Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums19 Hysterical Passages From Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage Dissenters
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/06/26/3674385/dissent-marriage-equality/More ink was spilled dissenting todays Supreme Court marriage equality decision than the majoritys opinion required. There were four different dissents, one by Chief Justice John Roberts (joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas), plus separate dissents from Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.
The opinions are rife with criticism for the majority, including claims that they have upended the reputation of the Court, paranoia about the consequences for religious objectors, and a rejection of the idea that the benefits of marriage even constitute a liberty. Heres a look at some of the most hysterical reactions from the dissenting justices.
Roberts: What about the Aztecs?
As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?
Roberts: Marriage is only about children (and the couples who can biologically have them).
The premises supporting this concept of marriage are so fundamental that they rarely require articulation. The human race must procreate to survive. Procreation occurs through sexual relations between a man and a woman. When sexual relations result in the conception of a child, that childs prospects are generally better if the mother and father stay together rather than going their separate ways. Therefore, for the good of children and society, sexual relations that can lead to procreation should occur only between a man and a woman committed to a lasting bond.
Society has recognized that bond as marriage. And by bestowing a respected status and material benefits on married couples, society encourages men and women to conduct sexual relations within marriage rather than without. As one prominent scholar put it, Marriage is a socially arranged solution for the problem of getting people to stay together and care for children that the mere desire for children, and the sex that makes children possible, does not solve.
Roberts: The dictionary says so.
In his first American dictionary, Noah Webster defined marriage as the legal union of a man and woman for life, which served the purposes of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, . . . promoting domestic felicity, and . . . securing the maintenance and education of children.
Roberts: It sure seems like this leads to legal polygamy.
I do not mean to equate marriage between same-sex couples with plural marriages in all respects. There may well be relevant differences that compel different legal analysis. But if there are, petitioners have not pointed to any. When asked about a plural marital union at oral argument, petitioners asserted that a State doesnt have such an institution. But that is exactly the point: the States at issue here do not have an institution of same-sex marriage, either.
Roberts: The opinion isnt very nice to opponents of same-sex marriage.
Perhaps the most discouraging aspect of todays decision is the extent to which the majority feels compelled to sully those on the other side of the debate. The majority offers a cursory assurance that it does not intend to disparage people who, as a matter of conscience, cannot accept same- sex marriage.
By the majoritys account, Americans who did nothing more than follow the understanding of marriage that has existed for our entire history in particular, the tens of millions of people who voted to reaffirm their States enduring definition of marriage have acted to lock . . . out, disparage, disrespect and subordinate, and inflict [d]ignitary wounds upon their gay and lesbian neighbors. These apparent assaults on the character of fairminded people will have an effect, in society and in court.
Roberts: Have your fun, but you just soiled the Constitution.
If you are among the many Americans of whatever sexual orientation who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate todays decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.
The opinions are rife with criticism for the majority, including claims that they have upended the reputation of the Court, paranoia about the consequences for religious objectors, and a rejection of the idea that the benefits of marriage even constitute a liberty. Heres a look at some of the most hysterical reactions from the dissenting justices.
Roberts: What about the Aztecs?
As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?
Roberts: Marriage is only about children (and the couples who can biologically have them).
The premises supporting this concept of marriage are so fundamental that they rarely require articulation. The human race must procreate to survive. Procreation occurs through sexual relations between a man and a woman. When sexual relations result in the conception of a child, that childs prospects are generally better if the mother and father stay together rather than going their separate ways. Therefore, for the good of children and society, sexual relations that can lead to procreation should occur only between a man and a woman committed to a lasting bond.
Society has recognized that bond as marriage. And by bestowing a respected status and material benefits on married couples, society encourages men and women to conduct sexual relations within marriage rather than without. As one prominent scholar put it, Marriage is a socially arranged solution for the problem of getting people to stay together and care for children that the mere desire for children, and the sex that makes children possible, does not solve.
Roberts: The dictionary says so.
In his first American dictionary, Noah Webster defined marriage as the legal union of a man and woman for life, which served the purposes of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, . . . promoting domestic felicity, and . . . securing the maintenance and education of children.
Roberts: It sure seems like this leads to legal polygamy.
I do not mean to equate marriage between same-sex couples with plural marriages in all respects. There may well be relevant differences that compel different legal analysis. But if there are, petitioners have not pointed to any. When asked about a plural marital union at oral argument, petitioners asserted that a State doesnt have such an institution. But that is exactly the point: the States at issue here do not have an institution of same-sex marriage, either.
Roberts: The opinion isnt very nice to opponents of same-sex marriage.
Perhaps the most discouraging aspect of todays decision is the extent to which the majority feels compelled to sully those on the other side of the debate. The majority offers a cursory assurance that it does not intend to disparage people who, as a matter of conscience, cannot accept same- sex marriage.
By the majoritys account, Americans who did nothing more than follow the understanding of marriage that has existed for our entire history in particular, the tens of millions of people who voted to reaffirm their States enduring definition of marriage have acted to lock . . . out, disparage, disrespect and subordinate, and inflict [d]ignitary wounds upon their gay and lesbian neighbors. These apparent assaults on the character of fairminded people will have an effect, in society and in court.
Roberts: Have your fun, but you just soiled the Constitution.
If you are among the many Americans of whatever sexual orientation who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate todays decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.
What a bunch of crazy. And this is just the Roberts dissenting opinions.
The rest at link.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
7 replies, 842 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (5)
ReplyReply to this post
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
19 Hysterical Passages From Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage Dissenters (Original Post)
geardaddy
Jun 2015
OP
"Marriage is only about children (and the couples who can biologically have them)"
KamaAina
Jun 2015
#3
trotsky
(49,533 posts)1. I find Roberts' the most shocking.
Not on their shock value alone (Scalia's got him beat there!), but because many were predicting Roberts would put aside his personal objections in order to be on the right side of history.
geardaddy
(24,931 posts)2. Yeah, that is shocking.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)3. "Marriage is only about children (and the couples who can biologically have them)"
Um, hello, Mr. Chief Justice, Mom and Stepdad got married in their 60s. And he's a Republican.
I know, right?
ladyVet
(1,587 posts)5. Won't somebody please think about the Aztecs???!!1#!!! nt
geardaddy
(24,931 posts)6. I know! what is that?
geardaddy
(24,931 posts)7. Kickety