Skip to main content

Listening to the reporting on the SCOTUS arguments regarding mariage equality, I believe, gives us a glimpse into the true social conservative.  Not the tailored look that Romney tried to portray, or the lunatic facade meant to appeal to the lunatic fringe, but the well thought out statements that characterize a true social conservative.  To be more specific, the statements that result from the desperation of a social conservatives that realizes all is lost, so why not go for the Hail Mary.

My first bit of amazement came when the conservatives were arguing that marriage is supposed to for procreation, and because same sex couple can't procreate, they can't marry.  This is an old argument, and really makes no sense because we do not check for fertility, or encourage couples with no children to divorce and find other partners.  What surprised me, however, was the response to the question of why do allow older couples to marry when they clearly are not going to procreate.

In light of that, asked Kagan, would it be constitutional to bar marriage licenses for those over 55? For several minutes, Cooper tried to dodge the question, contending that one partner in such a marriage is likely to remain fertile.
How can we take this?  I think there is only one way, and it says quite a bit about the true social conservative.  That marriage is between one man and one women, and any children that result must be taken care of within the marriage, but there is no expectation of fidelity.  This may be the real reason why conservatives do not think that marriage equality is needed.  Because they do not believe in the sanctity of the relationship.  If you are gay, you still have the responsibility to marry and procreate, but that does not mean you can't go out and date.  In other words, no one says your spouse has to be your lover, just your contractual mate.  In fact, under this logic, in the case where an old infertile man marries a young woman, the women is free, nay required, to take other lovers and become impregnated.

The second interesting point is that of debate.

The question the court has to answer, he said, "is whether the Constitution puts a stop to that ongoing democratic debate and answers this question for all 50 states."
This is curious comment because SCOTUS decision clearly have no ability to stop debate.  The court has said that abortions are legal up to a certain time, yet that has not stopped the debate on whether murdering a women is preferable to murdering a fetus.  The supreme court has said that murdering a human in retaliation for certain crimes is constitutional, but that has not stopped the debate on the morality and efficacy of such state sanctioned murder.  The court has said that it is constitutional to provide a fund a system in which everyone has access to health care, but that has not stopped the debate on this issue.

So what does this tell us?  It tells us that the conservatives are pretty sure they are in the wrong here. They realize that marriage equality has nothing to do with one man and one women, but everything to do with continuing the pattern of bigotry that characterizes the conservative, in particular the religious conservative.  It is important to have groups that are not allowed into the club, because otherwise the club will not be exclusive.  If there was  a high ground to allowing a person to get married multiple time, but not to allow same sex marriages, this court case would not be so critical.  But unlike the Dred Scott v Sandford, in which it was upheld that a person descended from Africans could not be a citizen of the US, a ruling for marriage equality is not likely be overturned in time.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Procreation is the Catholic Church's reason (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib, leu2500, OrdinaryIowan, myboo

    for opposing same-sex marriage. And there have been cases of the church refusing to marry couples for reason of fertility. There was a case years ago where the groom was a paraplegic and in a wheelchair. The priest demanded a doctors note stating that the young man could engage in intercourse and impregnate his wife in a 'natural' way. Also, I had to take a class in 'Ethics' when getting my Masters at a Catholic university. The priest teaching the class told us that he had to refuse to perform his niece's wedding because he knew they were planing on using birth control. One of many, many, many reasons I now call myself a 'Recovering Catholic.'

    "That being said, I do agree I am going to hell. But for other reasons. Mostly boring tax stuff ' Amy Pohler

    by Annie B on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 10:13:13 AM PDT

    •  For the love of Jesus... (0+ / 0-)

      he would deny the sacred rite to a member of his own family. I guess I'm impressed with his dedication to principle, even if totally wrong-headed and none of his damn concern to start with.

      Your black cards can make you money, so you hide them when you're able; in the land of milk and honey, you must put them on the table - Steely Dan

      by OrdinaryIowan on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 11:01:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Court as debate-stopper, revealing view. (0+ / 0-)

    Dred Scott gave rise to the Lincoln-Douglas debates and Lincoln ignored Dred Scott as a war president. But today we believe in judicial supremacy so Citizens United and the other 5 cases in that genre, and the pending McCutcheon easily stop Congressional debate on anti-corruption legislation, stripping Congress's powers over elections. The predatory Court no longer defers on political questions. With partisan gridlock, Congress can't avoid the Court's unfriendly takeover, invasive of separation of powers.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site