Supreme Court hears arguments for Gay Marriages

[A//// Guy]

Hahaha I saw that in there too B, intrigued me a bit. But I still favor bewbs so whatever agenda Netflix has, it isnt working yet.

[A//// Guy]

Its there, on the Popular shows, its a netflix made exclusive lol. Its where I got my scrotal joke. haha

[Halon]

Haha, glad I'm not the only one who noticed it!

[1ViciousGSX]

Good read:
http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/29/in...s-on-marriage/

SCOTUS
What Is Marriage?

Justice Anthony Kennedy pointed out that thinking marriage is the union of a man and a woman “has been with us for millennia. And it—it’s very difficult for the Court to say, oh, well, we—we know better.”

Chief Justice John Roberts noted that “Every definition that I looked up, prior to about a dozen years ago, defined marriage as unity between a man and a woman as husband and wife.” So he pointed out: “you’re not seeking to join the institution, you’re seeking to change what the institution is. The fundamental core of the institution is the opposite-sex relationship and you want to introduce into it a same-sex relationship.”

How much experience do we have with redefined marriage? Twice Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out that there wasn’t “any society, prior to the Netherlands in 2001, that permitted same-sex marriage.”

And Scalia ridiculed the idea that the plaintiffs were “asking us to decide it for this society when no other society until 2001 ever had it.”

Kennedy seemed reluctant to judicially redefine marriage as well. Redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships has, Kennedy pointed out, only been around for “10 years is—I don’t even know how to count the decimals when we talk about millennia.”

Even Justice Stephen Breyer got in on the act, noting that marriage understood as the union of a man and a woman “has been the law everywhere for thousands of years among people who were not discriminating even against gay people, and suddenly you want nine people outside the ballot box to require states that don’t want to do it to change … what marriage is.”

He concluded: “Why cannot those states at least wait and see whether in fact doing so in the other states is or is not harmful to marriage?”

Not Anti-Gay at All

Justice Samuel Alito pointed to a near universal historical consensus about what marriage is, and asked if the lawyer was seriously going to argue it resulted only because of anti-gay sentiment. Alito asked:

How do you account for the fact that, as far as I’m aware, until the end of the 20th century, there never was a nation or a culture that recognized marriage between two people of the same sex?

Now, can we infer from that that those nations and those cultures all thought that there was some rational, practical purpose for defining marriage in that way or is it your argument that they were all operating independently based solely on irrational stereotypes and prejudice?

Support for marriage as the union of a man and a woman can’t simply be the result of anti-gay animus, Alito pointed out, because “there have been cultures that did not frown on homosexuality. … Ancient Greece is an example. It was well accepted within certain bounds.” Alito pointed out that “people like Plato wrote in favor of that.”

And yet, ancient Greece and people like Plato never thought a same-sex relationship was a marriage. Alito concluded: “So their limiting marriage to couples of the opposite sex was not based on prejudice against gay people, was it?”

Twice Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out that there wasn’t “any society, prior to the Netherlands in 2001, that permitted same-sex marriage.”

Roberts highlighted another important clarification: What petitioners are arguing for in this case is not freedom from government, but government affirmation. Roberts explained that in a previous Supreme Court case, “the whole argument is the State cannot intrude on that personal relationship.”

Now people are suing saying “the State must sanction. It must approve that relationship. They’re two different questions.” Just so.