JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

论坛

3/26/2013 5:53:39 PM
4
From Breyer: [quote]Now, let's look at California. What precisely is the way in which allowing gay couples to marry would interfere with the vision of marriage as procreation of children that allowing sterile couples of different sexes to marry would not? I mean, there are lots of people who get married who can't have children. To take a State that does allow adoption and say -- there, what is the justification for saying no gay marriage? Certainly not the one you said, is it? MR. COOPER: You're -- JUSTICE BREYER: Am I not clear? MR. COOPER: Yes, Your Honor. The concern is that redefining marriage as a genderless institution will sever its abiding connection to its historic traditional procreative purposes, and it will refocus, refocus the purpose of marriage and the definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults, of adult couples.[/quote]
English

发贴语言:

 

遵守游戏礼仪。发送贴子前请花点时间阅读我们的行为准则 取消 编辑 创建火力战队 贴子

  • /facepalm

    发贴语言:

     

    遵守游戏礼仪。发送贴子前请花点时间阅读我们的行为准则 取消 编辑 创建火力战队 贴子

  • 由Icy Wind编辑: 3/26/2013 6:04:39 PM
    I'm listening to the arguments. His arguments wouldn't hold up in a basic court. Why in SCOTUS? Scalia demands to know when it became unconstitutional when it became illegal to deny gays the right to marry. [quote]JUSTICE SCALIA: Okay. So I want to know how long it has been unconstitutional in those -- MR. OLSON: I don't -- when -- it seems to me, Justice Scalia, that -- JUSTICE SCALIA: It seems to me you ought to be able to tell me when. Otherwise, I don't know how to decide the case. MR. OLSON: I -- I submit you've never required that before. When you decided that -- that 14 individuals -- after having decided that separate but equal schools were permissible, a decision by this Court, when you decided that that was unconstitutional, when did that become unconstitutional?[/quote]

    发贴语言:

     

    遵守游戏礼仪。发送贴子前请花点时间阅读我们的行为准则 取消 编辑 创建火力战队 贴子

  • Oh i know, im just /facepalming at the stupidity. It seems that with the way its being approached, the supreme court may have already decided to legalize it, or strike down prop 8 at least.

    发贴语言:

     

    遵守游戏礼仪。发送贴子前请花点时间阅读我们的行为准则 取消 编辑 创建火力战队 贴子

  • SCOTUS might just rule no standing.

    发贴语言:

     

    遵守游戏礼仪。发送贴子前请花点时间阅读我们的行为准则 取消 编辑 创建火力战队 贴子

你没有权限查看此内容。
;
preload icon
preload icon
preload icon