Oral Argument - Audio Hollingsworth v. Perry

[Fearless]

Source: US Supreme Court

Hollingsworth v. Perry
Docket Number: 12-144
Date Argued: 03/26/13

Read more: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=12-144

---

History in the making everyone. What side are you on?


(The link above will give you the audio of the oral arguments in the Prop 8 trial. I apologize for the format being awkward in the excerpt above, there is no text to quote on the page. If the hosts deem this not appropriate, and I hope they won't, please let me know and I will alter/self-delete.)

EDIT TO ADD: Also the transcript is available here... http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-144a.pdf

[nonoyes]

1. Thanks for putting this link up!

Much appreciated.

[Fearless]

2. No problem!

[Myrina]

3. 2 questions:

1. is it going on all day
2. is cspan carrying any of it? (my employer blocks media players so I have to stream cspan thru my iphone. not sure if the scotus audio link would work)


thanks!

[Myrina]

4. ooooh ....

.... iphone does allow the scotus.audio to stream. NICE!

[Fearless]

6. Excellent!

[Fearless]

5. Let's see..

The arguments have finished for the day.

Here is a CSPAN link... http://www.c-span.org/Events/Audio-of-Supreme-Court-Oral-Argument-Hollingsworth-v-Perry/10737439019-1/

[Myrina]

7. This guy's arguments are so full of shit ...

The state has an "interest in procreation" so marriage needs to remain between man/woman?
When it has kids it can't feed, educate, house or keep healthy?

Changing the definition of marriage changes the 'focus' from children to 'the adults themselves'?
Why the hell wouldn't you want to focus on yourself/your partner in a marriage BEFORE - or instead of - focusing on kids?


OMFG!! What a lame-ass attempt to hide behind some phobic bullshit.
If I was sitting on the SCOTUS I'd have laughed his ass right out of the courtroom.

[AAO]

8. If a gay couple adopts a child, that is not procreation - but it sure does help a child!

Dumb m/f's.

[Fearless]

13. Which is something Justice Kennedy brought up

That it may be is the desire of the child to see their parents married.

[JDPriestly]

10. Happily married 50 years.

Procreation is not our concern. Having fun and loving each other is.

And our same-sex couple neighbors are just the same as us. Only the combination of sexes is different.

As for fidelity being a reason for marriage, not so much in California.

I say that for the reason that infidelity is not specifically a ground for divorce or marriage dissolution in California. Of course, it may be the real reason for "irreconcilable differences," but it need not be specifically proven in a divorce proceeding.

2310. Dissolution of the marriage or legal separation of the
parties may be based on either of the following grounds, which shall
be pleaded generally:
(a) Irreconcilable differences, which have caused the irremediable
breakdown of the marriage.
(b) Incurable insanity.



2311. Irreconcilable differences are those grounds which are
determined by the court to be substantial reasons for not continuing
the marriage and which make it appear that the marriage should be
dissolved.


2312. A marriage may be dissolved on the grounds of incurable
insanity only upon proof, including competent medical or psychiatric
testimony, that the insane spouse was at the time the petition was
filed, and remains, incurably insane.


2313. No dissolution of marriage granted on the ground of incurable
insanity relieves a spouse from any obligation imposed by law as a
result of the marriage for the support of the spouse who is incurably
insane, and the court may make such order for support, or require a
bond therefor, as the circumstances require.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=02001-03000&file=2310-2313

But an unfaithful wife might be rather costly:

7540. Except as provided in Section 7541, the child of a wife
cohabiting with her husband, who is not impotent or sterile, is
conclusively presumed to be a child of the marriage.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=07001-08000&file=7540-7541

[Fearless]

12. It is better though...

The Court does not have the power to legislate procreation. Not at all. Not one bit. Zip. Zero. A goose egg.

And the Court can only rule on a case based on the evidence provided.

[Tx4obama]

9. Kick n/t

[Tx4obama]

11. The C-SPAN audio/video of the oral aurguments has photos of who is speaking

Last edited Tue Mar 26, 2013, 11:59 PM - Edit history (1)

Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument on Same-Sex Marriage

Here: http://www.c-span.org/Events/Supreme-Court-Hears-Oral-Argument-on-Same-Sex-Marriage/10737439017-1/

Makes it a bit more interesting.