Headlines

LAT

Gay marriage and SCOTUS: Kennedy vs. Scalia

The California case on Proposition 8 could be far more significant because it involves the right to marry. Ted Olson and David Boies, the attorneys who led the challenge, plan to argue broadly that marriage is a fundamental right and that excluding gay couples from marriage denies them the equal protection of the law.

A Kennedy-Scalia clash from a decade ago gives a preview. When two gay men challenged a Texas anti-sodomy law, Kennedy wrote a glowing opinion taking their side. “They are entitled to respect for their private lives,” he said, and “the state cannot demean” them by treating them as second-class citizens.

In a moment of high drama, Kennedy gave a professorial reading of his opinion on the last day of the court term in 2003. When he finished, Scalia’s voice cut through the room as he delivered an angry dissent.

Kennedy’s opinion left the laws against same-sex marriage “on pretty shaky grounds,” Scalia said at the time. “If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is ‘no legitimate state interest’ … what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples?”

Read the Article

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

More Gaybies!

;)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 9, 2012 at 9:41 PM

what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples?”

Or polygamy, or consanguineous marriage, or polyandry, or whatever weird and bizarre combinations one’s imagination can come up with.

Rebar on December 9, 2012 at 9:46 PM

Fruits need to go back to the orchard. Or something.

platypus on December 9, 2012 at 9:52 PM

Ted Olson and David Boies, the attorneys who led the challenge, plan to argue broadly that marriage is a fundamental right and that excluding gay couples from marriage denies them the equal protection of the law.

I hope they would defend a polygamist, or they are hypocrites.

thebrokenrattle on December 9, 2012 at 9:53 PM

If marriage is a fundamental right, then I demand a hot-looking wife who can cook.

John the Libertarian on December 9, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Let’s see….

Kennedy is glowing and professorial yet Scalia cuts through with angry dissent…

Try not to pimp your Hollyweird theatrics so obviously mm-kay L. A. Times?

viking01 on December 9, 2012 at 10:00 PM

Zombie JFK vs. live, old Scalia? My bet is on the zombie.

tommy71 on December 9, 2012 at 10:06 PM

This is going to happen eventually. Whatever. I don’t care what they do.

I’m sick of having it shoved in my face and being commanded to cheer for it, anyway.

My question is, what will they demand next? There is always a next.

Moesart on December 9, 2012 at 11:15 PM

If marriage is a fundamental right, then I demand a hot-looking wife who can cook.

John the Libertarian on December 9, 2012 at 9:57 PM

So dumb……

libfreeordie on December 9, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Fruits need to go back to the orchard. Or something.

platypus on December 9, 2012 at 9:52 PM

We have people who belong in jail making our ‘laws’ and people who should be in an insane asylum in court getting ‘married’. Our nation has gone utterly mad.

MelonCollie on December 9, 2012 at 11:20 PM

So dumb……

libfreeordie on December 9, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Oh dear, the intelligence police who engage in profligate deficit spending are here.

tom daschle concerned on December 9, 2012 at 11:23 PM

So dumb……

libfreeordie on December 9, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Ayeah, that would be like me saying the 2nd Amendment meant someone had to give me a rifle and 1000 rounds of ammo.

MelonCollie on December 9, 2012 at 11:28 PM

So dumb……
libfreeordie on December 9, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Whats dumb is somehow there is something apparently wrong with those of us who find your life style utterly unnatural and abhorrent in this Brave New America of yours.

jawkneemusic on December 9, 2012 at 11:36 PM

Gay marriage and SCOTUS: Kennedy vs. Scalia

Thunderdome Cage Match: Two men enter; one couple leaves
…or not.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 9, 2012 at 11:40 PM

This is going to happen eventually. Whatever. I don’t care what they do.

I’m sick of having it shoved in my face and being commanded to cheer for it, anyway.

My question is, what will they demand next? There is always a next.

Moesart on December 9, 2012 at 11:15 PM

You WILL like it.

cptacek on December 9, 2012 at 11:47 PM

So dumb……

libfreeordie on December 9, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Ayeah, that would be like me saying the 2nd Amendment meant someone had to give me a rifle and 1000 rounds of ammo.

MelonCollie on December 9, 2012 at 11:28 PM

Gosh, Einsteins. What part could have possibly tipped you off that it was hyperbole? The hot-looking part, or the cooking part?

John the Libertarian on December 9, 2012 at 11:52 PM

My question is, what will they demand next? There is always a next.

Moesart on December 9, 2012 at 11:15 PM

Sue and picket until churches have to host anti-gay sermons underground – figuratively if not literally. Personally I’d recommend experienced urban explorers as guides.

We’ll be very fortunate if we can even hold the line by lawful means; as pointed out elsewhere opposition to pervert ‘marriage’ is literally dying off, and my generation is as stupid on this as we are on everything else. I completely expect that within my lifetime someone, somewhere, will resort to force of arms to defend their house of worship.

MelonCollie on December 9, 2012 at 11:59 PM

MelonCollie on December 9, 2012 at 11:59 PM

I think it’s going to get worse before it gets better. Hope it doesn’t get bad enough that most Christians resort to underground house churches, but that’s the way it looks like it’s heading.

Logus on December 10, 2012 at 12:26 AM

Excellent article at Public Discourse. They have some good things over there.

The Future of Marriage: “Why The Inevitable” Is Not Inevitable

As we continue to debate this issue, three important forces can shift the outcome in favor of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Consider first, public opinion; second, the methods and the message of LGBT activists; and third, reality.

INC on December 10, 2012 at 12:53 AM

Excerpt from #1: Public Opinion

The American public offers differing levels of assent to same-sex marriage, depending on how the survey questions are worded. Psychologically, it matters how questions are asked….

Despite large sums spent—as happened this November when gay activists spent a whopping $33 million—the notion that marriage is between a man and a woman continues to hold sway; and, no matter how hard activists try, it seems impossible to strip it away from the human heart of a very substantial portion of people. It is the reality of common sense deeply embedded in the human heart.

INC on December 10, 2012 at 12:54 AM

Excerpt from #2: Methods & Message

Efforts by the LGBT movement to make school curricula more sympathetic to the gay agenda continue to raise concerns among parents….

LGBT activists have had to go out of their way to reassure parents they are in charge of teaching values to their children, given the powerful evidence provided by Schubert, and experienced by many parents….

But this is misleading. As Jane Robbins and Emmett McGroarty show in their Public Discourse article “Mandating Our Religious Freedom,” the current Progressive movement, of which LGBT activists are a core constituency, is clearly moving in the opposite direction. And in a more recent Public Discourse article “A War on Religion?” Bruce Hausknecht provides examples contrary to the message LGBT leaders are now using to win.

INC on December 10, 2012 at 12:55 AM

Excerpt from #3: Reality

This section is the longest.

The Left now has the White House (for four more years), in addition to the universities, Hollywood, large portions of the media, and high-tech industry.

But can this reliance on the power of the elite institutions be sustained in the long run? Perhaps, if the majority of the people come to accept that to flourish one is to be allowed to do whatever one wants regarding sexual practices. I submit that the majority of people do not grasp that this is the message of the LGBT movement, and as they do grasp it, they will shift to the view that our sexuality has boundaries and is ordained toward something greater than whatever we want….

Human suffering will periodically remind us that losing a healthy marriage culture produces all kinds of practical costs and penalties. These are measured by those social pathologies that impose a great weight on our society, such as depression, addiction, violence, and illness, as well as missed educational and economic opportunities. However you slice it, the intact biological family continues to be the best “Department of Health, Education and Welfare” when it comes to raising the next generation. Marriage is worth fighting for, even if we lose. Because remember, LGBT activists will lose too as they bring us all down. And that is a sobering thought.

INC on December 10, 2012 at 12:57 AM

Doesn’t every straight dude want a hot wife that’s a good cook? Don’t blame them, better than some ugly, bitter hag droning on about how the patriarchy keeps her down, or some ish like that.Even if John the Libertarian meant it hyperbolically, there’s nothing wrong with that desire, Libdumbanddie.

di butler on December 10, 2012 at 6:58 AM

I have a friend who works in frozen-dairy. He’s a guy in his late 30′s, he’s also a dem…and he’s homosexual.
He has a boyfriend. I’ve met him. M**** knows that I’m conservative-and he doesn’t shove his ‘lifestyle’ in my face. He doesn’t shove it in ANY of our faces. I’ll occasionally b*tch about my husband or he about his boyfriend and I’ll respond with something like ‘ Well,that’s a man for ya!’. We both laugh-and that’s the end of it.
If only every homosexual/lesbian could be like my friend…

annoyinglittletwerp on December 10, 2012 at 9:25 AM

*sigh*

I am so tired of hearing this debate framed as “should or shouldn’t gays have the right to marry?” If you can frame the debate as granting or denying rights, then you’ve lost the argument already. “Gay marriage” will be a reality.

Instead, what we should be focused on is that we are not advocating denying anyone anything. Yes, marriage is a fundamental right. But the word “marriage” means something specific. It means the lifelong union of one man to one woman. It does not mean anything else. Homosexuals have, and have always had, the right to marry. Except since they’re not interested in people of the opposite sex, they don’t want to be with anyone they could possibly marry.

This is not a debate about rights. It is a debate about changing definitions to fit an agenda. And it is as ludicrous as passing legislation to say that water is not wet.

Shump on December 10, 2012 at 9:42 AM