Predict how the Supreme Court will Decide the Same Sex Marriage Cases

[David42]

@Bryan_Ekers

I’m not getting anything for my trouble - no clarifications, no explanations - just repeated variations on “well, maybe gay marriage will hurt children, somehow”, with the “somehow” being so tenuous, a cobweb is adamantite by comparison. David’s vagueness in supporting his premise is matched only by his thorough confidence that his premise will be proved, somehow, in some distant future, by somebody.

Beats a “what me worry?” approach which is even more tenuous yet.

@Bryan_Ekers

Meantime, countries that have gay marriage and have suffered no ill effects have just not suffered them yet, I guess. The solution is to treat adults like sheep, apparently, because trying to recapture some never-was golden age of marriage is better than letting them decide how to run their own lives in a framework of equal treatment under the law.

I expect (or at least hope) SCOTUS is made of sterner stuff than the people on whose behalf David is supposedly arguing. Scalia, Alito and Thomas will likely dissent, but I’d be quite surprised if they managed to discover a line of reasoning that has so far escaped all SSM opponents.

People who try to predict the Supreme Court often get egg on their face. I almost had Bricker thinking he was gonna have to donate $200 dollars to NAMBLA over the Antoine Jones matter. I just stick to what I think they oughta do; I’m not willing to try to speak for them.

Claiming absolutely NO ill effects is the sort of absolutism that is nearly always wrong, and in a sociological context is simply taking advantage of the fact that there is no precise certainty in cause and effect in sociology.

Gay suicide went up in Holland after gay marriage passed. Seems counterintuitive, and its nearly impossible to tell specifcially why people kill themselves. There could be a connection to gay marriage, should we try to find out, or do all the same things holland did while saying “You can’t prove that!”

Maybe we are wrong and there is something deep seated involving emotional trouble with homosexuality that is not caused by societal disapproval–Holland is great to test that theory because disapproval of gays is virtually non-existent in Holland. Perhaps the absence of animus leaves a gay still depressed but unable to blame something other than himself? Thus more gays feel it is hopeless and off themselves than in a country featuring easy-to-blame Westboro Baptist Church which actually gives them strength to fight? That would be irony of the highest order–“Westboro–Keeping gays from committing suicide since 1991!”

It could be, and sound explanations for the rise in gay suicide haven’t been proven.

Holland, also, has set the world’s record for the increased rate of out-of-wedlock births–in the seventies in was at 4% and today that number has risen over 100%The graphs showing the upward curve pretty closely match the graphs for acceptance of homosexuality rising. It’s so close a match that nearly anyone ought to think it is at least worth looking into the correlation, which sometimes IS related to cause and effect.

@Bryan_Ekers

But if in 30 years, the U.S. still does not have SSM, that’ll just put them 40 years behind the times.

“Not with the times” is a logical fallacy and is not used in sound debate.

A Pro-Jewish advocate in Nazi Germany would have been not with the times, but that doesn’t make anti-Jewish sentiment right or good.

If times in fact are bad, I would be glad to not be with the times…

[Ibn_Warraq]

@David42

Ddin’t mean that to say gays have no dignity, please no one take it that way. It’s marriage that I am implying is losing its dignity.

Agreed, once they started allowing members of the mongrel races to marry and deflower prime specimens of Aryan womanhood it was all downhill from there.

[tomndebb]

@Ibn_Warraq

Agreed, once they started allowing members of the mongrel races to marry and deflower prime specimens of Aryan womanhood it was all downhill from there.

This sort of straw man and twisting of arguments is not helpful.

Stick to attacking what he has said and leave out your efforts to sarcastically put words in his mouth.

[ /Moderating ]

[tomndebb]

@David42

Warren left “race” out of the quote, it is true. But nothing he did say can be taken to disagree with what SKinner said.

However, leaving out the reference to (the human) race while leaving in the reference to civil rights does change the meaning of the statement to one of society over humanity.
Since procreation long preceded marriage, we already know that Skinner was wrong, so there is no reason to place any weight on his statement over Warren’s re-wording.

Just as the court proposed a “separate but equal” test that was demonstrated to be unworkable, an assertion that marriage is necessary for the survival of humanity is clearly an error. Citing mistakes in the affirmative seems a poor way to adjudicate law.

[stpauler]

@David42

My argument is about a citation to one sentence with two concepts in it that appear to be logically linked. Warren cites and quotes but modifies the sentence to leave “procreation” out. This is not because he wishes to divorce marriage and procreation as a matter of law, and thus issue a landmark that no-one even noticed. This is far more likely because he wants a NARROW RULING and PROCREATION is not a necessary issue to have to turn over in a case about RACE classification.

Great. That’s it then. You admit that you are SOLELY INFERRING what Warren meant. Go on, say it. You have no idea what he meant but are choosing to infer it. You are consistent about being wrong, but at least have the temerity to say that your whole argument is based on inferring what Warren could have meant as opposed to something that Warren actually said. Therein lies a huge gulf of difference especially considering Warren’s other citations that you’ve brushed off.

@David42

Maynard does not have the connection in it that Skinner does. Maynard and Skinner are both relevant to the Loving decision, but in slightly different ways,but that does not mean they are both relevant to the subject of my answer "Yes. Warren did make that point of Skinner. I HAVE ALREADY explained

1. that “marriage” is not a necessary right for a forced sterilization case to consider unless it is intertwined with procreation (being in the same sentence quoted) thus rendering, according to you, “marriage” language in Skinner mere dicta. If it is dicta, there is no relevant point in Skinner to support Loving with, because Skinner’s NARROWLY DECIDED issue is about PROCREATION, and NOT a denial of marriage.

2. Warren quotes one single sentence from Skinner, which, in Skinner, intertwines marriage and procreation as fundamental for a reason of our existence. I’m not drawing relationships between various ideas found all over cases, but sticking to one sentence to meld the two concepts together because that’s exactly what Warren’s sentence does. What you call “thin air” (or someone does anyways) I call “Warren’s use of the conjunction known as ‘AND,’ used to make us think of two or more things together,” which you insist could not be.

Actually you are wrong. Please PLEASE PLEASE show us where Warren quotes “marriage and procreation”. You know why you can’t? Because he didn’t. In fact, when he quotes from Skinner, he paraphrases and says: **Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. **

Why would a part so central to your argument be so glaringly omitted from Warren’s text?

That’s the conclusion you keep trying to draw to that Skinner is a direct reference to procreation whereas Warren omits those exact words and highlights marriage as a civil right.

@David42

3. There is an utter lack of any plausible alternative to what Warren meant. What about marriage makes it fundamental to our survival and existence if it is not procreation?

You could answer number three forthrightly and this issue could be at an end, but I doubt I will repeat this too much further and consider it conceded, if no-one can answer.

Maybe because I already answered number three “forthrightly”. In fact you quoted it in your response.

[David42]

@stpauler

Great. That’s it then. You admit that you are SOLELY INFERRING what Warren meant. Go on, say it. You have no idea what he meant but are choosing to infer it. You are consistent about being wrong, but at least have the temerity to say that your whole argument is based on inferring what Warren could have meant as opposed to something that Warren actually said. Therein lies a huge gulf of difference especially considering Warren’s other citations that you’ve brushed off.

“The authority supports the proposition directly because it is not qualified with a signal. If it had offered only indirect or inferential support for the proposition, the author should have preceded the cite with a qualifying signal such as see or cf.”

Legal citation

“Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).”

As you will note, *Skinner * is directly cited, whereas Maynard, which doesn’t answer the question, does have a qualifier.

When a court cites a case without qualifying it, it means they agree with it wholly, adopt it, and incoporate it into their own text, without taking up all the physical text that would clutter a document and make it near impossible to read.

If Warren had meant to sever the concepts of procreation and marriage, he would have given his explanation for not applying the entirety of the reason of Skinner OR qualified it in the citation. Since he did not, he is telling us to incorporate the entirety of the reasoning of Skinner so that he need not clutter his opinion.

Got that? Citation without qualification is direct support, meaning in no way does the Supreme Court change what was said before. if they qualify in the citation or in their explanation, the support is an inference.

@stpauler

Actually you are wrong. Please PLEASE PLEASE show us where Warren quotes “marriage and procreation”. You know why you can’t? Because he didn’t. In fact, when he quotes from Skinner, he paraphrases and says: **Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. **

Why would a part so central to your argument be so glaringly omitted from Warren’s text? That’s the conclusion you keep trying to draw to that Skinner is a direct reference to procreation whereas Warren omits those exact words and highlights marriage as a civil right.

Because he wishes to keep the ruling narrow and uncluttered, and need quote no more.

Also the above about direct vs. inferential citations.

@stpauler

Maybe because I already answered number three “forthrightly”. In fact you quoted it in your response.

Your "forthright answer is a bunch of blather trying to further divert the thread into chicken-stealing and what Oklahoma does with their balls. YOU DO NOT suggest what IT IS, SINCE HE LEFT IT OUT, that makes marriage fundamental to our existence as a race.

Your Quote:

"Because Skinner referenced marriage on top of the right of chicken stealers to have their balls intact. Of course, you’ll have to explain how English being taught in Nebraska has to do with why Warren cited the case. Unless, you know, he was just citing cases where marriage was referenced as seems to be the obvious answer.

This is YOUR thought process that you’re injecting here. You do realize it’s up to you and ONLY you to prove your claims. “My post is my cite” doesn’t work here as you’re making arguments out of thin air."
I note this “forthright” “answer” doesn’t do what I asked–explain which quality of marriage makes it fundamental to our existence. You’re not going to convince me that I’m wrong without doing this.

(P.S. The court in Skinner found no right of chicken stealers to keep their balls. What they found was unfair treatment between two classes of criminals without a good reason. So, the ruling of Skinner was to kick it back to Oklahoma with instructions to either let Skinner keep his balls or also cut the balls off of embezzlers, whom Oklahoma had figured it was fine to keep their balls.)

[David42]

@Ibn_Warraq

Agreed, once they started allowing members of the mongrel races to marry and deflower prime specimens of Aryan womanhood it was all downhill from there.

I refer more to anti-heartbalms (cannot enforce your marriage against interlopers) decline of adultery prosecution, and no-fault divorce (marriage is non-binding even for frivolous reasons) as well as making a huge deal out of minor violence to break families up.

Personally, I hate racism.

[Human_Action]

@David42

Holland, also, has set the world’s record for the increased rate of out-of-wedlock births–in the seventies in was at 4% and today that number has risen over 100%The graphs showing the upward curve pretty closely match the graphs for acceptance of homosexuality rising. It’s so close a match that nearly anyone ought to think it is at least worth looking into the correlation, which sometimes IS related to cause and effect.

In the United States, out-of-wedlock births are most common in hispanic and black community:

Birth rates for unmarried women vary widely by race and ethnicity. In 2005, the nonmarital rate for Hispanic women was highest, at 100.3 per 1,000, followed by black women, 67.8, non-Hispanic white women, 30.1, and API women, 24.9. These variations have changed little in recent years.

And yet, acceptance of homosexuals is very high amongst Hispanics, and low amongst blacks:

There also are gender and racial differences: More women than men favor societal acceptance of homosexuality (64% vs. 52%). Hispanics (64%) and whites (58%) are more supportive of this than are African Americans (49%).

Thus, I submit that out-of-wedlock birth rates are independent of acceptance of homosexuality. Both reflect deep cultural mores, they are not reflective of one another.

[David42]

@tomndebb

However, leaving out the reference to (the human) race while leaving in the reference to civil rights does change the meaning of the statement to one of society over humanity.

I disagree. If he’d have meant to change it to society he’d have said so. Leaving out part of the citation isn’t a license to insert whatever word the reader feels makes the most sense. I refer you to my reply to stpauler concerning the nature of various citations in post #486 as it applies.

@tomndebb

Since procreation long preceded marriage, we already know that Skinner was wrong, so there is no reason to place any weight on his statement over Warren’s re-wording.

Your opinion that Skinner is wrong does not mean Warren felt it was wrong, too. Besides, we do not know that marriage wasn’t simultaneously recognized, even as a rudimentary pairing up (a somewhat instinctual activity for many species) at the defining evolutionary moment that we became “human” and elevated over our beastial ancestors. Pairing up would have occurred before our becoming human. Women caring for infants on their own would be a decided disadvantage rising to the level of a threat to the species even before our ancestors became fully human. But let’s not sidetrack into a discussion about evolution full of speculation.

@tomndebb

Just as the court proposed a “separate but equal” test that was demonstrated to be unworkable, an assertion that marriage is necessary for the survival of humanity is clearly an error. Citing mistakes in the affirmative seems a poor way to adjudicate law.

I am not sure what you mean by this, perhaps you could rephrase? Are you meaning that because of separate but equal rulings in the past that were mistaken, some other not exactly related ruling is wrong also? Do you mean Warren felt Skinner was a mistake but cited it with approval anyway? That seems rather absurd to me.

[Hamlet]

@David42

"When a court cites a case without qualifying it, it means they agree with it wholly, adopt it, and incoporate it into their own text, without taking up all the physical text that would clutter a document and make it near impossible to read.

This simply isn’t true. Citing to a case does not mean that they agree with it wholly, it does not mean they adopt it, or incorporate it into their own text. It means it supports the conclusion the citing court made. And Skinner supports the proposition that marriage is a fundamental right because it says: “We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” Skinner says marriage is a fundamental right, and Loving cites to it for that proposition (and that proposition only).

You remind me of jailhouse attorneys, the kind of people who have tangential dealings with the justice system and they think that somehow means their conclusions are correct. I’m not accusing you of being a criminal, but I’m guessing you had at least a passing familiarity (but not much else) with the justice system.

@David42

If Warren had meant to sever the concepts of procreation and marriage, he would have given his explanation for not applying the entirety of the reason of Skinner OR qualified it in the citation. Since he did not, he is telling us to incorporate the entirety of the reasoning of Skinner so that he need not clutter his opinion.

More bullshit. Warren didn’t sever the concepts because he didn’t need to. He understood how case citations work and that citing to a case doesn’t mean you agree with everything in there unless you specifically explain what you don’t agree with. And I’ll put Warren’s understanding of citations up against yours anyday.

[David42]

@Human_Action

In the United States, out-of-wedlock births are most common in hispanic and black community:

And yet, acceptance of homosexuals is very high amongst Hispanics, and low amongst blacks:

Thus, I submit that out-of-wedlock birth rates are independent of acceptance of homosexuality. Both reflect deep cultural mores, they are not reflective of one another.

I don’t follow your reasoning one bit. Is it not possible that the black community has more animus towards homosexuality than hispanics do? That men as a group have more animus toward homosexuals than women? I know more than one person that says if gay marriage is forced on the country, they will boycott marriage rather than be included in a group with gays, divorcing if necessary.

I know it has been in the news over the last few years, that blacks seem to disagree with gay marriage more than other racial groups.

[Human_Action]

@David42

I don’t follow your reasoning one bit. Is it not possible that the black community has more animus towards homosexuality than hispanics do? That men as a group have more animus toward homosexuals than women? I know more than one person that says if gay marriage is forced on the country, they will boycott marriage rather than be included in a group with gays, divorcing if necessary.

I know it has been in the news over the last few years, that blacks seem to disagree with gay marriage more than other racial groups.

You wrote:

@David42

Holland, also, has set the world’s record for the increased rate of out-of-wedlock births–in the seventies in was at 4% and today that number has risen over 100%The graphs showing the upward curve pretty closely match the graphs for acceptance of homosexuality rising. It’s so close a match that nearly anyone ought to think it is at least worth looking into the correlation, which sometimes IS related to cause and effect.

You’re suggesting that Holland’s increased rate of out-of-wedlock births is a result of its acceptance of homosexuality.

In the U.S., the community that is most accepting of homosexuality, Hispanics, have the highest rate of out-of-wedlock birth. However, the community that is least accepting of homosexuality, African-Americans, has the second-highest rate of out-of-wedlock birth.

If you were correct in that acceptance of homosexuality caused out-of-wedlock births, then we’d see Hispanics with the highest such rate, then whites, then Asian-Americans, and then finally African-Americans. This is not the case, the actual order is Hispanics, then African-Americans, then whites, then Asian Americans last.

Therefore, acceptance of homosexuality does not cause an increase in out-of-wedlock births.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Beyond that, you have to at least posit a plausible reason why the correlation might indicate causation. I can’t think of one. Can you?

[David42]

@Hamlet

This simply isn’t true. Citing to a case does not mean that they agree with it wholly, it does not mean they adopt it, or incorporate it into their own text. It means it supports the conclusion the citing court made. And Skinner supports the proposition that marriage is a fundamental right because it says: “We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” Skinner says marriage is a fundamental right, and Loving cites to it for that proposition (and that proposition only).

Well, my citation says it is true. Do you have a contrary citation?

@Hamlet

You remind me of jailhouse attorneys, the kind of people who have tangential dealings with the justice system and they think that somehow means their conclusions are correct. I’m not accusing you of being a criminal, but I’m guessing you had at least a passing familiarity (but not much else) with the justice system.

An attempt to get me to toot my own horn? I’m a paralegal and I have been to law school. Sometimes I have great ideas the Supreme Court ought to be adopting and no-one agrees with me. Bricker had much the same attitude, demeaning my education in law similarly to you, when we discussed the Antoine Jones case. Then it turns out Scalia used my exact word-for word language here at the Straight Dope to take 4th amendment violations in a new direction. No-one agreed with me there either.

Not saying that the Supreme Court read the Straight Dope, found my opinion and quoted me–but the fact remains that they took the law in a direction no-one expected (I didn’t even think they were going to go there.)

Oh, good! A New Constitutional Theory of Privacy!

That of course doesn’t prove I am right here. But you might have more respect for others. Perhaps the fact is merely that I think in a way you cannot understand.

Today I am a small business owner; I buy and sell used books, which I financed from the two years of “freelance” paralegal work I did for clients who had been repeatedly let down by lawyers. My state AG shut me down for “unauthorize practice of law,” but of course I worked under the umbrella of attorneys for twelve years before that. They didn’t pay me enough. I made my wad my own way and bought a building and opened a used bookstore. And the people I helped for much less than lawyers would were usually more satisfied.

Is that enough tooting my own horn for you?

How loud does your own horn toot, my friend? Care to detail your own superior qualifications that make your opinion more correct than mine?

There is no need to slight someone’s education, and I assure you my experience in law is more than passing. Although, a night in jail when I was 17 did interest me in learning law a great deal.

@Hamlet

More bullshit. Warren didn’t sever the concepts because he didn’t need to. He understood how case citations work and that citing to a case doesn’t mean you agree with everything in there unless you specifically explain what you don’t agree with. And I’ll put Warren’s understanding of citations up against yours anyday.

It’s your understanding of a citation you’re putting up against mine, not Warren’s.

[stpauler]

Bolding mine:

@David42

“The authority supports the proposition directly because it is not qualified with a signal. If it had offered only indirect or inferential support for the proposition, the author** should have **preceded the cite with a qualifying signal such as see or cf.”

Legal citation - Wikipedia

“Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).”

As you will note, *Skinner * is directly cited, whereas Maynard, which doesn’t answer the question, does have a qualifier.

Wow, wikipedia. Great. Want some crayons too to go with your helping verbs? I didn’t know “should have” is legally binding. Or Wikipedia for that matter.

@David42

When a court cites a case without qualifying it, it means they agree with it wholly, adopt it, and incoporate it into their own text, without taking up all the physical text that would clutter a document and make it near impossible to read.

“In your opinion”. Let’s try those words because your claim doesn’t have legal standing.

@David42

If Warren had meant to sever the concepts of procreation and marriage, he would have given his explanation for not applying the entirety of the reason of Skinner OR qualified it in the citation. Since he did not, he is telling us to incorporate the entirety of the reasoning of Skinner so that he need not clutter his opinion.

Really. So it’s not that he omitted the words, they were all just “understood” in context.

@David42

Got that? Citation without qualification is direct support, meaning in no way does the Supreme Court change what was said before. if they qualify in the citation or in their explanation, the support is an inference.

“Should have”.

@David42

Because he wishes to keep the ruling narrow and uncluttered, and need quote no more.

Wait. So which is it? Narrow and uncluttered or does he reference procreation? It couldn’t be both because that would expand it and clutter it.

@David42

Your "forthright answer is a bunch of blather trying to further divert the thread into chicken-stealing and what Oklahoma does with their balls. YOU DO NOT suggest what IT IS, SINCE HE LEFT IT OUT, that makes marriage fundamental to our existence as a race.

Yes. Look, you’re learning. He did leave it out.

[David42]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Beyond that, you have to at least posit a plausible reason why the correlation might indicate causation. I can’t think of one. Can you?

The propaganda that “marriage is forever severed from procreation” that progressives pound into our culture’s collective head at every opportunity causes people to believe pregnancy is no reason to marry.

Why is it far-fetched that people might actually believe that? Why waste the effort spewing the propaganda if no-one thinks they are convincing the public?

Apparently the board here all believes it.

If any of you find yourselves half of a pregnant couple, but felt there wasn’t “love” (the alternative for what marriage is about and its purpose) and you say that there is no connection between marriage and procreation, would you marry merely because of the pregnancy? Why, or why not?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

That propaganda only exists in your head, so I’m pretty sure it doesn’t count.

[stpauler]

@David42

If any of you find yourselves half of a pregnant couple, but felt there wasn’t “love” (the alternative for what marriage is about and its purpose)

LOL. So marriage is either for love or pregnacy. Maybe both. Don’t let things like history or facts get in that narrow view or you might be disappointed.

[Human_Action]

@David42

The propaganda that “marriage is forever severed from procreation” that progressives pound into our culture’s collective head at every opportunity causes people to believe pregnancy is no reason to marry.

Why is it far-fetched that people might actually believe that? Why waste the effort spewing the propaganda if no-one thinks they are convincing the public?

Apparently the board here all believes it.

If any of you find yourselves half of a pregnant couple, but felt there wasn’t “love” (the alternative for what marriage is about and its purpose) and you say that there is no connection between marriage and procreation, would you marry merely because of the pregnancy? Why, or why not?

Same-sex couples are capable of rearing children, and presently do so. Through surrogacy and artificial insemination, they can even cause new children to be born.

So, I must ask, how does permitting same-sex marriage sever marriage from procreation?

[David42]

@Human_Action

You wrote:

You’re suggesting that Holland’s increased rate of out-of-wedlock births is a result of its acceptance of homosexuality.

In the U.S., the community that is most accepting of homosexuality, Hispanics, have the highest rate of out-of-wedlock birth. However, the community that is least accepting of homosexuality, African-Americans, has the second-highest rate of out-of-wedlock birth.

If you were correct in that acceptance of homosexuality caused out-of-wedlock births, then we’d see Hispanics with the highest such rate, then whites, then Asian-Americans, and then finally African-Americans. This is not the case, the actual order is Hispanics, then African-Americans, then whites, then Asian Americans last.

Therefore, acceptance of homosexuality does not cause an increase in out-of-wedlock births.

Ok I do see your point better.

I’m not trying to say that other factors might not also be at play, but a bare analysis by race in lieu of a full study doesn’t warrant your conclusion as firmly as you make it.

Some sociologists agree this idea is worth studying and are looking into it. For final results, I’m going to wait on the experts.