Streams

Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage Arguments: Day 1

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

U.S. Supreme Court (Justin DC/flickr)

Geoffrey Stoneprofessor at the University of Chicago Law School, dissects the arguments before the Supreme Court over the constitutionality of the Proposition 8 referendum, which affirmed that gay marriage would not be recognized in California.

Listen to the Full Prop 8 Arguments Below

Guests:

Geoffrey Stone

Comments [15]

Sorry jbutzz, we definitely do not have a shared view.

You miss the point, as usual.

Save your bizarre convolution.

Mar. 27 2013 11:31 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

To fuva

I cannot defend the proposition that heterosexual families are better for adopted children than are homosexual families, as there isn't enough data to back up the argument, one way or the other.

Mar. 27 2013 11:14 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

To Dboy

Finally we have found some common ground. "Marriage" is an obsolescent institution that serves only lawyers at this point. "Marriage" was created by men so that they know who their children are. Monogamy was an attempt to create a "fair" distribution of females, as opposed to the practice of other mammals where an alpha male dominates many females, and has to ward off challenges from younger males all the time until he is driven away.
All of that is irrelevant in this "Brave New World." We can soon produce children in factories. We don't need marriage or family anymore. We have the state to take care of us in our old age. We have state run schools that take care of the young most of the day for 16 or more years. Producing children in factories is just a twinkle away.

Mar. 27 2013 11:09 AM
The Truth from Becky

Civil unions, yes...marriage No. Doesn't matter anyways because all the Federal Gov't is concerned with is your filing status on your tax return(s) and all perhaps it is the health & life insurance companies that can turn this around by allowing you to piggyback anyone you want onto your insurance.

Mar. 27 2013 11:06 AM

It's a shame that same sex couples are forced to adopt this ridiculous, obsolete and archaic institution in order to be treated equally.

We should really be discussing the dissolution of absurd patriarchal practice!!

Mar. 27 2013 10:47 AM

Do you REALLY want the government regulating your religious beliefs?!!? ...whether you align with them or not?!?!

The government has NO business regulating who can live together, or not. This is very simply a question of a legal contract between two parties. The same contract is NOT allowed for sam sex couples!!

THIS IS NOT FAIR!!

NO ONE is telling any ignorant religious organization that they MUST host a ceremony they don't want to.

Cooper's argument is VERY thinly veiled religious bigotry.

Mar. 27 2013 10:41 AM
Peg

I am in a heterosexual marriage. After reviewing the history of Marriage, I would prefer to be in a Civil Union - if that union conveyed the same privileges as marriage.

Mar. 27 2013 10:39 AM
RUCB_Alum from Central New Jersey

The country is on a fifty-year cusp where homosexuality has gone from something considered to be perverted, unnatural and rarely practiced openly to an accepted form of the expression of happiness. What was (and still is in some cases) a devastating revelation is on the path to becoming 'no biggie'. I can get behind the state contract of marriage being available to same sex lovers. I don't see where it diminishes me or my society at all. Freedom to love who you will is, at least for me, a greater good.

Unseen future conflicts between heterosexual and homosexual couples for various resources is a non-starter for me. It is more important not to have to re-litigate the ENTIRETY of matrimonial law to see if 'civil unions' are included where ever the current laws says 'marriage' and 'partner' means the same thing where ever the current law says 'husband', 'wife' or 'spouse'.

We have more important things to consider.

Mar. 27 2013 10:38 AM
Gerald Fnord from Palos Verdes, Ca

Weird...I've never been able to think of it as 'redefining' marriage, just extending it as already defined. When you analytically continue a continuous function on the reals to the complex plane, its values on the real line are unaffected.

Less mathematically, I never noticed anything different about my marriage in Massachusetts the morning The Gays were allowed to join in as equals (allowing gays to marry the opposite sex, as conservative wags inevitably mention, is not equal to allowing heterosexuals to do so).

As for reproduction: I think the pro-Eight people are more in touch with a neo-Platonist philosophical tradition in which things have essential natures (connected to their 'ideal' forms)...as such, they can accept the marriage of the sterile as being connected to the ideal form of marriage (much as the consecrated Host is part of the Body of Christ even though its 'accidental' properties of mass, volume, chemical composition, &c appear to be those of some bread or wafer), but same-sex marriages as being fundamentally different, connected as they obviously are to the platonic ideal of {TABU-TABU-BWANAA!!!! NO NO NO!! CEASE RATIONAL THOUGHT _NOW_}. (That is to say, it is usually described by opponents using 'snarl words'.)

Mar. 27 2013 10:36 AM
fuva from harlemworld

jgarbuz,
Your argument favors heterosexual couples over same-sex couples. Which means your primary argument is that heterosexual couples are, ipso facto, better parents than same-sex ones. This is the proposition you must defend.

Mar. 27 2013 10:32 AM

Whatever year the first divorce laws passed, that was the year that marriage stopped being a sacred institution

Mar. 27 2013 10:28 AM
fuva from harlemworld

Wow. Cooper wants folk to fear alleged negative consequences of same-sex marriage that (1) they can't conceive of and (2) he can't articulate.

Mar. 27 2013 10:28 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

One possible adverse effect is that full legalization of same-sex marriage means that they will be allowed to adopt children, which means there will be more competition against childless heterosexual couples looking to adopt. The adoption market is already tight and getting tighter.

Mar. 27 2013 10:27 AM

Charles Cooper is a complete moron and his argument is facile and disingenuous.

HOW IS IT THAT SOMEONE THIS STUPID FINDS HIMSELF ARGUING IN FRONT OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF OUR LAND?!?!?!?

Absurd.

Mar. 27 2013 10:26 AM
Sheldon from Brooklyn

Something will have to give.

If the Supreme Court rules that prop 8 and marriage decisions should go back to the state(s,) then how can they defend DOMA being imposed on gay citizens living in States where same-sex marriage is legal?

Mar. 27 2013 10:19 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.