DiscussMormonism.com

Supreme Court appears split on Prop. 8, broad gay marriage ruling

...

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices sounded closely split on gay marriage Tuesday, but Justice Anthony M. Kennedy suggested the court should strike down California’s ban on same-sex marriage without ruling broadly on the issue.

Twice during the oral argument, Kennedy questioned why the court had voted to hear the California case. “I wonder if this case was properly granted,” Kennedy said at one point.

His comments suggested that the court’s four most conservative justices voted to hear the California case. Had the justices turned down the appeal, as Kennedy suggested, Proposition 8 would have been struck down on the grounds of a narrow ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Kennedy is likely to have the support of the court’s four liberal justices when they meet later this week to decide the California case. They could decide to write an opinion that strikes down the California ballot measure on the grounds that it denies same-sex couples a right to marry. Or they could vote to dismiss the appeal, which also would have the effect of voiding Prop. 8.

On several occasions, Kennedy and other justices said they were wary of ruling broadly in a way that would make gay marriage legal nationwide.

But at one point, Kennedy said upholding California’s ban on same-sex marriage would cause real harm. He said there were more than 40,000 children being raised by same-sex couples in California.

“It’s the voice of those children” that should be heard, he said. “They want their parents to have the full recognition” of marriage, he added.

...

subgenius wrote:just kidding, there is no comparison...only a contrast

subgenius wrote:just kidding, there is no comparison...only a contrast





Kennedy also disagreed with a comparison of this case to Loving v. Virginia, the landmark 1967 Supreme Court case that struck down laws banning interracial marriage. He noted that such anti-miscegenation laws had been illegal in other countries for hundreds of years, unlike gay marriage, which is still relatively new all around the world.
Kennedy also lamented that research into how same-sex couples and their children fare is new. “We have five years of information to pose against 2,000 years of history,” he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/prop ... itics.html

Dorothy Creech, a 74-year-old woman who lives in a big white house with two rocking chairs on the porch, said she never has encountered a gay person in the flesh, but she wouldn't be bothered by it if she did, partly because she loves "The Ellen DeGeneres Show." "I don't agree with her lifestyle, but I wouldn't hold it against her," Creech said of the dance-happy, lesbian talk-show host. Gay people would have a fine time of it if they did live here, she said, since folks are so friendly to people of all types.

MeDotOrg wrote:One of the amazing things in comparing the the struggle against anti-miscegenation laws and the struggle for gay marriage is how the rate of change in public opinion is accelerating.

How is this possible? The taboo against gay marriage is, if anything, older and more universal that the taboo against racially-mixed marriages. How does a much older and stronger taboo appear to be dissolving more quickly than the taboo against interracial marriage?

The answer came to me while reading an article on CNN about Franklin County Mississippi, a place which claims to have no gay citizens:

Dorothy Creech, a 74-year-old woman who lives in a big white house with two rocking chairs on the porch, said she never has encountered a gay person in the flesh, but she wouldn't be bothered by it if she did, partly because she loves "The Ellen DeGeneres Show." "I don't agree with her lifestyle, but I wouldn't hold it against her," Creech said of the dance-happy, lesbian talk-show host. Gay people would have a fine time of it if they did live here, she said, since folks are so friendly to people of all types.

I think the reason that attitudes about homosexuality have changed so rapidly is MEDIA. The arts have always been a haven for gay people. Think about how many TV show with gay characters in the last 15 years.

And polling tells us that there is a great age divide on the issue. Those who grew up around people who were 'out of the closet' are much more likely to accepting of gay life styles.

For interracial couples, there was no corollary to the explosion of gay characters on Television shows. The closest thing I can remember was the movie 'Guess who's coming to Dinner?' with Sydney Potier and Spencer Tracy.

But I think it has been the steady 'drip...drip...drip' of seeing people in normal situations doing normal things on your TV screen night after night that changes opinions. As far as the current Supreme Court battle goes, I think the Court will try to stay away from a sweeping ruling.

subgenius wrote:...an increase in political and/or media power does not equate to being correct.

Mayan Elephant wrote:

subgenius wrote:...an increase in political and/or media power does not equate to being correct.

....a public display of ignorance does equate to ignorance, you dumbass.