The supreme court's problem: how to back America out of anti-gay bigotry | Ana Marie Cox

opponents of gay marriage do not like civil rights analogies. No luck: Doma is unconstitutional because it is unfair

U.S. Supreme Court observers groaned as the winner of a Peabody Award SCOTUSblog.com well considered and put all the chances that the Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) 80% . Regarding predictability goes, decisions of the Supreme Court are somewhere between the time of the next week and the career of Tilda Swinton. Maybe SCOTUSblog played in a little show, a commentary on the search for specificity and safety in a number of cases that focus on the ineffable realm of human emotions. Love, of course, but also fear and anxiety and even outright bigotry that goes against love.

is a sign of progress, perhaps, that the proponents of Proposition 8 and Doma just as soon pretend that emotions have nothing to do with his arguments. Darkest somewhere, could be a file that "love" was, in fact, what distinguishes a homosexual heterosexual. This dark age was, of course, last year, when the Protect Marriage Maine referendum campaign against the state to allow gay marriage with a statement that included the following statement:

"The basis of homosexuality centers around anonymous sexual encounters ... is large predator. "

Protect Marriage Maine

your site fairly quickly deleted this statement. In general, proponents of "traditional marriage" have learned to formulate their arguments with increasing caution with respect to judgments of moral absolutes. This has led, paradoxically, to an emphasis on green body central, almost unique standing to defend Proposition 8 was heterosexual couples who are responsible for the child - or, in the words of Charles Cooper defense lawyer

"state interest and the interest of society in what was presented as responsible parenthood is - is vital, but basically, in respect of those interests, our communication is that same-sex couples and opposite sex are simply not in the same situation. "

never Let it be known that they were the defenders of traditional values ??that have forced the highest court in the country to reflect on how far is that "with regard to procreation" - "background" no less - same-sex couples and opposite-sex "are not in the same situation." Should I draw a map?

If this was not annoying enough, Justice Elena Kagan has opened the door to more explicit material beyond your reasonable observation that even same-sex couples to marry in order to "race "

"If women and men over 55 years, there are many young people who leave the marriage."

And then asked if the logic of Cooper enable the State to refuse the elderly right for a marriage license.

allow

After asking "Are you rich?" counter of marriage is "an invasion of privacy contrary to the Constitution," Justice Antonin Scalia has invaded our minds by suggesting that the notion of what Kagan is "too old to have children" suffered for not not meet the cunning racist Strom Thurmond, who is the father of her last child at the age of 74 years. Thurmond, Justice Scalia said: "He was the chairman of the Senate committee when the judge Kagan has been confirmed." Powered by apparently this anecdote, Cooper agreed then:

"Very few people survive their own fertility."

Think of old screws, everyone! We could lose a lot of possibilities for the baby if it is the image that we were on.

Scalia was, as always, very nasty episode, talkative, strong misanthropic type the word "harrumph" bursts. Tuesday, barking questions at Cooper somewhat unfortunate. "Mr. Cooper, let me ... let me give you a ... something concrete, "he muttered at one point. "I do not know why not talk about concrete things." This led to the passive-aggressive offers the following point:

"There is disagreement among sociologists that the consequences of raising a child in a family ... in one sex because it is detrimental to the child or not."

Meet

the same script of two layers that all homophobes not working today, Justice Scalia was careful to stay away from TURN GAY GAY actually say GUYS (or worse): "No I take no position on whether it is dangerous or not, "he said in an I-just-sayin' there", but the truth is ... there is no scientific answer to this question at this time. "

Aa issues
time and public opinion has overshadowed the whole procedure. Scalia, for example, seems to be particularly aware that the tides of history and logic in Sun erode intellectual denies the extension of rights to gays and lesbians. His insistence, at some point, the plaintiff lawyer Ted Olson provide the exact date that deny marriage rights to gay couples "became unconstitutional" reads as Captain Queeg type of failure:



"I curiosity when ... when ... when is it became unconstitutional to exclude same-sex couples to marry? 1791? 1868, when the 14th Amendment was adopted? ... Sometimes, shortly after Baker, in which he said that even raises a question of federal fund? when ... when ... when it becomes a law? When do you think that it was unconstitutional? Have you always been contrary to the Constitution? has always been contrary to the Constitution? When was ... Well, how am I supposed to know how to judge a case, if you can not date the changes in the constitution? "

is likely that employees accused of stealing his strawberries.

Ted Olson, wisely, this monologue interrupted at one point apt rhetorical response:

"When did it become unconstitutional to ban interracial marriages and when it became unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools?"

• In other words, the beauty of the U.S. Constitution is that we found inside the tools to extend rights in cases where the issue of "rights" was not even a category imagined 100 years ago. Thus we live in a country where a black man is president, even if he had not allowed through the front door of the White House, a century earlier. These rights have not really changed that much, you just read to reflect a growing understanding that deserve
• This logic is in fact at the heart of the argument against the defense of Marriage Act. "Traditional" marriage supporters argued that allows two people of the same sex to marry somehow change the definition of marriage (which was the opposite of babies!). Lawyers who argue against the Defense of Marriage Act, today urged the court for a definition of marriage as the only smart question "insert-tab-A-into-slot-B" logic of equality fight cross. Changing the definition of persons
• Can

marry, they say, does not change the definition of marriage, but also increases the number of people who can benefit. And allow different races to drink at the source water does not cool, gay marriage will not be any wedding revered and vital.

people oppose marriage equality when you do not like finding analogies racial civil rights, and there is a simple reason: they do not want considered as fanatics. But here's the thing: are fans

Find best price for : --Marie----Kaplan----Roberts----Westboro----Bravo----Ellen----Strom----Scalia----Antonin----Maine----Protect----SCOTUSblog----Peabody----Doma----marriage--