Scalia says abortion, gay rights are easy cases

Oct 5, 2012 Full story: The Capital-Journal 375

In this March 8, 2012 file phoo, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia speaks at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn.

Read more

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#316 Oct 12, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
so you agree the court ALWAYS discusses them TOGETHER right?
what do you make of that?
not sometimes,, ALL THE TIME..
the court states the right to PROCREATE implies the right to marry...
is buying a house mentioned in EVERY marriage case?
how delusional can you be?
I do appreciate you attempt to support yourself though, but do you remember suggesting zablocki was not a marriage case?
yeah, so do I...
They DON'T always discuss them together.....in fact in the Zablocki vs Redhail......PROCREATION was never actually discussed with regards to the right to marry......just that it was on the same level......and procreation wasn't really part of the discussion in Loving either.......just that is was as fundamental as marriage was......again.....not stating that the two go together!!!
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#317 Oct 12, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
They DON'T always discuss them together.....in fact in the Zablocki vs Redhail......PROCREATION was never actually discussed with regards to the right to marry......just that it was on the same level......and procreation wasn't really part of the discussion in Loving either.......just that is was as fundamental as marriage was......again.....not stating that the two go together!!!
you are just being delusional..
its Zablocki where the court specifically stated that procreation implied a right to marry...
"And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place.[Footnote 11]"

yes, procreation implies a right to marry...

I mean, this is INDISPUTABLE:
"As the facts of this case illustrate, it would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society. "

i do very much appreciate, however, your turning to the case material...

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#318 Oct 12, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
you are just being delusional..
its Zablocki where the court specifically stated that procreation implied a right to marry...
"And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place.[Footnote 11]"
yes, procreation implies a right to marry...
I mean, this is INDISPUTABLE:
"As the facts of this case illustrate, it would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society. "
i do very much appreciate, however, your turning to the case material...
WHO CARES!!!!

The right to procreate AND marry is not at issue.

Show us a case or law that says that the inability to procreate is justifiable to deny marriage rights!

Only that type of case would support your claim that gays and lesbians can be denied marriage rights because they cannot naturally procreate.

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#319 Oct 12, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
you are just being delusional..
its Zablocki where the court specifically stated that procreation implied a right to marry...
"And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place.[Footnote 11]"
yes, procreation implies a right to marry...
I mean, this is INDISPUTABLE:
"As the facts of this case illustrate, it would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society. "
i do very much appreciate, however, your turning to the case material...
You're taking something out of context because that part of the ruling was more specifically about Roe vs Wade, not Redhail or his particular issue!!!

Again IMPLIED is not the same as MANDATED!!!
Uve

Desert Hot Springs, CA

#320 Oct 12, 2012
Here we go again...Just for you PUKE!

A former police officer who has admitted doctoring photos of teenage girls he met through a church youth group and posted them on a pornographic website says he likes to think of himself as an "artist".

Wayne Paul Mason, 42, is charged with more than 50 child sex and pornography charges after one of his alleged victims found on a website explicit photos of herself and other girls taken by him nearly a decade earlier.

Mr Mason, who was an officer with the NSW Police between 1997 and 2003, has pleaded not guilty.

The prosecution claims Mr Mason had sexual relationships with at least two 14- and 15-year-old girls he met through his role as a youth group leader and karate teacher at a Baptist Church in Sydney's south-west.
Advertisement

In a 2010 police interview played to a NSW District Court jury today, Mr Mason said he only flirted and engaged in "romantic talk" with one of the girls until she reached the age of consent.

He said a sexual relationship began when she was 16 but even then the couple faced a "stigma" because he was in his 30s.

"It's suffice to say love doesn't conquer all," he said.

The Crown prosecutor, Sarah Huggett, said the woman, now in her mid 20s, entered her name into a search engine and discovered pornographic photos allegedly taken by Mr Mason when she was 15. She also found similar pictures of other young girls she recognised from the church group.

In the police interview, Mr Mason admitted taking the photos of the woman during their four-year relationship.

"Of course; she was my girlfriend," he said. "I like to call myself a bit of an artist."

But he claimed he had doctored some of the other photos found on the website. He said he placed pictures of the girls' faces on the bodies of "random" women in sexually explicit poses.

Asked if he was sexually gratified by the images, he said: "No, it was more the ability to make people think it was real. I enjoy that they think it's real. Maybe it's an artist thing."

The charges date back to 1996 when Mr Mason allegedly kissed the 14- and 15-year-old younger sister of a woman he was dating.

Mr Mason allegedly preyed on the teenagers, showering them with attention, gifts and love letters before they agreed to various sex acts with him, including being photographed in sexual poses.

However, because the girls were under 16 at the time they could not give consent, Ms Huggett said.

Often, Mason was in a position of authority as their youth group leader or karate teacher, which aggravated the offences, she said.

The trial continues.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/im-an-artist-exoffi...
Uve

Desert Hot Springs, CA

#321 Oct 12, 2012
In 1971 Manoli, who was 23 at the time and not long married, gave birth to what she was told was a healthy baby boy, but he was immediately taken away for what were called routine tests. Nine interminable hours passed. "Then, a nun, who was also a nurse, coldly informed me that my baby had died," she says. They would not let her have her son's body, nor would they tell her when the funeral would be. Did she not think to question the hospital staff?

"Doctors, nuns?" she says, almost in horror. "I couldn't accuse them of lying. This was Franco's Spain. A dictatorship. Even now we Spaniards tend not to question authority."

The scale of the baby trafficking was unknown until this year, when two men—Antonio Barroso and Juan Luis Moreno, childhood friends from a seaside town near Barcelona—discovered that they had been bought from a nun.
Uve

Desert Hot Springs, CA

#322 Oct 12, 2012
A former substitute teacher who also worked as a minister at a Bloomington church was indicted Tuesday on federal child pornography charges.

James Love, 37, faces two counts of production of child pornography. He is accused of photographing two boys who are minors while they were sedated for the purpose of producing the child pornography…. Love also has been charged in McLean County with sedating and molesting four teenage boys who stayed overnight at his home.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#323 Oct 12, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
You're taking something out of context because that part of the ruling was more specifically about Roe vs Wade, not Redhail or his particular issue!!!
Again IMPLIED is not the same as MANDATED!!!
WTF are you talking about?

In short, that the court said procreational rights IMPLY a right to marriage means you cannot claim they are not connected...

got it so far?
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#324 Oct 12, 2012
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>

Show us a case or law that says that the inability to procreate is justifiable to deny marriage rights!
DUDE...that is EXACTLY what Baker v Nelson says!

it also says that this does not means infertile straights cannot marry because a minimal exception like infertile straight couples just goes with the territory of creating nay group, and is not negating that our right to marry is founded on our right to procreate...

Baker is alive and well, to say any different is merely being delusional...
Uve

Desert Hot Springs, CA

#325 Oct 12, 2012
Somethings of note on Baker v Nelson:

It's true that no post-Baker precedent recognizes a right to same-sex marriage, but the content and tone of Lawrence certainly set the groundwork for one. Justice Scalia said as much in dissent, and while one might dismiss a dissenter's effort to exaggerate the implications of the majority's reasoning, subsequent state court cases--especially the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's ruling in Goodridge v. Dep't of Pub. Health--have relied on Lawrence as a building block of a right to same-sex marriage.
And
The argument is that Loving shows that a state tradition of prohibiting some kind of marriage is not by itself sufficient to uphold that prohibition.

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#326 Oct 12, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
WTF are you talking about?
In short, that the court said procreational rights IMPLY a right to marriage means you cannot claim they are not connected...
got it so far?
Again.....I can claim they aren't connected, because they AREN'T connected......they are both fundamental rights and NEITHER can be trampled on!!!
Uve

Desert Hot Springs, CA

#327 Oct 12, 2012
In Baker the Court summarily affirmed a Minnesota Supreme Court decision rejecting a right to same-sex marriage. Summary affirmance means that the Court did not bother to hear oral argument or write an opinion. That result was hardly surprising. It was 1972, after all, when the American Psychiatric still classified homosexuality as a mental disorder. Hopefully things will change.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#328 Oct 12, 2012
Cool Hand Luke wrote:
Mona Lott Aka "Aida Lott" requires links, such as:
.
Gay Sexual Practices Lead to Uptick in Disease
>
FECAL SEX About 80% of gays admit to licking and/or inserting their tongues into the anus of partners and thus ingesting medically significant amounts of feces. Those who eat or wallow in it are probably at even greater risk. In the diary study,5 70% of the gays had engaged in this activity--half regularly over 6 months. Result?--the "annual incidence of hepatitis A in...homosexual men was 22 percent, whereas no heterosexual men acquired hepatitis A." In 1992,26 it was noted that the proportion of gays engaging in oral/anal sex had not declined.
>
Gay Men and Shigellosis
What is Shigellosis?
Shigellosis is a disease that causes stomach cramps, fever, diarrhea and sometimes bloody diarrhea.
What causes Shigellosis?
Shigellosis is caused by the Shigella bacterium. Shigella is found in feces (shit).
Who gets it?
Anyone can get Shigellosis. Gay men get Shigellosis at higher rates than others. People with a weakened immune
system get more sick than others.
How do you get it?
You can get Shigellosis when feces comes in contact with your mouth. This can happen with oral/anal sex play. This
can happen when you use your fingers or hand for anal sex play and then touch your mouth. Even microscopic
amounts of feces that get into your mouth can cause Shigellosis.
How can I avoid Shigella?
Play safely. In addition to safe sex guidelines to prevent HIV, maintain good hygiene. Wash every
part of your body that is sexual with soap and water before, after and between sex play. Use condoms
or other kinds of barriers like dental dams, latex gloves or plastic wrap and be aware of
what body parts may have come into contact with feces during sex play. Wash them with soap
and water. Use condoms with sex toys, and discard the condoms after use.
What do I do if I think I have Shigellosis?
• If you think you have Shigellosis, see your doctor.
• Inform your partners.
• Wash your hands a lot.
• Don’t have sex until 7 days after symptoms end.
• Talk with a medical provider about what you can do to reduce your risk.
publichealth.lacounty.gov/acd/docs/Shigellosi...
The most common transmission vector for shigellosis is the unwashed hands of restaurant workers and children.
Uve

Desert Hot Springs, CA

#329 Oct 12, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
The most common transmission vector for shigellosis is the unwashed hands of restaurant workers and children.
That and Skat queens named Luke

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#330 Oct 12, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
as soon as you realize that it doesn't matter...
you dont have to be gay to be LGBT....
does that mean LGBT is not about gays?
When you get ready to click the "post comment" button, do you think, "Wait, I can come up with something even dumber to post!"?

Your question makes no sense.

You don't have to be able to reproduce with your partner in order to marry. Period. Case closed. No twisting of out of context quotes from court cases will change that simple fact.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#331 Oct 12, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
so you agree the court ALWAYS discusses them TOGETHER right?
what do you make of that?
No, I don't agree.
But even if they did, you don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry.
Jane Dough wrote:
not sometimes,, ALL THE TIME..
the court states the right to PROCREATE implies the right to marry...
Back when you could only legally have sex within marriage. That's no longer the case.
Jane Dough wrote:
is buying a house mentioned in EVERY marriage case?
how delusional can you be?
I do appreciate you attempt to support yourself though, but do you remember suggesting zablocki was not a marriage case?
yeah, so do I...
You don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry, so WTF exactly are you trying to prove?

If you're trying to prove you're a dolt who doesn't understand logic...mission accompli already.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#332 Oct 12, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
How about you google the case, learn what MANDATORY REVIEW is and apologize?
I know you won't so HERE from wiki:
"Baker and McConnell appealed the Minnesota court's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. There, they claimed the Minnesota marriage statutes implicated three rights: they abridged their fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; discriminated based on gender, contrary to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and deprived them of privacy rights flowing from the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[12] On October 10, 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a one-sentence order stating "The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question."[13]
In most cases presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court's refusal to hear the case is not an endorsement of the decision below.[14] However, since this case came to the Court through mandatory appellate review, the summary dismissal is a decision on the merits of the case.[15] As binding precedent, the Baker decision prevents lower courts from coming to a contrary conclusion when presented with the precise issue the Court necessarily adjudicated in dismissing the case.[16]"
Its the seminal case banning gay marriage and you are like the 20th person who doesn't know of its existence...
your side uses its ignorance as a weapon!
From your own source (this part of the wikipedia article you conveniently ignored):

When dealing with precedents like Baker, lower courts may have to guess at the meaning of these unexplained decisions.

The Supreme Court has laid out rules, however, to guide lower courts in narrowly applying these summary dispositions:

1) The facts in the potentially binding case must not bear any legally significant differences to the case under consideration.

2) The binding precedent encompasses only the issues presented to the Court, not the reasoning found in the lower court's decision.

3) Of the issues presented, only those necessarily decided by the Court in dismissing the case control.

4) Subsequent developments by the Court on the relevant doctrines may cast doubt on the continuing validity of a summary judgment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

Baker fails all of these tests as binding precedent. Lower courts are indeed guessing, and some are guessing wrong.

The rationale for the SCOTUS's dismissal of Baker (that there was no substantial federal question) no longer exists. DOMA, Romer, and Lawrence present obvious federal questions.

Obvious to anyone who can read, that is.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#333 Oct 12, 2012
luv Sarah Palin wrote:
Abortion is infanticide and that is non debatable.
It should have never been made legal and we look like savages to the world because of it.
No constitutional right for abortion and the MAJORITY have had enough of it.
There is a Constitutional right to privacy, and thus abortion. That issue was settled with Roe v Wade.
And laws against abortion only hurt lower to middle income women. Women with enough money can just fly to a country were abortion is legal and get one.
The MAJORITY are free not to abort if they don't like the idea.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#334 Oct 12, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Its based on the courts EXPRESS language in Zablocki:
"The woman whom appellee desired to marry had a fundamental right to seek an abortion of their expected child, see Roe v. Wade, supra, or to bring the child into life to suffer the myriad social, if not economic, disabilities that the status of illegitimacy brings, see Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U. S. 762, 430 U. S. 768-770, and n. 13 (1977); Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U. S. 164, 406 U. S. 175-176 (1972). Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection. And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place. "
Get that? if the right to procreate means anything it IMPLIES a right to marry (i.e. the relationship people use to procreate).
But you do seem more versed than the usual poster so kudos to you...
The right to procreate may imply a right to marry, but a right to marry isn't contingent on the ability or willingness to procreate.

Never has been, never will be.

Couples who have neither the desire nor the ability to procreate are allowed to marry all the time.

Even Scalia recognizes the folly of such an argument.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#336 Oct 12, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
"First, the Legislature could rationally
decide that,... The Legislature could find
that unstable relationships between people
of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow
up in unstable homes than is the case with
same-sex couples, and thus that promoting
stability in opposite-sex relationships will
help children more....
There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children
to grow up with both a mother and a
father. Intuition and experience suggest
that a child benefits from having before his
or her eyes, every day, living models of
what both a man and a woman are like. It
is obvious that there are exceptions to this
general rule—some children who never
know their fathers, or their S360mothers, do
far better than some who grow up with
parents of both sexes—but the Legislature
could find that the general rule will usually
hold."
say the high court of NY. The court found it was a rational debate and the legislature could rationally find either way...
In NY, the legislature then opted to offer benefits, but they are not required to do so under the NY constitution...
You quote this as a rational basis for denying couples the right to obtain a civil marriage? The Hernandez v Robles decision is one of the great examples of twisted and irrational reasoning ever placed in a judicial opinion.

Did you read this first, or just copy-and-paste?

Judge Smith of the New York Court of Appeals relied on flawed assumptions, stereotypes, and legal misconstructions that were devoid of logic and evidence.

Smith argues that because heterosexuals mess things up all the time and have children out-of-wedlock and produce instability, we ought to punish same-sex couples who might actually carefully weigh their decisions and plan better than opposite-sex couples:

"The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships will help children more."

You call this "rational"? Really?! Seriously?

This decision was a joke when it was handed down, and thank goodness that it's moot in New York now, where civil marriage is available to same-sex couples.

Smith seems to ignore the fact that hundreds of thousands of children are being raised by same-sex couples RIGHT NOW, TODAY. And there is NO EVIDENCE that these children are in any greater danger or harm relative to children raised by opposite-sex couples. Smith doesn't proposed ending adoption, and he probably was unaware that 84% of children being raised by same-sex couples are the biological offspring of one of the partners, according to the US Census.

If you (or anti-gays like you) are really concerned about RAISING children (not merely conceiving them), this decision begs the question that you have avoided responding to on successive posts:

What is the rational basis for denying children being raised by same-sex couples the exact same protections and benefits that civil marriage affords their peers being raised by opposite-sex couples?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News George Takei poses for a portrait at Quaker Goo... 4 min Gremlin 7
News Country Radio Fulfills Own Stereotypes By Banni... 5 min Missy 6
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 6 min Reverend Alan 17,656
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 8 min tongangodz 1,588
News Texas judge blocks family, medical leave benefi... 16 min Donny Brook 1
News Indiana religious objections law slammed on soc... 22 min Gremlin 5
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 24 min stemaxgizmo 30,815
News Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 4 hr Rainbow Kid 1,559
News Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 6 hr Brian_G 1,897
News Child of Lesbian Moms Says Same-Sex Marriage Is... 15 hr goonsquad 504
More from around the web