John Roberts

Anyone who wants more than one mother-in-law deserves them

The slippery slope arguments have started in the US, where there are claims that there will be attempts to legalise polygamy because now same-sex marriage is legal, that is the next step.

Welcome to the exciting new world of the slippery slope. With the Supreme Court?s landmark ruling this Friday legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states, social liberalism has achieved one of its central goals. A right seemingly unthinkable two decades ago has now been broadly applied to a whole new class of citizens. Following on the rejection of interracial marriage bans in the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decision clearly shows that marriage should be a broadly applicable right?one that forces the government to recognize, as Friday?s decision said, a private couple?s ?love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family.?

The question presents itself: Where does the next advance come? The answer is going to make nearly everyone uncomfortable: Now that we?ve defined that love and devotion and family isn?t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals? The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy?yet many of the same people who pressed for marriage equality for gay couples oppose it.

This is not an abstract issue. In Chief Justice John Roberts? dissenting opinion, he remarks, ?It is striking how much of the majority?s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.? As is often the case with critics of polygamy, he neglects to mention why this is a fate to be feared. Polygamy today stands as a taboo just as strong as same-sex marriage was several decades ago?it?s effectively only discussed as outdated jokes about Utah and Mormons, who banned the practice over 120 years ago.

Yet the moral reasoning behind society?s rejection of polygamy remains just as uncomfortable and legally weak as same-sex marriage opposition was until recently.

Read more »

“Somebody has to be held accountable”…Yeah, your dead son is responsible

You have to wonder at the mentality, or lack thereof of a person whose son was more than twice the legal blood alcohol limits, driving at 120km/h in a 50km/h speed zone and smashes himself into a power pole…and she wants someone else held accountable for his death.

Emergency workers have described how they watched signs of life ebb away from an Auckland man trapped inside a wreckage surrounded by live power-lines.

Meanwhile “anxious” lines company workers looked for the power box.

The emergency workers couldn’t reach Raymond Tuporo for more than two hours and the 26-year-old died as a result of severe injuries suffered in the September 2, 2012, crash.

A coroner’s inquest in Auckland today heard Mr Tuporo, known as Ray, lost control on a corner, drove over a curb and smashed into a power pole on Neilson St in Onehunga about 2.15am.

A police investigation found Mr Tuporo was driving about 120km/h in a 50km/h zone and had a blood alcohol level of more than twice the legal limit.

Ambulance officer Andrew Christie said when he arrived at the scene Mr Tuporo was severely injured and only his upper chest and head were visible.

“He was able to lift his head and respond to us with incomprehensible words and groans. His breathing was rapid and shallow.” Medical staff kept regular checks on Mr Tuporo, from as close as they could get to him, but his responses were declining.

Shortly before 3am, Northpower employees arrived and said they would isolate the affected area in 15 to 20 minutes.

But more than an hour later, at 4.10am, they still hadn’t done so.

Mr Christie said the workers were “looking anxious” and said they couldn’t find the appropriate power box.

By 4.35am power was off and cutting equipment was put to work to free Mr Tuporo.

Five minutes later ambulance staff finally reached him, but he was dead, Mr Christie said.

Read more »

Procreative Rationale

Many of the opponents of marriage equality cite that the basis of marriage is for procreation. Yet when asked to explain how marriage is allowed for infertile couple or for senior citizens and they can’t procreate, they then resort to discussion over having the necessary equipment…and other useless arguments.

The Supreme Court in the US looked as precisely this issue…and finds the arguments of the opponents wanting.

The central criticism of same-sex marriage revolved around procreation; that the purpose of marriage is to produce offspring. These critics faltered when asked about infertile couples or senior citizens who get married. If this were a serious basis for policy, the best enforcement mechanism would be fertility tests before granting marriage licenses.

Justice?Samuel Alito?worried that the question is just too new, that mobile phones and the Internet have been around longer. Same-sex marriages have only been legal anywhere for less than a decade, though gay and lesbian couples have been living together, some with adopted children, for ages. The woman who brought the case against the federal law had been with her now-deceased female spouse since 1967.

Chief Justice?John Roberts?said proponents were showing inconsistency with their dual claims that children of same-sex marriages fare as well as others and that legal recognition is necessary for the welfare of these kids.? Read more »

×