START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

Video: A Supreme Court Justice Takes Down An Anti-Gay-Marriage Argument In 1 Minute


Society & Culture  (tags: dishonesty, ethics, SupremeCourt, usa, freedoms, gayrights, politics, rights, sadness, safety, society, news, ethics, culture, americans )

JL
- 386 days ago - upworthy.com
During a Supreme Court hearing to determine whether Proposition 8 (marriage shall only be between one man and one woman) was constitutional, a number of anti-gay marriage arguments got spectacularly demolished Check out this quote from Justice Sotomayor



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

JL A. (269)
Wednesday March 27, 2013, 2:03 pm
A Supreme Court Justice Takes Down An Anti-Gay-Marriage Argument In 1 Minute

During a Supreme Court hearing to determine whether Proposition 8 (marriage shall only be between one man and one woman) was constitutional, a number of anti-gay marriage arguments got spectacularly demolished. Check out this quote from Justice Sotomayor and listen to the exchange below.

Rollie Williams

Listen to the actual exchange.

Upworthy original. Check out the full audio track from the hearing.
 

Just Carole (341)
Wednesday March 27, 2013, 2:25 pm

 
Hey, the female justices are kicking arse!
 
I, particularly, loved this exchange between Justice Elena Kagan and Charles Cooper (from Gay Marriage Arguments: Cellphones, The Internet And Fertility Over 55)

 
Justice Elena Kagan: " ... Suppose a state said that, 'Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55.' Would that be constitutional? ... If you are over the age of 55, you don't help us serve the government's interest in regulating procreation through marriage. So why is that different?"
 
Charles Cooper, lawyer defending Proposition 8: "Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples — both parties to the couple are infertile, and the traditional —
 
(Laughter.)
 
Justice Elena Kagan: "No, really, because if the couple — I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage."
 
 
 

pam w. (187)
Wednesday March 27, 2013, 2:30 pm
RIGHT ON!

These women make perfect sense! The entire issue of same-sex marriage makes perfect sense! The only people who can't understand that are religious bigots.
 

JL A. (269)
Wednesday March 27, 2013, 3:01 pm
You cannot currently send a star to pam because you have done so within the last day.
 

Angelika R. (143)
Wednesday March 27, 2013, 3:52 pm
Bless Sotomayor! Thx JL, I already listened to their audio on SCOTUS website yesterday, she was awesome.
There was a lot laughter, also at other spots,-like when she said that one would not expect people over 55 having many babies.. :-)
 

Just Carole (341)
Wednesday March 27, 2013, 3:56 pm

Waddaya think?

WE NEED MORE PEOPLE (IN ALL AREAS OF GOVERNMENT) TO START LAUGHING AT THIS MALARKY!

 

Angelika R. (143)
Wednesday March 27, 2013, 3:56 pm
Ok, I should have read the comments first (like I USUALLY DO)..sorry-thx Carole!
 

JL A. (269)
Wednesday March 27, 2013, 4:00 pm
You are welcome Angelika.
You cannot currently send a star to Angelika because you have done so within the last day.
You cannot currently send a star to Just because you have done so within the last day.
 

Carol D. (98)
Wednesday March 27, 2013, 4:04 pm
Clever woman !

Noted thanks
 

JL A. (269)
Wednesday March 27, 2013, 4:20 pm
You are welcome Carol. You cannot currently send a star to Carol because you have done so within the last day.
 

Holly Lawrence (473)
Wednesday March 27, 2013, 4:48 pm
OOh we need more Justices like her! And a good house-cleaning of the Court is sure needed!
 

Terry V. (30)
Wednesday March 27, 2013, 5:26 pm

Pro gay marriage montage
 

Thomas P. (459)
Wednesday March 27, 2013, 5:59 pm
Noted...thanks J.L. Late last night I listened as Justice Sotomayor derailed this argument. I also listened to an exchange between Attorney Cooper and Justice Kagan. Cooper made the argument that it is rare that in a couple over 55, both husband and wife would be infertile. Justice Kagan retorted that there wouldn't be a lot of children coming from a marriage of that type. Cooper also talked about fidelity in his arguments defending traditional marriage. The part I found to be wholly incongruous about his arguments is this. Let's assume he's right about one of the parties to traditional marriage remaining fertile after 55, and let's further assume he means the man. That being said, who does he think that fertile, 55+ year old man might have children with? Because it almost certainly wouldn't be with his 55+ year old wife. Moreover, since he wouldn't be able to have children with her, he would necessarily have to stray, and with a much younger woman, in order to possibly have children, yes? How then does that lend any credence to his point about traditional marriage and fidelity? And why does the topic of marriage (traditional or same sex) necessarily have to be about procreation, which people can do inside or outside of marriage? At the end of the day, I feel this is absolutely a rights issue, and I feel that homosexuals should have all the same rights afforded to them that I have afforded to me. How can anyone not?
 

Just Carole (341)
Wednesday March 27, 2013, 6:12 pm

Another question? How could any reasonable person NOT see that what consensual adult people do in the confines of their bedrooms should have NO bearing on their rights? I happen to know some gay couples whose partnership has lasted longer than many hetero marriages. As such, they should be entitled to the same rights. (There is to intelligence or moral test placed on hetero applicants who choose to marry.)

As a woman, I am already tired of middle-aged, right-wing white men telling me what I can do with my vagina. (And I'm similarly opposed to their interference with ANY other group of adults who happen to choose to live their lives outside their opinionated and restrictive circle.)

Good points, Thomas!

 

Just Carole (341)
Wednesday March 27, 2013, 6:13 pm

OOPS . . . Should read "There is NO intelligence or moral test . . ."

 

Mitchell D. (123)
Wednesday March 27, 2013, 7:01 pm
Supreme court "housecleaning?" That is why one must vote for Democrats, as we are still stuck with Reagan and Bush judges there.
Cooper referred to fidelity? That's really a stretch! Statistics about fidelity have long shown that huge numbers of partners in hetero marriages stray!
I believe that the only way Prop. 8, and DOMA can survive this SCOTUS season, would be for the most conservative of the judges to vote their politics rather than the issues, and pull another justice along with them. Maybe that is obvious to everyone, I do not know.
 

JL A. (269)
Wednesday March 27, 2013, 9:04 pm
Excellent comments unfolding! Thanks for posting the link to the wonderful montage Terry!
Stars headed where possible, but You cannot currently send a star to Holly because you have done so within the last day.You cannot currently send a star to Just because you have done so within the last day.
 

John B. (215)
Wednesday March 27, 2013, 11:18 pm
Thanks J.L. for posting the link. Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan and Justice Kennedy posed the most important questions during the discussion on Proposition 8 part. I was able to listen online to the session. I am leaning towards the opinion that the court will uphold the lower courts decision but we will see. Viewed and noted.
 

Lynn D. (0)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 1:50 am
Thanks!
 

Joseph Miller (23)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 3:47 am
noted
 

Giana Peranio Paz (367)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 4:13 am
Good woman!
 

Gloria picchetti (279)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 4:48 am
DOMA must be repealed.
 

Ro H. (0)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 5:08 am
ty
 

Kenneth L. (321)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 6:11 am
Well I think Article 16 says it all in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

1.† Men†and†women†of full age, without any limitation†due†to†race,†nationality or† religion,†have†the†right†to†marry and to†found†a†family. They are†entitled†to† equal rights†as†to†marriage, during†marriage and at†its†dissolution.†
2.† Marriage shall be† entered† into† only with† the† free† and full consent† of† the†
intending†spouses.
3.† The† family is† the† natural and† fundamental group† unit of† society† and† is† entitled†to†protection†by society and†the†State.

Most of the anti gay marriage stuff comes from dogmatic religions, n'cest ce pas?
 

Tammy Baxter (9)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 6:11 am
thanks
 

Just Carole (341)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 6:36 am

Exactly, Kenneth.

That's also why I think Mr. Cooper, the attorney defending Prop. 8, is cagily avoiding the subject of religion. He doesn't want the First Amendment, regarding the separation of church and state, brought into the argument.

 

Roger Skinner (12)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 6:44 am
I like Thomas P.'s comment. I was thinking the same thing when I heard that. Though I was also thinking the same arguments could apply to the under-55 crowd too. I saw a comic on this point a few days ago:

http://www.theatheistpig.com/2013/03/25/miracle-babies/
 

JL A. (269)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 7:47 am
Excellent comments and respectful discussion and discourse everyone! Thank you all!
You are welcome John, Lynn, Ro and Tammy.
Stars sent where possible but: You cannot currently send a star to Just because you have done so within the last day.
 

Ge M. (216)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 9:55 am
More intelligent judges like Justice Sotomayor are needed on American benches for their clarity on how minorities are being abused.

The basic ideal of democracy is that you can do anything you want as long as it does not hurt or impact on another person. If there are 2 consenting adults who are happy together and not hurting or affecting anyone else what difference does it make? There are far more issues with how heterosexuals behave, more how men abuse women (not all abuse is male but the vast majority is) yet the courts tend to turn a blind eye to such issues as rape and the community tends to get annoyed with the victim. There have been several stories recently about young men raping a girl yet, because they are football jocks, the anger is directed at the victim. This needs to be dealt with not what happens between consentual adults!
 

Shawna S. (43)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 10:26 am
Woot!! Give this judge a green star!!
 

Allan Yorkowitz (458)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 11:14 am
I would like to see the whole damn court filled with nothing but women.
 

Just Carole (341)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 11:21 am

You and me both, Allan!

 

JL A. (269)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 11:25 am
You cannot currently send a star to Allan because you have done so within the last day.
 

. (0)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 11:55 am
Bravo..a very intelligent woman indeed
 

JL A. (269)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 11:57 am
You cannot currently send a star to Toni because you have done so within the last day.
 

Gene Jacobson (233)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 1:18 pm
It's hard to predict where this is going to end up in terms of the ruling. It seems the questions aren't clearly indicating where the Court may go with this, I've read things that make it seem as if they don't want to go into "uncharted" waters, but other Courts have on issues of urgent importance. I'd like to see this Court, especially this Court as conservative as it is, strike at the heart of the snake that is bigotry personified and go as far as other Courts have on issues of great current importance. And this one is in that category. Easily. No one's marriage will be harmed by allowing same sex couples to marry, that is a straw man argument and it is all the other side has. Everyone's marriage will stay just as they are now, the only thing at stake here is that the benefits of legal marriage will be extended to all who are willing to make the commitment marriage requires. No church will be forced to do anything against its will, these can be civil marriages, not Roman Catholic, I don't care about that and I don't think anyone who supports the issue does either. Decide the issue on its merits, on fairness, on equality under the law, that's all that is at stake here. No possible harm can come of this, none. It's time, I hope for this Court too, to put this issue to rest.
 

Joe R. (195)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 1:28 pm
Great job Justice Sotomayor! Thanks for posting JL.
 

Shirley B. (5)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 1:44 pm
Such great posts and I agree with you all. It is definitely time to put this one rest. Equality comes firstl
 

Birgit W. (135)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 1:54 pm
Thanks
 

Just Carole (341)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 3:33 pm
 
Lesbian Beats The Pants Off The Government Today Over Gay Marriage (VIDEO)
 
Edith Windsor, the respondent in United States v. Windsor, spoke with reporters after oral arguments were presented to the Supreme Court ealier today.
 
Windsor, has challenged the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) after being ordered to pay more than $300,000 in inheritance taxes after the death of her partner of over 40 years due to the fact that DOMA mandates that marriage, as legally defined, is only between a man and a woman.
 
Courtroom observers as well as legal analysts, are expecting DOMA will be overturned as it appeared from today’s oral arguments that at least five justices were skeptical that the law is constitutional.
 
 
 

Just Carole (341)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 3:44 pm
 
And, yet another female Justice stands strong:
 
“Mr. Clement,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said to the lawyer arguing for the Defense of Marriage Act before the Supreme Court, “if we are totally for the States’ decision that there is a marriage between two people, for the federal government then to come in to say no joint return, no marital deduction, no Social Security benefits; your spouse is very sick but you can’t get leave; people—if that set of attributes, one might well ask, What kind of marriage is this?”
 
Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/03/edith-windsors-victory-doma.html#ixzz2OsR1f94F
 
 
 

Just Carole (341)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 4:07 pm

The more I consider the issue, the more I am disgusted that it even IS an issue.

As was aptly said previously by Gene Jacobson:

"No one's marriage will be harmed by allowing same sex couples to marry, that is a straw man argument and it is all the other side has. Everyone's marriage will stay just as they are now, the only thing at stake here is that the benefits of legal marriage will be extended to all who are willing to make the commitment marriage requires."

So WHY do we have this form of fear-mongering (and it is nothing less than baseless insecurity) preventing others, who, perhaps unlike us, choose to live committed lives outside our own personal choices, with the same protections as all other recognized married couples? I resent laws that are tainted, and trample on the rights of citizens, because of the cowardice and fear of the minority.

It's no different than the mantra, and resultant unjust laws, of the bigots of earlier times -- that it took DECADES (centuries?) for justice-minded people to overturn and deliver their rightful and humane fairness to those who would be born of a different race to give them equal rights.

The difference today is that WE ALREADY KNOW THAT'S WRONG!

(I would would apologize for my anger, but I can't -- because I feel it is justified.)


 

Just Carole (341)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 4:20 pm

I was remiss in excluding women's rights, the acceptance and recognition of which are still being challenged (along with those of African Americans), in my above comment.

[Shame on me! Sincerely!]

 

Nancy M. (219)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 4:52 pm
Thanks for posting this JL- Good news.
 

JL A. (269)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 5:18 pm
You are welcome Joe, Birgit and Nancy.
You cannot currently send a star to Joe because you have done so within the last day.
 

John D. (45)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 5:57 pm
Beautiful...
 

JL A. (269)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 6:16 pm
You cannot currently send a star to John because you have done so within the last day.
 

Robert O. (12)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 9:57 pm
She's awesome and makes so much sense. Thanks JL.
 

Esther Z. (101)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 9:59 pm
Even if SCOTUS sends the Prop. 8 back to the lower courts, and DOMA is not struck down, the national exposure and discussion on the issue of gay marriage is invaluable to its future success. The dam of bigoted resistance has broken, and the average American is now seeing the discrimination, the bigotry of Prop. 8 and DOMA, and how America's LGBTQ citizens have been victimized by these laws! The sea of change is coming......
 

Lynn Squance (219)
Thursday March 28, 2013, 11:20 pm
Thomas P, were you reading my mind again? You have articulated so well what was going through my mind when I listened to the Kagan/Cooper exchange. I even started laughing out loud at the absurdity of Cooper's thoughts. He was like a mutt dog chasing his bloody tail

And Justice Sotomayor kicked Cooper's ass too in such fine fashion. I think if I were Cooper I would retire right now.

@ Kenneth --- Qui! C'est vrai!

@ Gene --- "...Decide the issue on its merits, on fairness, on equality under the law, that's all that is at stake here. No possible harm can come of this, none. It's time, I hope for this Court too, to put this issue to rest." --- AMEN!!!!!

I think that Cooper was wise to stay away from religion in his argument because all that would do is sink his ship before he got out of drydock. He would then be arguing for discrimination, which Prop 8 and DOMA are, using discrimination as the basis of his argument.

Thanks everybody for the excellent comments.
 

Pat N. (8)
Friday March 29, 2013, 12:54 am
Yes, sure would be great to see more women on the court. Then it might be the court of common sense.
 

Zee Kallah (39)
Friday March 29, 2013, 1:17 am
Women in office could save this nation.
 

paul m. (93)
Friday March 29, 2013, 7:07 am

If same - sex marriages are happy or the same as straight ,,,why would it bother me ??
 

JL A. (269)
Friday March 29, 2013, 8:22 am
Excellent comments! You are welcome Robert!
You cannot currently send a star to Lynn because you have done so within the last day.
You cannot currently send a star to Zee because you have done so within the last day.
 

Barbara DeFratis (22)
Friday March 29, 2013, 9:50 am
Yes, She is Indeed A Very Good Woman--THANK YOU, MR PRESIDENT BARACK H. OBAMA FOR APPOINTING HER WHERE WE TRULY NEED HER TO BE!!!!!!
 

John S. (294)
Friday March 29, 2013, 10:03 am
Jee, I was more impressed that Justice Scalia says that bringing a trained police dog onto a personís property amounts to a search under the Fourth Amendment and requires a search warrant.
 

John S. (294)
Friday March 29, 2013, 10:09 am
"If marriage is a fundamental right, can any other limits on it survive?" You don't like that question she had, do you.
 

Sharon W. (4)
Friday March 29, 2013, 12:19 pm
What Kenneth said.
And the video is great! Posting it on my blog right now!
 

Isabelle J. (88)
Friday March 29, 2013, 1:23 pm
Great !
 

Roger Hawcroft (27)
Friday March 29, 2013, 2:20 pm
This is good. However the "gay marriage" argument is really the wrong one. What should be happening is that we make "marriage" simply a civil unieon sanctioned by the State and open to any two adults who choose to enter into it. The religious sanction of marriage should have no civil standing but simply be a ceremony that is undertaken by those who follow a religious faith and wish to follow its rituals. The fundamental cause of the exclusion of same sex marriages is the religious ancestry of marriage. Take that away and all are on an equal footing.
 

Mary Donnelly (44)
Friday March 29, 2013, 2:44 pm
Once again J.L. great post.
 

SJ J. (113)
Friday March 29, 2013, 3:06 pm
I heard clever people said that women are very clever, it's true, isn't it? I shall send a green star to the judge. It's great to hear a very good news.Thanks J L.
 

Debra Van Way (12)
Saturday March 30, 2013, 11:54 am
I love how Justice Sotomayor nailed him and her comment about not too many 55 year olds having children-PRICELESS!!!
 

JL A. (269)
Saturday March 30, 2013, 2:34 pm
You are welcome Mary and SJ.
You cannot currently send a star to Debra because you have done so within the last day.
 

Marlene Dinkins (225)
Sunday March 31, 2013, 5:32 pm
notato Jl thnx
 

JL A. (269)
Sunday March 31, 2013, 5:34 pm
You are welcome Marlene.
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 

 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.