Comments on: Some friendly thoughts on the Connecticut same-sex marriage case

By: ArrMatey

ArrMatey — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 03:06:33 +0000

Sky Cat — What argument? I didn’t make one. I did a reader’s digest explanation of what’s going on.

In theory, SCOTUS doesn’t have “absolute power over state supreme courts”, though recent history shows us that SCOTUS has absolute power over 50 states and the other two branches of government, but that is another discussion entirely. In reality, when a state supreme court rules on the basis of the federal equal protection clause, SCOTUS would absolutely have a say in that, although that hasn’t happened to date on this specific issue.

And in case I wasn’t clear: FSU College of Law 1995. I know it isn’t Yale, but the football team is much better.

By: sky cat

sky cat — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:49:26 +0000

In case I wasn’t clear, I am questioning the “law school” degree of original poster.

By: sky cat

sky cat — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:46:44 +0000

Bowers is not valid precedent anymore. However, this argument is weak and pretends that the SCoTUS has absolute power over state supreme courts. This is obviously errant and shows that you have little knowledge of the law.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 03:13:32 +0000

I may be wrong about this, but I thought that Lawrence v. Texas expressly overturned Bowers v. Hardwick. I also thought that the Supreme Court had the authority to decide that it was wrong in the past and to correct its mistakes. I haven’t read Lawrence v. Texas in detail, so I’m not familiar to what extent it overrules Bowers v. Hardwick, but I think at the very least it’s pretty suspect to cite it as binding authority.
May I ask you if you believe in global warming? There is more evidence that homosexuality is an unchangeable, unchosen condition that shows up in people at random than there is that global warming is man-made. By your logic, all the government’s actions on global warming are premature.

By: belledame222

belledame222 — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 23:01:51 +0000

And no, actually, there are a number of people who do not believe that civil rights are dependent on whether or not one can “help” being different (i.e. the “choice”). It’s a crap argument that people have fallen back on only because for some reason it seems occasionally like it actually lands when nothing else does. Listen, it’s really none of anyone’s business why Joe Schmo is “that way” or why he decides to marry John instead of Jill. Apparently the “nature” argument was necessary to get it through some peoples’ heads that no, actually, it isn’t just a “phase” that people engage in just to spite their law-abiding straight neighbors, it’s not something one gets up in the morning and decides on a whim.

The argument that you’re sort of tapdancing around here is, rather, that there is somehow something inherently -harmful- in Joe marrying John that directly affects Bill and Agnes down the block. What you’re trying to argue here is based on the notion that Joe and John -need- to prove that goshes they -would- marry June and Gladys, respectively, if they could, but they can’t. We all know that’s crap; they could be celibate, just like the Catholic Church advocates.

They could be, but they shouldn’t have to be. Any more than you. Because the case that it actually -does- bother Bill and Agnes in any way other than a vague sense of “I don’t like it, and it shouldn’t be happening” still hasn’t been made.

It’s really not that complicated.

By: belledame222

belledame222 — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 22:53:38 +0000

Oh, sorry: and previously, the right to not be randomly attacked just for existing and/or to have sex without the risk of getting arrested for it. So demanding, those gayers.

By: belledame222

belledame222 — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 22:51:33 +0000

That’s about the most convoluted argument I’ve ever heard to try and explain away how giving other people the same rights you already have is making them a “protected class.” I mean, marriage! Just like straight people! Next thing you know they’ll want guaranteed places first in line at the movies.

Who are you kidding? The real problem isn’t that gay people are demanding “special” protections or rights or whatever the buzzword is today; the problem is someone finally said that -you- don’t get to be a “special, protected” class anymore, and it BURNS, PRECIOUS.

You want to make the argument that you DESERVE to be “specially” protected as a straight person who is wedded to one very narrow and fairly recent form of relationship, go right ahead; but don’t try to make that argument and simultaneously claim that it’s everyone -else- who’s asking for special treatment; they aren’t. Just you.