The Federal Prop. 8 Trial / Gay Marriage Catch-All

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Just a small correction, Paleo. That was Cooper's contention, not Olsen's.

Ah. Sorry. I stand corrected.

Do people like Cooper really believe their arguments? Or are they just covering up their "this is icky and it should be banned" positions?

Bruce wrote:

Do people like Cooper really believe their arguments? Or are they just covering up their "this is icky and it should be banned" positions?

I think they do believe their arguments because they have entered a realm of desperation.

You can hear this in the audio recording of the SCOTUS/Prop. 8 hearing just this past week. Here is a section for consideration:

MR. COOPER: Yes, Your Honor. The concern is that redefining marriage as a genderless institution will sever its abiding connection to its historic traditional procreative purposes, and it will refocus, refocus the purpose of marriage and the definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults, of adult couples. Suppose, in turn -­

JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, suppose a State said, Mr. Cooper, suppose a State said that, Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55. Would that be constitutional?

MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, it would not be constitutional.

JUSTICE KAGAN: Because that's the same State interest, I would think, you know. If you are over the age of 55, you don't help us serve the Government's interest in regulating procreation through marriage. So why is that different?

MR. COOPER: Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples — both parties to the couple are infertile, and the traditional -­

(Laughter.)

JUSTICE KAGAN: No, really, because if the couple — I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.

(Laughter.)

MR. COOPER: Your Honor, society's -­ society's interest in responsible procreation isn't just with respect to the procreative capacities of the couple itself. The marital norm, which imposes the obligations of fidelity and monogamy, Your Honor, advances the interests in responsible procreation by making it more likely that neither party, including the fertile party to that...

If you listen to the audio recording at the time of the second bit of laughter after Justice Kagan says, "there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage," Cooper is completely serious in his next breath and word. He doesn't snicker at what is a very funny line. He is completely resolute and focused on this idea that it's the end of the world if we allow gay people to get married.

The sad thing is that he doesn't even see the fact that we already have gay marriage here and it isn't going anywhere. In fact, I am will to make a bet that within 5-10 years, another 8-10 states will have gay marriage in addition to the 9 (plus DC) that already have it. And there is little stomach to amend the U.S. Constitution on this matter as you simply can't get 290 of 435 members of Congress, 67 of 100 U.S. Senators, and 38 of 50 states to agree to the amendment.

Again, I am certain he believes it, but he does so for absolutely all the wrong reasons.

It is amazing to what extent folks will go to protect their prejudices.

Phoenix Rev wrote:
Bruce wrote:

Do people like Cooper really believe their arguments? Or are they just covering up their "this is icky and it should be banned" positions?

I think they do believe their arguments because they have entered a realm of desperation.

You can hear this in the audio recording of the SCOTUS/Prop. 8 hearing just this past week. Here is a section for consideration:

MR. COOPER: Yes, Your Honor. The concern is that redefining marriage as a genderless institution will sever its abiding connection to its historic traditional procreative purposes, and it will refocus, refocus the purpose of marriage and the definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults, of adult couples. Suppose, in turn -­

JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, suppose a State said, Mr. Cooper, suppose a State said that, Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55. Would that be constitutional?

MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, it would not be constitutional.

JUSTICE KAGAN: Because that's the same State interest, I would think, you know. If you are over the age of 55, you don't help us serve the Government's interest in regulating procreation through marriage. So why is that different?

MR. COOPER: Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples — both parties to the couple are infertile, and the traditional -­

(Laughter.)

JUSTICE KAGAN: No, really, because if the couple — I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.

(Laughter.)

MR. COOPER: Your Honor, society's -­ society's interest in responsible procreation isn't just with respect to the procreative capacities of the couple itself. The marital norm, which imposes the obligations of fidelity and monogamy, Your Honor, advances the interests in responsible procreation by making it more likely that neither party, including the fertile party to that...

If you listen to the audio recording at the time of the second bit of laughter after Justice Kagan says, "there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage," Cooper is completely serious in his next breath and word. He doesn't snicker at what is a very funny line. He is completely resolute and focused on this idea that it's the end of the world if we allow gay people to get married.

The sad thing is that he doesn't even see the fact that we already have gay marriage here and it isn't going anywhere. In fact, I am will to make a bet that within 5-10 years, another 8-10 states will have gay marriage in addition to the 9 (plus DC) that already have it. And there is little stomach to amend the U.S. Constitution on this matter as you simply can't get 290 of 435 members of Congress, 67 of 100 U.S. Senators, and 38 of 50 states to agree to the amendment.

Again, I am certain he believes it, but he does so for absolutely all the wrong reasons.

He's also implying that fidelity and monogamy are purely heterosexual practices.

At common law, procreation had nothing to do with marriage. It was purely a matter of inheritance rights. I do not think anyone can look at Henry VIII and see some sanctified tradition. Get a wife, have a legitimate son, pass on lands and titles. Or else, the family legacy reverts back to the crown. That intent is carried on all the way into the 20th century. In the 20th century, after the abolitionist movement and the rise of feminism-women getting the right to vote and own property, and then rights to divorce, that changes.

America began its trek away from common law traditional marriage when the first ships of Puritans, Quakers, and fortune seekers went to a new world that was not expressly subject to the crown's laws. Colonial Americans could not get what would be deemed a legal English marriage, because they had limited resources to petition the Anglican courts for a marriage. In the same way, American views of real property rights also became distinct from the common law of England. The simple fact that a man in America could own land without a title is a tremendous boon in modern human history. That was not so for subjects to the Spanish or French crown in the new world.

And I would have found it nice to get perhaps the likes of Stephen Presser at Northwestern to speak before the Court.

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:

He's also implying that fidelity and monogamy are purely heterosexual practices.

It's also historically wrong, unless you put on blinders and take the stance that polygamous marriages were never - not one single time - recognized by any tribe, religious institution, or state in all of history or now.

But that has been one of the new lines. If you watch carefully, the meme has switched from:

"Marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman."

to

"For the past 2,000 years, marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman."

You don't have to be a theologian to figure out was event occurred around 2,000 years ago.

But it is being done to buffer against the fact that polygamous marriages were approved by the tribe, some religious institutions, and some governments.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

You don't have to be a theologian to figure out was event occurred around 2,000 years ago.

Jesus went through puberty?

As his Easter gift to gays and lesbians, New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan reminds us filthy homosexuals that he loves us, God loves us and that gays and lesbians have a right to be friends with each other:

DOLAN: Well, the first thing I’d say to them is, “I love you, too. And God loves you. And you are made in God’s image and likeness. And – and we – we want your happiness. But – and you’re entitled to friendship.” But we also know that God has told us that the way to happiness, that – especially when it comes to sexual love – that is intended only for a man and woman in marriage, where children can come about naturally.

How big of you, Archbishop.

How incredibly big of you.

But wait! There's more:

We gotta be – we gotta do better to see that our defense of marriage is not reduced to an attack on gay people. And I admit, we haven’t been too good at that.

If (condescendingly) letting Rubb Ed and I be friends is his idea of doing better, he has an incredibly long way to go to even attempt to show he isn't attacking gay people.

Honestly, that's way better than I expected from the Pope. I get how it's insulting, frustrating, and maddening but the last quote you put in at least shows an empathy for homosexuals as human beings that I haven't seen from high levels of the Catholic Church before.

Hell, if the DOMA people didn't base their entire defense on vilifying gay people and instead played as traditionalists I would at least take their arguments seriously (still completely disagree).

Vector wrote:

Honestly, that's way better than I expected from the Pope. I get how it's insulting, frustrating, and maddening but the last quote you put in at least shows an empathy for homosexuals as human beings that I haven't seen from high levels of the Catholic Church before.

Hell, if the DOMA people didn't base their entire defense on vilifying gay people and instead played as traditionalists I would at least take their arguments seriously (still completely disagree).

Not the pope - the Archbishop of NY

Tanglebones wrote:
Vector wrote:

Honestly, that's way better than I expected from the Pope. I get how it's insulting, frustrating, and maddening but the last quote you put in at least shows an empathy for homosexuals as human beings that I haven't seen from high levels of the Catholic Church before.

Hell, if the DOMA people didn't base their entire defense on vilifying gay people and instead played as traditionalists I would at least take their arguments seriously (still completely disagree).

Not the pope - the Archbishop of NY

I have no idea how I misread that other than I realizing I don't know the Pope's name.

I'll stick with my point but admit the effect is severely reduced.

Vector wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Vector wrote:

Honestly, that's way better than I expected from the Pope. I get how it's insulting, frustrating, and maddening but the last quote you put in at least shows an empathy for homosexuals as human beings that I haven't seen from high levels of the Catholic Church before.

Hell, if the DOMA people didn't base their entire defense on vilifying gay people and instead played as traditionalists I would at least take their arguments seriously (still completely disagree).

Not the pope - the Archbishop of NY

I have no idea how I misread that other than I realizing I don't know the Pope's name.

I'll stick with my point but admit the effect is severely reduced.

At this point, Francis or Francisco.

According to Sue Everhart, the Georgia GOP Chairwoman, the push for marriage equality is just a giant ruse to allow the takers to take more because straight people will pretend to be gay and have a sham gay marriage just so they can get those sweet, sweet government benefits:

You may be as straight as an arrow, and you may have a friend that is as straight as an arrow. Say you had a great job with the government where you had this wonderful health plan. I mean, what would prohibit you from saying that you’re gay, and y’all get married and still live as separate, but you get all the benefits? I just see so much abuse in this it’s unreal. I believe a husband and a wife should be a man and a woman, the benefits should be for a man and a woman. There is no way that this is about equality. To me, it’s all about a free ride.

Of course, straights would never never do that.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Of course, straights would never never do that.

Nor have gays ever gotten opposite-gendered married in order to share benefits...

Because being gay in our society is nothing but rainbows. Wait...

Nevin73 wrote:

Because being gay in our society is nothing but rainbows. Wait...

Right, it's rainbows and purple triangles.

Implying government jobs are great and have awesome benefits.

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:

Implying government jobs are great and have awesome benefits.

They do have great benes...they also haven't gotten a pay raise in like five years.

Paging Brittney Spears.

Nevin73 wrote:
Bonus_Eruptus wrote:

Implying government jobs are great and have awesome benefits.

They do have great benes...they also haven't gotten a pay raise in like five years.

About the only decent benefit I got after 4 years with the state was having my vasectomy paid for. I was promised a matching 6% put into my retirement account, only to find out when I quit that it only applied if I retired after 30 years. Anyway, I don't want to threadjack.

Hahahahaha, by taking that free vasectomy you have fallen right into the government's trap! You can no longer procreate and hence your marriage is annulled! Your increased taxes will pay for the procedure in a few short years. It's all profit after that.

OG_slinger wrote:

According to Sue Everhart, the Georgia GOP Chairwoman, the push for marriage equality is just a giant ruse to allow the takers to take more because straight people will pretend to be gay and have a sham gay marriage just so they can get those sweet, sweet government benefits:

You may be as straight as an arrow, and you may have a friend that is as straight as an arrow. Say you had a great job with the government where you had this wonderful health plan. I mean, what would prohibit you from saying that you’re gay, and y’all get married and still live as separate, but you get all the benefits? I just see so much abuse in this it’s unreal. I believe a husband and a wife should be a man and a woman, the benefits should be for a man and a woman. There is no way that this is about equality. To me, it’s all about a free ride.

Someone has been watching season 3 of Shameless.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/zqJzFPq.jpg)

bnpederson wrote:

At this point, Francis or Francisco.

His friends call him Frank, though.

Yonder wrote:

Hahahahaha, by taking that free vasectomy you have fallen right into the government's trap! You can no longer procreate and hence your marriage is annulled! Your increased taxes will pay for the procedure in a few short years. It's all profit after that.

Hey, I had to pay $163 for that worry-free sex.

OG_slinger wrote:

According to Sue Everhart, the Georgia GOP Chairwoman, the push for marriage equality is just a giant ruse to allow the takers to take more because straight people will pretend to be gay and have a sham gay marriage just so they can get those sweet, sweet government benefits:

You may be as straight as an arrow, and you may have a friend that is as straight as an arrow. Say you had a great job with the government where you had this wonderful health plan. I mean, what would prohibit you from saying that you’re gay, and y’all get married and still live as separate, but you get all the benefits? I just see so much abuse in this it’s unreal. I believe a husband and a wife should be a man and a woman, the benefits should be for a man and a woman. There is no way that this is about equality. To me, it’s all about a free ride.

When you have a government that highly incentivises marriage, it's only natural that everyone would want equal and fair access to such things. To simply say, "you can't do that because you both have penises" or whatever is just baseless discrimination, pure and simple. It's not asking for a free ride; it's asking for equality.

They've lost the intellectual argument squarely, and I think on some level they know it. Now, they're just doubling down on the crazy long enough to see if anything sticks.

I am fully convinced at this point that the recent polls showing widespread acceptance of gay marriage pushed the anti-marriage equality forces well past Crazytown and into Insanityville.

Take, for instance, the President of the Southern Baptist Convention, Fred Luter:

I would not be surprised that at the time when we are debating same-sex marriage, at a time when we are debating whether or not we should have gays leading the Boy Scout movement, I don’t think it’s just a coincidence that we have a mad man in Asia who is saying some of the things that he’s saying.

That mad man would be Kim Jung Un, the Dear Leader of North Korea.

Gay marriage. North Korea's insane leader. Yeah, I am sure we all can see the clear connection.

----------

Meanwhile, Tony Perkins over the Family Research Council is convinced that the reason why gays and lesbians try to commit suicide is because "they can't fill that God vacuum in their lives" because they are "in rebellion to God's design."

Of course, being told that you are demonic, a pedophile, worthy of death, disowned by your family and a host of other things would have nothing to do with suicide rates.

----------

On the other side of town, Brian Brown, the head of the National Organization for Marriage, doesn't quite know what the word "slur" means:

Well, I think it's a slur on the Americans, the majority of Americans who stood up to vote for what President Obama a year ago agreed to what Secretary Clinton agreed to two weeks ago that it takes a man and a woman to make a marriage. It's a slur on them to somehow say that opponents of redefining marriage are in the same boat as those who oppose interracial marriage. That is just a slur. It's an assertion. What we are fighting about is, is there a civil right to re redefine marriage? We say, no, are there is mo such civil right. The laws against interracial marriage were about keeping the races apart. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. It's about bringing the sexes together. That is a good and beautiful thing, and I think it's a slur to say that it's bigotry to stand up for this truth.

Alas, another day with the desperate people trying to stop marriage equality.

Phoenix Rev wrote:
I would not be surprised that at the time when we are debating same-sex marriage, at a time when we are debating whether or not we should have gays leading the Boy Scout movement, I don’t think it’s just a coincidence that we have a mad man in Asia who is saying some of the things that he’s saying.

That mad man would be Kim Jung Un, the Dear Leader of North Korea.

Gay marriage. North Korea's insane leader. Yeah, I am sure we all can see the clear connection.

Ah, but this one is easily explained; just another example of an idiot who thinks the Onion is a real news source.