|
(It is now approximately 11AM, EST. The lawyer arguing against San Francisco’s Mayor Newsome, “Sandy,” is standing, ready to deliver her oral argument before the court.)
Rehnquist: go ahead, counsel.
Sandy: thank you, your honor. What we have here today is the ultimate attempt to redefine marriage. I’ll argue that homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals as the law stands today. I’ll also argue that government recognition of homosexual relationships will do untold damage to the millions of heterosexual couples around the country. First, a homosexual has the same marriage right that a heterosexual has: both are able to marry someone of the opposite sex. If you were –
Ginsburg: Wait. What about men and women? Does the law treat them equally?
Sandy: Yes. Both are legally able to marry a person of the opposite sex. That’s equal treatment.
Ginsburg: But a man has the right to civilly marry a woman and a woman doesn’t have that right. What do you say to this?
Sandy: Well, both have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Men have the right to women, and women have the right to men.
Breyer: So.. it’s a separate-but-equal situation between the sexes?
Sandy: Umm.. yes, but the court has allowed this in certain situations where such treatment is logically warranted.
Breyer: I see.
Sandy: This treatment is logically warranted, for instance, as regards the protection of children.
O’Connor (leaning forward slightly, interest visibly piqued): Go on..
Sandy: Studies have show that a family headed by a man and a woman is the optimal setting in which to rear a child.
Ginsburg: Yes, ideally. But if we were to use the ideal as basis for law, wouldn’t we also use that logic to ban all non-ideal parenting in this country, like single-parent scenarios?
Sandy: Not quite. That would be result in great societal chaos; it’d be very difficult to provide good living arrangements for so many children.
Ginsburg: And I also note that the overwhelming weight of amicus briefs were filed by respected scientific organizations. The American Academy of Pediatrics. The American Psychological Association. The American Psychiatric Association. They all note that homosexuals can be just as fine parents as heterosexuals. Any response to that?
Sandy: We have our own studies from Jerry Falwell University showing just the opposite.
Ginsburg: …
Sandy: I also note that marriage has been between a man and a woman for the past 200 years in this country.
Souter: And where in the law does it say that tradition or history can allow us to ignore the protections of the U.S. Constitution? Tradition and history were used to deny rights to women, blacks, interracial couples, the poor.. So where..?
Sandy: It doesn’t, but breaking this tradition will do society great irreparable harm.
Ginsburg: Okay. What kind of harm do Bob and Tom getting married do to their neighbors next-door, Janie and Chandler?
Sandy: Chandler could become tempted into the homosexual lifestyle, seeing how it’s so easily attainable and accepted then. As a separate note, I add that the majority of Americans feel that this would be religiously immoral.
Scalia: Good luck trying the ‘morality’ route with this court. I can’t convince them. Hmph.
Ginsburg: Yes, well, most felt that the interracial marriages in the Loving case were immoral, and that case was decided unanimously against public opinion. Besides.. weren’t certain protections added into the Constitution to protect unpopular minorities from the majority?
Souter (growing visibly impatient): Okay. You’ve given us history, idealism, religion, tradition, popular opinion, and children as your reasons. Show us where in the U.S. Constitution it says you can ignore the Equal Protection guarantee for a segment of the population for these reasons. We see the guarantee that all laws treat all people equally; it’s as plain as black-and-white in the 14th Amendment. So, once and for all, where - in the actual text of the law - is your legal basis?
Sandy (pointing out the window at nothing): LOOK - the four horsemen!!
Sandy then runs for the door, exiting in a huff.
Ginsburg and Breyer giggle to themselves, trying not to look too joyed. Several months later, the court rules 6-3 in favor of the gay couples. Scalia has a coronary on that day.
THE END.
-------
I wrote it this morning. It sums-up the legal arguments in the case rather well, although I doubt that the justices will be so very vocal. Still, it's pretty revealing..
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
