I think it’s an absolutely fair characterization of what he said.
Here’s the part of my post you bolded, one more time: “I’m not saying gays are unfit to be parents, but they might be, so there’s a reason for not allowing them to marry.”
Here’s what Scalia said:
I don’t see any reasonable reading for that which isn’t consistent with “I’m not saying gays are unfit to be parents, but they might be.” And he suggested this specifically as an argument that the lawyer, Mr. Cooper, could have used in response to Justice Kagan’s line of questioning about whether there was any reason for not allowing same-sex couples to marry.
My speculation that he is aware of the research which shows same-sex parents do just as well as opposite-sex parents, but is choosing to ignore it, is of course my own speculation. Although I can’t see how he could not be aware of it. But I think my characterization of what he actually said is pretty indisputable.
Your speculation is indisputable to you. All of the Justices were asking questions to help them decide how they should rule on the specific questions before the court. You seem to object to “how” the Justices, Scalia in particular, phrased their questions. Scalia joined Kagen in seeking a direct (more direct?) answer from Cooper. You can read anything into Scalia’s wording that you wish but that doesn’t make your “speculation” indisputable. It’s just makes it your speculation.
Thanks, that’s something that needs to be said. I believe it’s the misunderstanding by the media and public that the Justice’s questions are simply random questions instead of the fact that they are related to some issue that has already been discussed by the Justices. The questions may be related to issues raised in amicus curiae, the appellate court, the original case file, possible related cases, or SCOTUS closed door sessions.
The Justices are phrasing their questions to elicit a more thoughtful or direct response from the lawyers before them. The Justices already know what has been presented prior to this public hearing.
What are you responding to? I didn’t say “my speculation is indisputable”. I said that my characterization of what Scalia said is indisputable. I’m referring to this part of my post, which you bolded in your response:
He’s saying “I’m not saying gays are unfit to be parents, but they might be, so there’s a reason for not allowing them to marry.”
Do you dispute that that’s an accurate paraphrase of what Scalia said?
My speculation, which I have never claimed was indisputable, was the part of my post where I suggest that Scalia knows about the research that says same-sex couples are as good parents as anyone else, and chooses to ignore it.
The second one. He’s not saying “If it is proven in the future that gays are unfit parents, then you can deny them the right to marry”. He’s saying “Since it hasn’t been proven yet that gays are not unfit parents” – and I don’t agree with Scalia’s claim that this hasn’t been proven – " you can deny them the right to marry."
That confused my husband too. (The only reason I wasn’t ‘confused’ is because I’m too ignorant to have even thought it though).
Anyway, hubby was confused because while it makes sense that the pro-gay side looks like the plaintiffs – they are not. The plaintiffs in the Prop 8 case are the pro-Prop8 people. I guess the reason is because they are the ones appealing?
Anyway, this whole thing confused hubby because all the gnashing of teeth about standing. He was all, WTF? Of course the couples would have standing. He knows (and I didn’t) that standing only matters for the plaintiff. And the only group that could have questionable standing is the pro-Prop8 side. So he was confused too.
The answer is that the pro-Prop8 people are the plaintiffs.
For DOMA, I assume the same reasoning holds. There was quite a bit of questioning regarding standing again, so I guess that means the pro-DOMA side is the plaintiff. My WAG is that it is because they are appealing the lower rulings against DOMA.
My thinking too - he showed in the Obamacare decision that he really does have an eye on how history will perceive his Court, and he may well be hungry for more. “Is Roberts going to be the new Earl Warren?” is another thread topic, but already there are hints, there are hints.
If they decide that prop 8 is dead and DOMA goes the way of the dodo, but that does not mean SSM from sea to shining sea, is that a ruling “in favor of equality”?
Is it likely that the court will overturn DOMA entirely, including the part that says states don’t have to recognize SSM performed in other states, or just the part that says the federal government doesn’t recognize SSM (for tax purposes and such)?
If the prop 8 ruling comes out limiting SSM rights to just California, but all of DOMA is overturned… then essentially SSM will be recognized everywhere, but only performed in a handful of states. Is this a likely or possible outcome? If so, that’s definitely what I would call an outcome for “equality” even if all of the 50 states are not required to allow SSM to be performed within their own borders.
Yes, because it clears the way for a future case that will make marriage equality the law across the country. If DOMA is dropped (even if only Section 3 is dropped), you have a case where a couple who lived in NY and married there, then moved to PA, has federal marriage benefits in a state that doesn’t recognize their marriage. That’s most likely untenable (although IANAL) and it seems to me that it provides a much better test case against Section 2 of DOMA (which is the section that abrogates Full Faith & Credit in cases of SSM).
Again, this demonstrates my point. I think different people are using that phrase to mean different things, and so it’s best to clarify what we mean rather than to keep using it.