Bursch explained that “changing the meaning of marriage from one where it’s based on that biological bond to one where it’s based on emotional commitment” would lead adults to think “that this relationship is more about adults and not about the kids.” But the causal connection here is doubtful.

more
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/29/traditional_marriage_gets_a_scotus_smackdown_the_incomprehensible_right_wing_logic_thats_poised_to_go_down_in_flames/

[sakabatou]

1. The opponents' arguments are going down in flames.

[hifiguy]

5. The quotes from Kennedy and Roberts in the linked article

show that the reichwingers arguments are gonna crash and burn, badly. When Roberts asks "why can't we decide this on settled sex-discrimination law?" they are in a hundred worlds of hurt.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

2. Scalia says we dont have to afford equal rights because no country did until only 15 yrs ago

Talk about holding on to a bigoted hateful position with nothing

After we rightfully celebrate, if we do, we have to figure out how we are to survive SC justices who hate Americans and the law

[hifiguy]

4. Scalia would uphold burning witches at the stake

on the grounds that there is historical precedent.

[hifiguy]

3. Justice Breyer is cribbing from Judge Posner's

brick-by-brick demolition of the Wisconsin and Indiana anti-equality statutes.

Posner wrote that opinion the way he did so it could be something very like an amicus brief for the pro-equality side. It was a 15-inch shell fired over the bow of Fat Tony and Uncle Ruckus.

No judge in his or her right mind would try to refute Posner's opinion. This, of course, will not stop Scalia, whom Posner cordially despises as a dishonest pseudo-intellectual phony. Posner crushed the justifications, including the one offered by this Bursch character, burned the village and limed the earth. I have never seen a more scorched earth "holy FUCK are your arguments STUPID" judicial opinion in all my time in law school and as a lawyer.

[Doctor_J]

6. This court won't do anything to upset the apple cart. Rove has approved same sex marriage

so the SCOTUS won't go against him. As unlikely as them cutting the insurance industry off from the heritage care windfall.

[etherealtruth]

7. John Bursch, the attorney defending Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage before the court wins ...

... wins the king of the moron award.his abject stupidity truly astounded me.

I expected hate filled bigotry from these folk ... even derangement.

I was not prepared for this level of abject stupidity. If you follow this jack asses line of thought NO ONE could marry if they were unable / or chose not to have children.

The bigotry disgusts me, but doesn't surprise me ... his stupidity astounds me

[hifiguy]

8. It's as though he didn't read a word of Posner's 7th circuit decision.

Posner demolished that argument, plowed it under and limed the ground. I suppose this guy had to get up on his hind legs and woof in front of the SCOTUS but he should have avoided that argument at all costs after Posner nuked it. Breyer cut him off at his shoetops using Posner's logic.

[etherealtruth]

9. You have a far more sophisticated understanding of this than I do

My understanding was far more simplistic .... but, we arrived at the same place.

As a resident of Michigan i am enraged that my tax dollars have been squandered in an effort to deny citizens equal opportunity. This nitwits babbling made it even worse

[hifiguy]

10. Judge Posner of the Seventh Circuit

gutted that justification like a fish in both the oral argument and the written opinion striking down the WI and IN anti-equality laws.

It was a masterpiece of an opinion. When an opinion, especially one from as distinguished and highly regarded a judge as Richard Posner says, translated into polite judge-speak "These arguments are so incredibly, irredeemably stupid I am going to explain to you in exquisite detail just how you could not be more fucking wrong if you TRiED" you have managed to accomplish something rare in the annals of smackdown. Judges only do that when they are steaming mad with one of the litigants.

[etherealtruth]

11. Thanks for the insight and interpretation

I remain astounded that anyone would even attempt to make that argument.

i do not believe that there is a sound argument against equal rights/ opportunity for anyone, but there are less idiotic points that could have been made.

Thanks , again