Gay marriage opponents take unusual tack with Supreme Court

Jan 29, 2013 | Posted by: Rick in Kansas | Full story: www.latimes.com

Lawyers defending the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Prop. 8 argue that marriage should be limited to opposite-sex unions because they alone can 'produce unplanned and unintended offspring.'
Comments
1 - 18 of 18 Comments Last updated Jan 29, 2013

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

If the judges fall for that reasoning, if you can call it reasoning, then they are as nutty and ignorant as the people who proposed it.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

It's the only argument they've got left.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It's the nature of heterosexuality to want to breed like bears and like bears, they can easily become confused in unfamiliar surroundings, so legal marriage has to be kept a heterosexual only institution. Their last, best argument is that the hetero population are a bunch of rutting beasts that need to be tamed by the law and it's we the homos who get it right. The sad thing is, this argument has actually worked. Read the majority opinion in the Indiana case of Morrison v Sadler. It's enough to make you feel really self-loathing if you weren't born to be gay. You heteros are such a pathetic, easily confused lot, we should feel sorry for you and accept your problems as being our problem when it comes to the law and equal treatment. But we should understand, it's not us, it's you.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Cooper was paid 3 million dollars to come up with something; anything
.
Visions of sugar plum fairies dance in his head
.
La la la la la

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Their desparation is showing.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Please for the love of logic and intelligence......can someone explain to me how these two IDIOTS passed law school and the Bar? I mean really, unintended and unplanned.......by denying us the right to marry.....it will STOP heterosexuals from being procreative irresponsible? Where? and certain HOW?

In almost 5 years that we have been legally married......please anyone show how 1 opposite-sex couple was MADE to be responsible with regards to sexual activity since we got married!!!

I didn't think Cooper had any toes left to shoot off, but obviously I was wrong!!!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

NorCal Native wrote:
Please for the love of logic and intelligence......can someone explain to me how these two IDIOTS passed law school and the Bar? I mean really, unintended and unplanned.......by denying us the right to marry.....it will STOP heterosexuals from being procreative irresponsible? Where? and certain HOW?
In almost 5 years that we have been legally married......please anyone show how 1 opposite-sex couple was MADE to be responsible with regards to sexual activity since we got married!!!
I didn't think Cooper had any toes left to shoot off, but obviously I was wrong!!!
By copying off someone else's paper, this argument isn't new and makes an appearance to some extent in pretty much every state level case which rejected a right to marriage extending to same sex couples. It's a jaw dropper alright, but a surprisingly successful one. It isn't us, it really is them. They are the messes that society needs to keep in check, not us. When it comes to making babies, we won't f*ck it up by accidentally popping one out.
David Traversa

Argentina

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Result: Unplanned and unintended lives..

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jan 29, 2013
 
NorCal Native wrote:
Please for the love of logic and intelligence......can someone explain to me how these two IDIOTS passed law school and the Bar? I mean really, unintended and unplanned.......by denying us the right to marry.....it will STOP heterosexuals from being procreative irresponsible? Where? and certain HOW?
In almost 5 years that we have been legally married......please anyone show how 1 opposite-sex couple was MADE to be responsible with regards to sexual activity since we got married!!!
I didn't think Cooper had any toes left to shoot off, but obviously I was wrong!!!
Lawyers have an obligation to represent their client, and argue their case, regardless of their personal feelings. For you to believe that these lawyers personally believe in their legal arguments indicates that you know nothing about the legal profession.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

NorCal Native wrote:
Please for the love of logic and intelligence......can someone explain to me how these two IDIOTS passed law school and the Bar? I mean really, unintended and unplanned.......by denying us the right to marry.....it will STOP heterosexuals from being procreative irresponsible? Where? and certain HOW?
In almost 5 years that we have been legally married......please anyone show how 1 opposite-sex couple was MADE to be responsible with regards to sexual activity since we got married!!!
I didn't think Cooper had any toes left to shoot off, but obviously I was wrong!!!
To be fair, they aren't saying preventing us from marrying will have any effect on hetero couples. They're just repeating the common mantra that unintended procreation is the only reason for the state to give any rights/benefits to marriage, so it should be limited only to those who are likely to have unintended procreation.

I'm not saying I agree with their looney argument; just clarifying what their argument actually is. And it's been a pretty effective argument all things considered; it worked in numerous state supreme courts including Washington & New York.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>By copying off someone else's paper, this argument isn't new and makes an appearance to some extent in pretty much every state level case which rejected a right to marriage extending to same sex couples. It's a jaw dropper alright, but a surprisingly successful one. It isn't us, it really is them. They are the messes that society needs to keep in check, not us. When it comes to making babies, we won't f*ck it up by accidentally popping one out.
Well, yes......I understand that......but we are in the 21st Century and these lawyers, especially Cooper has already directly failed on this argument........and regardless of whether this argument has won before.......denying Gays and Lesbians IS NOT going to make straights PROCREATIVE RESPONSIBLE.......PERIOD!!!

The denial of something towards one group has NO AFFECT to make the other do something their NOT doing NOW!!!

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Cal In AZ wrote:
<quoted text>
Lawyers have an obligation to represent their client, and argue their case, regardless of their personal feelings. For you to believe that these lawyers personally believe in their legal arguments indicates that you know nothing about the legal profession.
Who said that I believe in their argument, dumbazz?

I just can't believe they think they have a chance to win with this BS!!!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

I think it's less about the validity of a specific argument than it is about providing a justification for the court to use if the majority decides they want to uphold Prop 8.

I long ago stopped believing they actually base their ruling on the constitution. BOTH sides know how they're going to rule, but they also know they need to be able to justify their ruling on some constitutional principle.

They can't just say- "because we say so".

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
To be fair, they aren't saying preventing us from marrying will have any effect on hetero couples. They're just repeating the common mantra that unintended procreation is the only reason for the state to give any rights/benefits to marriage, so it should be limited only to those who are likely to have unintended procreation.
I'm not saying I agree with their looney argument; just clarifying what their argument actually is. And it's been a pretty effective argument all things considered; it worked in numerous state supreme courts including Washington & New York.
I don't CARE anymore.......if SCOTUS is not going to use the Constitution to make their ruling.....then BURN THE DAMN THING AND let who ever is in the majority rule.....who the fruck cares if they want to gas us, right? or harm us, right? or lie about, right? Just as long as 9 FRUCKING PEOPLE RULE AS THEY WANT TO IT'S OKAY, RIGHT?

I'm sick of these SILLY AZZ FRUCKED UP ARGUMENTS that are being used because OMFG there are 3 million or more Gays and Lesbians who simply want to partake in the AMERICAN DREAM!!!

Heaven forbid!
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Well; who in the heck do Cooper and Clement think 'raise' all those unwanted 'accidental' kids the straighties churn out?
.
That's right!
.
GAY couples
.
DUH!
.
It costs a gay couple $6,000 a year in lost tax benefits to raise an orphan

If the court denies gay marriage; then gay couples should get refund checks for $6,000 a year per orphan

Since: Oct 10

San Francisco

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ridiculous. By their "logic," my grandmother's second marriage at age 68 should have been invalid, unless they thought she could still produce "unintended offspring."

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Fortunately, this silly excuse has now been demonstrated to be irrational in Gill v. OPM:

"But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA's passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it "prevents children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure, when afforded equal recognition under federal law.

Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country. Indeed, "the sterile and the elderly" have never been denied the right to marry by any of the fifty states. And the federal government has never considered denying recognition to marriage based on an ability or inability to procreate.

Similarly, Congress' asserted interest in defending and nurturing heterosexual marriage is not "grounded in sufficient factual context for this court to ascertain some relation" between it and the classification DOMA effects.

What remains, therefore, is the possibility that Congress sought to deny recognition to same-sex marriages in order to make heterosexual marriage appear more valuable or desirable. But the extent that this was the goal, Congress has achieved it "only by punishing same-sex couples who exercise their rights under state law." And this the Constitution does not permit. "For if the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean" that the Constitution will not abide such "a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group."

Neither does the Constitution allow Congress to sustain DOMA by reference to the objective of defending traditional notions of morality. As the Supreme Court made abundantly clear in Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans, "the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law..."
http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

So, they are contending that Marriage is part of a Government Family Planning Program.

"Yes Johnny and Suzie, you were born for the State. It's what you exist for. Serve it well and you will succeed. Now run along and breed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Honor_o...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Materna...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••