sjbouza
12-09-2008, 01:13 PM
Just finished watching the live feed of the Iowa Supreme Court hearing on same sex marriage. It was quite interesting. I have never seen a Supreme Court hearing...it was very informative.
Anyway, it seemed, to me at least, that the judges were being a great deal more critical of the defendant Kuhl than they were of the plaintiffs in this matter. They asked a great deal more questions to the defendant than to the plaintiff. It seemed that they were more trying to get the defendant to give them a valid rational reason that same sex couples shouldn't be allowed the institution of marriage. He kept going back to "that is the way it has been since the beginning of time" argument. The justices didn't seem to be buying that. Several of them seemed to ask him the same question in different ways, even asking him for proof that same sex marriage would harm hetero marriage in some way. The defendant came up with a hypothetical situation that might happen in like 20 or 30 years. People will seem not to want to marry because same sex couples can. He seemed to stumble like he wasn't even prepared for this. He had a much more difficult time articulating himself than the plaintiff did.
The plaintiff side seemed to have their ducks in a row and answered the questions from the justices much better and more to the point. Maybe that is just because I am on the side of same sex marriage, I don't know. The basis of the plaintiffs argument was that just because it is tradition doesn't make it right or proper. Excluding some individuals from an institution just because of tradition the US Supreme court has found that is not a basis at all. If that was the case then women wouldn't be voting and blacks would still be in separate schools. He brought up the story that one of the couples 10 year old child couldn't talk about her family during "family day" in class because they were not married. His point that them not being married harmed that child and put her as well as her parents on a different plain than other children, in fact creating a separate but equal situation. Civil unions would be nothing more than saying to everyone that same sex couples are just not deserving of the same recognition as hetero couples.
I hope some of you had the chance to watch it too. I am sure it is going to be around the net soon. I hope someone can post the video. This is going to be one of those cases that drives this country one way or another. If you did see it please post your thoughts on it. I just would like to know if anyone else feels as I did as I watched it. To me it seems that the justices were being a lot more critical of the defendant than the plaintiff. Also, is that an indication of something being good for us or am I just reading something into it?!
Peace,
Scott
Anyway, it seemed, to me at least, that the judges were being a great deal more critical of the defendant Kuhl than they were of the plaintiffs in this matter. They asked a great deal more questions to the defendant than to the plaintiff. It seemed that they were more trying to get the defendant to give them a valid rational reason that same sex couples shouldn't be allowed the institution of marriage. He kept going back to "that is the way it has been since the beginning of time" argument. The justices didn't seem to be buying that. Several of them seemed to ask him the same question in different ways, even asking him for proof that same sex marriage would harm hetero marriage in some way. The defendant came up with a hypothetical situation that might happen in like 20 or 30 years. People will seem not to want to marry because same sex couples can. He seemed to stumble like he wasn't even prepared for this. He had a much more difficult time articulating himself than the plaintiff did.
The plaintiff side seemed to have their ducks in a row and answered the questions from the justices much better and more to the point. Maybe that is just because I am on the side of same sex marriage, I don't know. The basis of the plaintiffs argument was that just because it is tradition doesn't make it right or proper. Excluding some individuals from an institution just because of tradition the US Supreme court has found that is not a basis at all. If that was the case then women wouldn't be voting and blacks would still be in separate schools. He brought up the story that one of the couples 10 year old child couldn't talk about her family during "family day" in class because they were not married. His point that them not being married harmed that child and put her as well as her parents on a different plain than other children, in fact creating a separate but equal situation. Civil unions would be nothing more than saying to everyone that same sex couples are just not deserving of the same recognition as hetero couples.
I hope some of you had the chance to watch it too. I am sure it is going to be around the net soon. I hope someone can post the video. This is going to be one of those cases that drives this country one way or another. If you did see it please post your thoughts on it. I just would like to know if anyone else feels as I did as I watched it. To me it seems that the justices were being a lot more critical of the defendant than the plaintiff. Also, is that an indication of something being good for us or am I just reading something into it?!
Peace,
Scott