The court is considering cases from Virginia, Utah, Oklahoma, Indiana and Wisconsin where federal appeals courts struck down state prohibitions on same-sex marriages.... But those who study the court and even the lawyers making the requests have said they expect it will take weeks or even months for the justices to decide which of the cases provides the best vehicle for a decision....The Court didn't reject any of these cases yet.
IN THE COMMENTS: mccullough said: "I just read the linked article and it says 'took no action.'" Ha. I assure you I cut and pasted. I don't know if this blog post is the reason for the change in wording. There's no notation at the link that this change was made.
पोस्ट्स
१७ टिप्पण्या:
Of course same sex couples do not have the right to marry. Heterosexual couples also do not have a right to marry.
Individuals have rights. Couples do not.
I just read the linked article and it says "took no action."
"The Supreme Court took a pass Thursday on its first chance to decide whether there is a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry."
Bzzzt. That ain't the question. They can marry each other to their hearts' content pretty much anywhere in the civilized world (i.e. not muslim countries).
The question is whether the gov't will provide the perks and restrictions of a legally recognized marriage.
I'm all for SSM, and I'm even starting to warm a little tiny bit to rational basis as a means to it (I generally hate rational basis as a legal test), but SCOTUS is right to take a pass on this for now. Let things play out - if all of the circuits find for it, they avoid the dispute entirely and the finding has more legitimacy (having been found by dozens of judges, rather than just 5). Even if there does wind up being a circuit split, an ultimate decision supporting SSM (which I think is inevitable, even if it takes a few years) will be stronger if they are in clear agreement with the strong majority of the circuits.
I don't like that it's going to be decided judicially, rather than legislatively, but your kidding yourselves to think that there's any way around it at this point.
I think that the big problem I have with this debate is that the question that is never asked is what is best for the country and society. The natural result of gay marriage is gay childrearing. Is that a societal good? Or societal harm? And, I would suggest the latter - lesbians seem more interested in childrearing w/I a gay "family", yet are most often singularly unsuited for doing so, most often lacking the paternal childrearing that is so critical for proper and successful socialization of both sexes of children, but esp of the boys.
So, it really comes down to freedom versus duty to society. Lesbians are apparently more likely to raise dysfunctional children than even single mothers who had their children outside of wedlock. It is all about selfishness and narcissism on the part of many gays here.
If gay marriage didn't impact childrearing, I would support it. I do support civil unions (and esp since most often they are also available to straight couples as well, which is nice when you both have kids, etc)
The constitution addresses individual rights. The closest it comes to addressing relationships is implicit in the preamble, "secure the Blessings of Liberty ... and our Posterity".
That said, this is not about homosexual couplets. It cannot be about selective exclusion. This is about normalizing all dysfunctional, unproductive, and fetish behaviors. The only reason to arbitrarily limits its scope, is that advocates and activists for normalization of homosexual behavior, not orientation, believe that progressivism/incrementalism will reduce scrutiny of their selective principles and their consequences.
Either the Supreme Court address the comprehensive issue or they will follow the lead of these advocates and activists, as they did with "pro-choice", and defer judgment and create moral hazards for future generations to reconcile.
Lyssa has it right. This is a mess, and it's probably going to end in another crappy court decision that defies the will of the people through our legislatures, and further degrades faith in the rule of law.
That's just the road we're on.
I believe you. Maybe a decent editor looked at it and said WTF?
And even if they don't take the cases, it will connote precisely zero, no matter how much smoke the media blows. A denial of cert implies no view on the merits, as the court has said repeatedly almost since the Act itself.
Why would an online publication need to demonstrate with a notation that they have edited the originally published language, when they can simply make the change, re-publish, and assume no one will notice enough to call it out.
I have a feeling that businesses that call themselves "news" will look back in 20-30 years and consider the transition of major clearinghouses from print to online content to be their "dark days" of low standards.
Or they'll seamlessly transition into full on gossip houses.
Either way, really.
As a supporter of SSM, I think it makes more sense to let the change of public opinion and its effect on state legislatures lead the way. Politically, it'll make acceptance of SSM more palatable if opponents see they're fighting against the majority opinion rather than the courts.
Look at how Roe affected the country politically. It gave birth to the pro-life movement and if anything more Americans are moderately pro-life than they were in 1973 (though how "pro-life" is defined in terms of policy is up for debate). SSM was a fringe idea back when Clinton decided to throw gays under the bus; now even younger Republicans increasingly favor it.
Regarding "decide whether there is a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry," I second Ignorance is Bliss and point out that in English we say, "a right of persons to marry" not "a right for persons to marry."
Don't we say that there is a 1st Amendment "right of" people to assemble?
Likewise, we say "chance of rain" not "chance for rain" and "risk of cancer" not "risk for cancer."
Most weather reporters, as well as most docs and nurses haven't figured that out yet.
Moreover, I don't "advocate for" proper English but I do advocate English lessons for docs.
You are judged by the words you use, and I screen docs by their ability to speak English.
The Web and Google have made it very hard to learn proper English nowadays, since googling and Ngram viewing will turn up examples of bad English as often, or even more often, than examples of good English.
And for that reason, we prescriptivists need to stay alert and flag bad English wherever it rears its ugly head!
You know what fascinates me? How many things that were the bedrock of traditional western/Christendom culture for hundreds of years... turned out to be illegal this entire time!
Man, what a bunch of chumps all those dead white people were.
No. This is not about progressivism/incrementalism. This group has demonstrated that they in principle and practice do not offer equal consideration to individual dignity and human life.
Alexander:
Even Nature got it wrong. So much for evolutionary principles. There is only evolutionary creationism. However, to be fair, Nature has to compete with human egos. As it turns out, evolutionary fitness was a suggestion, not a natural principle. Or perhaps it was a precautionary observation of intra-species warfare.
"I think that the big problem I have with this debate is that the question that is never asked is what is best for the country and society."
While that seems a reasonable question to ask it is, surely, a question for a legislature and not a court to decide?
Not that that will stop the Court from looking to see if perhaps an emanation from a penumbra of the 14th amendment has already placed the entire question beyond the bounds of mere legislation.
Rights should be protected by the court, I am looking forward to their weighing in on this subject.
Too many laws have been overruled but stayed, having rulings put on hold for over a year is a long way from protecting the rights of those affected.
I have to laugh at this talk of tradition and history after that point has been repeatedly destroyed both in court and in rulings. Trying to appeal to a failed argument just shows the fail in people trying to enforce their moral opinion on society.
I have a question. If the Supreme Court does not take up a same-sex marriage case this term, (even though there are a number of appeals for them to do so,)
do the lower courts' decisions then stand? In other words will same-sex marriages be legal in those circuits that ruled the bans unconstitutional?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा