Rock and A Hard Place

I almost feel sorry for the opponents of gay marriage.  No, not really, but they truly are in a terrible position.  Every argument they’ve advanced has been shot down by actual, oh facts.  Damn those facts and their known liberal bias.  They are now before the Supreme Court.  They know they can’t advance a religious argument to support a ban so they are grasping for anything no matter how nonsensical.  Here is the latest and it proves that once again forces on the Right are bringing the stupid.

Unplanned Pregnancies

I have read this article three times, and I still cannot fathom the argument being presented.  Gay marriage will cause people to have more unplanned pregnancies?  If people have an unplanned out-of-wedlock pregnancy then they have to be forced to get married, and they better not marry somebody gay?  I would hate to stand up in the Supreme Court and advance this argument.   To argue before the Supremes is the highest achievement a lawyer can attain.  And this is going to be their argument.

The California Prop 8 ban and DOMA are two rulings that are going to be very interesting.  The Court cannot uphold the idea that people can be stripped of fundamental rights by a simple majority vote.  That is antithetical to everything for which this country stands.  And DOMA is just unconstitutional on it’s face.  14th Amendment, equal protection, all that.

It sure is interesting that the political philosophy that opposes big government and freedom from government interference sure does want the government peering into every bedroom, and telling women they are nothing more than walking incubators.

10 Responses to Rock and A Hard Place

  • Drew Bittner says:

    Baffling indeed. I can’t imagine that these people really believe they have a legal argument here. It’s as if they’re flailing desperately, hoping to strike (by accident, surely) some notion that will save the day for their doomed parade float of intolerance. I mean, do they think the courts will NOT strike down stupid, ill-reasoned “defenses” like these?
    The mind boggles.

  • Steve Halter says:

    I think they are trying to assert that since an opposite sex couple could have an unplanned pregnancy they need additional help. They then assert that additional help must be marriage.
    I think they maybe need to retake some basic classes in logic.

  • Darlene M. Stapp says:

    Basically, as I see it. We (citizens or governments thereof) shouldn’t be so eager to dictate the conduct of another person or persons who are not harming, mentally or physically anyone. Any person should be protected from harm by those who don’t agree with their sexual ordination chosen or thrust upon them by nature (birth.) No one should have a law that says what they can do, rather cannot do with their private lives. Marriage is a word that reflects two people (usually male and female, yes) making a bond to support and care for each other. So, a bond is a bond no matter what label it has on a piece of paper. Sound like the to-may-toe vs. the to-mot- toe interpretation when it’s just a tomato – soup. My bottom, as I have indicated on the occasions when I hear or read a fan dissing a public figure’s choices in their lives – “It’s none of my (our) business.”

  • Darlene M. Stapp says:

    Sorry, it’s – My bottom line, is … (Kept awake until 5 a.m. by warning sirens concerning the weather – so I’m really blown away today.)

  • JaniceG says:

    Here’s the chain of (il)logic: the only reason we have marriage is to ensure that children aren’t bastards and since gay couples don’t have to worry about that, they don’t need to get married.

  • Melinda Snodgrass says:

    Thank you all for weighing in. It feels like all of these attitudes come from a place of fear. Of terrorism, of brown people, of immigrants, of gays, etc. etc. I would hate to go through life this frightened.

  • JaniceG says:

    Regarding the fear factor, you might enjoy this story:

  • Melinda Snodgrass says:

    That was an awesome and hilarious link, Janice. Thank you so much providing that. Love it!

  • I have to say that as a hard core libertarian constitutionalist, I find the arguments against same-sex marriage at best unconvincing. DOMA, in particular, seems to flatly violate the requirement for “full faith and credence.” And it quite appalled me to realize that the California state constitution could be amended to deny individual rights by a simple majority vote. There’s a reason for supermajoritarian requirements to amend constitutions!

  • Melinda Snodgrass says:

    DOMA is a violation of the 14th amendment equal protection clause. That’s the real reason it cannot, should not, must not stand. Full faith and credit is also important, but it’s singling out a class of people for unequal treatment that is really loathsome. And yes, people’s right should not be contingent on the whim of a majority.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *