Bottom line: society has a legitimate interest in encouraging, to the greatest extent possible, that children are born into a family and know and are raised by their biological parents. That natural biological bond is super strong and very important - ask any abandoned or adopted kid about it. Almost all adoptees would go to the ends of the earth to find and connect with their actual parents, that's how strong that bond is. Gay marriage only encourages an increase in the number of kids never knowing or being raised by their mothers and fathers, because gays have to requisition, harvest, and buy children like commodities so they can form a "family." Man-woman marriage is not about "bigotry" it's about biology.
The only honest arguments against gay marriage are based on religious tradition. We supposedly have separation of church and state here. If the Christian Right does not approve of same sex marriage, they have the right to not invite married gay couples over to their house. They don't have the right to impose their religious beliefs on other people.
6
After listening to the Obergefell v Hodges oral arguments audio twice I am awe struck by how human and error prone the justices speech can be at times. Justice Thomas is probably right to remain silent.
It is as if LGBT rights have never been before the supreme court and they have never read a New York Times opinion but they are subject matter experts on ancient tribal sex case law. Their "sexual" decision is likely to be a stunner and if not the dissent(s) certainly will entertain in earthy fashion.
Now I am interested in reading the Loving v Virginia transcripts of oral arguments to compare that era's (June 1967) humanness with todays. Thanks Linda Greenhouse!
It is as if LGBT rights have never been before the supreme court and they have never read a New York Times opinion but they are subject matter experts on ancient tribal sex case law. Their "sexual" decision is likely to be a stunner and if not the dissent(s) certainly will entertain in earthy fashion.
Now I am interested in reading the Loving v Virginia transcripts of oral arguments to compare that era's (June 1967) humanness with todays. Thanks Linda Greenhouse!
5
There is no such thing as "gay marriage." Marriage is a civil institution that should be equally available to all US citizens because there is no compelling reason to discriminate against gays. Of course, ignorant bigots do feel compelled to discriminate.
4
My husband and I were together for 15 years before we were allowed to marry.
After 15 years, what I noticed most with state and federal recognition of our marriage was the feeling of financial and legal security that comes with the force of law.
Separately, our marriage was blessed by a conservative religious man with an open and kind heart and mind. With that I felt the force of God's love enveloping and protecting us.
It was a beautiful day long coming, and I wish that to every able couple of age in love.
After 15 years, what I noticed most with state and federal recognition of our marriage was the feeling of financial and legal security that comes with the force of law.
Separately, our marriage was blessed by a conservative religious man with an open and kind heart and mind. With that I felt the force of God's love enveloping and protecting us.
It was a beautiful day long coming, and I wish that to every able couple of age in love.
4
One development could be if Kennedy and Roberts vote to uphold same-sex marriage on gender discrimination grounds, that is on the basis of what Roberts opined when he suggested barring SSM would be gender discrimination because it allowed a man to marry a woman but not a woman to marry a woman, and Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan vote yes on gender orientation discrimination grounds. SSM becomes protected but gender orientation discrimination as a 14th Amendment violation doesn't become the law of the land.
1
I am pretty sure that Linda's logic would have dictated that in 1973, American society was far too advanced toward valuing children to allow for the harvest of 50 million children over the next 50 years in abortion service centers across the country - mostly earning profits.
Basically, the author wants courts to settle disputes that a] the constitution is basically silent on and that b] would be better resolved through ongoing pubic dialogue.
Of course, it is the custom of those, left or right, who imagine themselves to be in unique possession of "the moral" who don't see their desire to use the "One Ring" of government coercion for "good" {as THEY define it} as anything but positive.
In other words - it's only "activism" when 'they' do it, right?
Seems like a simple matter of "does this violate Equal Protection or not" to me, but then I figure that this seems to be the biggest Constitutional question, not whether or not *I* think marriage should be defined as man/woman or not.
Of course, the Times loves free speech, too, except when it doesn't...
http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/03/new-york-times-opposes-corporate-speech
And it thinks Citizens United was, like, fer sure the worse eva, except the Times corporation, by this logic, has no right to say so, eh?
Maybe legalistic casuistry isn't a better solution than an honest debate, one which might, possibly, take the position that there is no certain yes or no in the constitution, that to pretend there is is completely dishonest, and that what we should discuss is not evidence that it "is" a right, but whether or not it "should be".
Because Ms. Greenhouse, the justices - they're really discussing "should be" while pretending to derive an answer certain as they 'build' the answer they want.
Of course, it is the custom of those, left or right, who imagine themselves to be in unique possession of "the moral" who don't see their desire to use the "One Ring" of government coercion for "good" {as THEY define it} as anything but positive.
In other words - it's only "activism" when 'they' do it, right?
Seems like a simple matter of "does this violate Equal Protection or not" to me, but then I figure that this seems to be the biggest Constitutional question, not whether or not *I* think marriage should be defined as man/woman or not.
Of course, the Times loves free speech, too, except when it doesn't...
http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/03/new-york-times-opposes-corporate-speech
And it thinks Citizens United was, like, fer sure the worse eva, except the Times corporation, by this logic, has no right to say so, eh?
Maybe legalistic casuistry isn't a better solution than an honest debate, one which might, possibly, take the position that there is no certain yes or no in the constitution, that to pretend there is is completely dishonest, and that what we should discuss is not evidence that it "is" a right, but whether or not it "should be".
Because Ms. Greenhouse, the justices - they're really discussing "should be" while pretending to derive an answer certain as they 'build' the answer they want.
The Court has two choices -- both are affected by Religious beliefs.
On one side, there are those who routinely show disdain for the Bible and its mandates.
On the other, there are those who have read it, and, even if they do not worship as the first group demands, understands what it says.
In the non-fiction book, SAINT PAUL'S JOKE, the issue of marriage -- as described in the New Testament -- is examined in a Chapter and Verse context. The conclusion?
SAINT PAUL'S JOKE, points out that readers were warned of the misrepresentations which would be made -- one of which is tied to the "Defense of marriage" crowd.
In The New Testament, St Paul mandates his Gentile (non-Jewish) followers be celibate. But he acknowledges that some will need sex, so they MUST marry. There is no straight or gay distinction -- if you believe, and need sex, you MUST marry.
Thus, to find against same-sex marriage is to deny Christians the right to follow the dictates set down for them. More important, to deny same-sex marriage favors those whose other actions (denial of food stamps to the hungry, medical care to the sick, support for the elderly, etc) show they are anti-Biblical religion.
Yes you hear of Leviticus proclaiming something about gays (it refers to bi-sexual males only).
But Paul states, to refer to any part of the LAW (Books of Leviticus & Deuteronomy) requires that ALL the laws be followed. Thus, those who point to Leviticus had best be Kosher and circumcise their sons.
On one side, there are those who routinely show disdain for the Bible and its mandates.
On the other, there are those who have read it, and, even if they do not worship as the first group demands, understands what it says.
In the non-fiction book, SAINT PAUL'S JOKE, the issue of marriage -- as described in the New Testament -- is examined in a Chapter and Verse context. The conclusion?
SAINT PAUL'S JOKE, points out that readers were warned of the misrepresentations which would be made -- one of which is tied to the "Defense of marriage" crowd.
In The New Testament, St Paul mandates his Gentile (non-Jewish) followers be celibate. But he acknowledges that some will need sex, so they MUST marry. There is no straight or gay distinction -- if you believe, and need sex, you MUST marry.
Thus, to find against same-sex marriage is to deny Christians the right to follow the dictates set down for them. More important, to deny same-sex marriage favors those whose other actions (denial of food stamps to the hungry, medical care to the sick, support for the elderly, etc) show they are anti-Biblical religion.
Yes you hear of Leviticus proclaiming something about gays (it refers to bi-sexual males only).
But Paul states, to refer to any part of the LAW (Books of Leviticus & Deuteronomy) requires that ALL the laws be followed. Thus, those who point to Leviticus had best be Kosher and circumcise their sons.
For most of my life the Republican Party has used gay marriage as a wedge issue. Elections in close states where they were desperate for a good showing at the poles from they base constituents, marriage protection initiatives were always well funded. I believe that sword is about to cut in the other direction. This pleases me.
4
"His implication was that she and her clients should be patient". As one of the justices pointed out, it has been millennia already. Patience should have its limits.
Some of the Supreme Court justices bring in religious beliefs. During those same millennia, there have been deeply held beliefs in Inanna, Tammuz, Zeus, Jupiter, Athena, Poseidon, Neptune, et al. In fact, I believe that Juno is the goddess of marriage and the sister of her husband. Perhaps the justices should consult the Delphic Oracle? Or some other millennia old authorities?
Some of the Supreme Court justices bring in religious beliefs. During those same millennia, there have been deeply held beliefs in Inanna, Tammuz, Zeus, Jupiter, Athena, Poseidon, Neptune, et al. In fact, I believe that Juno is the goddess of marriage and the sister of her husband. Perhaps the justices should consult the Delphic Oracle? Or some other millennia old authorities?
3
The public is moving overwhelmingly to gay marriage. So let the public decide through their elected representatives, like we did in New York.
The vast majority of state legislators and governors who are anti-gay marriage are Republicans. The solution is very simple - they can be voted out and replaced with pro-gay marriage legislators and governors.
So a no vote on gay marriage by the supreme court could actually be the best thing that ever happened to Democrats holding or seeking state office, and perhaps the entire Democratic Party.
The vast majority of state legislators and governors who are anti-gay marriage are Republicans. The solution is very simple - they can be voted out and replaced with pro-gay marriage legislators and governors.
So a no vote on gay marriage by the supreme court could actually be the best thing that ever happened to Democrats holding or seeking state office, and perhaps the entire Democratic Party.
Ms. Greenhouse:
thank you for your summary today of SCOTUS' work of this past Tuesday.
and for the referenced Baker v. Nelson case, as well.
predicting any future results of supreme court decisions is a fool's errand.
lacking a more imperative chore at the moment,
Plaintiffs should prevail at a 6-3 margin,
thus unifying the 6th Circuit with the other Circuits's earlier decisions.
(how would the Justices reconcile opposing conclusions between the
various Circuits, should they rule against Plaintiffs?)
the requisite thinking may well involve the comparison of
Brown v. Board of Education
to
Plessy v. Ferguson
wherein "long-held" earlier 'beliefs' were overturned by subsequent wisdom.
in addition, should this guessed-forecast enter the trash heap,
the second consideration heard on Tuesday will still likely find,
as with Loving v. Virginia,
that non-same-sex-licensed-marriage states will be required to
recognize the legal same-sex-marriages from any other authorizing state.
reviewing here a bit further:
your discussion about SG Verrilli's appropriated-responsse to the previous comment
by CJ Roberts was terrific 'quick-thinking'.
one worries, however, that Roberts is passing-off SCOTUS' chief responsibility if
one interprets his words to mean that the Legislative Branch should hold sway in
these matters---au contraire:
fundamentally:
the tyranny of a majority-vote which discriminates against the basic-rights of the
minority cannot survive the scrutiny of SCOTUS.
Whether it likes it or not, the court is faced with taking a stand on the status in our society of gay and lesbian people. There is no neutral ground, and that's probably what Robert's was trying to find in determining that maybe it's better to let the political process decide this. That reasoning is not neutral; it is a belief that the legal rights of gay and lesbian citizens, a distinct minority, can be decided by an often hostile majority. Roberts would never subject any other minority to this kind of "let the people decide!" process.
While he might be reasoning that since the political process seems to be moving toward equality, that all is well. Ok, but what if something happens (Rosie O'Donnell's nasty divorce, perhaps?) that changes public opinion against gay people again? It remains offensive that he would suggest that gay people's legal rights are to be determined, for better or for worse, by the majority. Again, he wouldn't dream of subjecting any other minority to that kind of abuse and vulnerability.
While he might be reasoning that since the political process seems to be moving toward equality, that all is well. Ok, but what if something happens (Rosie O'Donnell's nasty divorce, perhaps?) that changes public opinion against gay people again? It remains offensive that he would suggest that gay people's legal rights are to be determined, for better or for worse, by the majority. Again, he wouldn't dream of subjecting any other minority to that kind of abuse and vulnerability.
2
We shouldn't be allowing or approving sperm donation and surrogacy, as they are eugenic and exploitative and violate children's rights, and we certainly should ban attempting to create shared genetic offspring of same-sex couples or transgendered individuals as their new sex.
"Jus.Stewart:Mr. McIlwaine,wouldn't it be pretty clear in the absence in the absence of the specific legislative history which you refer us.If it just were no history wouldn't it be pretty clear that the very purpose of the EqProCl of the 14Amend was to provide that every state had to treat Negro citizens the same as white citizens so far as their laws go? Isn't that what the EqProCl means? Mr. McIlwaine:Yes, sir.I think it does.I think that's reinforced by the legislative history & I don't know exactly how to consider the question aside from the legislative history but that is clearly indicated in the legislative history itself.Mr. McIlwaine:.but it is clear that the Framers understood that in their intention a law which equally forbade members of one race to marry members of another race with same penal sanction on both did treat the individuals of both race equally.Turning then to our alternative argument which we say can only be reached if the legislative history of the 14Amend is ignored & the 14Amend is deemed to reach the state power to enact laws relating to the marriage relationship we say that the prevention of interracial marriage is a legitimate exercise of the state power.That there is a rational classification setting so far as the VA population is concerned for preventing marriages between white & colored people who make up the-almost the entirety of the state's population & that this is supported by the prevailing climate of scientific opinion." Loving 4/10/67
2
All the arguments for gay marriage are equally applicable to polygamy. When a polygamist makes it to SCOTUS, he should therefore win. Marriage is social policy traditionally and best left to the states.
Chief Justice Roberts "wait and see worries" are telling. Roberts did not seem the least worried about new state religious liberty laws brewing in the hinterlands. He expressed no concern with a new anti-gay president, i.e. Ted Cruz et al. An anti-gay constitutional amendment didn't seem to bother his thoughts even knowing President G.W. Bush rabidly backed one. Roberts mused wait and see and everything would go smooth like it never has gone before on anything related to LGBT rights. Telling indeed...
1
In the courtroom on Tuesday, there was surprisingly little discussion of legal doctrine – almost none, actually. Was that because formal doctrine – the confusing “tiers of scrutiny” in equal protection analysis, the definition of “fundamental rights” deemed worthy of protection under the Due Process Clause – has little to offer at this point? Because reality has outpaced doctrine, and the court’s only role is to catch up?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
There was little discussion of legal doctrine of fundamental rights and of tiers of scrutiny in equal protection BECAUSE marriage is not a right. There is no equal protection when it comes to licenses issued by the states. Marriage is a civil contract, and the States and even the Congress have the power to regulate such licensed activities. That is why polygamy is banned in this country even though it is permissible under some religious doctrine and even though such a prohibition seems to abridge religious freedom enshrined in first amendment.
As for court catching up, the court is not in the business of making decisions by public opinion polls; it is supposed to interpret constitution, and render decisions consistent with the constitution.
The only thing you are right about is that we will have an answer in less than 2 months.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
There was little discussion of legal doctrine of fundamental rights and of tiers of scrutiny in equal protection BECAUSE marriage is not a right. There is no equal protection when it comes to licenses issued by the states. Marriage is a civil contract, and the States and even the Congress have the power to regulate such licensed activities. That is why polygamy is banned in this country even though it is permissible under some religious doctrine and even though such a prohibition seems to abridge religious freedom enshrined in first amendment.
As for court catching up, the court is not in the business of making decisions by public opinion polls; it is supposed to interpret constitution, and render decisions consistent with the constitution.
The only thing you are right about is that we will have an answer in less than 2 months.
Gay marriage will rightly become lawful throughout the USA, most likely during the current supreme court term. Unfortunately, this removes one of the fundamental pillars (or wedge issues, your choice) of republican politics. Therefore, they'll have to double down on anti-brown and anti-women rhetoric and policies. Can't hardly wait for the enhanced sliming and harming to begin.
2
One thing I found strikingly odd in the court's discussion of gay marriage was that despite references to the burdens presumably imposed on the religious - Scalia spoke of the quandary that ministers could face should they oppose gay marriage yet be required to perform such ceremonies as civil servants - there was absolutely no discussion of the religious rights of gay men and women, or the burdens imposed on them by the denial of such rights. This is a topic that both sides of the debate have tiptoed around.
2
Let's not all be dense here, promoting equality is a threat to those who demand privilege.
9
Some people would say it doesn't matter "how far America has traveled down that road" and it doesn't matter what the Supreme Court decides. "Marriage" is the word for a partnership between one man and one woman.
...And, the next step will be, of course, impinging on freedom of conscious and beliefs by suing professional business people who's religious beliefs deem gay marriage an abomination, thus refusing to take any part in serving these.
Equality-ad-absurdum, indeed.
Equality-ad-absurdum, indeed.
1
Science has shown homosexuality is a naturally occurring event throughout the animal kingdom. Naturally occurring means you don't chose this, you are this. If this is your destiny, you should have the right to marry. This is not a church issue. This is scientific fact and it is a civilized approach to have people lead the life they are destined to live.
They need the same rights and protections we all must have. There are too many out there who believe they speak for God.
Let's all be human for a change.
They need the same rights and protections we all must have. There are too many out there who believe they speak for God.
Let's all be human for a change.
19
Animals do not marry; we do. And we are supposedly more evolved and higher up on the food chain. That is why we eat animals legally. Big difference.
Absolutely. And even if it IS a choice there is still absolutely no reason to deny a civil rights to marriage for same-sex couples.
3
Something even greater than gay marriage is being adjudicated here.
Roberts was in effect asking whether those Americans who know they are wrong have the right to stay wrong, and to subject others to their wrongheadedness, just because they aren't quite ready to be right; and whether the law should protect their liberty to be wrong, and their liberty to externalize their wrongheadedness, for as long as they choose to be wrong.
The answers all must be no.
Roberts was in effect asking whether those Americans who know they are wrong have the right to stay wrong, and to subject others to their wrongheadedness, just because they aren't quite ready to be right; and whether the law should protect their liberty to be wrong, and their liberty to externalize their wrongheadedness, for as long as they choose to be wrong.
The answers all must be no.
29
The Court should issue a decision that clarifies the issues clearly, and the issue that most muddies the waters is that the word marriage is used in both a legal and a religious context. The best outcome would be a ruling that says: the Court only has authority to rule on matters of law, and in the matter of the legal definition of marriage, to deny a same-sex couple the opportunity to commit to the relationship and assume all the rights and responsibilities attendant on a marriage contract would be depriving them of equal protection. Any church may decide whether to recognize that contract as a marriage "in the church" — or not — as a matter of freedom of religion.
11
They need not and should not address religion whatsoever. That will help to un-muddy.
Peter, any religious organization in the states where same-sex marriage is already legal continue to have the right to refuse to recognize it as a religious marriage. After all, the Catholic Church has continuously refused to recognize the marriage of a divorced person unless the Church annuls the marriage by its own rules, and no one has tried to change that.
Separate but equal is not the way to go. Either it's a marriage or it isn't. And I've yet to see anyone offer a legal or constitutional reason for why it shouldn't be. Animus to a particular group is no longer reason enough to deny gays and lesbians their right to marry. Period.
Roberts may join the majority in upholding gay marriage. Robert has almost always been very partisan in his views, although not so obvious as the other conservative justices. If he upholds gay marriage, he will solve a big problem for Republican candidates. They don't have to bloviate for their base about how horrible all gay people are and thereby alienate a majority of voters. They can simply say "The law is the law, and I can't change that." If Roberts votes to uphold gay marriage, I don't care why or what his stated rationale is. A vote is a vote.
7
Unless I missed it or I don't properly understand the issue, doesn't the poliitical process allow the majority to vote on a civil rights issue of a minority? The majority might be tainted for a number of reasons. This is a time the Supreme Court should fulfill the nation conscience.
8
NO!! It should DIS-allow votes on civil rights. All those laws passed to ban same-sex marriage across the country should have never ever ever ever gotten on a ballot.
Didn't anyone take Civics 101 in this country? Seriously, look up "tyranny of the majority".
Loving v. Virginia threw out anti-miscegenation laws when the country was largely against interracial marriage. It was not a popularity contest. Civil rights are not about being liked.
Didn't anyone take Civics 101 in this country? Seriously, look up "tyranny of the majority".
Loving v. Virginia threw out anti-miscegenation laws when the country was largely against interracial marriage. It was not a popularity contest. Civil rights are not about being liked.
No, you are incorrect. The Supreme Court (and appellate courts) exist to help adjudicate whether laws enacted by federal, state or other jurisdictions contradict the US Constitution in any way. Thus, even if a state were to vote 100% in favor of a law making Buddhism the religion of the state, that law would still contradict the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and therefore be unconstitutional. Thus the courts act to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
1
The Court should reject finding a 14th Amendment right to gay marriage in the Constitution but should find that gay marriage permitted in one state is to be recognized in another state under Article IV, Section 1 (Full Faith and Credit Clause).
This serves to honor the 10th Amendment (States Rights), the history of domestic relations being handled by the states, the state's population being able to voice its will through the ballot box, and allows gays to marry.
Splits the baby? Perhaps. But continues to allow the issue of gay marriage to be decided by the people rather than by the Court.
This serves to honor the 10th Amendment (States Rights), the history of domestic relations being handled by the states, the state's population being able to voice its will through the ballot box, and allows gays to marry.
Splits the baby? Perhaps. But continues to allow the issue of gay marriage to be decided by the people rather than by the Court.
Why should my civil rights be decided by the people? And what other civil rights would you propose also be put to popular vote? What good is a Supreme Court if it can't protect a minority from the tyranny of the majority?
Can we vote on YOUR right to vote and own property? Why not? A right is a right. Not subject to a vote.
Nope, states don't get to treat a segment of the population as second class citizens. We settled that some time ago.
Let's take marriage away from the religions and put it with the civil authorities where it belongs. It is first and foremost a legal contract. It comes with rights and obligations and is enforceable by law. And a civil government must treat all citizens equally. There are civil benefits to marriage, and those benefits should apply to everybody. And anybody who does not 'believe' in same sex marriage doesn't have to believe it, do it, accept it. It doesn't matter, as long as the government legally treats all its citizens the same way.
13
Ay yi yi. Marriage IS with the civil authorities. It always HAS been that way in this country. It IS a legal contract. Why are people confused about this so much??
Maybe the times ought to do a big "Marriage 101" article explaining everything about marriage and civil law as an educational piece?
Maybe the times ought to do a big "Marriage 101" article explaining everything about marriage and civil law as an educational piece?
I continue to be amazed at the persistence of dyslexic Constitutional ontology.
This lawsuit is about the powers of government, not the rights of people. It pleads that all contractual marriages be treated equally by government on the grounds that government lacks the delegated power to make moral distinctions about the sexuality of people who enter into marriages for the inducements government offers to be married. To make such distinctions violates the constitutional ban on faith-based legislation.
This lawsuit is about the powers of government, not the rights of people. It pleads that all contractual marriages be treated equally by government on the grounds that government lacks the delegated power to make moral distinctions about the sexuality of people who enter into marriages for the inducements government offers to be married. To make such distinctions violates the constitutional ban on faith-based legislation.
9
The horse has left the barn, so to speak, on this issue. With the vast majority of states conducting same sex marriages and 61% of the population in support of the policy, the Court's upcoming ruling has two realistic possibilities: one, same sex marriages are to be performed in all 50 states or two, the states that opt not to perform same sex unions must recognize those performed in other sates. To affirm the gay marriage bans in place in various states would lead to chaos.
The speed with which Americans have arrived at such a broad consensus on this issue is stunning, certainly not foreseeable even a decade ago.
The speed with which Americans have arrived at such a broad consensus on this issue is stunning, certainly not foreseeable even a decade ago.
11
I think it's ironic that the 5 conservative justices seem to act more like Bishops of the church than impartial judges. Isn't there supposed to be separation of church and state in the Constitution, and isn't that a fundamental part of the Constitution that they supposedly love so much?
Why do we have to put up with these so backward looking and regressive men?
Their decisions are stymieing any forward progress on campaign finance restrictions, civil rights, health care, and corporate citizenship.
It's becoming a farce that makes our country look ridiculous to the rest of the world.
Why do we have to put up with these so backward looking and regressive men?
Their decisions are stymieing any forward progress on campaign finance restrictions, civil rights, health care, and corporate citizenship.
It's becoming a farce that makes our country look ridiculous to the rest of the world.
18
"Why do we have to put up with these so backward looking and regressive men?"
Because Republican presidents appointed them. Think about that when you're deciding whether to vote for Hillary in 2016, people.
Because Republican presidents appointed them. Think about that when you're deciding whether to vote for Hillary in 2016, people.
It's a pluralistic society. Let gay people get married. Let others go to church and practice their faith as they see fit. Let institutions set their own policies. As a person of faith, I will continue to read sacred texts as they appear, after thousands of years of history. If you don't want to join the church, don't. If you don't like the Bible, don't read it. I reserve the right to have close intimate friendships with anybody, gay or otherwise.
11
Ironically, from a political standpoint, a favorable decision for marriage equality would benefit the Republican party more so than the democratic party in the upcoming presidential race. It is clear that for republican candidates to make it through the primaries, they cant show support for or even acknowledge gay marriage. However, to win the general election, the exact opposite strategy is needed.
Blaming it on the Supreme Court helps them sidestep the issue altogether....
Blaming it on the Supreme Court helps them sidestep the issue altogether....
The only way the Court could conclude that states' marriage laws are suddenly now "unconstitutional" after hundreds of years is through the sloppy and indefensible "living constitution" theory, a dangerous concept that allows judges to invent new rights and impose their own social policy preferences on the citizenry based on the prevailing political winds of the day. We no longer have a constitution if that is the case.
1
@mickey-
Really, so the constitution is this literal document that is so clear, so straightforward, that its words were meant to be read literally? I find it so ironic that many of those who claim the constitution as written 228 years ago was meant to be read literally are the same people who believe that the bible is the literal word of God, despite the fact that both the constitution and the Bible are not perfect documents nor are either clear or straightforward.
More importantly, 228 years ago when the constitution was written, married women were the property of their husbands, they had no rights outside their marriage, their husband basically owned them...does that mean the courts that ruled over the last century and a half or so that women had rights were wrong, that the constitution wanted men to own their wives? Does that mean the courts were wrong when they threw out legal segregation, despite the fact that the constitution says nothing about it? We have a judiciary, not because the constitution changes, but because the constitution was written by men who knew societies change, they were not Gods, they weren't inspired by God to write it, and the constitution was never meant to be the be all and end all, since 18th century America is not the 21st. Put it this way, if the constitution is this iron document that specifies everything, why did the founders create a judiciary and why did they create judicial review?
Really, so the constitution is this literal document that is so clear, so straightforward, that its words were meant to be read literally? I find it so ironic that many of those who claim the constitution as written 228 years ago was meant to be read literally are the same people who believe that the bible is the literal word of God, despite the fact that both the constitution and the Bible are not perfect documents nor are either clear or straightforward.
More importantly, 228 years ago when the constitution was written, married women were the property of their husbands, they had no rights outside their marriage, their husband basically owned them...does that mean the courts that ruled over the last century and a half or so that women had rights were wrong, that the constitution wanted men to own their wives? Does that mean the courts were wrong when they threw out legal segregation, despite the fact that the constitution says nothing about it? We have a judiciary, not because the constitution changes, but because the constitution was written by men who knew societies change, they were not Gods, they weren't inspired by God to write it, and the constitution was never meant to be the be all and end all, since 18th century America is not the 21st. Put it this way, if the constitution is this iron document that specifies everything, why did the founders create a judiciary and why did they create judicial review?
18
Mickey - there is nothing "new" in the constitutional concept of equality. What is new is the application of the concept. It's always been that way.
Your "original intent" doctrine is tough to swallow when we have beauties like the second amendment. Figure that one out and you're a better person than I.
Irichins - to be correct, the Supreme Court established judicial review in Marbury v. Madison.
Your "original intent" doctrine is tough to swallow when we have beauties like the second amendment. Figure that one out and you're a better person than I.
Irichins - to be correct, the Supreme Court established judicial review in Marbury v. Madison.
7
Bans on same-sex marriage have only been formally on the books for tens of years, not hundreds. And those laws are indeed unconstitutional, and will indeed be stricken.
In all the discussions of the change in attitudes towards same-sexers, the swiftness of that change, and the codifying of that change into equal access laws, invariably involve some form of "how did this happen so fast and irrevocably?" paragraph. It seems simple: it is due to what gay means -- not just homosexual, but publicly homosexual. Once that happened we all saw that there is no threat in gay, not to mention the fact that three percent of the population does not seem like such a big deal, so lighten up. But I also wanted to write a fan letter: Linda Greenhouse is just the best. No one had her insight that we do not know what will happen next but the fact is the Supreme Court itself has already changed its mind.
17
Brian P: you ask how this happened so fast. Nothing happened fast. Some lower level federal courts merely decided that they knew better than millions of voters and many state legislatures. This can be undone in a second by the US Supreme Court. They're the ones that created the mess in the first place, too, with the holding in the Defense of Marriage Act case. This gave lower level courts some basis to find the actions of millions of people to be unfair.
Even Ms. Greenhouse's household goddess, former Planned Parenthood consigliere Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has conceded that the nation's political mood on abortion would have been a lot less toxic if the Supreme Court hadn't embraced Harry "Look-I-Just-Invented-Trimesters" Blackmun's tortured arguments in Roe v. Wade.
If the advocates are so keen on Barack Obama's "evolution" on the issue of same-sex marriage, maybe they should be similar patient with the rest of us — and with the body politic at large.
If the advocates are so keen on Barack Obama's "evolution" on the issue of same-sex marriage, maybe they should be similar patient with the rest of us — and with the body politic at large.
1
Oh you've had plenty of time. Decades since the first case went before SCOTUS in 1972.
I'm 53, how much longer do I have to wait to enjoy the rights you have in all 50 states?
Sorry, your time's up.
I'm 53, how much longer do I have to wait to enjoy the rights you have in all 50 states?
Sorry, your time's up.
23
ardelion - you know, the nation's political mood on slavery and civil rights would have been a lot less toxic too, I suppose. Ought we to have been more patient on those as well?
Wrong is wrong and must be changed. It's never too soon.
Wrong is wrong and must be changed. It's never too soon.
16
Actually, Citizen, Lincoln was weighing a system of financial compensation for the manumission of slaves until the hotheads of the Southern states not only seceded but fired on federal troops, making the question moot. It might well have been slow and resisted. But it might not have required the deaths of more than 600,000 soldiers.
If Lincoln had been content to portray himself as an abolitionist, after all, four slaveholding states that stayed in the Union (Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri) also would have seceded, tipping the balance mightily.
If Lincoln had been content to portray himself as an abolitionist, after all, four slaveholding states that stayed in the Union (Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri) also would have seceded, tipping the balance mightily.
Gay marriage has expanded so recently only because of actions of the courts. The Supreme Court owes no deference to the lower courts. Remove the actions of the lower federal courts, and gay marriage has only limited support in some extreme liberal bastions. There is nothing inexorable about this march to so-called gay marriage equality. The Supreme Court has a chance to stop it here for good.
1
Gay marriage has expanded so recently only because of actions of the courts.
Why do you not know that this is how your government works? On which of MY rights do you wish to vote? ON which of YOUR rights would you like ME to vote?!
Why do you not know that this is how your government works? On which of MY rights do you wish to vote? ON which of YOUR rights would you like ME to vote?!
14
You mean extreme liberal bastions like Maine, where it passed by ballot?
13
You couldn't be more wrong. More than half of the country is just fine with it now. In states where it was originally opposed, a majority of residents now support it or simply don't oppose it. Nice try though.
I think you guys are nuts to expect this Supreme Court to uphold the right to marriage equality. Roberts and Kennedy have demonstrated that they are not above twisting themselves into logical pretzels to avoid doing the right thing when political considerations are powerful enough. I just hope those who have an interest in justice will one day figure out that voting is important.
5
Roberts, no, Kennedy, yes. It would be very hypocritical of Kennedy, who threw out laws written by the religious droolers making sex acts the bible thumpers don't like illegal, and who rightfully helped throw out DOMA, to turn around and say that gays don't deserve the fundamental right to be married. Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas are nothing more than the Vatican representatives on the Supreme Court, there isn't one of them that doesn't think that if there is conflict between their religion and the law, that their religious belief should win, but Kennedy has shown that when it comes to human rights, he realizes that religion has often been the biggest oppressor there is. I have to laugh when I hear people like Scalia talk about the founders and how upset they would be at the way the constitution has been 'rewritten', the founders would have been a lot more angry that the Supreme Court has Catholics on it at all, the founders who wrote the constitution pretty much shared common disdain with Catholics and the Catholic Church.....it is sad that Scalia, Alito, Roberts and Thomas don't even realize that the reason they are on the Supreme Court is because courts ruled, because the constitution was applied by judges that forbid discrimination, they seem to think that their road to the Supreme Court had nothing to do with how the constitution was reinterpreted to allow protections. Put it this way, the odds of any of them getting on SCOTUS in 1787 was pretty much zero......
If the federal government and the individual states did not create special status for marriage or married people one way or the other, then I think one could argue the Constitution does not address it. I personally have argued for years that marriage is between the people getting married and their church or God. Everything else, IMO, is a civil union. It is only as the anti-Communists started inserting God into Federal and State laws and the conservative religious augmented it with tax and social control that it got complicated. Now that it is complicated, the Constitution does insist on the simplicity: Congress shall make no law...! We simply cannot tolerate discrimination against any characteristic of human classification or we are entitling every discrimination. I insist on this one based on my life; you that one for yours... If it is equal protection, it must be all or none!
9
@kent-
The real problem was when the law recognized the marriages done by clergy as being official. If civic marriage, as is common in Europe and in Mexico, is totally separate from religious marriage, there wouldn't be an argument.
What the opposition really boils down to is religion , especially the leaders of the Catholic Church (who never got over the reformation) and the white trash evangelicals, needing someone to demonize and hate. The RC has pretty much turned being anti gay into one of their two main tenets (that, and being anti abortion) and the evangelical churches and their ilk are full of rednecks who since it is no longer polite to be racist, need a whipping boy so they can feel good about themselves, and gays are it.
It is pathetic that in the 21st century that a country that proclaims itself as this great beacon and so forth, is more closely aligned with regimes like Iran and Saudi Arabia, in insisting on having religious belief as law. Whether it is blue laws, laws regarding what kind of sex you can have and with whom (other obviously then children or animals), legal marriage rights, religion as a basis should be as valid legally as trial by fire or dunking witches,but sadly we still cater to the idiots who think law is religion.
The real problem was when the law recognized the marriages done by clergy as being official. If civic marriage, as is common in Europe and in Mexico, is totally separate from religious marriage, there wouldn't be an argument.
What the opposition really boils down to is religion , especially the leaders of the Catholic Church (who never got over the reformation) and the white trash evangelicals, needing someone to demonize and hate. The RC has pretty much turned being anti gay into one of their two main tenets (that, and being anti abortion) and the evangelical churches and their ilk are full of rednecks who since it is no longer polite to be racist, need a whipping boy so they can feel good about themselves, and gays are it.
It is pathetic that in the 21st century that a country that proclaims itself as this great beacon and so forth, is more closely aligned with regimes like Iran and Saudi Arabia, in insisting on having religious belief as law. Whether it is blue laws, laws regarding what kind of sex you can have and with whom (other obviously then children or animals), legal marriage rights, religion as a basis should be as valid legally as trial by fire or dunking witches,but sadly we still cater to the idiots who think law is religion.
One would hope Clarence Thomas would have moment of mental clarity and realize that legitimacy of his OWN marriage was "decided" by a radical court back in 1967. He has the gall to consider "traditional" values. What a buffoon. And as for Robert - his tip-toeing through his personal "moral minefield" show his court to he a bunch of John Birch hillbillies that would rather lunch at the country club rather than to actually take their sworn oath seriously. That is upholding the Constitution not conjuring people out of Corporations or coddling the Bible-thumpers.
24
Aren't we asking a lot of the Supreme Court when we want the word "marriage" redefined? Also, we must be careful to be consistent when we demand a broad Supreme Court ruling versus a law from Congress versus a popular vote. If we disagree with the Court's ruling on something we cannot say, "Well, that's not the will of the American people, there should be more representation!" Then if we agree with them we say, "We are so grateful! The Court has spoken!"
3
I'm always a bit miffed by this "redefinition" argument. My definition of marriage, specifically undefined in my head until recently, was a union of two people who mutually commit to each other, to support each other in good times and bad. if your definition of marriage revolves entirely around the genitals of those two people, I respectfully submit that you need a better definition, one that better honors the commitment of people who engage in marriage.
23
"If we disagree with the Court's ruling on something we cannot say, "Well, that's not the will of the American people, there should be more representation!""
Really? Isn't that what Constitutional amendments are for? I know that no one has really been able to get one going (on any issue) for like 50 years, but still...
Really? Isn't that what Constitutional amendments are for? I know that no one has really been able to get one going (on any issue) for like 50 years, but still...
2
If the will of the people were to reinstate slavery, the Federal Constitution would RIGHTFULLY strike it down. As unconstitutional.
See how that works?
See how that works?
9
The issue of same-sex marriage has been put to the vote and, though bans can win popular support, the stated motivations behind those bans fail to withstand the equal protection test. The backlash in states that voted to ban same sex marriage may---strange to say---have helped build the consensus that we are approaching. What this milestone does for populations still experience discrimination in the workplace and in housing is my big question.
7
I have to disagree with this editorial. The editorial assumes something that is still yet to be proven by anyone. This is known as "petitio principii" or "begging the question."
A same sex union is not the same thing as a marriage. Even the Catholic Church, as early as the 12th and 13th centuries validated "same sex unions" with spiritual and religious ceremonies, while at the same time preserving the institution of marriage for a man and a woman.
We can create, as a culture, a category of "same sex unions" for gay persons without having to invade the traditional institution of "marriage."
Gays simply want to impose their ideologies on heterosexual couples, a manifest indication of heterophobia, rather than seeking anything that involves equal protection of the laws.
A same sex union is not the same thing as a marriage. Even the Catholic Church, as early as the 12th and 13th centuries validated "same sex unions" with spiritual and religious ceremonies, while at the same time preserving the institution of marriage for a man and a woman.
We can create, as a culture, a category of "same sex unions" for gay persons without having to invade the traditional institution of "marriage."
Gays simply want to impose their ideologies on heterosexual couples, a manifest indication of heterophobia, rather than seeking anything that involves equal protection of the laws.
3
Yes - make the category equal to marriage. But separate. See Plessy v Ferguson...
7
Disagree all you like, but marriage is available to same-sex couples in 36 states in this country and many other countries, and so for the entire U.S. So you're simply wrong on the actual facts.
But curious, please elaborate on the "ideologies" of gay people that are imposable. How does that work? What would those be? And be specific and detailed and logical and provable. Please site one instance ever anywhere that someone has imposed upon a heterosexual couple an "ideology" other than in their imaginations (which don't count).
But curious, please elaborate on the "ideologies" of gay people that are imposable. How does that work? What would those be? And be specific and detailed and logical and provable. Please site one instance ever anywhere that someone has imposed upon a heterosexual couple an "ideology" other than in their imaginations (which don't count).
14
A same sex union is not the same thing as a marriage.
In your hateful world, perhaps.
Gays simply want to impose their ideologies on heterosexual couples, a manifest indication of heterophobia, rather than seeking anything that involves equal protection of the laws.
You are blind.
In your hateful world, perhaps.
Gays simply want to impose their ideologies on heterosexual couples, a manifest indication of heterophobia, rather than seeking anything that involves equal protection of the laws.
You are blind.
8
The grounds for Supreme Court rulings make all the difference in the world. Had Roe v. Wade found for personal autonomy over the internal processes of our own bodies for people of both sexes, perhaps the Supreme Court would not have gotten aborted by abortion politics.
3
It is disappointing that we all put up with the pretense that the courts and judges are engaged in some weighty mental exercise, and carrying out some kind of abstruse analysis that only rarefied intellects were capable of. Listening to the justices' arguments on this and so many other issues, it sounds excatly like an argument between Sonny Corleone and Bruno Tattaglia.
7
Too late to wait?
Or is Linda Greenhouse too impatient to declare victory to make sure its foundation is solid?
Take Roe v. Wade: "Ginsburg has ... said that the [Roe v. Wade] damaged the growing movement for abortion rights by going 'too far, too fast' and catalyzing the conservative pro-life community, which considers Roe a monumental act of judicial overreach...."
"'That was my concern, that the court had given opponents of access to abortion a target to aim at relentlessly,' she told students at the University of Chicago Law School, as reported by The Associated Press. 'My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum that was on the side of change.'"
Or is Linda Greenhouse too impatient to declare victory to make sure its foundation is solid?
Take Roe v. Wade: "Ginsburg has ... said that the [Roe v. Wade] damaged the growing movement for abortion rights by going 'too far, too fast' and catalyzing the conservative pro-life community, which considers Roe a monumental act of judicial overreach...."
"'That was my concern, that the court had given opponents of access to abortion a target to aim at relentlessly,' she told students at the University of Chicago Law School, as reported by The Associated Press. 'My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum that was on the side of change.'"
I found it disturbing that one of the justices actually looked up the definition of "marriage" and used that as guidance. it seemed sophomoric to use the Webster definition as some sort of legal president, like a 5th Grader doing a report, the intro paragraph to a paper.
Many of the justices seem too insulated to make informed, modern interpretations of the Constitution. Some seem stuck in a time capsule.
Many of the justices seem too insulated to make informed, modern interpretations of the Constitution. Some seem stuck in a time capsule.
17
I think you hit the nail on the head, if inadvertently. "Marriage" is a clearly defined concept in English. Actually, everyone knows what it means, and it has nothing to do with gays. What the Supreme Court is really being asked to do is officially expand the dictionary definition of the word "marriage."
And about those "legal presidents" - there's no limit to the trouble they can cause!
And about those "legal presidents" - there's no limit to the trouble they can cause!
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote "Letter From a Birmingham Jail:, stating clearly "why we cannot wait'.
This applies to gays and lesbians in America as it did for racial minorities. The operative word here being minority, and unpopular minority at that. Who have been subjected to much by way of threat to their basic civil rights and freedoms.
Even their very lives, property...and children. Something that a lot of Americans still can't picture for themselves and can take for granted. Exploiting the legacy of injustice is essentially what the anti gay call to do when demanding that gay citizen's freedoms be up for popular vote. The courts are there to protect all citizens from mobs. The Constitution does from tyranny by a majority.
After more than ten years of marriage equality in at least one state, and many more since. And several Western countries, the results of what would happen once gay citizen's are included in the same rights and protections, is that everyone wins.
That is the legacy of equal justice, after all.
This applies to gays and lesbians in America as it did for racial minorities. The operative word here being minority, and unpopular minority at that. Who have been subjected to much by way of threat to their basic civil rights and freedoms.
Even their very lives, property...and children. Something that a lot of Americans still can't picture for themselves and can take for granted. Exploiting the legacy of injustice is essentially what the anti gay call to do when demanding that gay citizen's freedoms be up for popular vote. The courts are there to protect all citizens from mobs. The Constitution does from tyranny by a majority.
After more than ten years of marriage equality in at least one state, and many more since. And several Western countries, the results of what would happen once gay citizen's are included in the same rights and protections, is that everyone wins.
That is the legacy of equal justice, after all.
10
If Chief Justice Roberts is reluctant to "impose" decisions on people and prefers to give people a "chance to vote on" legal disputes, then he is arguing to dissolve the Court and let the people decide all constitutional matters and legal disputes by referenda. Pretty radical.
16
Yep. Several states in the south would quickly re-establish slavery.
4
Ruth Bader Ginsburg made the relevance of doctrine clear when she brought up the 14th amendment and discussed how equal protection under the law applies to all regardless of gender. John Roberts responded that he was appreciative of someone bringing their arguments back to the Constitution.
Arguing from the 14th amendment, the case of Loving v. Virginia, which ended the ban on interracial marriage, highlights the need for the court to support gay marriage. The court ruled at a time when 70% of the country did not support interracial marriage. This ruling proves the necessity of a court to lead in the protection and granting of civil rights.
Arguing from the 14th amendment, the case of Loving v. Virginia, which ended the ban on interracial marriage, highlights the need for the court to support gay marriage. The court ruled at a time when 70% of the country did not support interracial marriage. This ruling proves the necessity of a court to lead in the protection and granting of civil rights.
12
@Mary Brooklyn
Thanks for mentioning Loving v Virginia. The relevance of the 14th Amendment is the same in the case now before SCOTUS.
I shall be waiting with bated breath to see how Justice Thomas votes on the issue, since his own marriage would have been impossible in many states before the Loving decision in 1967.
Thanks for mentioning Loving v Virginia. The relevance of the 14th Amendment is the same in the case now before SCOTUS.
I shall be waiting with bated breath to see how Justice Thomas votes on the issue, since his own marriage would have been impossible in many states before the Loving decision in 1967.
And in another interesting exchange, between the Solicitor General and Justice Alito, SG Verrilli made it clear that once the constitutional right to gay marriage is established by SCOTUS then the IRS will be entitled to revoke the tax exemption certificates of every organization that support gay marriage, following the approach in the Bob Jones decision.
We can expect the next phase of the cultural left's campaign to include an all-out assault on the tax exempt status of all Roman Catholic, Orthodox Jewish, Mormon and Muslim congregations, schools, hospitals and charities.
We can expect the next phase of the cultural left's campaign to include an all-out assault on the tax exempt status of all Roman Catholic, Orthodox Jewish, Mormon and Muslim congregations, schools, hospitals and charities.
2
As so many religions have imposed themselves into the political arena, with vehemence, they absolutely should lose their tax-exempt status. Why should they benefit from the infrastructure and protection of police and fire that MY tax dollars pay for when they work so hard to deny me my civil right to marriage? How is that at all logical. Religion should have to pull its own weight, enough of this coddling. They are the true welfare queens.
17
Frank, I think you'd better go back and take a look at the 8-1 decision in the Bob Jones University Case. The institution lost its tax exempt status because it engaged in a variety of racially discriminatory practices that were contrary to public policy:
"Neither petitioner qualifies as a tax-exempt organization...[i]t would be wholly incompatible with the concepts underlying tax exemption to grant tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private educational entities. Whatever may be the rationale for such private schools' policies, racial discrimination in education is contrary to public policy. Racially discriminatory educational institutions cannot be viewed as conferring a public benefit within the above 'charitable' concept or within the congressional intent underlying 501(c)(3)"
Not exactly a parallel to advocating for recognizing the civil rights of a group that has long been victimized by discrimination, and totally contrary to the recent trend of judicial decisions that unlike official racial discrimination, the private conduct of homosexuals is their own business.
"Neither petitioner qualifies as a tax-exempt organization...[i]t would be wholly incompatible with the concepts underlying tax exemption to grant tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private educational entities. Whatever may be the rationale for such private schools' policies, racial discrimination in education is contrary to public policy. Racially discriminatory educational institutions cannot be viewed as conferring a public benefit within the above 'charitable' concept or within the congressional intent underlying 501(c)(3)"
Not exactly a parallel to advocating for recognizing the civil rights of a group that has long been victimized by discrimination, and totally contrary to the recent trend of judicial decisions that unlike official racial discrimination, the private conduct of homosexuals is their own business.
8
I hope you're right. In my admittedly lay opinion, automatic tax exempt status for approved religious organizations is blatantly unconstitutional. Not every group that wants to claim religious status is successful, which means the government is necessarily adjudicating what constitutes a "real" religion. What is this if not passing a law respecting the establishment of religion?
I don't hold this position out of anger towards religion. I'm very much in favor of tax exemption for organizations that provide charitable services, and many religious organizations would be able to apply for tax exempt status on that basis. But for those that can't demonstrate that they provide such a benefit to society at large, the gravy train would be over.
I don't hold this position out of anger towards religion. I'm very much in favor of tax exemption for organizations that provide charitable services, and many religious organizations would be able to apply for tax exempt status on that basis. But for those that can't demonstrate that they provide such a benefit to society at large, the gravy train would be over.
6
Equality is not based on a referendum, rights cannot be refused though voting. Wait and see means "they" aren't really citizens.
I don't care what rationale the Court uses for some of their tortured little minds to get this right, just make it happen.
I don't care what rationale the Court uses for some of their tortured little minds to get this right, just make it happen.
15
Marriage is a fundamental right of all adults. The pertinence of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause should result in a 9-0 decision. Justices, after all, have sworn to uphold the Constitution.
I just read the entire transcript of Tuesday's arguments at the Court. There is a stunning lack of legal substance in the arguments of those opposing same-sex marriage.
I just read the entire transcript of Tuesday's arguments at the Court. There is a stunning lack of legal substance in the arguments of those opposing same-sex marriage.
10
Remember the old lawyer's saying; "If the facts are for you, pound on the facts. If the law is for you, pound on the law. If neither the facts nor the law are for you, pound on the table."
The proponents of the bans are pounding on the table.
The proponents of the bans are pounding on the table.
2
I wish someone would explain why the differing consanguinity standards of the various states is not an issue, while the differing gender standards is one? Both restrict the rights of people to marry due to factors beyond their control; both vary from state to state, yet gay marriage is a fundamental right and cousin marriage is a topic for redneck jokes. What's the difference?
Marriage was an institution started in the churches, the government should have never got involved with what constitutes marriage. If Marriage was never at issue, we would never have had to address the question in the first place.
Maybe, but they did, so we are, so there's that.
4
So spouses and children should never have had any rights in law? Not inheritance ... child support, nothing?
Really!
Really!
Marriage was an institution started in the churches
100% historically inaccurate. Wrong. And EVEN if it were true, this country is not a church.
100% historically inaccurate. Wrong. And EVEN if it were true, this country is not a church.
10
I am curious why Justices bring up irrelevant arguments at a hearing like this. Why did the conservative Justices talk about the legislative process and that this case is really about "anti gender discrimination" rather than "pro gay marriage"?
The central question is whether the government has a good enough reason to discriminate against people who would want a same-sex union when the effect is to create a second-class citizenry. I don't think there's a good reason for discrimination, but maybe the conservatives on the Court believe that there is. Shouldn't this be the focus of the conservative musings during a hearing like this, beyond just agreeing that "it's always been this way"?
The central question is whether the government has a good enough reason to discriminate against people who would want a same-sex union when the effect is to create a second-class citizenry. I don't think there's a good reason for discrimination, but maybe the conservatives on the Court believe that there is. Shouldn't this be the focus of the conservative musings during a hearing like this, beyond just agreeing that "it's always been this way"?
7
What Roberts failed to admit is that a ruling by the Supreme Court that gay marriage bans do not violate the constitution will itself be a strong political statement that will affect the outcome in many states. Opponents of gay marriage will be galvanized, states would be free to reverse same sex marriage rights, and some will undoubtedly attempt to "unmarry" couples who were legally married in the interim. You can't say "let the political process continue" and ignore your own role in politics.
4
Where there has been an injustice, it is never too soon to right that wrong. The SCOTUS, the highest justices of our land must stand for what they represent and end that injustice ASAP.
The argument that marriage must be between a man and a woman and the institution of marriage needs to be protected is false. Slavery too was an institution as old as the Bible and the nation did away with that because it was simply wrong and unjust. We need to end this injustice against LGBT Americans who just want to be married, to openly confirm their commitment to each other in a loving relationship. The other alternative would be to ban marriage for all.
The argument that marriage must be between a man and a woman and the institution of marriage needs to be protected is false. Slavery too was an institution as old as the Bible and the nation did away with that because it was simply wrong and unjust. We need to end this injustice against LGBT Americans who just want to be married, to openly confirm their commitment to each other in a loving relationship. The other alternative would be to ban marriage for all.
4
"marriage equality will win the day, although there may not be five justices on the same doctrinal page."
just what I imagined. The Court will weasel out way to allow marriage but without the constitutional liberty issue or protected class status that would outlaw discrimination. Four on equal protection, three on fundamental right, and Roberts on "sex."
just what I imagined. The Court will weasel out way to allow marriage but without the constitutional liberty issue or protected class status that would outlaw discrimination. Four on equal protection, three on fundamental right, and Roberts on "sex."
1
As to Justice Robert's "wait and see" comment, whatever happened to the maxim, "Justice delayed is justice denied"?
12
Thank you Linda Greenhouse. I join many others who are so grateful for your columns.
3
If the Supreme Court rules that consenting adults can marry whom they choose, and that that the Govt. has no business in the bedroom, one must ask, why shouldn't polygamy be next? For the Southern evangelicals, and those versed in the Bible, homosexuality is not allowed, whereas polygamy is a well accepted institution. One must now ask, now that millions of folks have signed on to the movement for personal freedom in the Gay Rights fight, who of these folks could possibly be opposed to legalizing polygamy? Who would stand against the union of consenting adults now... and more importantly, why?
No one must not. Because your silly questions are an insult. These silly questions of yours have been THOROUGHLY addressed in many court cases. You should read them and learn before you continue to embarrass yourself.
1
@NoBigDeal --
Begone with that red herring argument! It is not only silly, but along with your wisecrack about "consenting adults," it shows ignorance of the true nature of both the battle for gay rights and the institution of polygamy.
The gay rights movement is not a battle for "personal freedom" -- it is a battle for justice in the form of equal rights under the law, as enshrined in our Constitution, most particularly in the 14th Amendment.
Polygyamy (and polygyny) have been accurately described as a form of human rights abuse. Many international human rights organizations, as well as women's rights groups in many countries, have called for its abolition. In 2000, the United Nations Human Rights Committee described polygamy as a violation of the internationally binding International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) on the grounds that it violates the dignity of women, and recommended it be made illegal in all states.
Though nearly 50 nations still acknowledge polygamous marriages as legal, they are all in the Muslim world and Africa -- and of course we know how women fare in those places where Sharia law or ancient tribal customs govern.
Begone with that red herring argument! It is not only silly, but along with your wisecrack about "consenting adults," it shows ignorance of the true nature of both the battle for gay rights and the institution of polygamy.
The gay rights movement is not a battle for "personal freedom" -- it is a battle for justice in the form of equal rights under the law, as enshrined in our Constitution, most particularly in the 14th Amendment.
Polygyamy (and polygyny) have been accurately described as a form of human rights abuse. Many international human rights organizations, as well as women's rights groups in many countries, have called for its abolition. In 2000, the United Nations Human Rights Committee described polygamy as a violation of the internationally binding International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) on the grounds that it violates the dignity of women, and recommended it be made illegal in all states.
Though nearly 50 nations still acknowledge polygamous marriages as legal, they are all in the Muslim world and Africa -- and of course we know how women fare in those places where Sharia law or ancient tribal customs govern.
1
"For what it’s worth, I share..."
Ms. Greenhouse, your opinion is always worth quite a lot to me. And your summary sentence is the perfect cap to a thoughtful, well written column.
Ms. Greenhouse, your opinion is always worth quite a lot to me. And your summary sentence is the perfect cap to a thoughtful, well written column.
3
Since this same Supreme Court decided that corporations are people and have rights under the Constitution, does it mean that a ruling against same sex marriage means that gay and lesbian couples are therefore not people and do not have rights? Can't have it both ways SCOTUS.
5
While I by and large agree in spirit with all of this - this entire essay strikes me, respectfully, of the complete inability of even legal scholars to avoid conflating their political ideology with their assessment of the law.
We are again using the courts to decide an issue on which the Constitution is ambiguous at best.
In that sense, it would have been best for the matter to have been kept out of the courts entirely - while I fully support gay rights and marriage [as a libertarian who graduated from statism] your [or my] *sense of moral outrage* - or 'how things ought to be' - IS NOT legal analysis.
Let us stop pretending it is anything other than providing ex post facto rhetorical support for the conclusion/decision we made outside the consideration of 'the law' at all.
We are again using the courts to decide an issue on which the Constitution is ambiguous at best.
In that sense, it would have been best for the matter to have been kept out of the courts entirely - while I fully support gay rights and marriage [as a libertarian who graduated from statism] your [or my] *sense of moral outrage* - or 'how things ought to be' - IS NOT legal analysis.
Let us stop pretending it is anything other than providing ex post facto rhetorical support for the conclusion/decision we made outside the consideration of 'the law' at all.
2
The legal analysis in this case is very simple. The Court has made clear in other opinions that the right to marry is a fundamental right. The 14th Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection clauses require a rational reason to discriminate between people in applying fundamental rights. Marriage confers certain rights and obligations. Those against same sex marriage can come up with no rational reason for discriminating against same sex couples in licensing marriage and denying them the rights and obligations that come with marriage. That is the reason the right-wing, activist, and very political Justices discuss all these peripheral arguments. The law is clear and they are looking for some excuse for not following it.
5
Not at all, Mike D. "Equal protection of the law" is not mere political rhetoric in this context: rights are accorded to some and not others based on an time-worn yet perfectly unjustifiable distinction. The Constitution is not ambiguous on this issue. It is crystal clear to everyone who chooses not to be blind.
3
Lets talk about rights. I think almost everyone would agree that people have the right to marry whomever they please (as long as it is a member of the opposite sex, and historically, not a member of another race.) The courts have held this is a fundamental right. When conservatives passed laws prohibiting marriage by persons of different races or the same sex from marrying, that put the issue into the courts. The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land, and since around 1867, it has required equal protection of law, among other things. The question here is whether or not laws and practices which prevent same sex couples from marrying are justified by some public policy worthy of consideration, or if they are instead the product of prejudice. That is most decidedly an issue for the courts to determine.
1
Can American Democracy Survive the Roberts Court? It is not a sure thing. Four recent decisions of the five conservative justices have the potential to make our cities dangerously gun-infested (Heller), to put public office up for sale (Citizens United), to deprive many citizens of their right to vote (Shelby County), and to accord a competitive advantage to businesses owned by religiously-devout persons over businesses not so owned (Hobby Lobby).
For details see: TheRobertsCourtvUSdemocracy.blogspot.com
For details see: TheRobertsCourtvUSdemocracy.blogspot.com
8
Marriage is a fundamental right, all citizens require "the equal protection of the laws" guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. To deny same-sex couples any further is to participate in willful discrimination, yet some of our conservative justices may be all too comfortable in rationalizing against the happiness of others. Please—let this court get one thing right after so many regressive decisions. It's time.
7
It is not surprising that there has been little legal arguing in the Supreme Court, everything I hear is right out of the conservative playbook, that marriage is for procreation (sure to get the rabid Catholics who make up the hard right of the court to rule against SSM), that "the current system has worked for thousands of years" (really?), that "this is redefining marriage" (no it isn, marriage was redefined when legal rights were tied to it, and legal marriage is not religious marriage), and so forth. We already know where the opponents are coming from, they admitted in the prop 8 case that the objections to SSM were all based on religious belief.
As far as Roberts musing "we should wait", that is the same canard that right wing republicans and blue dog democrats said when courts ruled on civil rights matters, and Rand Paul to this day says that the Civil rights law ending Jim Crow were wrong, that we should have waited. It shows either that Roberts might have come from an Ivy league education but gave up his brain cells in being a practicing Catholic, or is willfully blind, because if he knew history, he knew the courts have been the agent of social change. The fact that so many support SSM now is because of courts, in Mass and now federal judges, the same way that interracial marriage went from 85% disapproval to 90% approval with one court decision. Roberts basically would like the court to punt, because he doesn't want the GOP to be exposed for what they are, bigots
As far as Roberts musing "we should wait", that is the same canard that right wing republicans and blue dog democrats said when courts ruled on civil rights matters, and Rand Paul to this day says that the Civil rights law ending Jim Crow were wrong, that we should have waited. It shows either that Roberts might have come from an Ivy league education but gave up his brain cells in being a practicing Catholic, or is willfully blind, because if he knew history, he knew the courts have been the agent of social change. The fact that so many support SSM now is because of courts, in Mass and now federal judges, the same way that interracial marriage went from 85% disapproval to 90% approval with one court decision. Roberts basically would like the court to punt, because he doesn't want the GOP to be exposed for what they are, bigots
12
As usual, grounded and wonderfully written. We miss you, Linda!
6
The Court should not rule in such a way as to muddy the waters about the underlying issues involved. The struggle is about the meaning of the word "marriage," and this term lives in two contexts, the legal and the religious, and the two are almost always conflated. The best decision would be for the Court to say that the only authority they have is over the legal application of marriage laws, that denying the opportunity for marriage to a couple of the same gender who are willing to commit to the relationship and assume all the rights and obligations legally attendant on such a contract violates equal protection, and that any church is free to recognize such a contract as a marriage "in the church" — or not.
11
Amen, brother. "Civil marriage" is marriage, according to several of my friends from the 1960's, who are hetero but still chose to be married by a JP. If one religion or another wants to define "marriage" differently for their congregants, go for it. That's their problem and their rites (rights?) but the option of an equivalent civil contract should be available to all committed couples.
What churches do or don't recognize is not relevant to the issue, Peter. The SCOTUS is being asked to decide on the constitutionality of civil laws.
We should thank the 6th Circuit for forcing this issue back to the Supremes, who declined to take the proper action when last it was in their Court.
It would seem that now they'll finish what they started, equality will prevail, and the hatemongers on the right will move on to the next perceived threat to their (im)morality.
It would seem that now they'll finish what they started, equality will prevail, and the hatemongers on the right will move on to the next perceived threat to their (im)morality.
2
“People feel very differently about something if they have a chance to vote on it than if it’s imposed on them by the courts,” the chief justice said.
What a pity that the chief justice did not care about what people had "voted on" in Bush v. Gore.
What a pity that the chief justice did not care about what people had "voted on" in Bush v. Gore.
25
Chief Justice Roberts should be ashamed of himself for suggesting that any citizen of the US should have their Constitutionally Guaranteed 14th Amendment Equal Protection Rights, subject to the votes and whims of any other citizen – no matter which way the tide is going.
This is the Supreme court after all, not a club.
This is the Supreme court after all, not a club.
9
I still can't see how gays are prevented from accessing the some 1,200 legal benefits of marriage. All a gay man need do is marry a female. I realize gays can't fall in love with females, but marriage in a legal context isn't about love. It's about consent. Men have been consenting to marry women they didn't love for centuries, and some of those women weren't even pregnant.
People say allowing gays to marry would strengthen the households where their children live. Flooding a poor school district in money would also benefit the children who attend those schools. But the children in poor school districts have no constitutional right to receive dollars equal to children in wealthy school districts. And gays have no constitutional right to marry.
Women's weight loss clubs cannot be forced to admit men. Straight men who decorate cakes cannot be forced to participate in gay weddings. Gays who wed cannot be forced to have their receptions catered by pizza parlors.
There are constitutional limits to even the most wildly popular moral crusades.
People say allowing gays to marry would strengthen the households where their children live. Flooding a poor school district in money would also benefit the children who attend those schools. But the children in poor school districts have no constitutional right to receive dollars equal to children in wealthy school districts. And gays have no constitutional right to marry.
Women's weight loss clubs cannot be forced to admit men. Straight men who decorate cakes cannot be forced to participate in gay weddings. Gays who wed cannot be forced to have their receptions catered by pizza parlors.
There are constitutional limits to even the most wildly popular moral crusades.
2
This does not even make sense. Are you intending to force gays to marry a person of the opposite sex, or do you just expect them to go back in the closet?
9
A consenting adult being able to marry the person he loves is what this issue is about, which really is quite simple to understand, obtuse arguments notwithstanding.
9
Wow, such a cogent argument.
And I didn't realize that forcing gays to have pizza receptions was such a wildly popular moral crusade.
I must be reading the wrong newspapers.
And I didn't realize that forcing gays to have pizza receptions was such a wildly popular moral crusade.
I must be reading the wrong newspapers.
3
Excellent observations.
This article is why we need the free press to see what we, the ordinary people do not see.
And Linda Greenhouse to lay it out for us to examine.
Truly impressed.
This article is why we need the free press to see what we, the ordinary people do not see.
And Linda Greenhouse to lay it out for us to examine.
Truly impressed.
11
Where would America be without Donald B. Verrilli, the Solicitor General, to point out once again - to the Supreme Court! - that justice delayed is justice denied?
For that matter, where would we be without Linda Greenhouse to tell us, alone among Court reporters, what Verrilli said and did?
How many Gay teen suicides does it take for John Roberts to get that real Americans have to live with this "demeaning, second-class status" imposed by callous judges like him?
Jack Baker and James McConnell deserve a better answer than they got back in 1972. They deserve an apology, and so does every Gay and Lesbian person in the United States.
For that matter, where would we be without Linda Greenhouse to tell us, alone among Court reporters, what Verrilli said and did?
How many Gay teen suicides does it take for John Roberts to get that real Americans have to live with this "demeaning, second-class status" imposed by callous judges like him?
Jack Baker and James McConnell deserve a better answer than they got back in 1972. They deserve an apology, and so does every Gay and Lesbian person in the United States.
17
John Roberts said during his Senate confimation hearing that a judge's job was like that of an umpire, to "call balls and strikes." Imagine if an umpire looked to the fans in the stadium to tell him whether the runner was out at home plate. Come on, Mr. Chief Justice, do your job.
13
"“I don’t know what the latest opinion polls show,” Chief Justice Roberts mused during the argument. O.K., let’s tell him: 61 percent approval and climbing, as of last week."
No, let's not. Opinion polls are completely without relevance in this matter.
I'm sure that if opinion polls favored a return to slavery, Ms Greenhouse would hesitate to tout them. She should be just as hesitant when the polls support her.
No, let's not. Opinion polls are completely without relevance in this matter.
I'm sure that if opinion polls favored a return to slavery, Ms Greenhouse would hesitate to tout them. She should be just as hesitant when the polls support her.
4
Not 'completely without relevance' at all.
SCOTUS judges are appointed by elected Presidents and confirmed by the elected Senate. All three branches of the government are highly sensitive to public opinion.
Landmark SCOTUS rulings have typically preceded public opinion. In this case public opinion is way way ahead of the conservative court, and, as such, SCOTUS will assuredly play catch-up.
It is the principle relevant point in this case.
SCOTUS judges are appointed by elected Presidents and confirmed by the elected Senate. All three branches of the government are highly sensitive to public opinion.
Landmark SCOTUS rulings have typically preceded public opinion. In this case public opinion is way way ahead of the conservative court, and, as such, SCOTUS will assuredly play catch-up.
It is the principle relevant point in this case.
The point is not that the Court should hurry up and follow the public (because the Court is the leader in interpreting the Constitution); the point is that the Court pretends to be above the fray, and fools itself into thinking it is ruling based on logic and law. They are awash in cognitive bias; thoroughly reeking of it. They forget all constitutional values and precedent, and base questions and rulings on millennia of accumulated injustice. They rule on their guts, and their hearts, and what God tells them, not what they ought to be doing. They toss away all respect, and don't seem to realize that they have thrown away their whole value. They toss out the baby to save the filthy bathwater.
Don't blame Greenhouse for answering Roberts' question.
4
The arguments that most surprised me had to do with preserving the traditional institution of opposite-sex marriage for the sake or procreation and rearing children. Leaving side the issue of whether gay couples can do this, I should think that one or another of the justices would have followed the logical consequence of that notion: no straight woman after menopause could be married. She could not procreate and therefore be able to raise the children resulting from her union. This logical inconsistency (we certainly do allow the marriage of elderly couples) lays bare the real motivation of the traditionalists: they're bigots, defined more by what and whom they oppose than by what they support.
65
Wilton, I feel I need to point out, respectfully, that people will be allowed to practice their faith without being called bigots. If mainstream culture can't allow for a diverse and plural society, faith included, then we have failed the pluralistic experiment. We are well on our way to a single, monolithic culture defined by the postmodern thinkers. If that is the goal of all this, then go ahead, but we will lose a tremendous amount of wisdom and expression when faith communities are forced underground, or into self-censorship. This is called letting one group out of the closet, and forcing another one into it. Is this what you want?
It is a 2nd amendment right, and it was a part of the founding of the nation after the French enlightenment. Protestant reformation and all that. We no longer have a church of England, or a monarchy defined by a state church. Faith communities have every right to practice their faith. That being said, I think the issue you bring up is a good one. Namely, that the faith communities no longer stand for anything, and certainly they don't stand for the good of all humankind (although I know many who do wish for the good of all humankind).
I might also point out that the institution of racism was eradicated by leaders in the faith community. They reformed the faith from the inside, without throwing the sacred traditions into the waste bin. Outsiders have no right to dictate what the church will or won't do, and the divide grows...
It is a 2nd amendment right, and it was a part of the founding of the nation after the French enlightenment. Protestant reformation and all that. We no longer have a church of England, or a monarchy defined by a state church. Faith communities have every right to practice their faith. That being said, I think the issue you bring up is a good one. Namely, that the faith communities no longer stand for anything, and certainly they don't stand for the good of all humankind (although I know many who do wish for the good of all humankind).
I might also point out that the institution of racism was eradicated by leaders in the faith community. They reformed the faith from the inside, without throwing the sacred traditions into the waste bin. Outsiders have no right to dictate what the church will or won't do, and the divide grows...
1
Justice Ginsburg asked the attorney who made this point about procreation (Burch from Michigan, I believe) - what about a 70 year old that marries? You can imagine how pathetic his response was.
1
Certainly the women on the court did follow up.
Let's put gay marriage up to a community based vote? Sounds like an awful reality show. When do people with no compelling day to day interest in the matter get to vote on who loves whom?
10
Ms. Greenhouse, your description of the proceedings in front of SCOTUS yesterday calls to mind a different opinion which similarly completely ignored all prior precedent, indeed, it quotes almost none. That case is now read by every law student in the nation.
It's Brown v. Board of Education.
Perhaps we can look at the homosexual marriage decision as an extension of this decision. Treating two similar things differently, for no good reason, and with large social costs, is a violation of the 14th amendment.
It's Brown v. Board of Education.
Perhaps we can look at the homosexual marriage decision as an extension of this decision. Treating two similar things differently, for no good reason, and with large social costs, is a violation of the 14th amendment.
6
Of course there was no legal doctrine. Because all that matters is the antipathy that Linda Greenhouse, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and Evan Wolfson hold for a society founded on families headed by white Christian males. What a joke that gay marriage must be constitutionally protected because of the inferiority that children of gay couples would otherwise feel. Why does that argument not apply equally to the children of families with one white Mormon husband and five wives?
1
The point is that in this country white Christian males don't get the right to legislate the way the rest of us choose to live. Oh, wait, maybe the problem is that they *do*.
30
I think you just helped a few more people change their minds and support marriage equality. thanks!
13
It does. It is not legal to have multiple wives.
2
While many here seem to believe that the justices are concerned about their reputations, I doubt that it's true. Roberts may have some concern for the reputation of the court, but whether he would go against his own opinions in a case is arguable.
Given a Catholic majority on the court, religious inclinations likely conflict with judicial ones for possible swing votes. Personally I think the equal protection argument is quite strong, and hope that the ruling in the case relies on it.
Given a Catholic majority on the court, religious inclinations likely conflict with judicial ones for possible swing votes. Personally I think the equal protection argument is quite strong, and hope that the ruling in the case relies on it.
3
The solution to this artificially vexing problem is simple. Adopt the European model. In order to recognized as being married by the state, couples engage in some form of civil ceremony/proceeding conducted by the state and are therefore 'married' civilly. Couples who wish to be married in the eyes of their respective 'gods' may be married by their respective spiritual advisor(s). Civil marriages confer the rights, benefits and responsibilities of marriage to and from the state. Religious marriages confer the rights, benefits and responsibilities of 'religious' marriage to and from the celebrants' respective faiths and 'gods.' Follow the teaching of the first christian who is alleged to have said, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto god the things that are god's.
48
How is that not the system in the US? I did not step foot inside a church (it was a courthouse), and yet I am married in the eyes of the state...
4
This sort of comment comes up regularly and it really begs the question as to WHY so many are confused about how marriage works in the U.S. Lots of these commenters, you would imagine, have actually gone through the process of getting married by their respective state governments, so it's even more confounding.
What you call the "European model" IS what what we have here: you might as well call it the "U.S. model". What you then go on to describe in detail IS how it works here. No "solution" is needed because nothing is broken.
What you call the "European model" IS what what we have here: you might as well call it the "U.S. model". What you then go on to describe in detail IS how it works here. No "solution" is needed because nothing is broken.
3
A reasonable solution, requiring all states to offer civil marriage, and recognize other states' civil marriages, with all the benefits and requirements that come with marriage. That is what these states are fighting, however.
2
Win or lose my main interest is in seeing how Scalia and Thomas justify their votes against this proposition. This generation has been cursed with this truly awful group of Justices. They worship the words attributed to a small group of cave dwellers who lived 2000 years ago and a document that they see as set in stone written by men 225 years ago who, themselves, argued for the ability to change and grow and learn. The Men of SCOTUS are awful. If there is a God I think they will be in for one very hot surprise.
20
"The Men of SCOTUS are awful." Well, sure, but leave Breyer out of it, OK? And Kennedy also has his moments - and it looks likes he's going to have another opportunity to shine soon.
Apparently the Supreme Boobs believe that Constitutional rights are eventually "bestowed" upon citizens by them, rather than assumed at birth. So, some citizens will just have to be patient, and wait until the Boobs feel like it. (Yeah, a dollar now has more freedom than some citizens. I wonder if the dollar can sing the National Anthem.)
(correction) I meant to make that later comment, about going to church, to the Londoner, Cuger Brant. Anglicans are usually more liberal minded. Must be a fundamentalist.)
(correction) I meant to make that later comment, about going to church, to the Londoner, Cuger Brant. Anglicans are usually more liberal minded. Must be a fundamentalist.)
7
One of the things that strike me the most about the conservative justices is their inability to accept and confront the long and sordid history of discrimination that LGBT people have endured in this country and all over the world - and the incalculable damage that this irrational, most often religion-fueled prejudice has perpetrated. The progress that has been achieved in recent decades in no way negates that. They cannot accept that animus has existed and continues to exist, and contort themselves into legalese and philosophical pretzels in order to rationalize their willful ignorance.
108
Well said and my thoughts exactly. It's the hatred that causes the real harm, and legalized inequality gives hatred a cover.
7
And what about the even longer sordid history of homosexuality. What you call prejudice is actually revulsion. What you call progress is in reality the decay of the moral fiber of this country. The conservative judges have the ability to right history will a blow against homosexual marriages.
1
Well, when Scalia comments after the protester in the courtroom shouts "abomination!" that it is "refreshing" of course it would be impossible for him to comprehend animus. He is the embodiment of animus.
7
We should not be complacent about the legitimacy of same sex marriage in the states now permitting it. Judicial action based on interpretation of the Supreme Court's Windsor case was largely responsible for that legitimacy. If a majority of the Court rules that prohibiting same sex marriage does not violate constitutional rights, we can expect to see previous state bans resurrected. We need that fifth vote -- whether from Roberts or Kennedy -- to ensure that same sex marriage rights continue to be protected.
16
Yep. although I'm not sure what "we" can do to compel the outcome, thus complacency is not the problem. But if your scenario, were it to come to pass, would mean that we would have to re-fight the fight in many places, that is true. And we will.
But the court knows that lawsuits will keep coming up as a patchwork is untenable. They surely know that. And if this alone is not compelling to put this to rest then they really are endorsing a longer view that they - the 5 on the right - wish to transform our govt into a theocracy; and specifically a Christian theocracy.
But the court knows that lawsuits will keep coming up as a patchwork is untenable. They surely know that. And if this alone is not compelling to put this to rest then they really are endorsing a longer view that they - the 5 on the right - wish to transform our govt into a theocracy; and specifically a Christian theocracy.
The last paragraph speaks volumes. It reveals the true essence of this debate. Only a court insider could have pulled that out.
To state that "there was surprisingly little discussion of legal doctrine – almost none, actually", means that the Court considers this a social policy issue, not a legal issue. They understand that the equal protection aspect of gay marriage is valid and correct. Logic demands this conclusion.
What is therefore on trial here is not the law but ideology. The conservative justices are opposing something that they don't want to believe is right even though they understand our laws support it under the 14th amendment. All this talk about states rights and let the people decide is just emotional cover. The Federal Government and the Supreme Court represent the "people" just as much as any state legislature does.
Cut out the politics and blind adherence to ancient religious ideology and this case is a slam dunk 9-0 ruling in favor of gay marriage. The closed minded opposition to gay marriage from the ultra conservative justices proves that they are politically activist judges who are pushing an ideological agenda. They are not functioning as impartial enforcers of the law. The law demands equal protection for all.
To state that "there was surprisingly little discussion of legal doctrine – almost none, actually", means that the Court considers this a social policy issue, not a legal issue. They understand that the equal protection aspect of gay marriage is valid and correct. Logic demands this conclusion.
What is therefore on trial here is not the law but ideology. The conservative justices are opposing something that they don't want to believe is right even though they understand our laws support it under the 14th amendment. All this talk about states rights and let the people decide is just emotional cover. The Federal Government and the Supreme Court represent the "people" just as much as any state legislature does.
Cut out the politics and blind adherence to ancient religious ideology and this case is a slam dunk 9-0 ruling in favor of gay marriage. The closed minded opposition to gay marriage from the ultra conservative justices proves that they are politically activist judges who are pushing an ideological agenda. They are not functioning as impartial enforcers of the law. The law demands equal protection for all.
216
Well said. The case is really simple. 14th Amendment, 5th Amendment, Loving v Virginia etc. Monstrous rim rattling, backboard shattering, posterizing, highlight reel slam dunk.
Roberts and Scalia's comments were absurd much of the time.
Roberts and Scalia's comments were absurd much of the time.
3
I expect that the party and amici briefs have argued the legal doctrine issues to a fare-the-well, and the court wanted to focus on the social policy aspects of the case. That concentration may also reflect a perspective that the social policy aspects could trump the legal doctrine issues, based on whether or not the "It doesn't look like marriage" perspective (on the conservative side) should trump the equal protection and sex discrimination arguments which have carried the day everywhere except the Sixth Circuit. Most of the remaining arguments against same sex marriage have either been discredited in lower court trials and/ or are ridiculous. The "full faith and credit" aspect has not been discussed much, but it is a big issue that a child of married parents could become illegitimate if the parents move to another state.
1
the gay marriage train has left the station will court bow to reality
or disgrace itsself
or disgrace itsself
11
With the current Court, disgrace has been the default position.
I don't know, "marriage" had a whole different meaning back when I was a kid in the sixties. Divorce was inconceivable let alone having a child out-of-wedlock. Or having multiple "marriages."
Undoubtedly, there's already been a rather dramatic redefining of the concept in the span of an eye-blink in terms of the time that marriage has been around. So why not another?
Looking around at not just the state of the family nowadays but the state of our culture, I really wonder whether we're nearly as clever, sophisticated and intelligent as we think we in figuring we've got all the unintended consequences under control as we, yet again, decide to indulge ourselves.
Undoubtedly, there's already been a rather dramatic redefining of the concept in the span of an eye-blink in terms of the time that marriage has been around. So why not another?
Looking around at not just the state of the family nowadays but the state of our culture, I really wonder whether we're nearly as clever, sophisticated and intelligent as we think we in figuring we've got all the unintended consequences under control as we, yet again, decide to indulge ourselves.
4
You are right. As a gay married person I see all of this as part of the evolution of human relations.
In my heart I do not favor gay marriage, as I do not favor marriage at all. I see this as an equal opportunity situation and that the government has favored opposite sex couples and has thereby disfavored same sex ones.
Given the opportunity to receive favors that are not inconsistent with my heterosexual counterparts I and my partner have chosen to marry.
(21 months married' 41 years 1 month partnered)
At 65 of course I will not live to see this play out, but I hope one day to see a society that gives no favor at all to coupledom.
In my heart I do not favor gay marriage, as I do not favor marriage at all. I see this as an equal opportunity situation and that the government has favored opposite sex couples and has thereby disfavored same sex ones.
Given the opportunity to receive favors that are not inconsistent with my heterosexual counterparts I and my partner have chosen to marry.
(21 months married' 41 years 1 month partnered)
At 65 of course I will not live to see this play out, but I hope one day to see a society that gives no favor at all to coupledom.
1
I don't know what 60s you grew up in but when I was a kid Tammy Wynette's D-I-V-O-R-C-E was country music's number one hit in 1968. Elizabeth Taylor started her multiple marrying back in the 50s. Extending equitable legal rights to gay citizens hardly seems an indulgence, which is more apropos to eating one or two bon bons too many, or spending the weekend at a spa with cucumbers on your eyes. Sending our gay citizens back to the legal twentieth century with a nix by the supremes would be neither intelligent nor sophisticated, but rather the opposite.
5
Marriage can mean whatever the of-age, consenting couple entering it wants it to mean. And that's always been true: every couple has always negotiated what their relationship means to them and how it plays out. Divorce was not inconceivable in the 60's - it's got a long, long history, just ask Henry VIII.
You have all the perfect opportunities as a young straight couple to get married, have kids and stay married for life and do it all with some religious blessing: that has not been taken away or altered in any way whatsoever. But there is a presumption within your comment that, extending marriage rights to same-sex couples will somehow mean that some of those straight couplings might not happen - "the "unintended consequences" - is this what you mean? So you must be presuming:
1) that it has been commonplace up until recently that homosexuals got married to opposite-sex partners, and that was a good thing for everyone concerned
2) that you imagine that same-sex couples have not be co-habitating for, like, ever
Otherwise please enumerate in detail the "unintended consequences". Is it that the sky will fall?
You have all the perfect opportunities as a young straight couple to get married, have kids and stay married for life and do it all with some religious blessing: that has not been taken away or altered in any way whatsoever. But there is a presumption within your comment that, extending marriage rights to same-sex couples will somehow mean that some of those straight couplings might not happen - "the "unintended consequences" - is this what you mean? So you must be presuming:
1) that it has been commonplace up until recently that homosexuals got married to opposite-sex partners, and that was a good thing for everyone concerned
2) that you imagine that same-sex couples have not be co-habitating for, like, ever
Otherwise please enumerate in detail the "unintended consequences". Is it that the sky will fall?
6
Basing decisions on such matters upon a social barometer should not bear any weight for a government to operate.
There would be overwhelming "popular" support for not paying taxes, but where would that get society?
There would be overwhelming "popular" support for not paying taxes, but where would that get society?
37
There would be support for segregation or even slavery, too, in the South, but based on equal protection and nondiscrimination, the court did the right thing then and hopefully they will now, in spite of or because of public opinion. That's why the courts decide these things, based on the constitution, no matter which way the wind blows.
4
Just as there is a great difference between the whim of the mob and the will of the people, there is a great difference between tax rebellion and civil marriage.
1
Kansas.
3
Our constitution guarantees equal rights even if the majority doesn't agree, or so we were taught, majority rules but minority rights are protected. To hear the Chief Justice of SCOTUS give any weight to opinion polls or suggest we should put equal rights to a vote is appalling. I have no doubt the 3 most extreme justices will vote against equality using ridiculous justifications, but am hopeful that Roberts and Kennedy will side with our constitution's guarantee of equal treatment under the law.
14
The surprising lack of discussion of legal doctrine was telling, I thought. It did not seem to me that this was because the doctrine has little to offer the Court. Rather, it seemed that the only real basis for arguing against extending marriage rights to same sex couples is an irrational one -- namely, the disgust, disapproval, or something approaching outright hatred that prompted comments such as Scalia's remark that the outburst from the gallery (the man who shouted that homosexuality is an abomination) was "refreshing." In other words, the focus on (1) whether the public would accept, or feel comfortable with, a decision allowing same sex couples to marry or (2) the absurd and illogical argument that allowing same sex couples to marry would somehow harm the institution of marriage by encouraging heterosexuals to avoid marriage altogether -- these preoccupations of the Court, quite clearly, demonstrated that should the Court have focused on the law, there wouldn't be much to disagree about. After all, gays and lesbians are persons under the 14th amendment -- and no less deserving of equal protection of the laws of this nation than our heterosexual neighbors.
17
Chief Justice Robert's "wait and see" attitude regarding same-sex marriage is just the latest example, in my mind, of this Court's extraordinary conservative activism. This is the same court that is hell-bent on eradicating all forms of campaign finance limitations in the name of First Amendment zealotry despite the expression of public support for campaign finance limitations through past Federal and state legislation as well as constitutional law that recognizes that no constitutional right is unlimited. Yet, in the case of the constitutional recognition of same sex marriage under the equal protection clause, it wants to drag its feet for as long as possible by seizing upon all sorts of excuses for inaction including lame appeals to the "traditional" definition of marriage while ignoring the fact that appeals to tradition would also support polygamy, denying the franchise to women and domestic spousal abuse. In short, this court is clearly committed to promulgating its conservative vision of government while ignoring or obstructing any legal appeal that is based on liberal political principles.
5
Chief Justice should have been born in the 19th Century. Then his views would have fit in with the majority of the people.
5
I was hoping Ms. Greenhouse would mention the alternative rationale for overturning prohibitions on same-sex marriages that I've been reading about here: the idea that banning same-sex marriages constitutes gender discrimination. If Bill may marry Susan, but Jennifer may not, then Jennifer is being discriminated against on the basis of her gender. Apparently the Chief Justice has expressed interest in this rationale for overturning the bans. This approach does have an important political feature -- it avoids the issue of whether homosexuals should constitute a "protected class" like women and African-Americans. I'm rather surprised that this line of argument has not been more widely discussed.
Perhaps that is what Ms. Greenhouse meant when she wrote, "For what it’s worth, I share the conventional wisdom that marriage equality will win the day, although there may not be five justices on the same doctrinal page in reaching that result."
Perhaps that is what Ms. Greenhouse meant when she wrote, "For what it’s worth, I share the conventional wisdom that marriage equality will win the day, although there may not be five justices on the same doctrinal page in reaching that result."
9
I find it preposterous that Chief Justice Roberts stated that he didn't know what opinion polls show today.
This is a smart, educated man. He knows he can find this information from google in 10 seconds. Yet he is determined to stay within his own world view. He is determined to not really listen.
And, to me, that is terrifying as an American and lesbian American. We put our trust in these individuals to serve on the highest court in our land - to uphold one of the greatest democracies in this history of the world - and the man can't open his mind to figure out what the latest polls say about gay marriage?
This is a smart, educated man. He knows he can find this information from google in 10 seconds. Yet he is determined to stay within his own world view. He is determined to not really listen.
And, to me, that is terrifying as an American and lesbian American. We put our trust in these individuals to serve on the highest court in our land - to uphold one of the greatest democracies in this history of the world - and the man can't open his mind to figure out what the latest polls say about gay marriage?
16
Thank you! The idea that the Supreme Court can ignore a violation of constitutional rights until people have an opportunity to get used to a change and "vote on it" is so absurd I had to read Chief Justice Roberts' comment twice. The Supreme Court is supposed to protect the constitutional rights of those in the minority -- whether that minority is one percent or 49 percent -- and regardless of polls. Seemed like a comment from a high school student studying constitutional law for the first time.
17
Yep; that's that Hoosier goodness at work.
The Chief Justice's comments about the issue's relative newness were neutral enough. What was disappointing was that absolutely no one acknowledged that this case is merely the latest tweak in the legal separation of church and state. It follows in an unbroken line from a thousand years of Anglo history that predated and begat American history.
Law is in permanent tension with religion. The tendency of lawmakers, even in democracies, to enact laws that reflect their religiously-informed notions of ethics, creates a state of permanent conflict between various sects and denominations.
Having bolstered the right of free exercise of religion with Hobby Lobby, the Court may well have enabled the making of an equal leap forward by trimming back, once again, the authority of religious tradition to establish in law the denial of equal protection of the laws.
Law is in permanent tension with religion. The tendency of lawmakers, even in democracies, to enact laws that reflect their religiously-informed notions of ethics, creates a state of permanent conflict between various sects and denominations.
Having bolstered the right of free exercise of religion with Hobby Lobby, the Court may well have enabled the making of an equal leap forward by trimming back, once again, the authority of religious tradition to establish in law the denial of equal protection of the laws.
5
The clearest implication of all of this is that the entire issue of "marriage", in all its messy detail, is a religious not a governmental one. Government regulates contracts not emotional matters. No one's "marriage" should receive the government's approval.
1
I did not read the entire transcript, nor did I listen to the entire session, so I may have missed something. But with all the "wait and see," the violation of something that has been around for "millenia," and such appeals to tradition and "this is the way it has always been" type of thinking, did anyone mention Loving v Virginia? Why do you suppose that no justices, or even one of lawyers, brought that up as appositive to the discussion. Do you think it might have been a tad awkward with Justice Thomas, married to a white woman, sitting there in his usual silence. I wonder what he was thinking about the idea that it is best to leave such matters to the state, and wait. Am I missing something? Badly conflating things?
21
The best most hopeful part of me hopes that the right leaning judges feel the weight of history and were just looking to exclude these ideas -to trot those possibilities one last time to signal they tried- but know the course they must take.
I found the big difference in this case was that the justices didn't really ask questions the way they usually do but made their own speeches and statements: they are truly revisiting an argument and positions they each staked out last year with Windsor case, et al. They all know where each stood just months ago and can only hope that someone has evolved.
Frequently the court justices ask questions with an eye only toward convincing the other justices of points that may sway them. This explains Thomas in part: he knows he can neither sway or be swayed. The rest are probing for other justices' flexibility.
We can only hope.
I found the big difference in this case was that the justices didn't really ask questions the way they usually do but made their own speeches and statements: they are truly revisiting an argument and positions they each staked out last year with Windsor case, et al. They all know where each stood just months ago and can only hope that someone has evolved.
Frequently the court justices ask questions with an eye only toward convincing the other justices of points that may sway them. This explains Thomas in part: he knows he can neither sway or be swayed. The rest are probing for other justices' flexibility.
We can only hope.
How many people must weigh in before Roberts would no longer want to wait-and-see? Would Roberts hold back until the very last citizen has changed his mind? If the Court does not see itself as a force for social change in its interpretation of the Constitution then we might as well replace it with a computer programmed to interpolate within the confines of an 18th Century dictionary, as Justice Scalia wants. The attitude of the highest court in the land should always be how quickly can it ratify social development, not how long it can be held back.
10
I am not surprised in the least that Linda Greenhouse picks out something that was overlooked by most. Her writing is always sussinct and often precient. I hope she is right that the court, which she knows so well, will rule on the side of justice and equality.
And that Alito, Thomas and Scalia will one day be embarrassed that they voted against humanity. PB
And that Alito, Thomas and Scalia will one day be embarrassed that they voted against humanity. PB
18
Working through the technical definition of "marriage":
marriage
maxyiage
maxxiage
mayyiage
marriage
maxyiage
maxxiage
mayyiage
This is discrimination based on the archaic, myopic, deeply offensive interpretations of the bible by a powerful group of zealots, the political lackeys that curry their favor and those raised in ignorance and bigotry. This should not even be an issue of our day - discrimination is abhorrent to our Republic and it should not stand. Any other decision by the Court will only serve to reflect the political corruption that has already led to degraded rulings such as CU, HL. Plessy v. Ferguson was a stain on our nation, like so many other stains we bear throughout our history. We should not permit a repeat.
15
I agree with you, unfortunately, as proven by states like Indiana, discrimination is not abhorrent to many folk.
I think this is an incredibly difficult issue for the courts. Yes, there is substantial support for same sex marriage, and any decision against it will be on the wrong side of history. But does that mean the court bases its decision on public opinion? There was a lack of a federal question in 1972 (marriage is a state issue.) What has changed since 1972 besides public opinion?
So follow public opinion when you agree with it, but ignore it when you don't.
So follow public opinion when you agree with it, but ignore it when you don't.
3
A lot has changed now and it isn't just that public opinion has changed in recent years. Back in the 70s homosexuality was still considered pathology. We have evolved since then. We've had considerable case law since then that builds the case for a landmark decision now. The court itself made breathtaking decisions last year that in part caused the shift in public opinion. And we didn't have tens of millions of americans who were out. We didn't accept gays and lesbians in the military or, frankly, in our private lives and families. We've evolved. We've seen40 years of gay pride parades and found that we are the better for it. And the legal reality now is that 38 states permit it and a majority of Americans have access to it, and a few backward states want to hold on to their 'peculiar institution' and use tradition and heritage as the rationale: we've been in this spot before. It isn't just our opinions that have changed: our whole world has shifted and our reality and experience is richer and different.
5
Well, one thing that has changed since 1972 is that we now have some states that recognize gay marriage and some that don't. That alone requires some kind of decision above the state level, so this isn't just a matter of indulging an opportunity to affirm or contradict public opinion. The legal questions -- which do exist -- can be addressed without any assumption that public opinion is tainting the discussion.
In 1967, the USSC held in a case (ironically called "Loving v. Virginia") that the state of Virginia's anti-miscegenation law, which prohibited inter-racial marriages, violated equal protection and was un-Constitutional. Irony aside, "Loving" stands for the proposition that marriage is a fundamental right. What has changed since 1972 is the general and psychological insight that homosexuality is an innate and immutable trait, rather that a "choice" or an expression of perversion. Along with that, many people have decided that it isn't right to discriminate against homosexuals because of an immutable trait,and the USSC has moved along with that changed opinion.
Always a pleasure to read Linda's analysis of the SCOTUS!
11
The only argument that should be considered by SCOTUS is that of equal protection of the law for all citizens. Religious views, biblical definitions of marriage, etc should have nothing to do with these debates since this is a court of law-not religion. Religions can continue to do whatever they please and no one will be forcing clergy to perform a gay wedding ceremony if it goes against their beliefs. This is about the states recognizing gay marriage- not religions. This is not a theocracy- much to the dismay of Scalia.
22
One aspect of the briefs presented by each side of the issue of same-gender marriages was curious to me: the emphasis on raising children, or more explicitly that the state has an interest in marriage essentially "for the sake of the children." I found this curious because in no religious marriage ceremony I know of, are children mentioned expect occasionally metaphorically as 'fruit'. Marriage in the Western tradition has essentially been a contract between two people with extenuating privileges.
Also despite our justices apparent lack of Roman and Greek history, same-gender relationships were recognized as 'concubinage' if the couple were from different social classes, otherwise it was considered a standard partnership.
Also despite our justices apparent lack of Roman and Greek history, same-gender relationships were recognized as 'concubinage' if the couple were from different social classes, otherwise it was considered a standard partnership.
15
I agree. I thought marriage was about love (and the legalities) first, thdn children. Why is love considered indulgent? We as a species need it to survive and thrive.
Marriage is available to heterosexual couples who are too old to reproduce, who are infertile, or who don't want kids, which is also a valid choice.
It's as if "we'll allow same-sex marriage because of the kids, but not for its own sake": for the dignity, equity, importance and validity of the love of the couples and the individuals in those couples.
Marriage is available to heterosexual couples who are too old to reproduce, who are infertile, or who don't want kids, which is also a valid choice.
It's as if "we'll allow same-sex marriage because of the kids, but not for its own sake": for the dignity, equity, importance and validity of the love of the couples and the individuals in those couples.
The oxiest oxymoron yet -- "Thomas was thinking". I have seen no evidence to support his having that talent, training, or exercise. Doubtful Thomas, Snarling Scalia, and ""Let The People Vote -- They Prefer That to Our Deciding Roberts are fine political tools, not legal thinkers. Fire 'em and start over. Oh, we can't. Sorry, very sorry.
The Founding Fathers, who the Far Right love to admire (even though most of the time they have no idea what the FFs really said and intended), created the judicial branch of government to rule on legal matters, and set themselves apart from the other two branches.
Now the Right heaps praise on the SCOTUS, even as Scalia et al have become the Grand Ayatollah of the US, just like Iran who the Right ridicules and hates.
Now the Right heaps praise on the SCOTUS, even as Scalia et al have become the Grand Ayatollah of the US, just like Iran who the Right ridicules and hates.
4
It strikes me that the last 24 months have proven Justice Roberts wrong on his claim around this issue. If people were going to feel differently about marriage equality if they were told they had to allow it instead of being able to vote on it then the approval rate should have been falling the past couple years as court after court expanded the number of states that must allow gays and lesbians to marry. Instead approval rates have steadily increased in every poll I have seen. While his claim may apply to other issues, empirical evidence does not support him in this instance.
9
Roberts’s comment may only have been the wistful desire to kick the jurisprudential can down the road yet one more time on a basic issue that SHOULD be decided by congressional action but that won’t be; and that must be decided by SOMEONE. It may not represent actual intent on his part.
Linda’s arguments, and in summary Verrilli’s, have heft: it IS too late to merely let us become that house divided that racial segregation tolerated, and more recently that impelled Roe: on issues of basic rights, we must be Americans, not just Californians or Louisianans. To do that we depend on Congress and our federal courts. Nobody expects Congress to step up (and, fairly, nobody in ANY of the four separate centuries in which our current constitution has ruled would have expected Congress to act on this issue in a settled manner – as we’ve seen, DOMA was hardly “settled” in manner acceptable to its framers).
The very fact that same-sex marriage has become so acceptable to Americans eases the role of the Court in a manner that was conspicuously lacking when segregation issues of the 1950s and 1960s were decided, and in 1973 when Roe was crafted. While Roberts might wistfully pine for easier times, he gets to be Chief Justice during historical times … which is a sight better when contemplating a life at its inevitable end.
You listening, John?
Linda’s arguments, and in summary Verrilli’s, have heft: it IS too late to merely let us become that house divided that racial segregation tolerated, and more recently that impelled Roe: on issues of basic rights, we must be Americans, not just Californians or Louisianans. To do that we depend on Congress and our federal courts. Nobody expects Congress to step up (and, fairly, nobody in ANY of the four separate centuries in which our current constitution has ruled would have expected Congress to act on this issue in a settled manner – as we’ve seen, DOMA was hardly “settled” in manner acceptable to its framers).
The very fact that same-sex marriage has become so acceptable to Americans eases the role of the Court in a manner that was conspicuously lacking when segregation issues of the 1950s and 1960s were decided, and in 1973 when Roe was crafted. While Roberts might wistfully pine for easier times, he gets to be Chief Justice during historical times … which is a sight better when contemplating a life at its inevitable end.
You listening, John?
9
Well-said, Richard. You have been spot-on in this issue, as have most commenters. Is SCOTUS even aware of Linda, of you, of us? Roberts suggests he is not. That is bewildering since past decisions suggest Justices Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas know a great deal about the Kochs' thoughts.
I think the Onion puts it best with this headline, "Nation On Edge As Court Votes Whether To Legalize Gay Marriage Now Or In A Few Years."
The only people who see this as an issue are gays, the older generation, and some small stupid/vocal minority. For the vast majority of everyone else it this is really just a given. And it's going to happen. That there is a debate is kind of a joke.
The only people who see this as an issue are gays, the older generation, and some small stupid/vocal minority. For the vast majority of everyone else it this is really just a given. And it's going to happen. That there is a debate is kind of a joke.
88
Well I am an older generation gay and I see this as an issue because my husband and I want and need the protections afforded by national recognition of marriage which equals $$$$$$$$.
Can I inherit his $$$$ without taxes, can he inherit mine. Can I collect his social security if need be, and vice versa. Can he continue to live in this home if I need to go into a nursing home and run out of $$ to pay, so that medicaid takes over. All these things do matter to me as an older person. Also can I direct his end of life decisions if a Catholic Nurse is caring for him in a hospital and doesn't care to recognize our marriage.
I disagree that only a few people care about this all GLBT people and those that love them care about this deeply because the outcome has real effects on real lives.
Can I inherit his $$$$ without taxes, can he inherit mine. Can I collect his social security if need be, and vice versa. Can he continue to live in this home if I need to go into a nursing home and run out of $$ to pay, so that medicaid takes over. All these things do matter to me as an older person. Also can I direct his end of life decisions if a Catholic Nurse is caring for him in a hospital and doesn't care to recognize our marriage.
I disagree that only a few people care about this all GLBT people and those that love them care about this deeply because the outcome has real effects on real lives.
2
The country requires, and awaits, a "judicious" answer to a vexing question. No, it is not the one about whether same-sex couples can marry; it is this one: How in the world did we get THIS polarized?
One would have to look to the stacking of the court - by the Republican party - with narrow-minded, conservative justices who cannot make judicious decisions involving an evolving society. This, in turn, has fractured the national decision-making process, allowing, as one commenter wrote yesterday, his (or her, I forget) marriage to exist in one state, dissolve in the next and reappear in the following state as the couple moved through the US.
So, to answer our clearly anxious Chief Justice - "Do your job, it's what the SCOTUS is supposed to be for."
One would have to look to the stacking of the court - by the Republican party - with narrow-minded, conservative justices who cannot make judicious decisions involving an evolving society. This, in turn, has fractured the national decision-making process, allowing, as one commenter wrote yesterday, his (or her, I forget) marriage to exist in one state, dissolve in the next and reappear in the following state as the couple moved through the US.
So, to answer our clearly anxious Chief Justice - "Do your job, it's what the SCOTUS is supposed to be for."
16
If the ruling on this case doesn't affirm same-sex marriage rights, there is no question that the decision will be overturned by another Supreme Court within half a generation -- regardless of which party controls the White House over the next several terms, by the way. If that were to happen, the reputations of the five Justices in the majority today would be forever tainted in the view of history.
78
Their reputations are already tainted. One more case isn't going to make a difference.
2
"If that were to happen, the reputations of the five Justices in the majority today would be forever tainted in the view of history."
That horse left the barn some time ago.
That horse left the barn some time ago.
1
They are already tainted. Their taintedness will continue until two of them are gone and replaced by better legal minds.
2
There are four certain votes on the Court to decide that same sex marriage is constitutional, three that it isn't, and two that are uncertain to different degrees. Kennedy probably leans toward deciding it is; Roberts, that it isn't. Legal analysis points toward concluding that there is no valid justification for denying marriage rights to a class of citizens under the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Conservatives on the Court know this. Hence, the appeal to "millenia plus" definitions and practices, to the need for more time for public opinion to coalesce, to "wait and see", rather than law. Interesting to contrast this case with Citizens United, which a majority of citizens voted for, something Roberts says he prefers to decisions by the Court that lead to massive social and political change. Restrictions on money in campaigns was well-established. The harm it leads to, well understood, and voluminously documented "scientifically". Yet, Roberts had no problem here in finding a new constitutional right, possessed by relatively few citizens, certainly considerably fewer than the millions of citizens who are gay and wish to marry. What's the difference bet. United Citizens and this decision? Politics, particularly conservative politics, which to have any real chance of succeeding requires an unlimited supply of money, which it has in the hundreds of billions. Amazing how all this gets dressed up in fancy legal language, when it is merely politics by another means.
16
I do not agree with same sex marriage.
What has that got to do with anything?
What has anyone’s opinion on the subject got to do with it if you do not agree?
Religious ethics, morality, biological function, family, children are irrelevant.
It is to do with cold legal semantics, kowtowing to hype and political dogma.
Oh, sorry, am I in the wrong here?
Am i anti gay? NO.
I still do not agree with same sex marriage. PERIOD.
What has that got to do with anything?
What has anyone’s opinion on the subject got to do with it if you do not agree?
Religious ethics, morality, biological function, family, children are irrelevant.
It is to do with cold legal semantics, kowtowing to hype and political dogma.
Oh, sorry, am I in the wrong here?
Am i anti gay? NO.
I still do not agree with same sex marriage. PERIOD.
11
You have answered your own question: your disagreement has nothing to do with anything. Only other thing to say: then don't have a same sex marriage. Your country has already legalized it, and US will do so when SCOTUS announces this decision. And yes, you are in the wrong here, but again, it doesn't matter.
8
Our culture and philosophy of what is good have evolved to the point where, yes, opposing the right to marry whomever you love is indeed anti-gay. You are like a bird that attempts land on a space too narrow to accommodate a single foot. In a decade your views will be another discarded and unfathomable relic
7
Not sure what you point is. But, you are free not to engage in a same sex marriage. PERIOD
6
I have a question. If the Suprememe Court rules that defining marriage should be left up to the states, would that not by implication overturn Loving? And if so would that not give Virginia lisence to reinstate is laws banning mixed race marriages, which would annul justice Thomas's marriage?
111
Such a ruling would appear to overturn Loving, wouldn't it? Interesting point I hadn't considered. I hope Kennedy and Roberts will.
2
While undoubtedly a typo, "Suprememe" is a priceless coinage.
Wikipedia: "A meme (/ˈmiːm/ meem)[1] is "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture".[2] A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena with a mimicked theme."
It has been clear for some time now that this court rules from the perspective of the so-called Conservative Movement, a rancid set of retrograde and hypocritical "ideas, symbols, or practices" "transmitted from one mind to another", in this case the dangerously ideological decisions to open up our electoral process to the corrupting influence of unlimited money.
Suprememe, indeed.
Wikipedia: "A meme (/ˈmiːm/ meem)[1] is "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture".[2] A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena with a mimicked theme."
It has been clear for some time now that this court rules from the perspective of the so-called Conservative Movement, a rancid set of retrograde and hypocritical "ideas, symbols, or practices" "transmitted from one mind to another", in this case the dangerously ideological decisions to open up our electoral process to the corrupting influence of unlimited money.
Suprememe, indeed.
14th Amendment excerpt:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Based on the Constitutional protection above, provided to all citizens on an equal basis, I believe a clarification the is appropriate. Marriage is the relationship between a husband and a wife, or similar relationship between two people of the same sex. This will not be a slippery slope into relativism. Marriage will maintain its dignity.
We are talking about fellow citizens, Americans, who are human beings capable of love. Not second class citizens. This is a universal question, that must be addressed at the national level, else we risk a house divided.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Based on the Constitutional protection above, provided to all citizens on an equal basis, I believe a clarification the is appropriate. Marriage is the relationship between a husband and a wife, or similar relationship between two people of the same sex. This will not be a slippery slope into relativism. Marriage will maintain its dignity.
We are talking about fellow citizens, Americans, who are human beings capable of love. Not second class citizens. This is a universal question, that must be addressed at the national level, else we risk a house divided.
127
Well said, Russell, and to the point, simply fulfilling the law of the land as it was written. Thank you for taking the issue out of the emotion and anger and volatility of bigotry, religion and ignorance.
“People feel very differently about something if they have a chance to vote on it than if it’s imposed on them by the courts,” the chief justice said.
******
Please surrender your law degree, and resign from this court, Chief Justice!
1. Why should ANYBODY have a vote on who somebody else can marry???
2. Nothing is being imposed on the opponents of marriage-equality;
. . . if they don't like 'gay' marriages, nobody is forcing them to have one.
However, gays ARE being imposed on presently, by being legally barred from marrying the person of their own choosing.
***
I do agree with the conservatives that NOBODY should be 'forced' to perform services 'actually AT' somebody else's wedding.
Certainly this includes Priests, photographers, musicians, on-site caterers, and etc. And this isn't just about 'gay' weddings, many people would be offended by being forced to provide services at a wedding involving someone like MarilynManson, the DuckDynasty, PatRoberts, or others.
However, anybody working offsite baking cakes, creating floral arrangements, renting tuxedos, should have no license to practice bigotry.
Public officials who perform marriage 'ceremonies' for couples who forgo church weddings really aren't connected with what we normally view as wedding vows. Their only real job is to be an official witness that this legal transaction was freely engaged in by the two parties involved.
******
Please surrender your law degree, and resign from this court, Chief Justice!
1. Why should ANYBODY have a vote on who somebody else can marry???
2. Nothing is being imposed on the opponents of marriage-equality;
. . . if they don't like 'gay' marriages, nobody is forcing them to have one.
However, gays ARE being imposed on presently, by being legally barred from marrying the person of their own choosing.
***
I do agree with the conservatives that NOBODY should be 'forced' to perform services 'actually AT' somebody else's wedding.
Certainly this includes Priests, photographers, musicians, on-site caterers, and etc. And this isn't just about 'gay' weddings, many people would be offended by being forced to provide services at a wedding involving someone like MarilynManson, the DuckDynasty, PatRoberts, or others.
However, anybody working offsite baking cakes, creating floral arrangements, renting tuxedos, should have no license to practice bigotry.
Public officials who perform marriage 'ceremonies' for couples who forgo church weddings really aren't connected with what we normally view as wedding vows. Their only real job is to be an official witness that this legal transaction was freely engaged in by the two parties involved.
23
Please let us figure out how to ensure Justices do the work rather than doing the Scalia Snarl or the Thomas Doubtfulness or the Roberts' Rollick and punting questions of basic human rights down the road. If Roberts prefers voting on Americans' rights, he deserves impeachment, a right we relinquished when setting up his lifetime job. If he were debating the Constitution, studying social motives, and abjuring corporate oligarchies, I'd give him a raise. As it is, let's vote on firing him even if it only embarrasses him into retiring.
1
This is cynical, but the Court may rule in favor of gay marriage for a simple reason: either Roberts or Kennedy will realize that such an outcome is a lifesaver for the Republican Party. It would take the party off the hook on a divisive wedge issue that works against them, and allows them to blame the Court -- a perfect outcome.
96
Yup, they think they can rescind their "judgement" at a later time, and it is undoubtedly what they plan.
1
Fred, cynical me agrees: and if Roberts votes in favor of something he surely disagrees with, it will be a partisan vote to help the GOP win elections.
It is cynical.
I'd like not to see it that way, and in fact, I do not.
In any event, we will be happy to live with the correct result, even if made for the wrong reasons.
I'd like not to see it that way, and in fact, I do not.
In any event, we will be happy to live with the correct result, even if made for the wrong reasons.
It is, of course, true that people "feel very different about something if they have a chance to vote on it," but marriage is a fundamental right. What other fundamental rights do Americans put to a vote?
50
The right to vote?
The only real question is:
Is the United States of America a country or a church ?
If it's a country, then all consenting adults have civil marriage rights.
If it's a church, then religious rules apply regardless of personal preference and personal freedom.
One of the greatest failings of Americans is their disregard and ignorance of the principle of separation of church and state.
The United States is a tolerant country, not a homophobic church.
Case dismissed .
Is the United States of America a country or a church ?
If it's a country, then all consenting adults have civil marriage rights.
If it's a church, then religious rules apply regardless of personal preference and personal freedom.
One of the greatest failings of Americans is their disregard and ignorance of the principle of separation of church and state.
The United States is a tolerant country, not a homophobic church.
Case dismissed .
190
Really? Unfortunately The US is a homophobic church. There is absolutely no evidence of the United States being a tolerant country.
1
Wish I could recommend this letter response with many, many votes.......
3
Thank you Linda Greenhouse!
As always your wise and original perspective on the court is greatly appreciated.
It did seem that the conservative justices and the anti-equality attorneys were grasping at straws with their "wait and see" argument. How long should we wait and how will we know when we've "seen" enough?
What kind of evidence of the success or failure of marriage equality in the states that now have it are we looking for? And who is to evaluate the "evidence?"
It seems like a no-brainer to me. States offer numerous and substantial rights, privileges, benefits and protections to the couples to whom they issue marriage licenses and to their families, along with the equally important intangible benefits of recognition and self-respect. It seems to me that if these benefits are denied to a class of citizens the burden is on the state to show that there are good reasons for the exclusion. Again, the conservative justices and the anti-equality lawyers are simply manufacturing these "reasons" out of whole cloth. None of them withstand objective scrutiny.
As always your wise and original perspective on the court is greatly appreciated.
It did seem that the conservative justices and the anti-equality attorneys were grasping at straws with their "wait and see" argument. How long should we wait and how will we know when we've "seen" enough?
What kind of evidence of the success or failure of marriage equality in the states that now have it are we looking for? And who is to evaluate the "evidence?"
It seems like a no-brainer to me. States offer numerous and substantial rights, privileges, benefits and protections to the couples to whom they issue marriage licenses and to their families, along with the equally important intangible benefits of recognition and self-respect. It seems to me that if these benefits are denied to a class of citizens the burden is on the state to show that there are good reasons for the exclusion. Again, the conservative justices and the anti-equality lawyers are simply manufacturing these "reasons" out of whole cloth. None of them withstand objective scrutiny.
34
The social and moral precedent for the Roberts Court here (as opposed to the legal precedent) is Brown vs. Topeka in 1954. America may not have been ready to turn the stuck-together pages on racial segregation, but the Warren Court's unanimous decision gave its verdict the necessary moral force to at least get white America to grudgingly conclude that "separate but equal" is an oxymoron. The Roberts Court faces a similar choice now. If it finds against gay/lesbian marriage equality, it will affirm its own empty version of "separate but equal." Chief Justice Earl Warren was a conservative, nominated to the Court by President Eisenhower (who, after Brown was decided admitted to disappointment in his Chief Justice). This rare example of judicial integrity and political independence by Chief Justice Warren is perhaps shaping up as a major subtext as we await the Court's verdict. No sane person expects 9-0 for same-sex marriage equality. Chief Justice Roberts has cast himself as little more than a runner, a partisan ideologue who looks over his shoulder to see if he's following orders. His court's everlasting reputation will be decided by this issue, by whether it validates the 14th Amendment or returns America to an oxymoronic "separate and equal" justification for legal discrimination.
17
Please do not characterize Justice Warren as only rarely expressing judicial integrity. He is despised by right wingers even today for many of his stances, including Brown vs Topeka. I agree that decision was genius and bold-- but please do not compare Warren and Roberts---Warren will stand the test of time as a great American and a great Justice; Roberts will be viewed as one of the destroyers of the democracy we thought was unassailable.
3
Separate but far from equal, actually. Our marriage flickers into and out of existence as we travel across state lines. The discrimination against LGBTQ people is still widespread (see, e.g., Alabama's continuing weird disobedience of a court ruling against its marriage ban, bullying, failure of schools to do anything about it, youth suicide, the fact that something like 40% of homeless teens are LGBTQ), and the fight for marriage equality is only a single step, important though it is. There are many other issues that we need to correct before the country is truly a place of equality for LGBTQ people. (And I'm certainly not ignoring the need to address injustices against other minorities, just confining my comment to the issues relevant here.)
2
"No sane person expects 9-0 for same-sex marriage equality."
I would bet that Roberts is pressing the three conservatives for a unanimous decision, and that he will accept sexual discrimination as the basis for that. Not because he believes they will do it, or that it is the correct rationale, but because he believes that this is a landmark case in the matter of separation of church and state.
I would also bet that Kennedy is being subjected to pressure from the conservatives, because of his longstanding pattern of intensely scrutinizing claims that any mention of religion constitutes a prohibited "establishment".
In ordinary cases, the justices can rely on the fact that the majority of Americans won't even know or care about the rationale for their decisions. That isn't true here.
This case might as well be called Henry VIII v. Pope Clement VII.
I would bet that Roberts is pressing the three conservatives for a unanimous decision, and that he will accept sexual discrimination as the basis for that. Not because he believes they will do it, or that it is the correct rationale, but because he believes that this is a landmark case in the matter of separation of church and state.
I would also bet that Kennedy is being subjected to pressure from the conservatives, because of his longstanding pattern of intensely scrutinizing claims that any mention of religion constitutes a prohibited "establishment".
In ordinary cases, the justices can rely on the fact that the majority of Americans won't even know or care about the rationale for their decisions. That isn't true here.
This case might as well be called Henry VIII v. Pope Clement VII.
The conservative justices on the Supreme Court shocked me, not because of their well-known views on same-sex marriage, but because of the lack of sophistication in their remarks. One would have thought that they had been under a rock for the last decade.
Group marriage arising from legalizing same-sex marriage? Really? That hoary old piece of nonsense is not only irrelevant to the cases at hand, it is wildly improbable--a remark worthy of Tony Perkins
The idea that no society ever legalized same sex marriage is pitifully ignorant. With all those clerks and all this time to prepare you would think at least that the justices might have heard of the American Indian berdache, hijras in India and many other examples of legal, accepted same-sex unions.
Balking at "modifying" the definition of marriage? Really? The court itself has been doing this continually throughout its history. Any social change alters the definition of marriage. The death of misogyny laws is just one clear example.
These are supposed to be our wise men. They sounded more like our crazy uncles getting their information from Fox News. (Maybe so!)
Group marriage arising from legalizing same-sex marriage? Really? That hoary old piece of nonsense is not only irrelevant to the cases at hand, it is wildly improbable--a remark worthy of Tony Perkins
The idea that no society ever legalized same sex marriage is pitifully ignorant. With all those clerks and all this time to prepare you would think at least that the justices might have heard of the American Indian berdache, hijras in India and many other examples of legal, accepted same-sex unions.
Balking at "modifying" the definition of marriage? Really? The court itself has been doing this continually throughout its history. Any social change alters the definition of marriage. The death of misogyny laws is just one clear example.
These are supposed to be our wise men. They sounded more like our crazy uncles getting their information from Fox News. (Maybe so!)
97
Maybe they'll decide to make divorce illegal! Wouldn't that be a shocker to all those religious people who seem to divorce at a pretty high rate.
3
I am so grateful that we have access to the thoughtful and expressive writing that Ms. Greenhouse brings to the Supreme Court beat. It gives me, a non-lawyer, a sense of the meaningfulness of constitutional law, which I doubt I could get anywhere else.
28
And you certainly cannot get a sense of the "meaningfulness of constitutional law" from most of the current justices. This case is about the equal protection clause of the constitution and they are talking about marriage in other centuries? Ridiculous.
1
The amount of attention by the press and the courts to same sex marriage far exceeds the coverage of marijuana laws by both.
Yet long periods of incarceration for selling a product that is less harmful than alcohol is a more serious social lapse. It is in fact cruel and unusual punishment.
Marijuana arrests affect blacks more than whites and Asians. Is that why it is less actively opposed by courts and newspapers than gay marriage restrictions? Is it because gays include many middle class educated people, where marijuana traffickers do not? I do not know, but the difference troubles me.
In the recent California vote on legalizing marijuana, the biggest contributors to the anti-marijuana, anti-legalization side were the prison guards union and the Mormon church. The guards have a conflict of interest -- legalizing marijuana would empty California jails and reduce the number and pay of prison guards.
Especially as the father of a trans-gender daughter who is married to a trans-gender woman, I support marriage equality for LGBT people. But I wonder if it is the issue we should be focusing on.
To see some other issues that we should think about more, go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). Then invite me to speak to your group.
Yet long periods of incarceration for selling a product that is less harmful than alcohol is a more serious social lapse. It is in fact cruel and unusual punishment.
Marijuana arrests affect blacks more than whites and Asians. Is that why it is less actively opposed by courts and newspapers than gay marriage restrictions? Is it because gays include many middle class educated people, where marijuana traffickers do not? I do not know, but the difference troubles me.
In the recent California vote on legalizing marijuana, the biggest contributors to the anti-marijuana, anti-legalization side were the prison guards union and the Mormon church. The guards have a conflict of interest -- legalizing marijuana would empty California jails and reduce the number and pay of prison guards.
Especially as the father of a trans-gender daughter who is married to a trans-gender woman, I support marriage equality for LGBT people. But I wonder if it is the issue we should be focusing on.
To see some other issues that we should think about more, go to YouTube and watch Comedy Party Platform (2 min 9 sec). Then invite me to speak to your group.
1
There is no overwhelming public support of same sex marriage. It has been legalized in eleven states and has been imposed by judicial decree in another 25. Existing family law in none of the 50 states is appropriate for same sex marriages.
Even Ginsburg has admitted that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and interfered with the normal adjustment of the law to societal and technological change.
Even Ginsburg has admitted that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and interfered with the normal adjustment of the law to societal and technological change.
1
Setting aside the fact that all polls show increasing support for gay marriage, most showing a majority in favor and some showing overwhelming support, this statement is puzzling:
"Existing family law in none of the 50 states is appropriate for same sex marriages."
How so?
"Existing family law in none of the 50 states is appropriate for same sex marriages."
How so?
5
Like there was not support for civitl rights in your state 50 years ago.Actually I wonder if you respect the rights of some minorities in your state. If were left to states and people like you back then I wonder we will be.
4
reply to ebmem:
Roe V. Wade is irrelevant. The appropriate comparison in this case is Loving v. Virginia. Abortion will always be controversial and even an unambiguous ruling affirming a woman's right to abortion can be countered with a host of restrictions intended to nullify it.
Marriage is different: the ruling is announced and the licenses must be issued. Once that happens marriage equality for same-sex couples will no longer be any more of an issue than marriage equality for mixed-race couples.
Roe V. Wade is irrelevant. The appropriate comparison in this case is Loving v. Virginia. Abortion will always be controversial and even an unambiguous ruling affirming a woman's right to abortion can be countered with a host of restrictions intended to nullify it.
Marriage is different: the ruling is announced and the licenses must be issued. Once that happens marriage equality for same-sex couples will no longer be any more of an issue than marriage equality for mixed-race couples.
7
I was very disappointed in the oral arguments. I was expecting to hear stimulating legal arguments but instead, all I heard were remarks expressing concerns about changing long established traditions and platitudes about the value of letting the democratic process continue. I kept waiting to hear their legal positions on equal rights but the subject was never broached. It was as if they were attempting to kill time to avoid talking about the relevant legal issues. And Justice Alito provided comic relief by asking if four people could get married. It was like the introduction to a joke just waiting for a punch line.
I resented Justice Robert's indifference when he made the cavalier suggestion about kicking the matter down the road again and relying on the democratic process, a political solution. This, after thousands of gays have suffered in real life because of the uncertainly brought on by the court's failure to make a definitive decision in the past. For example, in California, first gays could marry, then they couldn't and then the could. Gays in Utah and many other states have suffered because of the back and forth of lower court decisions.
I call it the ping-pong syndrome. Shame on the Supreme Court for letting this happen by not having decided whether gays have equal rights under the Constitution, something they should have done long ago.
I resented Justice Robert's indifference when he made the cavalier suggestion about kicking the matter down the road again and relying on the democratic process, a political solution. This, after thousands of gays have suffered in real life because of the uncertainly brought on by the court's failure to make a definitive decision in the past. For example, in California, first gays could marry, then they couldn't and then the could. Gays in Utah and many other states have suffered because of the back and forth of lower court decisions.
I call it the ping-pong syndrome. Shame on the Supreme Court for letting this happen by not having decided whether gays have equal rights under the Constitution, something they should have done long ago.
52
Just give it a couple more months. It'll happen.
2
I like to think they were preparing us all for a landmark decision that is inevitable: that gay marriage has constitutional protection and that some of the right leaning court members have to yield to the inevitable and just.
2
Actually, the four people thing is not a joke. It really is next, and this is a question many find disturbing, even liberal women such as myself. But if people want to be polygamists, should that be legal? They are adults, full citizens. It is actually a very serious legal question, and it will come after this one.
There is one race, human, racism is a civil rights issue. There are two genders, male and female, perversion and sodomy are not civil rights issues. Abnormal activities threatening the ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships are harmful to a strong social structure and should be discouraged. Safety, stability, and reliability are essential qualities in any successful family, regardless of its composition. That stability is based on the union of a man and a woman and this should be respected by all members of society LGBT included. Compassion for wrong doing must be tempered by the knowledge that we have free will and wrong begets wrong. Innocent bystanders must be protected from those teaching evil is good. Main Stream Media and the Supreme Court are censoring perversion out of the debate. Is society better off forgetting and disregarding the Book of Genesis? It is the primary source that mentions the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Does the moral majority have to be forced into accepting perversion and sodomy as normal healthy activities that our children should embrace? Social issues such as perversion and sodomy are issues that should be handled by the states not the President and Federal Courts. It is time for congress to protect the 10th amendment and make sure that this issue is decided by the people. There is no reason to debase the institution of marriage to accommodate the perverse desires of a selfish few.
2
Tom, evidently the author of the Book of Genesis, to which you refer, did not file an amicus brief describing the reasons why a deity, the main character of the book, would create humans who are attracted to others of the same gender and then condemn that love as a "perversion."
34
Sir, I knew Thomas Jefferson, and you, sir, are no Jefferson. Same-sex marriage threatens no one and no institution. s. The only people threatened are people like you who would prefer theocracy to freedom and would deny others the right to pursue their lives as they see fit. Ultimately, if we can live up to the dreams of our forefathers, you may have to find some other country in which to live yourself or accept the inevitability of this and other just causes.
36
You are free to believe in any allegedly divine utterances you wish-- my husband and I are free to dismiss those allegedly divine utterances. Our wedding was completely secular and served to cement our 32 years together and to secure the same legal protections you enjoy.
No one. Repeat, no one, has had their religious freedom impacted by our stable relationship, marriage, and boring suburban life.
No one. Repeat, no one, has had their religious freedom impacted by our stable relationship, marriage, and boring suburban life.
102
Excellent column as ever, Ms. Greenhouse, and thanks for highlighting the Solictor General's brilliant point during the oral arguments. I thought it was very powerful ("a house divided") and appropriate.
15
"Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct, and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), "[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring," what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution?" Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry."
Justice Scalia, dissenting, Lawrence v. Texas (citations omitted)
Lawrence v. Texas & Romers v. Evans will be dispositive in this case b/c a majority of Justices will hold that laws against SSM bear no rational relationship to a legitimate governmental interest.
Justice Scalia, dissenting, Lawrence v. Texas (citations omitted)
Lawrence v. Texas & Romers v. Evans will be dispositive in this case b/c a majority of Justices will hold that laws against SSM bear no rational relationship to a legitimate governmental interest.
14
"there was surprisingly little discussion of legal doctrine"
That's because gay marriage is a unique cultural-historical question unlike race or gender discrimination in marriage.
In general, legal methodology is different from scientific methodology, in that the Court already knows what results it wants to reach no matter what the legal methodology.
But in the gay marriage case, Justices Breyer, Kennedy and Roberts (and to a lesser extent Alito and Scalia) truly are looking for some sort of scientific method to get to the right results. They asked: what social science evidence is there that gay marriage does no harm to a millennia institution, how long has gay marriage social science existed, etc.
They are asking to "wait and see" that the social science will show. They are willing to sacrifice the legal doctrine of "equal protection", for now, in some states, for the scientific certainty for centuries to come for all states.
That's because gay marriage is a unique cultural-historical question unlike race or gender discrimination in marriage.
In general, legal methodology is different from scientific methodology, in that the Court already knows what results it wants to reach no matter what the legal methodology.
But in the gay marriage case, Justices Breyer, Kennedy and Roberts (and to a lesser extent Alito and Scalia) truly are looking for some sort of scientific method to get to the right results. They asked: what social science evidence is there that gay marriage does no harm to a millennia institution, how long has gay marriage social science existed, etc.
They are asking to "wait and see" that the social science will show. They are willing to sacrifice the legal doctrine of "equal protection", for now, in some states, for the scientific certainty for centuries to come for all states.
2
"They are asking to 'wait and see' what the social science will show. They are willing to sacrifice the legal doctrine of 'equal protection', for now, in some states, for the scientific certainty for centuries to come for all states."
Reply: For how long must we "wait and see" while equal protection is suspended? Who will decide when we have waited long enough and what counts as proof?
Equal protection is a constitutional guarantee. It does not require proof. (And what social science furnishes "scientific certainty for centuries to come for all states?")
Gay and lesbian couples as a class are being denied benefits, rights and protections that the state grants to everyone else. Surely the burden of proof should be on the state to show that in the time same-sex couples have been allowed to marry in some states and countries specific, explicitly describable harm has come to either society or specific individuals as a provable result. No one ever has been or ever will be able to show this. "Wait and see" is just a stalling tactic by those opposing marriage equality.
Reply: For how long must we "wait and see" while equal protection is suspended? Who will decide when we have waited long enough and what counts as proof?
Equal protection is a constitutional guarantee. It does not require proof. (And what social science furnishes "scientific certainty for centuries to come for all states?")
Gay and lesbian couples as a class are being denied benefits, rights and protections that the state grants to everyone else. Surely the burden of proof should be on the state to show that in the time same-sex couples have been allowed to marry in some states and countries specific, explicitly describable harm has come to either society or specific individuals as a provable result. No one ever has been or ever will be able to show this. "Wait and see" is just a stalling tactic by those opposing marriage equality.
8
The Court may follow previous gay rights cases and expand gay rights without saying what level of scrutiny it is applying. Same sex marriage may be sui generics.
2
If you have a right to love, you have a right to marry and nobody has the right to abridge that right. It's time for decency to prevail against right wing religious demagoguery.
163
@karen-
I obviously agree with you, but the irony of your statement is that so many of the traditional religious idiots who argue on here and elsewhere, say that marriage isn't about love, that marriage is about making babies and procreation and 'furthering the species' and such (your basic, dyed in the wool medieval view of things promoted by the Catholic Church and its equally stupid offspring, evangelical Christians and orthodox Jews of some stripes). You have to remember that the same religious types that oppose same sex marriage were also the ones who supported marriage as basically being a man owning a woman (read up sometime on what the RC and other conservative churches said and preached when courts legally liberated wives), and also supported marriage, not for love, but arranged marriages where a woman was swapped for goods (ie dowry) or used to further the economic status of her birth family. It was the mighty Catholic Church that in the late middle ages denounced the whole romantic love/troubador tradition, arguing that love as such weakened men and otherwise were not conducive to God's plan (and if anyone wants to claim this isn't true, read some of the very good books on marriage and love that have been written, on the history of it, really eye opening).
The irony of course is that these woodenheads denounce a same sex couple marrying for love, but would be perfectly happy for a straight couple marrying as a business transaction.
I obviously agree with you, but the irony of your statement is that so many of the traditional religious idiots who argue on here and elsewhere, say that marriage isn't about love, that marriage is about making babies and procreation and 'furthering the species' and such (your basic, dyed in the wool medieval view of things promoted by the Catholic Church and its equally stupid offspring, evangelical Christians and orthodox Jews of some stripes). You have to remember that the same religious types that oppose same sex marriage were also the ones who supported marriage as basically being a man owning a woman (read up sometime on what the RC and other conservative churches said and preached when courts legally liberated wives), and also supported marriage, not for love, but arranged marriages where a woman was swapped for goods (ie dowry) or used to further the economic status of her birth family. It was the mighty Catholic Church that in the late middle ages denounced the whole romantic love/troubador tradition, arguing that love as such weakened men and otherwise were not conducive to God's plan (and if anyone wants to claim this isn't true, read some of the very good books on marriage and love that have been written, on the history of it, really eye opening).
The irony of course is that these woodenheads denounce a same sex couple marrying for love, but would be perfectly happy for a straight couple marrying as a business transaction.
4
I love my girl friends a lot, can I marry them ? If not, why Not ? I love them ;)
1
@ Karen writes: "If you have a right to love, you have a right to marry..."
Okay. But what about consanguineous marriage? This is not being discussed in the right to marry debate. But by a short extension, it should, and is the logical next step.
If a father and son, or two brothers, of legal age and ability to consent, wish to marry one another, should that wish be protected?
Father and daughter? Uncle and niece?
Not okay? Then explain why.
And no, do not say anything about risking genetic disorders. That can happen to any opposite sex fertile couple, and genetic testing is not a precondition for marriage. Coercion? No, we are talking about consenting adults.
Okay. But what about consanguineous marriage? This is not being discussed in the right to marry debate. But by a short extension, it should, and is the logical next step.
If a father and son, or two brothers, of legal age and ability to consent, wish to marry one another, should that wish be protected?
Father and daughter? Uncle and niece?
Not okay? Then explain why.
And no, do not say anything about risking genetic disorders. That can happen to any opposite sex fertile couple, and genetic testing is not a precondition for marriage. Coercion? No, we are talking about consenting adults.
1
The Court's function is to decide according to law. At least this writer realizes that if the Court goes her way it will because it is ignoring "doctrine;" i.e., deciding contrary to law.
1
You apparently did not read the entire piece. The writer explains how Baker v. Nelson was overturned de facto by Lawrence and Windsor. If the court decides "her way" there will be nothing contrary to precedent.
1
"I don’t know what the latest opinion polls show,” Chief Justice Roberts mused during the argument. Clearly, Mr. Roberts is out of touch with a lot of things -- the workings of a true Democracy, for instance. The one we had hopes of preserving before the Citizens' United and Hobby Lobby rulings, etc.
214
Precisely. If the Chief Justice is so inclined to be swayed by public opinion then he should be so swayed to overturn the obscene Citizens United decision that has allowed the government to be sold at auction to the highest bidder. My guess is that there is sufficient public opinion to unseat Mr. Roberts and replace him with someone who is more attuned to the public the Court is supposed to serve.
16
And do you believe that he doesn't know what the latest polls show? I don't.
2
But there is no constitutional method for ridding ourselves of this monster, so I believe we are stuck with Roberts for a long time to come.
1
“People feel very differently about something if they have a chance to vote on it than if it’s imposed on them by the courts,” the chief justice said.
Now I would like the chief justice to tell me about Citizens United.
Now I would like the chief justice to tell me about Citizens United.
393
And Justice Roberts doesn't seem to understand that legal recognition of same-sex marriages is not in any way an imposition. It does not require people to attend a wedding or even have the decency to reply to an RSVP with "No."
It merely grants to same-sex couples the same recognition of their relationships that their opposite-sex, fellow-citizen couples enjoy--and that they themselves unquestioningly grant.
It merely grants to same-sex couples the same recognition of their relationships that their opposite-sex, fellow-citizen couples enjoy--and that they themselves unquestioningly grant.
156
Amen!
11
I'd be interested to hear what Justice Roberts has to say about Bush v. Gore, when the American people, given a chance to vote, gave Al Gore a clear majority. It is only because the Supreme Court imposed George W. Bush on us that John Roberts became Chief Justice.
2
Is Roberts now ready to make
What pressure pushes him to take?
A step that is bold,
Though his blood is cold,
No corporate int'rests at stake!
What pressure pushes him to take?
A step that is bold,
Though his blood is cold,
No corporate int'rests at stake!
107
Actually part of the problem is that there ARE corporate interests at stake. Large companies are filing amicus briefs, wanting to be on the side of the trends. This is likely a why places like AZ and IN have rethought their support for defining discrimination as a "religious liberty."
86
Many corporations filed friend of the court briefs in support of Obergefell.
Justice Roberts's remarks to Mary Bonauto raise the question: " Would Roberts have said the same thing, had he been hearing arguments in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia ", the SCOTUS case that set aside prohibitions against inter-racial marriage ?
Until yesterday's arguments, we thought we knew the answer.
This Court is tasked with deciding whether the State's recognition of marriage, with its attendant secular legal advantages, should be dis-allowed between gays due to religious protestations - it's inconceivable that such secular rights of a minority should be subject to veto/approval by a majority.
These individual rights are ' unalienable ' in secular society, not subject to an imposed religious template; religions may do as they wish, but there's a reason that the State grants marriage licenses to recognize religious matrimony and not the other way 'round - the State's definition of marriage takes precedence, and those rights are not subject to being dispensed to minorities by majorities.
Until yesterday's arguments, we thought we knew the answer.
This Court is tasked with deciding whether the State's recognition of marriage, with its attendant secular legal advantages, should be dis-allowed between gays due to religious protestations - it's inconceivable that such secular rights of a minority should be subject to veto/approval by a majority.
These individual rights are ' unalienable ' in secular society, not subject to an imposed religious template; religions may do as they wish, but there's a reason that the State grants marriage licenses to recognize religious matrimony and not the other way 'round - the State's definition of marriage takes precedence, and those rights are not subject to being dispensed to minorities by majorities.
243
R. Law:
"the State grants marriage licenses to recognize religious matrimony and not the other way 'round"
No, it doesn't. The State authorizes clergy to act as State agents in formalizing the contract, which is between the parties and (in effect) the State.
I know it isn't intentional, but you are echoing the reasoning of the opponents here-- that "marriage" is what the church says it is. (Their particular church, of course.)
I will take the opportunity here to repeat the suggestion I often make on this topic:
Clergy who object to gay marriage should, if they are honorable and not motivated purely by animus, simply relinquish that authority vested in them by the State, and only perform the religious ceremony. All couples will then get the license signed by a JP, or county clerk, or sea captain, if that suits their fancy.
"the State grants marriage licenses to recognize religious matrimony and not the other way 'round"
No, it doesn't. The State authorizes clergy to act as State agents in formalizing the contract, which is between the parties and (in effect) the State.
I know it isn't intentional, but you are echoing the reasoning of the opponents here-- that "marriage" is what the church says it is. (Their particular church, of course.)
I will take the opportunity here to repeat the suggestion I often make on this topic:
Clergy who object to gay marriage should, if they are honorable and not motivated purely by animus, simply relinquish that authority vested in them by the State, and only perform the religious ceremony. All couples will then get the license signed by a JP, or county clerk, or sea captain, if that suits their fancy.
70
arty - We agree; you missed our point that the State is who sanctions marriages and hands out licenses in our society, not religious authorities, therefore the State gets to define marriage, not religion. Which is why JP's and other civil officials can conduct marriage ceremonies without the consent of religious authorities; the State is pre-eminent. The State trumps religion in our society, through secular civil rights that majorities should not abridge through political bullying/referendums.
50
I approve of the English practice (where I and both my sons were married, in churches). The clergy performs a ceremony, there are readings from the pulpit, the whole deal. That doesn't make you married. You're married when you sit down at the table after the ceremonials are over and sign the thoroughly secular state registry, countersigned by witnesses, and duly filed with the thoroughly secular authorities. Notably, the officiating clergy doesn't sign.
59