SCOTUS, Learned Body or Kindergarteners?

Excerpt: In a telling moment at Tuesday’s Supreme Court arguments over same-sex marriage, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that he may have found a way to cast a vote in favor of the gay and lesbian couples in the case.
“I’m not sure it’s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve this case,” he said. “I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?”…

Professor Koppelman and other scholars filed a brief, urging the court to strike down the four same-sex marriage bans before it, on sex-discrimination grounds.
“If Ann is permitted to marry Bob, but Charles may not marry Bob,” it said, “then Charles is being discriminated against on the basis of sex.”…

A basic premise of Chief Justice Roberts’s question was that the issue before the court is not “gay marriage.” Same-sex marriage bans, after all, do not prohibit gay people from getting married. A gay man, for instance, is free to marry a lesbian in all 50 states. What same-sex marriage bans do is bar people of the same sex, gay or straight, from getting married.

More Here:

SAY WHAT? Is it just I who feels as though these SCOTUS arguments appear, childlike? (Almost to the point that little kindergarteners are arguing the laws that we must all obey throughout our short lives) No, it can’t possibly be just me, after all, isn’t this the body of supposedly learned human beings who gave us the unseemly “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and the rise of super PACs” laws, therefore, some of their “reasoning’s have appeard a bit, Bat-Shit-Crazy, before?

If they could rule on a law that in actuality can gut democracy allowing the rich to choose, who can and who cannot lead this nation… (in the wealthy schemer’s favor) then assuredly they can command who we can and who we cannot (as in one human being) be allowed to legally marry (with all the legal benefits that marriage affords). Not only Bat-Shit-Crazy but also cruel.


Federal Rights and Protections Granted to Married Couples

There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law. In June 2013, the Supreme Court’s decision inU.S. v. Windsor struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which excluded same-sex married couples from recognition for all federal benefits and programs [1]. Because of this ruling, same-sex married couples across the country have been recognized for federal purposes for the first time.  However, the persistent patchwork of state marriage laws continues to stand in the way of many couples fully accessing the federal benefits they have earned including Social Security and Veterans Benefits.

More Here:\to-married-couples

About thethinkingblue

LIBERAL AND PROUD OF IT! “Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.” - William E. Gladstone
This entry was posted in health, Liberal Opinions, politics, Reality vs Tea Party Madness, religion, terrorism, Uncategorized, World and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s