What you probably didn't hear though is just how bad [from the basis of any kind of framework] the dissent is.
Which was actually easily predictable, given that any defense of banning gay marriage was likley going to rest primarily on the idea that the Federal Government can't change the state definition of marriage.
Which happens to not be true.
In 1878 in case called Reynolds v. United States, the Supreme Court overrode state marriage laws and banned polygamy. Or in a 1967 in a case called Loving v. Virginia, the SCOTUS again overrode marriage laws and said states could be forced to marry any 2 hetrosexual people who wanted to get married.
Now this by no means ensured a victory for the pro gay marriage side (given that of the two cases mentioned, 1 would be considered a conservative/"traditional" victory today, the other a liberal/"equality" victory). All it means is that the US actually has a very long history of having the federal government define marriage any god damn way it wants, fuck the states.
By the way, both of those cases were fucking unanimous, so there is literally not a Justice in history, until today, who heard a case about redefining marriage by national fiat and said "no actually we cant do that".
So that is the incredibly weak, functionally non existent position the minority is trying to work from here.
We start with the Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts:
"The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.”
Thats right, no basis in precedent.....except for the 2 UNANIMOUS decisions over the course of about 90 years. But other than that......
Apparently oblivious to the history of his own job, Roberts continues:
"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 child’s 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.”"
And he's got a point, except for the whole divorce thing which allows you to leave a marriage and your kids. Oh and people like this
 |
| Bristol Palin |
But lastly and perhaps most importantly is Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 Supreme Court Case, which actually made it illegal to stop a married person from using contraception, because in part marriage wasnt only about children.
Man John Roberts might want to look into these "Supreme Court" guys....they seem to think he's a moron....
Luckily for Roberts, he has a found a higher power to drawn from (and shockingly not God):
"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.”"
Now Noah Webster's first dictionary was published in 1806. I dont have it in front of me, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess defines the word "African American" as follows: "not possible, property cant be an american" or the word "Woman" as "property of her husband"
I'd also guess it doesnt have definitions for words like "car" "radio" "baseball" "jeans" or "internet"
What I'm getting at is, it might not be the most reliable up to date source to pull from.
But its not like Roberts had a choice here. I looked up "marriage" in the current version of Webster's dictionary came up with this:
" (1) the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage"
So the dictionary cited by the Chief Justice of the United States in his defense against allowing gays to get married, actually defines marriage as being possibly same sex.
Well thats awkward.......
Granted its not the oddest thing Roberts said
"Perhaps the most discouraging aspect of today’s 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 majority’s 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."
Translation: I'm against gays getting married because allowing them to do so would suggest that those of us with our heads up our asses about our own legal history, might in fact be morons, and while true, forcing us to admit that is just mean......
Luckily for Roberts, and sadly for the rest of us, he was hardly alone in his self inflicted cranial penetration of the anal cavity. Take his fellow Bush appointee Sam Alito who also thinks its mean to point out he's an idiot.
"It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.
I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.
By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas. Recalling the harsh treatment of gays and lesbians in the past, some may think that turnabout is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds."
No, actually I take that back. Justice Alito thinks it mean to point out he is both a moron AND a bigot in a way almost identically comparable to those on the losing of Loving v Virginia 50 years ago.
 |
| Alito also called this an "upside down black heart on a stick" and stated other names for it were too negative. |
Moving on to Horseman Number 3. Justice Clarence Thomas, who makes two points mostly proving he's not paying attention.
"Petitioners cannot claim, under the most plausible definition of “liberty,” that they have been imprisoned or physically restrained by the States for participating in same-sex relationships. To the contrary, they have been able to cohabitate and raise their children in peace. They have been able to hold civil marriage ceremonies in States that recognize same-sex marriages and private religious ceremonies in all States. They have been able to travel freely around the country, making their homes where they please. Far from being incarcerated or physically restrained, petitioners have been left alone to order their lives as they see fit."
Except, even that is a relatively recent development. Up until EXACTLY 12 years ago (June 26th 2003) gays could in fact be arrested and imprisoned (so physically restrained) by the state for engaging in homosexual activities with consenting adults in their own homes.
And by the way, that change is actually no thanks to you. It was due to a SCOTUS case called Lawrence v. Texas, that was decided 6-3. One of the 3 in favor of locking up gays for consensual sex was one Justice Clarence Thomas. In fact, he authored his own damn dissent.
Apparently it seems Justice Thomas can no longer remember things that have happened to Justice Thomas, as according to Justice Thomas, no living gay person has ever been imprisoned just for being gay.....
"The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity)
because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied
governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away."
So according to Thomas, it doesnt really matter if you cant marry the person you love, get locked up by your government for how you look, or are in fact legally classified as non-human. As long as you have your dignity, whats the problem? go fuck off.
Which is an especially shocking opinion in light of the fact that, had Thomas' predecessors agreed with him, he would not be a Supreme Court Justice, he would in fact be legally classified as a "courtroom decoration"....assuming of course they let him into the Courtroom at all/hadnt lynched him for fucking a white woman (his wife).And fucking is all he'd have been able to do since without Loving v Virginia its not like he could have married her......
And with that, we come to the 4th and final Horseman......Justice Antonin Scalia.
He starts by proving that he is in fact as dumb as Roberts and Alito with this
"These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution."
Yep thats right, traditional marriage was accepted by everyone everywhere always until 15 years ago.
Well except for the Romans... and the Mormons...and the Spanish....and the Irish...and the Arabs...and the Indians...and the Celts...and Tibetans....and Native American's....and Italians...and parts of Africa...and Indonesia...and Biblical Christianity.
But with those few "minor" exceptions, its been everyone always.....
And it seems Scalia has inherited Thomas' memory loss:
"But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003."
This being totally different than the 5 justices (including all 4 mentioned here0 who were completely comfortable concluding that every State violated the 1st amendment in the 218 years between its ratification and Citizens United.....cause that was totally ok. After all when Justice Scalia does it that means that it is not astounding. (to paraphrase a former president)
finally Scalia moves on to the irony section:
"They [the majority] have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds — minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly — could not."
You know whats awkward....well other than being wrong, given that at least 18 other supreme court justices found the same right (in the two cases I mentioned in the beginning)?
How about fucking up Supreme Court history... Of Scalia's list of names, 3 of them were never actually on the supreme court (Friendly, Hand and Cooley)
Or prehaps, that is maybe the WORST possible list of people you could point to for support.
To start with Oliver Wendall Homes wrote the court decision in Buck v Bell that said the government could legally sterilize you against your will.
So yea not a person you would find much popular support for.....even from those (like Chief Justice Roberts) who agree with you, that gay marriage is bad because children.....
There are actually 2 John Marshall Harlan's and neither is really a great example.
Harlan I. was one of 9 justices to unanimously rule in Pace v. Alabama, that we should be able to legally restrict black people from marrying white people.
So yea, racist bigot....great pick
Harlan II is actually worse for Scalia though. He was famous for his very broad interpretation of the 14th amendment...and actually one of the 9 justices that ruled unanimous in favor of allowing interracial marriage and forcing to states to comply in the Loving case (which overturned Pace)
So yea, that would be one of the 18 justices whos actually considered this issue....and agreed with the majority in this case.
By the way, another name on the list, Hugo Black....also one of those 9 justices from the Loving case.
So yea, thats now 1 or 2 names from your own list who'd think your a moron.....good going Scalia.
Brandis it turns out is actually the person who basically created the idea of the Right to Privacy, and the idea you can do whatever the fuck you want in your own "home" Scalia is opposing with this decent.
Taft meanwhile wrote the opinion in Wisconsin v. Illinois that said the Court does have the power to force a state to comply with an action in another state (like say forcing marriage recognition?)
Now in fairness to Scalia, the final 3 names (Cardozo, Jackson and especially Frankfurter) are actually pretty good supports for his position.
Still when your ratio of self picked supporters turns out to be 3 historically not relevant, 4 (or 5 depending on harlan) actual supporters (1 or 2 of whom drafted opinions relevant here saclia would never support), and 3 (or 4 cause harlan) who would openly disagree with you, including 1 or 2 of whom actually DID rule against your position, thats not exactly a well thought out position.
Especially considering Scalia isnt writing his dissent for the common man.....he's writing it for future justices and future cases to use for support. So proving yourself a moron to the extent of being basically 66% openly and clearly wrong with your examples is just this side of being mentally retarded.
Scalia (and to lesser extents the other 3) is literally outright trying to lie about court history and precedent to a group of future readers who are likely to be experts on those very issues.
But I guess that's what happens when you find yourself trying to support a position for political reasons that has no legal justification beyond "because we said so", and the people who agree with you [incorrectly] believe that actually not the legal justification and you dont feel like educating them.
So yea there you have it, the total weaksauce, asinine, attempts at defending their position of the only 4 out of 27 justices to ever rule marriage isnt definable by the federal government.
No comments:
Post a Comment