Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[TripletDaddy]

Holy crap. Go listen to the oral arguments in Wolf (Wisconsin case) in front of Posner et al. No I don't have a link handy. Check Above the Law.

So that is what LA ute sounds like? weird.

[Jacob]

Holy crap. Go listen to the oral arguments in Wolf (Wisconsin case) in front of Posner et al. No I don't have a link handy. Check Above the Law.

Sounds strikingly similar to some Posner oral arguments I think I posted here several months ago. I suppose he made a few good arguments, but was mostly just being combative and trying to argue about irrelevant points that the lawyer and judge really need not opine on given the law at hand.

Edit: "Why don't you want their children to be as well of as the children born to heterosexual couples."

This question, of course, is ridiculous for a judge to pose to the lawyer for the state. Whether he, or the state, want or don't want those children to be better off seems quite irrelevant as to the question of whether the people of the state may chose to limit marriage to opposite gender couples.

Edit 2: "You have 10,000 foster children in Indiana, shouldn't you be enlisting people to adopt them?"
What strange questioning. Maybe I'm confused and adoption, not marriage is at issue. But does Posner think that gay couples are lining up to adopt foster children, if only they were allowed to marry? How absurd! Posner wants older foster children in Indana to be adopted by good parents, so Indiana CLEARLY must marry same-sex couples. That's some logic.

[Eddie]

Sounds strikingly similar to some Posner oral arguments I think I posted here several months ago. I suppose he made a few good arguments, but was mostly just being combative and trying to argue about irrelevant points that the lawyer and judge really need not opine on given the law at hand.

Edit: "Why don't you want their children to be as well of as the children born to heterosexual couples."

This question, of course, is ridiculous for a judge to pose to the lawyer for the state. Whether he, or the state, want or don't want those children to be better off seems quite irrelevant as to the question of whether the people of the state may chose to limit marriage to opposite gender couples.

Edit 2: "You have 10,000 foster children in Indiana, shouldn't you be enlisting people to adopt them?"
What strange questioning. Maybe I'm confused and adoption, not marriage is at issue. But does Posner think that gay couples are lining up to adopt foster children, if only they were allowed to marry? How absurd! Posner wants older foster children in Indana to be adopted by good parents, so Indiana CLEARLY must marry same-sex couples. That's some logic.

Not to be rude...but there has actually been some research done that indicates that gay couples are MORE likely to adopt older children and MORE likely to adopt children with behavioral and/or emotional issues than their heterosexual counterparts. I also happen to have first hand knowledge that yes - there are a number of couples would would like to foster or adopt children in Utah and are waiting for the law to change that would allow them to do so.

Frankly - some of the kids in foster care have been through some pretty difficult times, and in the current environment it would probably not be helpful to their long-term emotional stability to be placed with or adopted by a gay couple. However, there are other children who would benefit and thrive in that situation. So it really is more about making a good match of children with the right family. Which is true of all foster/adoptive placements.

However - anytime that you have a shortage of homes for children, it does make sense to not limit potential families for those children.

All that aside - I can see why you would say that he seems to be running off on tangents. Those arguments are probably better suited to a discussion about whether or not gay couples should be allowed to foster/adopt rather than whether or not they should be allowed to marry.

[Jacob]

Not to be rude...but there has actually been some research done that indicates that gay couples are MORE likely to adopt older children and MORE likely to adopt children with behavioral and/or emotional issues than their heterosexual counterparts. I also happen to have first hand knowledge that yes - there are a number of couples would would like to foster or adopt children in Utah and are waiting for the law to change that would allow them to do so.

Frankly - some of the kids in foster care have been through some pretty difficult times, and in the current environment it would probably not be helpful to their long-term emotional stability to be placed with or adopted by a gay couple. However, there are other children who would benefit and thrive in that situation. So it really is more about making a good match of children with the right family. Which is true of all foster/adoptive placements.

However - anytime that you have a shortage of homes for children, it does make sense to not limit potential families for those children.

All that aside - I can see why you would say that he seems to be running off on tangents. Those arguments are probably better suited to a discussion about whether or not gay couples should be allowed to foster/adopt rather than whether or not they should be allowed to marry.

I don't and didn't dispute any of that. I agree wholeheartedly with your entire post. Except for the part where you make a general statement that "it does make sense to not limit potential families for those children." I'm sure you agree that it does make sense to limit potential families, starting with weeding out abusive adults, drug addicts, etc.

[Jacob]

Here's Posner form earlier this year babbling and acting just as oddly (for a judge) as he did in the audio referenced todday:

Posner: Is there some sanction that Notre Dame imposes on employees or students who use contraception?

Kairis: No.

Posner: Why not? This is a . . . well, let me ask you this. Is use of contraception a mortal sin or a venial sin?

Kairis: Your Honor, I don’t know the answer.

Posner: Well, you should. It’s a mortal sin if the person using contraception knows the Church forbids it. So, if Notre Dame is really serious about this, why doesn’t it do anything about the violations, which apparently are widespread . . .

Kairis: Notre Dame has no interest in vetoing or controlling other people’s choices. Notre Dame has an interest in controlling its own choices.

Posner: You’re kidding. The Catholic Church is not interested in affecting other people’s choices?

Kairis: Notre Dame has no interest in . . .

Posner: Notre Dame has no interest in preventing use of contraceptives?

Kairis: That is not what it seeks to do here. It seeks to not be part of the process.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Holy crap. Go listen to the oral arguments in Wolf (Wisconsin case) in front of Posner et al. No I don't have a link handy. Check Above the Law.

I'm not sure whether Posner is someone you'd call a conservative judge at this point, but I wouldn't call him liberal either. Libertarian might be more accurate, or merely economically conservative and socially libertarian.

He gets to the rub of it repeatedly; namely, point out any legitimate government purpose behind restricting gay marriage. I don't think the law can pass any kind of scrutiny let alone strict scrutiny (if they were to require such a standard in this issue, which I don't think they will).

Posner is someone the SC, particularly Kennedy and perhaps Roberts will listen to. Gay marriage bans are dead men walking, I simply don't see the SC at this point upholding them because the rationale behind them seem so completely nebulous and unsubstantiated.

[Jacob]

I'm not sure whether Posner is someone you'd call a conservative judge at this point, but I wouldn't call him liberal either. Libertarian might be more accurate, or merely economically conservative and socially libertarian.

He gets to the rub of it repeatedly; namely, point out any legitimate government purpose behind restricting gay marriage. I don't think the law can pass any kind of scrutiny let alone strict scrutiny (if they were to require such a standard in this issue, which I don't think they will).

Posner is someone the SC, particularly Kennedy and perhaps Roberts will listen to. Gay marriage bans are dead men walking, I simply don't see the SC at this point upholding them because the rationale behind them seem so completely nebulous and unsubstantiated.

I wonder what Roberts would think if he bothered to read how Posner responded to this opinion of Roberts:

Here is how Chief Justice Roberts, joined by the four liberals, described the speech that “sidewalk counselor” Eleanor McCullen and her fellow petitioners were barred from providing on public sidewalks within the “buffer zone” created by the Massachusetts statute:

[Petitioners] attempt to engage women approaching the clinics in what they call “sidewalk counseling,” which involves offering information about alternatives to abortion and help pursuing those options. Petitioner Eleanor McCullen, for instance, will typically initiate a conversation this way: “Good morning, may I give you my literature? Is there anything I can do for you? I’m available if you have any questions.” If the woman seems receptive, McCullen will provide additional information. McCullen and the other petitioners consider it essential to maintain a caring demeanor, a calm tone of voice, and direct eye contact during these exchanges. Such interactions, petitioners believe, are a much more effective means of dissuading women from having abortions than confrontational methods such as shouting or brandishing signs, which in petitioners’ view tend only to antagonize their intended audience. In unrefuted testimony, petitioners say they have collectively persuaded hundreds of women to forgo abortions.

And here is Seventh Circuit judge Richard Posner’s deranged account on Slate:

The assertion that abortion protesters “wish to converse” with women outside an abortion clinic is naive. They wish to prevent the women from entering the clinic, whether by showing them gruesome photos of aborted fetuses or calling down the wrath of God on them. This is harassment of people who are in a very uncomfortable position; the last thing a woman about to have an abortion needs is to be screamed at by the godly.

Posner may have lost it.

[Applejack]

Sounds strikingly similar to some Posner oral arguments I think I posted here several months ago. I suppose he made a few good arguments, but was mostly just being combative and trying to argue about irrelevant points that the lawyer and judge really need not opine on given the law at hand.

Edit: "Why don't you want their children to be as well of as the children born to heterosexual couples."

This question, of course, is ridiculous for a judge to pose to the lawyer for the state. Whether he, or the state, want or don't want those children to be better off seems quite irrelevant as to the question of whether the people of the state may chose to limit marriage to opposite gender couples.

Edit 2: "You have 10,000 foster children in Indiana, shouldn't you be enlisting people to adopt them?"
What strange questioning. Maybe I'm confused and adoption, not marriage is at issue. But does Posner think that gay couples are lining up to adopt foster children, if only they were allowed to marry? How absurd! Posner wants older foster children in Indana to be adopted by good parents, so Indiana CLEARLY must marry same-sex couples. That's some logic.

LOL at a "supporter of traditional" marriage arguing that adoption and the well-being of children are irrelevant to gay marriage.

[Jacob]

LOL at a "supporter of traditional" marriage arguing that adoption and the well-being of children are irrelevant to gay marriage.

I'd like to laugh along with you if I knew who this traditional marriage supporter and this person holding the other positions you state was

[woot]

It makes me sad that Jacob is still trying to defend the anti-gay crowd. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills when I see someone who seems to understand the law well enough to point out every technical impropriety of the judge but can't recognize the utter vacuity of the argument the judge is being presented.

Is it even in doubt that the ban on gay marriage is due to institutional inertia? Is there even a single valid argument to support it? The ban on gay marriage is itself a historical embarrassment, but these court cases in which justification is attempted may be more so.

[ERCougar]

I don't know that Jacob's doing that. I too think the gay marriage ban is ridiculous, but I came away with the same impression after listening to the back and forth between the two. I don't know how these things are supposed to go down, but the judge came across as boorish and much more interested in making his own arguments and points than actually asking questions of the AG (or is it "solicitor"?)--i don't think he actually let him answer a single question. I've always rolled my eyes at charges of judicial activism from the right, but this exchange makes me wonder a little bit what really goes on in these high courts.

[Moliere]

It makes me sad that Jacob is still trying to defend the anti-gay crowd. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills when I see someone who seems to understand the law well enough to point out every technical impropriety of the judge but can't recognize the utter vacuity of the argument the judge is being presented.

Is it even in doubt that the ban on gay marriage is due to institutional inertia? Is there even a single valid argument to support it? The ban on gay marriage is itself a historical embarrassment, but these court cases in which justification is attempted may be more so.

I'm not sure Jacob is defending the anti-gay crowd (really, I don't know) but there certainly are some dumb comments by the judge scattered throughout the arguments. But otherwise your post above is spot on.

[TripletDaddy]

I don't know that Jacob's doing that. I too think the gay marriage ban is ridiculous, but I came away with the same impression after listening to the back and forth between the two. I don't know how these things are supposed to go down, but the judge came across as boorish and much more interested in making his own arguments and points than actually asking questions of the AG (or is it "solicitor"?)--i don't think he actually let him answer a single question. I've always rolled my eyes at charges of judicial activism from the right, but this exchange makes me wonder a little bit what really goes on in these high courts.

Judges are like any other profession....good ones, bad ones.

at this point, it is hardly judicial activism to declare restrictions on gay marriage to be unconstitutional. This is basically a settled issue. I'm not surprised by judges that have little patience for these arguments anymore. There have been oral arguments before the Supreme Court wherein a justice will shred the attorney, basically stopping short of calling their argument stupid. It happens at all levels.

[Pheidippides]

Judges are like any other profession....good ones, bad ones.

at this point, it is hardly judicial activism to declare restrictions on gay marriage to be unconstitutional. This is basically a settled issue. I'm not surprised by judges that have little patience for these arguments anymore. There have been oral arguments before the Supreme Court wherein a justice will shred the attorney, basically stopping short of calling their argument stupid. It happens at all levels.

Posner is know for hammering attorneys when he doesn't like their cases, and has been called out on it before. BUT THAT'S THE POINT. Posner really doesn't think much of the arguments against gay marriage, and he's a very influential judge.

[ERCougar]

Judges are like any other profession....good ones, bad ones.

at this point, it is hardly judicial activism to declare restrictions on gay marriage to be unconstitutional. This is basically a settled issue. I'm not surprised by judges that have little patience for these arguments anymore. There have been oral arguments before the Supreme Court wherein a justice will shred the attorney, basically stopping short of calling their argument stupid. It happens at all levels.

Yeah, I admittedly have zero context here--that's the first time I've ever listened to these. I guess if these are tired arguments that have already been discussed ad nauseam, then I understand him cutting him off. Still, why ask the question(s)?

I guess i had this idea that attorneys make the arguments and the judges simply judge them, with questioning to clarify the points the attorneys are making. Is that not how it's supposed to happen? Or are judges allowed to "cross examine" attorneys? (Honest question...I have no idea)