or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Daily CE Musings of Piob - Page 165

post #2461 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Why did they specifically mention it so many times? You lawyers are so fucking confounding to us regular people. I mean, if I delineate something with a number, I mean the number to be defining.

I have never thought that supreme court opinions were supposed to be easily digestible by a layperson.

I wish you could point to dissents as being more valuable though... I recently got some dissenting opinions in a matter that completely eviscerate the majority opinion... But I haven't seen the media so much as mention them.
post #2462 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Argentino View Post

I found Roberts' dissent more compelling - akin to Scalia's dissent in Windsor. He's setting out the convenient facts excluded from the majority, and describing how it the law will be pushed further open (gay pun intended?)
Haven't read the dissents yet but that doesn't surprise me at all. I'd expect Roberts to focus more on legal analysis, while Scalia is more prone to grandstanding and vituperative venting.
post #2463 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post

I have never thought that supreme court opinions were supposed to be easily digestible by a layperson.

I wish you could point to dissents as being more valuable though... I recently got some dissenting opinions in a matter that completely eviscerate the majority opinion... But I haven't seen the media so much as mention them.
Dissents can be (and often are) constructive and thoughtful. Sometimes they do serve to further the discussion and serve as a touchpoint for later reconsideration of the issue. I was being a bit snarky. But it's often the case in dissents - as in many arguments - that they're not entirely fair in characterizing the other sides arguments and set up straw men. For that reason, it's often dicey to rely on the dissent's statements about what the majority opinion decided in lieu of citing what the majority actually said. In any event, as I noted, even Roberts (at least in the excerpt Pio posted, which is all I've read of it so far) doesn't say that the majority addresses the supposed polygamy issue.
post #2464 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Why did they specifically mention it so many times? You lawyers are so fucking confounding to us regular people. I mean, if I delineate something with a number, I mean the number to be defining.

Because tactically and politically, they'll like to argue that gay marriage and polygamy are close variants and different than heterosexual marriage, rather evaluating the 3 concepts individually. From my experience, the reason why most lawyers and ordinary people who oppose gay marriage bring up polygamy rather than argue against gay marriage is to force the argument that polygamy = gay marriage =/= heterosexual marriage, and then use that analytical framework to argue slippery slope.

I see no reason why gay marriage and polygamy both need to be linked and settled identically the same time. They're separate issues. Debate and argue them separately.
post #2465 of 5129
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoVaguy View Post

Because tactically and politically, they'll like to argue that gay marriage and polygamy are close variants and different than heterosexual marriage, rather evaluating the 3 concepts individually. From my experience, the reason why most lawyers and ordinary people who oppose gay marriage bring up polygamy rather than argue against gay marriage is to force the argument that polygamy = gay marriage =/= heterosexual marriage, and then use that analytical framework to argue slippery slope.

I see no reason why gay marriage and polygamy both need to be linked and settled identically the same time. They're separate issues. Debate and argue them separately.

I'm sure something similar was said when Loving v. Virginia happened.
post #2466 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoVaguy View Post

Because tactically and politically, they'll like to argue that gay marriage and polygamy are close variants and different than heterosexual marriage, rather evaluating the 3 concepts individually. From my experience, the reason why most lawyers and ordinary people who oppose gay marriage bring up polygamy rather than argue against gay marriage is to force the argument that polygamy = gay marriage =/= heterosexual marriage, and then use that analytical framework to argue slippery slope.

I see no reason why gay marriage and polygamy both need to be linked and settled identically the same time. They're separate issues. Debate and argue them separately.

Roberts actually addresses this - through Zablocki (?) and Loving, and how miscegenation is far more distant from the concept pushed through today than many would think. I would read Roberts' as he's far more artfully eloquent than anyone deserves to be on a men's fashion board.
post #2467 of 5129
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Argentino View Post

Roberts actually addresses this - through Zablocki (?) and Loving, and how miscegenation is far more distant from the concept pushed through today than many would think. I would read Roberts' as he's far more artfully eloquent than anyone deserves to be on a men's fashion board.

I can't see that. I would think miscegenation and same sex marriage pretty much walk in lock step. The only thing I think might be different is inheritance and custody as in gay marriage one parent is not going to be a biological one.
post #2468 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

I can't see that. I would think miscegenation and same sex marriage pretty much walk in lock step. The only thing I think might be different is inheritance and custody as in gay marriage one parent is not going to be a biological one.

Miscegenation is the result of historical prejudice, but still basically consisted of man + woman + progeny. Miscegenation wasn't even always illegal from the historical perspective.

Gay marriage on the other hand has historically never cropped up because even our dimwitted, now-known-to-be-prejudiced ancestors realized you lose 2/3 components to make marriage work as an institution.
post #2469 of 5129
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Argentino View Post

Miscegenation is the result of historical prejudice, but still basically consisted of man + woman + progeny. Miscegenation wasn't even always illegal from the historical perspective.

Gay marriage on the other hand has historically never cropped up because even our dimwitted, now-known-to-be-prejudiced ancestors realized you lose 2/3 components to make marriage work as an institution.

Formalized gay relationships were also not illegal from an historical perspective in various cultures.

If you want to say "marriage" was traditionally between a man and a woman, I agree. Where I think miscegenation and gay marriage is about the same is in terms of arguments against them and how specious they all are.
post #2470 of 5129
Historical "formalized gay relationships"? Every time I have seen that asserted it's turned out to be revisionist garbage. For example, they say that Nero was gay married; but he was actually alleged to have castrated a male slave, dressed him up like a woman, and called him his wife. This was alleged by ancient sources to show what a demented, power-mad, evil person he was. The idea that it represents a Roman custom is absurd.
post #2471 of 5129
Thread Starter 
I'm just a smug hypocrite so take the above post with a grain of salt.
post #2472 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Historical "formalized gay relationships"? Every time I have seen that asserted it's turned out to be revisionist garbage. For example, they say that Nero was gay married; but he was actually alleged to have castrated a male slave, dressed him up like a woman, and called him his wife. This was alleged by ancient sources to show what a demented, power-mad, evil person he was. The idea that it represents a Roman custom is absurd.
At first I read as "Neo".
I was like, "come on, he's not that bad."
post #2473 of 5129
I feel like this is a semi-appropriate place for this... Confederate Flag Parade down in Georgia.
post #2474 of 5129
What was I waiting for? Somebody got rear-ended?
post #2475 of 5129
Thread Starter 
That was pretty funny. What's interesting is the cop was parked such as to prevent the parade folks from leaving the road and not to prevent someone from driving into the middle of the parade....which is what I think actually happened.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob