Riveting intellectual hasthmaithunication

by Petrichor Tue Mar 26, 2013 2:53 pm

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=12-144

by Mosquito Tue Mar 26, 2013 5:29 pm

Marriage should strictly be between man & a woman. Sodomites burn in hell! They should not be allowed to adopt.

by Idéfix Tue Mar 26, 2013 5:29 pm

It is interesting that the question of standing came up again in oral arguments at the Supreme Court. This was discussed at length in the California Supreme Court as well. My understanding is that we shouldn't read too much into the questions the justices ask, but at the risk of reading too much, it sounds like the justices are wrestling with a rather difficult question. If they do accept the standing of the proponents of Prop 8, it doesn't look like a majority might find it in violation of the equal protection clause.

I am surprised the proponents are making a case to ban same-sex marriage mainly based on a claimed state interest in marriage as a means to regulate procreation. It doesn't make a lot of sense; marriage is about two adults deciding to live their lives together. Marriage is neither necessary nor sufficient for two adults to have children together (or not), buy a house together (or not), or take care of each other in sickness and health (or not).

by Propagandhi711 Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:08 pm

how many more need to join before this qualifies for a intellectual circle jerk?

by Hellsangel Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:11 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:how many more need to join before this qualifies for a intellectual circle jerk?

It only takes 3. I think they have the numbers.

by Propagandhi711 Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:13 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:how many more need to join before this qualifies for a intellectual circle jerk?

It only takes 3. I think they have the numbers.

*steps back slowlyyy*

by nevada Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:25 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:how many more need to join before this qualifies for a intellectual circle jerk?

by Captain Bhankas Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:03 am

Propagandhi711 wrote:*steps back slowlyyy*

hahaha.

*turns back and runs at the top speed of 8.4 kmph.*

by Petrichor Wed Mar 27, 2013 9:59 am

trofimov wrote: we shouldn't read too much into the questions the justices ask, but at the risk of reading too much, it sounds like the justices are wrestling with a rather difficult question. If they do accept the standing of the proponents of Prop 8, it doesn't look like a majority might find it in violation of the equal protection clause.

It is likely they will punt it down for a future court - there were many indications that they don't want to insert themselves into a debate when *all* the facts (including long term impact on the 40K children) are not in.

As for 'standing', this is uncharted waters - supporters of prop 8 might have a case about 'legal fees' etc. based on tacit blessing provided by the voters. In future, there might need to be clear chain of the backers of a proposition to establish 'standing' in just such cases as the one before the supremes.

by Sponsored content

Riveting intellectual hasthmaithunication

Riveting intellectual hasthmaithunication

Re: Riveting intellectual hasthmaithunication

Re: Riveting intellectual hasthmaithunication

Re: Riveting intellectual hasthmaithunication

Re: Riveting intellectual hasthmaithunication

Re: Riveting intellectual hasthmaithunication

Re: Riveting intellectual hasthmaithunication

Re: Riveting intellectual hasthmaithunication

Re: Riveting intellectual hasthmaithunication

Re: Riveting intellectual hasthmaithunication