The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

What Does SSM Approval Give US?

For John, BLUFAre the boundaries of our conduct cultural or are them set by some sort of derived natural law?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked one of the key questions during yesterday's oral argument over the California Prop 8 case, Hollingsworth v. PerryMs Penny Starr reporting.

Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked—and—and it is one that I'm interested in the answer:  If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?

Meaning, what state restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to—that could get married—the incest laws, the mother and child, assuming that they are the age—I can—I can accept that the state has probably an overbearing interest on—on protecting a child until they're of age to marry, but what's left?

Mr Ted Olsen.
Well, you've said—you've said in the cases decided by this court that the polygamy issue, multiple marriages raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely different thing.  And if you—if a state prohibits polygamy, it's prohibiting conduct.

If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status, picking out a group of individuals to deny them the freedom (the court) said is fundamental.

Writing at the Instanpundit blog spot, Law Professor Elizabeth Price Foley says:
Lawyer Ted Olson’s answer was not entirely satisfactory, suggesting that a ban on polygamy or incest would be a ban on “conduct,” not one based on “status.”
I think that puts the question back in play, after Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Margaret Marshall punted on that specific question, telling the General Court it could do whatever it wanted, as long as it didn't mess with Same Sex Marriage, in the Goodridge v department of Public Health case.

And didn't SCOTUS say, in Lawrence v Texas, that Government couldn't regulate conduct?

There is always the somewhat sour view of Ms Megan McArdle, at The Daily Beast.  Her view is that with US Supreme Court approval it will be all over for those who are eligible for Same Sex Marriage.  It will look like the 1950s in suburbia.

Regards  —  Cliff


Neal said...

So, let me understand this. Gay's and Lesbians, and TG folks are a "status" but polygamists are a behavior? That is an interesting exercise if flawed logic IMHO. Frankly, if you accept that gays and lesbian "behavior" is normal (that is the crux of the argument in the end), then why pray tell isn't polygamy normal? Or pedophilia? After all, both practices have ample historic precedent as ACCEPTED societal practices.....and from that I would assume a legal "status" within that given society. If it was a one time aberration I would accept that perhaps it couldn't be a norm, but both "practices" have occurred all through history....and appear even in the BIBLE.

So we are back to the premise I have suggested all along.....this is a very well funded exercise in power politics that will in the end serve only one group of kind of STATUS.....and will in fact DISSERVE other groups and classes.

So much for "equality" and "fair treatment." That is what I love about liberalism......if it doesn't fit, simply modify it.

After the SCOTUS is done with this....the ONLY truly PERVERSE class of folks will be the polygamists.....the pedophiles are already on the move to have the SCOTUS ultimately approve their.....uh.....status.

As for the "discussion" mentioned liberal talking to another trying to convince each other of the validity of their already settled beliefs.

So much for objectivity too.

Renee said...

How does the state address fatherless and ecourage fathers to be dads? They're more then sperm donors and child support, they have a positive social impact on their children.

We can not specifically state that each child has a biological mother and father as a matter of law.

Neal said...

Renee, it's not about's about USING law to achieve objectives. Children and who parents them are NOT the issue here. It is all about making a particular life style....or whatever the sociologist du jour want to call it.....a crime if one objects to it.

In the end, most folks are NOT changing their minds about "things" in matter WHAT SCOTUS's kind of a "lead the horse to water.....but you cannot MAKE him drink." The PARENTS who really CARE....will CARE no matter what the LAW claims to force....and the rest of the animal farm.....well....