In light of the pending SCOTUS hearing on two gay marriage cases, the camps opposing marriage equality are demanding that Justices Ginsberg and Kagan recuse themselves for officiating gay marriages in the past. These same folks however, seem to overlook or ignore when Justice Scalia provides the keynote address at the deeply anti-gay Arlington Diocese's 2014 Men's Conference last year.
Now perhaps, his address was generic and non-partisan....but his office requested that his speech not be made public. Curious.
Is it philosophically fair to demand recusal of Ginsberg and Kagan?
Dead on, but a little cringeworthy for using the obfuscating term "marriage equality", which seems like it was created by focus groups. I stick to the more accurate term: gay marriage. Because that is what is at controversy here.
ReplyDeleteIf you speak to those who want to repeal polygamy laws, this particular fight doesn't coverage "marriage equality" at all. I just prefer to be more accurate.
I won't quibble too much with that. Marriage equality isn't an untrue label in my opinion, but it is a focus group generated term...much like Obamacare. Of course opponents of gay marriage will usually use that term only if they bracket it in quotation marks.
DeleteWell, I'm pretty sure all the Justices are married, so maybe they should all recuse themselves.
ReplyDeleteJMJ
That's a great point...reminiscent of the Prop 8 days, when so demanded Judge Vaughn Walker would be biased because he was gay. Ignorant that a judge could be biased because he was straight.
DeleteNo, I would just recuse the bible-thumping ones.
DeleteWhy "gay marriage" when "straight marriage" isn't referred to as such? Perhaps to point out how "wrong" it is to be "gay married"? Pologamy is another matter entirely, as marriage is a contract between two people. That is why "marriage equality" is the appropriate title. Gay people want the equal right to marry ONE person. Just like straight people can.
ReplyDelete