# Supreme Court \[declines to hear\] same sex marriage cases.\[plus further developments (Ed.)\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 6, 2014, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544 "2014-10-06T13:50:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/121 "2014-10-08T03:28:10Z")
While various religions do require that a couple be open to having children, that’s not actually the same thing as being capable of having children. Under church law (of the Catholic church and I imagine also of the Anglican), it’s perfectly acceptable for (say) a 60-year-old single woman to wed. It’s certainly not expected that she would become pregnant, but if it were miraculously to happen, the Church would expect that she would accept the child. But if we can posit a miraculous child born to an (apparently) post-menopausal woman, then why not also posit a miraculous child born to a same-sex couple? If a same-sex couple would be welcoming to such a miraculous child, then that particular objection evaporates. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/122 "2014-10-08T03:34:18Z")
> [@susan](#): > > In Adam’s fall/We sinned all. Bah. Phone typing and autocorrect. ---
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/123 "2014-10-08T04:28:56Z")
AFAIK, out Pacific territories (Guam, etc.) are part of the 9th. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/124 "2014-10-08T04:31:26Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > While various religions do require that a couple be open to having children, that’s not actually the same thing as being capable of having children. Under church law (of the Catholic church and I imagine also of the Anglican), it’s perfectly acceptable for (say) a 60-year-old single woman to wed. It’s certainly not expected that she would become pregnant, but if it were miraculously to happen, the Church would expect that she would accept the child. > > But if we can posit a miraculous child born to an (apparently) post-menopausal woman, then why not also posit a miraculous child born to a same-sex couple? If a same-sex couple would be welcoming to such a miraculous child, then that particular objection evaporates. Fair point. One might make the argument, from a Christian viewpoint, that (male) gay married couples often practice certain sexual behaviours that (many) Christians historically frowned on. I’m not going to make that argument though, because 1) not all gay men practice that sexual act, in fact many don’t, 2) some hetero couples do, and 3) marriage and sex are two different things- some marriages are entirely sexless- so disapproval of a particular sex act doesn’t have anything to do with marriage, per se. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/125 "2014-10-08T05:27:48Z")
> [@Hector](#): > > 1. marriage and sex are two different things- some marriages are entirely sexless- so disapproval of a particular sex act doesn’t have anything to do with marriage, per se. How do you square that with your recent assertion about willingness to have children (which non-PIV sex acts don’t conduce to) being the fundamental reason for marriage? > [@Hector](#): > > Children (specifically, the assurance of paternity and the delegation of responsibility for parenting) is the primary _reason_ that marriage exists, in European Christian cultures. In fact, what you now seem to be claiming is the exact _opposite_ of the traditional Christian teaching that you attempted to appeal to previously, which _does_ hold that [so-called “unnatural” sex acts are disapproved precisely _because_ they’re “non-procreative”](http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marital-foreplay.htm) and hence opposed to the fundamental purpose of marriage: > [@](#): > > An unnatural sexual act is intrinsically evil because this type of act is not procreative […] So even when the two persons committing the unnatural sexual acts are married to each other, the procreative and unitive meanings are absent, making such acts intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. Your entire take on this issue is just completely fuddled and inconsistent. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/126 "2014-10-08T06:02:43Z")
People have already worked your other points over with a hacksaw, so I’ll just address a few here: > [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > 1. Married women were never considered ‘property’ in Christian civilizations. They didn’t have the same rights as their husbands, but neither did children, and certainly no one would describe children as property. Their parents traded them off for money to their husbands. If that ain’t property, I dunno what is. > [@](#): > > 1. It’s true that marriage has shifted, in the minds of many, from having a distinct leader and a follower, a superior and a subordinate, to being a supposed ‘partnership of equals’. You’ll of course pardon me if I don’t view that as a good thing, and view it as part of the breakdown of authority in the liberal west. No. No, I’m sorry, I _won’t_ pardon that, because that view is _monstrous_ and I cannot for the life of me see how anyone living in the 21st century could hold it. It’s akin to you saying “You’ll of course pardon me if I don’t view the end of slavery as a good thing”. No, I won’t pardon you; _your opinion has no place in a modern society_. We’ve gone from women being subservient to women being _equals_. This is such a huge step forward that denying its value is akin to denying the value of virtually any other significant civil rights achievement, from the end of miscegenation laws to the end of sodomy laws. And it becomes _exceedingly_ hard to take anything you have to say seriously. The fact that you’d just casually say something _that_ misogynistic makes me think you really don’t even understand how bad it is. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 10:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/127 "2014-10-08T10:35:26Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > How do you square that with your recent assertion about willingness to have children (which non-PIV sex acts don’t conduce to) being the fundamental reason for marriage? Well, then, we’re right back to “it’s OK if the couple would welcome the child if one miraculously came along anyway”. I’m presuming that there’s no Christian sect out there that categorically rejects the notion that it’s possible for a woman to miraculously become pregnant without benefit of sexual intercourse… ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/128 "2014-10-08T10:48:53Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > You’ll of course pardon me if I don’t view that as a good thing, and view it as part of the breakdown of authority in the liberal west. You contradict yourself. The breakdown of authoritarianism and the rise of liberty _is_ a good thing, recognized as such by all who have outgrown juvenile fantasies of themselves as perfect creatures owning the common herd as slaves. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/129 "2014-10-08T10:50:56Z")
Plus, there couldn’t be a gay messiah until lesbian marriage was legal. This could be just the break the eschatologists have been waiting for. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/130 "2014-10-08T10:57:17Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > This is the middle ground I hope for on gay marriage. Heck, religious groups are free to recognize or not recognize anything they want. Personally, I don’t recognize their authority on anything of importance. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/131 "2014-10-08T10:57:50Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Gay marriage is pretty much done as a wedge issue. Nah… it’s just becoming a wedge pointing the other way, as the Republicans who actually want to win elections try (and fail) to shush the Talibornagains. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/132 "2014-10-08T12:47:58Z")
Just popping in to point out that there’s now a relevant [Obligatory XKCD](http://xkcd.com/1431/). ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/133 "2014-10-08T13:11:22Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Nah… it’s just becoming a wedge pointing the other way, as the Republicans who actually want to win elections try (and fail) to shush the Talibornagains. Heh, maybe this issue can bring Republicans back to sanity. But I doubt it. ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/134 "2014-10-08T14:45:19Z")
> [@ctnguy](#): > > Did you see the story last year about the two guys who had a Zulu customary wedding in KZN? Though apparently neither of them paid lobola. > > (For our non-South African readers: _lobola_ is a bride-price in Bantu cultures, traditionally a quantity of cattle.) “It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Jawarlahal!” ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/135 "2014-10-08T14:59:09Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Heh, maybe this issue can bring Republicans back to sanity. > > But I doubt it. I think that it will take a 1964-level drubbing, and even that might not be enough. ---
**Author:** ![Greg\_Charles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/839c29/32.png) [@Greg\_Charles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Greg_Charles)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/136 "2014-10-08T15:30:44Z")
Justice Kennedy has stayed the 9th Circuit ruling, so we"re back to 25 states. The way things are hopping this week, that number could change again by the weekend, maybe several times. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/137 "2014-10-08T15:57:36Z")
> [@Greg\_Charles](#): > > Justice Kennedy has stayed the 9th Circuit ruling, so we"re back to 25 states. The way things are hopping this week, that number could change again by the weekend, maybe several times. Could you link to a source for that? I’m not doubting your announcement; I’d just like to pursue more detail. ---
**Author:** ![Asimovian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asimovian/32/172_2.png) [@Asimovian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asimovian)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/138 "2014-10-08T15:59:35Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Could you link to a source for that? I’m not doubting your announcement; I’d just like to pursue more detail. It’s all over the place. [NY Times article.](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/09/us/justice-kennedy-blocks-same-sex-ruling-in-idaho.html) ---
**Author:** ![Ambrosio\_Spinola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Ambrosio\_Spinola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambrosio_Spinola)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/139 "2014-10-08T16:05:04Z")
Idaho’s plea is [here](http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/14A374-Idaho-marriage-stay-applic.-10-814.pdf) and the stay is [here](http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/14A374-Kennedy-order.pdf). This is pretty odd, given Monday’s rulings. The only thing I can think of is that Kennedy is interested in the Ninth’s Circuit’s holding that homosexuals are a protected class. If they grant cert on that issue and uphold it, that’s arguably an even bigger result than the same-sex marriage thing. ---
**Author:** ![EverwonderWhy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee59a6/32.png) [@EverwonderWhy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EverwonderWhy)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544/140 "2014-10-08T16:30:26Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > 1. It’s true that marriage has shifted, in the minds of many, from having a distinct leader and a follower, a superior and a subordinate, to being a supposed ‘partnership of equals’. You’ll of course pardon me if I don’t view that as a good thing, and view it as part of the breakdown of authority in the liberal west. This may come as a surprise to you, but some women weren’t okay with being followers and subordinates. We no longer live in the days when women went from their fathers’ home to their husbands’ home. We haven’t for some time. Women can own property and vote now and no longer must depend on men for economic security. By your standard, single women today would essentially lose when they marry. Damn uppity women, they should go back to kotowing to male authority and quit worrying their pretty little heads about what they desire out of life. Amiright? This may be hard for you to imagine, but some women, after living independently from their parents, perhaps even achieving an education and a career, may find your authoritative view of marriage completely unappealing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases-plus-further-developments-ed/700544.md?page=8)