Shadow of Roe v. Wade Looms Over Ruling on Gay Marriage

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Shadow of Roe v. Wade Looms Over Ruling on Gay Marriage

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/us/roes-shadow-as-supreme-court-hears-same-sex-marriage-cases.html?hp&_r=0

    Progressives have no qualms about having liberal judges dictate their liberal views upon the entire country...but even they recognize that such abuse of the judiciary can backfire politically, and actually hurt their cause...see Roe v Wade.

    Gay marriage advocates never tire of arrogantly comparing their cause to the civil rights struggle..but even in that realm, the impact of Supreme Court decisions are overemphasized. In a democracy, the battle was won by Legislative action, specifically the Civil Rights Act.

    NY Times:

    "Judges, lawyers and scholars have drawn varying lessons from [Roe v Wade], with some saying that it was needlessly rash and created a culture war.

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal and a champion of women’s rights, has long harbored doubts about the ruling.

    “It’s not that the judgment was wrong, but it moved too far, too fast,” she said last year at Columbia Law School.

    Briefs from opponents of same-sex marriage, including one from 17 states, are studded with references to the aftermath of the abortion decision and to Justice Ginsburg’s critiques of it. They say the lesson from the Roe decision is that states should be allowed to work out delicate matters like abortion and same-sex marriage for themselves.

    “They thought they were resolving a contentious issue by taking it out of the political process but ended up perpetuating it,” John C. Eastman, the chairman of the National Organization for Marriage and a law professor at Chapman University, said of the justices who decided the abortion case. “The lesson they should draw is that when you are moving beyond the clear command of the Constitution, you should be very hesitant about shutting down a political debate.”

    Justice Ginsburg has suggested that the Supreme Court in 1973 should have struck down only the restrictive Texas abortion law before it and left broader questions for another day. The analogous approach four decades later would be to strike down California’s ban on same-sex marriage but leave in place prohibitions in about 40 other states.

    During closing arguments in the [Cal gay marriage] case, Judge Walker made it clear that he, too, was working in the shadow of the abortion ruling. He said the Roe case “has plagued our politics for 30 years” because “the Supreme Court has ultimately constitutionalized something that touches upon highly sensitive social issues.”

    Isn’t the danger,” [pro-gay marriage] Judge Walker asked Theodore B. Olson, a lawyer for the two couples challenging the ban, “not that you are going to lose this case, either here or at the court of appeals or at the Supreme Court, but that you might win it?”

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Shadow of Roe v. Wade Looms Over Ruling on Gay Marriage

    Br'er Crankup will you be in the March for Marriage Tuesday in D.C. ?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Shadow of Roe v. Wade Looms Over Ruling on Gay Marriage

    (M) We refuse to accept this as the status quo. 

Posted on the @[177486166274:274:Being Liberal] fan page.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Shadow of Roe v. Wade Looms Over Ruling on Gay Marriage

    Sure.  Overturning the idea of "separate but equal" was a huge mistake too.  We should have left social issues like segregation to the states.  Same with inter-racial marriage, hugely divisive social issue that the court needlessly intefered with. And gay marriage?  Sure, there are no rights involved, that equal protection of the law thingy is not really applicable: states can embrace as much bigotry as they like.  And Conservatives wonder why they are losing support.  Maybe being on the wrong side of history is the answer...  Society is changing... the law is changing as it changes... get used to it. 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Shadow of Roe v. Wade Looms Over Ruling on Gay Marriage

     "Society is changing... the law is changing as it changes... get used to it."

    I agree, the law needs to be changed by "society", meaning the people's representatives in the states...

    Calling your opponents bigots is not a great way to change anyone's opinion....

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Shadow of Roe v. Wade Looms Over Ruling on Gay Marriage

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Shadow of Roe v. Wade Looms Over Ruling on Gay Marriage

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    (M) We refuse to accept this as the status quo. 

Posted on the @[177486166274:274:Being Liberal] fan page.



    So true and so sad

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Shadow of Roe v. Wade Looms Over Ruling on Gay Marriage

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:



    Me too!

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Shadow of Roe v. Wade Looms Over Ruling on Gay Marriage

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     "Society is changing... the law is changing as it changes... get used to it."

    I agree, the law needs to be changed by "society", meaning the people's representatives in the states...

    Calling your opponents bigots is not a great way to change anyone's opinion....



    But it is bigotry.  There is no rational reason to deny gay people equal rights to this civil institution.  Whether the feelings come from religion or "tradition" is irrelevant, you are talking about prejudice against a minority.  And for the same reason, it is a legal problem.  All laws discriminate, but there must be a rational reason for the discrimination.  You are on the wrong side of history.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Shadow of Roe v. Wade Looms Over Ruling on Gay Marriage

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    Sure.  Overturning the idea of "separate but equal" was a huge mistake too.  We should have left social issues like segregation to the states.  Same with inter-racial marriage, hugely divisive social issue that the court needlessly intefered with. And gay marriage?  Sure, there are no rights involved, that equal protection of the law thingy is not really applicable: states can embrace as much bigotry as they like.  And Conservatives wonder why they are losing support.  Maybe being on the wrong side of history is the answer...  Society is changing... the law is changing as it changes... get used to it. 

     




    I'd like to see someone, anyone in congress at least try to repeal DOMA and leave the court out of it, but no, that just won't happen.

     



    The court case is this Tuesday.  

    But it would have been fun to see people go on record on the issue... and squirm with the reaction to follow.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Shadow of Roe v. Wade Looms Over Ruling on Gay Marriage

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    Sure.  Overturning the idea of "separate but equal" was a huge mistake too.  We should have left social issues like segregation to the states.  Same with inter-racial marriage, hugely divisive social issue that the court needlessly intefered with. And gay marriage?  Sure, there are no rights involved, that equal protection of the law thingy is not really applicable: states can embrace as much bigotry as they like.  And Conservatives wonder why they are losing support.  Maybe being on the wrong side of history is the answer...  Society is changing... the law is changing as it changes... get used to it. 

     




    I'd like to see someone, anyone in congress at least try to repeal DOMA and leave the court out of it, but no, that just won't happen.

     




    Diane Feinstein sponsored a repeal of DOMA in 2011.  It made it out of commitee on party line votes (dems for reps against) but obviously the 60 votes weren't there in the Senate (and it had no chance in the House)

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Shadow of Roe v. Wade Looms Over Ruling on Gay Marriage

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

     "Society is changing... the law is changing as it changes... get used to it."

    I agree, the law needs to be changed by "society", meaning the people's representatives in the states...

    Calling your opponents bigots is not a great way to change anyone's opinion....

     



    But it is bigotry.  There is no rational reason to deny gay people equal rights to this civil institution.  Whether the feelings come from religion or "tradition" is irrelevant, you are talking about prejudice against a minority.  And for the same reason, it is a legal problem.  All laws discriminate, but there must be a rational reason for the discrimination.  You are on the wrong side of history.

     



    But, gays have equal rights.  It is called civil unions.  Civil unions confer all the same rights as marraige.

    It is not prejudice against a minority.  it is the homosexual commuity re-writing the meaning of words.

    I know in your view I am on the wrong side of this, but your viewpoint is simply illogical, that I should capitulate becasue so many other people feel the same way.  it is not about feelings, or how many people think one way or another.  That's got to be the stupidest reason for gay marraige.  Ti is either right, or it is wrong, on the merits, even is 1% of the propulation supported it.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Shadow of Roe v. Wade Looms Over Ruling on Gay Marriage

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

     "Society is changing... the law is changing as it changes... get used to it."

    I agree, the law needs to be changed by "society", meaning the people's representatives in the states...

    Calling your opponents bigots is not a great way to change anyone's opinion....

     



    But it is bigotry.  There is no rational reason to deny gay people equal rights to this civil institution.  Whether the feelings come from religion or "tradition" is irrelevant, you are talking about prejudice against a minority.  And for the same reason, it is a legal problem.  All laws discriminate, but there must be a rational reason for the discrimination.  You are on the wrong side of history.

     

     



    But, gays have equal rights.  It is called civil unions.  Civil unions confer all the same rights as marraige.

     

    It is not prejudice against a minority.  it is the homosexual commuity re-writing the meaning of words.

    I know in your view I am on the wrong side of this, but your viewpoint is simply illogical, that I should capitulate becasue so many other people feel the same way.  it is not about feelings, or how many people think one way or another.  That's got to be the stupidest reason for gay marraige.  Ti is either right, or it is wrong, on the merits, even is 1% of the propulation supported it.



    Why do you not want gays to be able to get married? Why do you care?

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Shadow of Roe v. Wade Looms Over Ruling on Gay Marriage

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

     "Society is changing... the law is changing as it changes... get used to it."

    I agree, the law needs to be changed by "society", meaning the people's representatives in the states...

    Calling your opponents bigots is not a great way to change anyone's opinion....

     



    But it is bigotry.  There is no rational reason to deny gay people equal rights to this civil institution.  Whether the feelings come from religion or "tradition" is irrelevant, you are talking about prejudice against a minority.  And for the same reason, it is a legal problem.  All laws discriminate, but there must be a rational reason for the discrimination.  You are on the wrong side of history.

     

     



    But, gays have equal rights.  It is called civil unions.  Civil unions confer all the same rights as marraige.

     

    It is not prejudice against a minority.  it is the homosexual commuity re-writing the meaning of words.

    I know in your view I am on the wrong side of this, but your viewpoint is simply illogical, that I should capitulate becasue so many other people feel the same way.  it is not about feelings, or how many people think one way or another.  That's got to be the stupidest reason for gay marraige.  Ti is either right, or it is wrong, on the merits, even is 1% of the propulation supported it.




    There is no objective standard, so it is pretty important to determinehow people feel on the issue.  One could argue that splitting hairs over civil unions and marriages is itself silly and unproductive since at the end of the day both are legal statuses with associated legal benefits.  Calling one a "civil union" makes as much sense as calling it a "peach basket" because at the end of the day its the same thing as a marriage.  The ceremonial aspect of marriage is completely irrelevant in the eyes of the law, which is why a marriage without a legal marraige certificate is not a legally, a marriage.  Civil unions are little more than a societal attempt to meet halfway on an issue that deserves full consideration.  Its a mechanism for people to feel better about the "sanctity" of marriage even though as an institution it has been trashed and diminished.  This isn't a zero sum affair, gays marrying won't devalue heterosexual marriages. 

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Shadow of Roe v. Wade Looms Over Ruling on Gay Marriage

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

     "Society is changing... the law is changing as it changes... get used to it."

    I agree, the law needs to be changed by "society", meaning the people's representatives in the states...

    Calling your opponents bigots is not a great way to change anyone's opinion....

     



    But it is bigotry.  There is no rational reason to deny gay people equal rights to this civil institution.  Whether the feelings come from religion or "tradition" is irrelevant, you are talking about prejudice against a minority.  And for the same reason, it is a legal problem.  All laws discriminate, but there must be a rational reason for the discrimination.  You are on the wrong side of history.

     

     



    But, gays have equal rights.  It is called civil unions.  Civil unions confer all the same rights as marraige.

     

    It is not prejudice against a minority.  it is the homosexual commuity re-writing the meaning of words.

    I know in your view I am on the wrong side of this, but your viewpoint is simply illogical, that I should capitulate becasue so many other people feel the same way.  it is not about feelings, or how many people think one way or another.  That's got to be the stupidest reason for gay marraige.  Ti is either right, or it is wrong, on the merits, even is 1% of the propulation supported it.



    Civil unions do not exist in all states.  Marriage does.  And marriage is what is referenced in federal statutes.  So your argument is a false one.  

    And of course it is prejudice: they have less rights without a rational reason for having less rights.  You yourself call gays a "cancer".  That is prejudice.  There is no logic involved.  It is religious of tradition based hatred.  That's faith or emotion, not rationality.  Like so many conservatives, you are on the wrong side of history.  Your traditions are dying because they make no rational sense.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Shadow of Roe v. Wade Looms Over Ruling on Gay Marriage

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Shadow of Roe v. Wade Looms Over Ruling on Gay Marriage

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:



    Use your words, not visuals....

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Shadow of Roe v. Wade Looms Over Ruling on Gay Marriage

    Br'er Crankup my visuals are easier to understand and quicker to read than your novels ...

    btw how do you like those words .......

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Shadow of Roe v. Wade Looms Over Ruling on Gay Marriage

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

    But, gays have equal rights.  It is called civil unions.  Civil unions confer all the same rights as marraige.

     

     


    No, they actually don't confer the same rights.  Dozens of benefits exist for married couples that don't exist for civil union'ed couples.  (If they were truly equal, why not make ALL marriages civil unions?)  The tax code alone is loaded with them.

    This is why gay marriage is just as much an economic issue as a social one.

    And this ignores all of the states which have likewise banned civil unions...why, exactly?  If they really want equal rights for all people - including gays - they would advocate for them.

    They won't, because they don't.

     

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Shadow of Roe v. Wade Looms Over Ruling on Gay Marriage

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

    Br'er Crankup my visuals are easier to understand and quicker to read than your novels ...

    btw how do you like those words .......

     



     

    fake compassionate visuals are easier to understand , for Democrat low information voters barely educated in public schools,  who can hardly read but can be visually spoonfed the leftist koolaid....

     



    Br'er Inspector Javert do you hear this .......


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to1PCOpLcYU

     

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Shadow of Roe v. Wade Looms Over Ruling on Gay Marriage

    During the argument, Justice Antonin Scalia was the one justice who voiced the most skepticism about the argument that limiting marriage to heterosexual couples is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

    He said to Olson, “I'm curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted? Was it always unconstitutional?”

    Olson replied that “when we as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control” then at that point limiting marriage became unconstitutional.

    Scalia then asked, “When did that happen?”

    Olson responded, “There's no specific date in time. This is an evolutionary cycle.”

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share