Type to search

5 Worst Supreme Court Arguments Against Marriage Equality

Memo Pad Politics

5 Worst Supreme Court Arguments Against Marriage Equality


Supreme Court Gay Marriage

On Tuesday and Wednesday the Supreme Court lost its virginity on the issue of same-sex marriage in a big way. Challenges to California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) forced conservative lawyers and judges to defend what most people have decided is indefensible — state-enforced bias against gay couples.

However, lawyers representing a group opposing gay marriage and House Republicans (which is redundant) are trying to make legally relevant arguments to continue that bias — even though huge majorities of people under 30 and a solid majority of Americans under 50 see equal marriage as the right thing to do.

While no one dared to make the blatantly unconstitutional argument popular in some dark circles that gays are hell-bound sinners who should be doomed to loneliness, it did get pretty bad.

Here are the five worst arguments that were made against same-sex marriage in front of the highest court in the land.

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais


  1. Pamby50 March 28, 2013

    My favorite is still, the only reason to get married is to procreate. When Justice Kagan kept with the age of 55 of not producing children, they threw in Strum Thurmond. Really. So in their argument, if a woman can not have children, she shouldn’t be married. How ridiculous.

    1. plc97477 March 28, 2013

      It is just a continuation of the war on women. They are never going to get women to vote for them at this rate.

      1. JREX_TheRexReport March 29, 2013

        There is no “war on women.” I have a mother, a sister, an aunt, a wife, and many female friends. Why would I wage war on them just because they are women? That would be counterproductive and against nature. They are cherished members of the human family and vital to sustainability of society. Who doesn’t have a mother? STOP the divisiveness and polarization.

    2. RobertCHastings March 29, 2013

      The next step in that argument is that, if a man is married to a woman sho cannot have children, either through age or infertility, he will have the right to nullify the marriage with no compensation and freely marry a woman who will bear him children. If I were Scalia, That would sound great!

  2. charleo1 March 28, 2013

    So many positive things have been said in the last couple of days in favor
    of Gay Rights. It is ever more clear, that as a society we have been ahead
    of the preachers, and politicians, and even The President, for some time now.
    And, if some of us old fogies, had any doubts about the ability of the young
    people in this Country, to continue the work of forming a more perfect union.
    We can lay those fears aside. For it was them, that led the way on this.
    They got it. This concept of equality under the law. And the importance,
    that it be applied to all of us. They got the science, that demonstrated being
    Gay was no more of an individual’s choice, than the color of our eyes, or
    the amount of pigmentation in our skin. Yes, They got it right, first. And we
    should give them a lot of credit for doing so.

  3. idamag March 28, 2013

    The problem is not people having a loving relationship, it is where people’s minds are and they are thinking about other peoples’ sex lives. My advice to religious nuts and other bigots: Get your noses out of other peoples’ crotches.

    1. JREX_TheRexReport March 29, 2013

      So, by your reckoning, are you saying that the God of the Bible is a”bigot?” By what you seem to be saying, Jesus must also be a “bigot?” The so-called “religious nuts” you refer to are merely people that have read the Bible, and believe that it is the actual word of God. NONE of them wrote the Bible, so I deduce that your real problem is NOT with Christians, but with God?

      Of a truth, the only bigots (haters) I know are those who continuously use the word “bigot” to describe anyone they disagree with. From what I discern, the Nazis were also bigots because they referred to Jews as rats. What is the difference in them and you?

  4. disqus_CmPS82g3vc March 28, 2013

    There is a remedy. Impeach Scalia!

  5. JREX_TheRexReport March 29, 2013

    Would it surprise you to learn that all of this was predicted long ago? Daniel wrote that one would come who would “think to change times and laws.” This was predicted 2,600 years ago! It is finally happening.

    Even earlier (750 BC) Isaiah warned those who want to create upheaval in society by calling what has always been considered “bad” as something that now is “good.” Thought separated by about 150 years, these two predictions go together to aptly describe the events of today.

    What is next — the approval to allow marriage to multiple partners at the same time? Why not pedophilia? Why not bestiality? Why not child molestation? There is a simple answer. The preservation of society has been based upon certain norms throughout the centuries. To keep orderliness, deviants were punished. The innocent (children) were always protected from the hedonistic lecherous predators who would molest them, under penalty of law for violators.

    Even the American Psychiatric Association continued to call homosexuality a mental disorder until DSM IV was published. What happened — does a mental illness cease to be illness once it becomes politically correct behavior? If this happens, then we may well expect to see the schizophrenics declared well and normal once they get a big enough lobby? What does this say of the intellectual integrity of that whole profession?

    We truly live in a time of amorality, and consequential societal upheaval. It is as if the whole earth has decided to divorce itself from the Creator. I warn you — this is not eternal suicide only if you die and do not meet the one who made you. However, since that will not be the case for you — nor has it been the case for any man in all of history — you might rethink your life course, and belief system.

    Tell me this. How many houses are in your city? Of that number, how many built themselves? And yet, for all the obvious evidence that every house has a creator, you are somehow willing to engage in magical thinking that the infinitely more complex whole earth, and even the universe somehow happened “just by accident” without a Creator? I don’t have that much faith.

    1. Jim Myers March 30, 2013

      Without addressing the rest of your message, I do have a comment about the approval to allow marriage to multiple partners at the same time.

      King Solomon was reported to have had over 1,000 wives. And, although that is probably the record from the Bible, there are many references to men having multiple wives throughout the Bible.

      I could be wrong, but I am not aware of any women who had multiple husbands at the same time, and if they did, they were probably put to death for doing so.

      Sexism was the “Normal” during the times that the Bible was written.

      1. JREX_TheRexReport March 31, 2013

        Solomon was known as “the wisest man who ever lived,” but he was a lousy father. That is what happens when a man cares more for his own pleasure than for the good of his offspring. As a result of his neglect to be there for his many children, the so-called Northern kingdom — consisting of 10 tribes –essentially told the Southern two tribes to “take a hike,” and they created a new place of worship in Samaria. Henceforth, Israel was never again consolidated. This took place as soon as Solomon’s son (Rehoboam) ascended to power as the replacement for King Solomon.

        Finally, because of their refusal to worship at the “one approved place” of sacrifice (Jerusalem), they were eventually rejected by God, and I think this was because the purpose of Israel was (by obedience — not rebellion) intended for only one purpose: “to bring forth Messiah” and thereby, to lead the whole world to the Creator in true worship. Thus, though indeed born of Abraham, and descended from Jacob (Israel), they lost purpose through rebellion.

        Yes, there was sexism in the time of the Bible, and indeed in every generation since the first humans were created. You might recall that Genesis teaches that man sinned in the Garden, became depraved spiritually, and consequently, “all hell broke loose” on Earth, so to speak.

        And this eventually takes us to the sorted tale of Sodom, Gomorrah, and three associated towns on the Plains of Shinar. all destroyed by the hand of God for the gross perversity described in Genesis.

        And yes, Solomon did it, but it wasn’t right! Finally, just because others have done wrong, we are NOT excused from personal responsibility for our own conduct. The Bible is consistent on this point from cover to cover.

        1. Robert Ellis-Liang September 8, 2013

          Those messages that weren’t “swept under the rug” weren’t kept in the Bible to validate it. They remained as an example. They we put in because they said, “this is what will happen to you if you don’t do as we say.” That’s hardly validating.

          Ever point you have made has been fundamentally flawed due to an unwillingness to see the other side. You’ve chosen incomplete factoids that can be viewed out of context to further your point. The only part of the Bible that could persuasively be construed to make your point is the whole, “a man should not lie with another man” point. That would be a clear admonishment of homosexuality. That would be God clearly saying that God forbids it. But to use the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, in which is described sodomy which could very likely be everybody getting blowjobs, you aren’t making a clear and decisive argument.

          Now, I’m at a bit of a disadvantage have not read the Bible in years and certainly not to the extent that you have, and your argument is a religious one. One better suited for yourself when deciding what to believe. But this is a discussion on Man’s Laws and since men have the right to believe as they will under those laws and obviously many believe that God does not forbid homosexuality or don’t believe in your God or Bible in the first place, if you want to make a more convincing argument, stick to the laws of men.

          Under that premise, “Congress shall make no laws…impeding the free practice of religion.” Therefore, if your God says you can’t get a happy from a another dude. DON’T. But if my God says I can, then I’m free to. I’m actually straight and married so these gay-marriage laws have no immediate effect on me. But the passive of laws that curtail our rights sets a precedent that is dangerous for my liberty, security and happiness.

    2. Robert Ellis-Liang September 8, 2013

      First of all, you repeated yourself. (“Why not pedophilia…Why not chi’d molestation?”) Second those are offenses against the other person as children are not capable of making those choices and thus it is forced upon them violating their rights to security. Thirdly, you comment about bestiality has the same logical flaw, animals cannot communicate their desires and wishes and so, even in a world where those their choices are honored, it is still a forceful act. Now, your argument about the clinical diagnosis of homosexuality is flawed. Homosexuality was ruled out as a mental disorder once science was applied.That’s typically where the conservatives begin to lose credibility in their arguments. Once logic, reason, facts, and evidence are applied their position is defeated. So it actually speaks very well of the integrity of the psychiatric profession since they are willing to say, “We were wrong.”

      Now the argument of “If we let the gays marry, what’s next?” Is a common rebuttal. As some may see it, opening up to deviants is a possible snow ball waiting to be pushed down the hill. But they fail to acknowledge the other, potentially further reaching snow ball. “If we curtail gay marriage, then why not interracial couplings? Why not interfaith couplings?” Interfaith coupling, in my experience have a far higher rate of failure than “the queers” and yet, the infidelity argument is never made against them.

      Even if you are taking a religious stand point and say, “My God says butt-sex is bad.” My God doesn’t. My God has always fostered love and understanding. My God is a loving God who sees ll his children as equals and desires no more than for us to treat each other with love and understanding as he would.

      For you to speak God’s will is blasphemy. For you to understand God’s will is just arrogance.

  6. JREX_TheRexReport March 29, 2013


    OK, let’s try this from a different perspective. Suppose that there were three isolated geographical regions on earth, and each contained a distinct demographic, based ONLY on sexual orientation. On one island ONLY lesbians. On one island ONLY male homosexuals. On one island ONLY heterosexuals. Between these distant islands there was NO transportation. The isolation was complete & total. They were each marooned.

    How many people would be on the first two mentioned islands in 100 years? Answer: ZERO. How many people would be on the third mentioned island in 100 years? Answer: you cannot know because it depends on health issues, food supply, and population growth rates.

    Assuming all three islands had perfect health and food supplies, the answer is essentially the same. Now, is that an argument revealing the Creator’s plan for humanity & purpose in making them “male and female” as is written in Genesis?

    1. boco March 29, 2013

      K, and then what does the Genesisconstitution tell the people of island #3 to do with their gay kids?

      1. JREX_TheRexReport March 29, 2013

        Love them, I’d hope!

        1. boco March 29, 2013

          Clearly. But not give them rights because they have a mental disorder and are in the same line as child molesters.

  7. Gary Graves March 29, 2013

    Should the courts tell you whether you can get married or you can not get married? I always thought it was a private matter. The republicans think they have the right to tell you you can’t get married. They are against freedom of rights guaranteed by the constitution.

  8. montanabill March 29, 2013

    How about leaving ‘marriage’ up to religion and ‘civil unions’ up to government?

    1. Canistercook April 4, 2013

      Right on!

  9. Canistercook April 4, 2013

    Looks like I am about to be railroaded into accepting that homosexualism is exactly the same as heterosexualism. Is it really?


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.