Maybe this fight will be more complex than some have thought. The oral arguments are an opportunity for the Supreme Court to examine the presumptions of both sides, so the lawyers are grilled relentlessly. What comes across most clearly so far is the ideological conflicts of a deeply divided court, where the balance shifts based on a single vote.
Reading the tea leaves from the arguments, we can make a few observations about the trends–the good, the bad, and the ugly…
Millennia
Justice Anthony Kennedy pointed out that the definition of marriage has excluded gays and lesbians for “millennia,” but then again, there wasn’t much time between Brown (school desegregation) and Loving (interracial marriage). Kennedy is probably on our side, so more likely than not he’s playing devil’s advocate here, setting up the marriage equality advocates with a softball pitch. But maybe not: Kennedy did not sound entirely convinced about the inevitability of marriage, as had been widely presumed.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Samuel Alito pointed out that the Greeks approved of same-sex relationships, so maybe history is on the side of the queers after all? The conservative justices asked if this meant that every culture that has excluded LGBTs is “irrational” and “invidious.”
Of course, they are both, but the marriage equality lawyers can’t just come out and say that.
Who Decides Definition
John Roberts asked if the plaintiffs were asking to redefine marriage, or to join it. (The answer is to join it; but the burden of proof, when asked that question, is on the couples.)
Mary Bonauto ended her argument with a nice little flourish: this case is not about whether states or courts will decide marriage, she said. It’s about whether the individual will be allowed to decide who to marry, or whether the government will decide for him. BAM. Nice one, Mary.
Polygamy
Groaaaaan. We hate it when this argument comes up. For one thing, polygamy is more of a straight thing than a gay thing — it’s historically been about one man owning a ton of wives. (Although we may sometimes wish we had multiple husbands!) This has nothing to do with gay marriage, of course; it applies equally to straight marriage. (“If you’re going to let two straights get married, why not a whole bunch?”)
Anyway, marriage inequality advocates love to bring this question up, and the lawyers for the couples were ready. Why exclude polygamy from marriage? Because that would be an actual disruption to the institution in a way that allowing same sex couples to wed would never ever be. Duh.
Photo by stephen_d_luke
Daniel Alvarado
we just need most of them on our side
AtticusBennett
the polygamy non-argument is an eye-roller.
it also shows that they can’t point SPECIFICALLY to gay couples marrying as an inherently negative thing in itself – not when their best argument is “but what if it leads to SOMETHING ELSE!?!?”
Sweet Boy
I am watching how our neighbors south of the border debate whether stepping into the 21st century or not…so far the most absurd comment has come from Scalia, who seems not to know the distinction between civil law and religious precepts…
Giancarlo85
Alito’s comment may suggest he isn’t necessarily against us. Would be strange if we don’t need Kennedy after all. Kennedy has a long history of doing this and the ruling favorably. He did just about the same thing when DOMA was gutted.
AtticusBennett
@Sweet Boy: you mean stepping into the 20th century. let’s be real, the USA is decades behind canada in terms of LGBT equality. decades.
Troy Brock
Let’s decide for them.
If ALL LGBT moved away from the States that don’t allow Marriage for same sex couples.
I bet it wouldn’t take long to legalize it.
Jacob Alan Shipton
They arent redefining marriage. They would just be accepting the definition that actually is instead of the one the bigots want there to be
Realitycheck
The supreme court must follow guidelines, it cannot look like its already decided.
The judges must give proper and carefully examination to all arguments no matter how asinine.
Keep in mind the supreme court so far has always ruled against any stays in
favor of antigay marriage
arguments, that is why we now have 37 states that allow gay marriage……
Another sign, the only dissenting argument to the above was written by
Judge Thomas and only Judge Scalia joined him, meaning the other 7 judges to one degree or the other, are in favor of gay marriages.
To the point..Justice Clarence Thomas suggested the issue had already been settled in the minds of his colleagues.
Desert Boy
So what’s new?
Realitycheck
@Sweet Boy: Scalia is a living
abomination, completely detached from the reality of today culture.
Tad
One would think that much of this had been discussed previously. This is hardly a new issue. Simply allowing marriage to be between two people of legal age should be enough. It’s pretty simple, really.
MarionPaige
“This [Polygamy] has nothing to do with gay marriage.”
On the contrary, laws against Polygamy (and laws against cousins marrying) highlight the FACT that The State has historically regulated who can marry (and what kind of sex is acceptable between married couples).
The Supreme Court ruled (in Lawrence) in favor of The State not being a party to gay sexual relationships. NOw, Gay People are arguing that they have a constitutional right to have The State be a party to their sexual relationships.
THE REVOLUTIONARY POINT (famously made by me) is that MARRIAGE should not involve The State. The only reason The State is demanding the right to regulate who can marry IS because it is a party to the marriage contract.
Realitycheck
if anyone is interested the questioning and arguments transcripts are here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-556q1_6j36.pdf
and part 2 is here
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-556q2_1813.pdf
tricky ricky
@Realitycheck: I agree with you. but I think it will be 6 in favor. Roberts has a gay cousin and adopted kids so I rather think he will come down on the gay marriage side.
MarionPaige
Frankly, I think the Mormon Church’s alleged “opposition” to gay marriage is strategic. The point being that if The State is removed as a party to the marriage contract, then The State will have no reason to prohibit polygamy.
Jeff Phillips
and just who defined it to begin with?
Xzamilio
It is not redefining marriage, it is expanding the definition. For all intents and purposes, marriage is still between a man and a woman, but now men and men and women and women can marry, and that has no effect on straight people or their marriages.
Celtic
@AtticusBennett: So, if there are 5 men living together in a union ??? Wow! What a fantasy.
Atrius
Unless the justices are willing to void the marriages of every gay couple in the U.S., then the question about any redefinition of the word “marriage” is moot. It’s already been done whether they approve of it or not.
Celtic
@Atrius: I believe you may be missing an important point. This case is before the Court because of the four (4) states that have decided NOT to recognize same-sex marriages. The goal of the plaintiffs (gay/lesbian) is for the Court to compel those four (4) states to recognize same-sex marriages. In order to achieve that the Court decide in favor, asserting that same-sex marriages are constitutionally protected in the same manner that straight marriages are protected. As I understand at least at this stage, the Court is wrestling more with redefining marriage as it has been understood for several millennia (man-woman). It will be very interesting to see how this all plays out.
MarionPaige
The Gay Community needs to admit that Gay People had the opportunity to be revolutionary, in re removing the State as a party to marriage. Instead, a handful of gay media whores decided it was better to pursue the “shock value” of gayfuckingmarriage. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality it won’t be a marriage revolution, it will just signal gay people submitting to the authority of The State along with the rest of the sheep.
GayEGO
In America the straights are learning that we are human beings like they are and are not a threat to them so more and more of them are supporting us. Education about who we are as good American citizens should be taught to the American children. When Boise, Idaho had “The Fall of ’55” the newspaper published that we hid in the bushes and attacked the young boys, making us look like a bunch of scary vampire types, that didn’t suck blood of course. :>)
Giancarlo85
@MarionPaige: You live in fantasy land. That is one bit of libertarian garbage. Marriage is a civil and government institution. This has nothing to do with getting government out of marriage. That is a stupid non-point that doesn’t even address what is going on right now.
James Hart
Of course they are redefining marriage. One from a monogamous relationship to a monogamish relationship.
James Hart
@MarionPaige: It will also shows gays giving into heterocentrism.
James Hart
@tricky ricky: Roberts is a member of Opus Dei.
Giancarlo85
@James Hart: How so? Is a gay person marrying a heterosexual of the opposite sex?
You libertarians have some fucked up views of reality.
DarkZephyr
@MarionPaige: I see you remain a selfish ***hole who can’t see beyond the nose on his face. Guess what? Some of us *can’t afford* to get the state out of marriage because we have spouses from other countries and we need to be able to sponsor them for a green card. What is your brilliant non-marriage equality solution to that?
MarionPaige
@James Hart: “It will also shows gays giving into heterocentrism.”
It’s not the gay community it’s self appointed gay activists and political opportunists. Gay People are not marrying.
Giancarlo85
@DarkZephyr: They all say the same thing. “Get government out of marriage” blah blah blah… it’s a tired, sad argument. These are the same idiots who argue to get rid of the EPA.
Giancarlo85
@MarionPaige: You do NOT speak for the gay community. You are a selfish ignorant putz who knows nothing about the law and government.
I am not even the most vocal proponent of same sex marriage. I think the gay community should focus on other matters TOO (like homelessness and HIV). But you make stupid idiotic libertarian claims don’t match up reality.
polarisfashion
Even if gay marriage is made legal nationwide, the conservatives will still do everything they can to make it difficult. Look how they keep treating women, minorities, and poor people. The conservatives are made up of three kinds of people: the billionaires, their paid shills, and the suckers who buy into their nonsense. That was a paraphrased quote from Tom Hartman. Anyway normal people need to realize that the conservatives haven’t done anything good for this country ever. They were against civil rights, they are against women’s rights, and they are perfectly fine with giving billions of dollars to huge corporations but go nuts over a poor person getting food stamps. Our fight for LGBTQ rights will never be over until the conservatives go away. We must never forget that!
martinbakman
I’m uncomfortable how much time the justices spent talking about marriage being defined as man/women for a millennia, and how they see lack of reason for changing a fundamental definition. If that is a valid argument, I don’t get it. Perhaps they covered that ground because it’s been a strong public opinion.
Atrius
@martinbakman: the problem is that definitions exist to serve us. We are not here to serve definitions. Language evolves and they need to accept that fact.
Spike
@Tad: This is and will never be about marriage equality. It is and will always be about a christian minority making it clear that gay are not worthy of equal rights under the law.
Realitycheck
@tricky ricky:
Good to know!!
Billysees
@Xzamilio:
“It is not redefining marriage, it is expanding the definition.”
Correct. Or as Roberts asked, …to join it?
Hey, ‘imitation is the sincerest form of flattery’ they say. So why should any straight folk disagree with marriage equality?
Bad Ass Biker
Fuck this shit; I want to marry my dog. But a surprising comment from Alito. Nothing from lard ass Scalia or Unkel Tom Thomas? But we know how they are going to vote anyway.
jimontp
@Giancarlo85: Thanks for saying it clearly. Whoever Marion Page is, she/he/it is a nasty person. With those ridilous arguments, probably meant to inflame, on every story on this site, one wonders if that is a real person.
“Gays are not lining up to marry” Duh, from 2004 in SF to today, there seem to thousands of gay couples in every state linging up to marry. It’s all beside the real point, do we have equal rights?
Realitycheck
@Celtic: Actually back in History there few examples of gay marriages
most famous Nero marriage with Sporus.
The poor boy had to be castrated…………..
Celtic
@Realitycheck: Yes, and there were similar marriages in Ancient Greece, often a very young boy/man with an elder. And, everyone knows about the Spartans being very homosexual. There also is some sketchy history that in the 11th Century Roman Church, for a period priests were allowed to marry one another, but I have seen that reported in only one text that was written years ago by John Boswell (now deceased). What amuses me as an ordained Priest is how all the right wing “Xtian” heretics or going f**king whacko nutso over this.
karl61058
Some people can’t get away from being control freaks. Those kinds of people will much rather side with being able to control others in any way possible, than not. Getting away with that is their unfulfilled desire being manifested.
Maybe legalization of marihuana will make people calm the fuck down?
This has always been a liberty question: Aren’t we all equal under the law? We pay taxes just like everyone else. Why has this been such a difficult decision?
Well, I could write a thesis about that, but don’t have the space here. And its already been done, probably.
Those who do not remember the past, will find it gnawing at their backsides.
AtticusBennett
like when it was “redefined” and people could marry outside of their ethnicity?
like when it was “redefined” and a person could choose their own spouse, and not have it dictated to them by family elders?
ugh. so lame.
Shofixti
“For one thing, polygamy is more of a straight thing than a gay thing”
Uh, you mean like the entire institution of marriage?
“This has nothing to do with gay marriage, of course; it applies equally to straight marriage”
Exactly. Queer is a sexual political revolutionary force. Why shouldn’t poly-amorous arrangements find equal protection under the law? That the paperwork might be a little trickier is not a sufficient reason. One cannot use “history” as the reason to burden and marginalise already marginal people.
More men are choosing 3-way ‘throuples’, why? The why doesn’t matter but it could make financial, sexual and psychological sense to some. And these men shouldn’t have the government deciding that only one of their partners can be their spouse.
Giancarlo85
@Shofixti: Oh yes, the slippery slope argument. Thanksf or bringing up. Why don’t you bring up toasters or animals now? By the way, same sex marriage is between two people. Polygamy is not relevant to this subject.
Where all these right wing libertarian trolls from?
Celtic
These “trolls” come out of their smelly, gooey sewers whenever they get a hate on, the equivalent of their hard on, but it’s all for their hate, intolerance, ignorance and self-righteousness.
Pete
My husband and I are thinking about marrying a brother-husband.
Seriously I take the more radical position of challenging the legal standing of marriage itself. Marriage is a religious rite which our secular state inappropriately elevates to the status of contract. Domestic Partnership should be the binding agreement between all couples, straight and gay. Marriages should be left to synagogues, churches, mosques, etc, and mean nothing before the law.
connorlarkin19
Marriage has already been.changed when a man can no longer is able to.pledge his daughter to marry a stranger for 3 goats and a cow.
connorlarkin19
Marriage has already been.changed when a man no longer is able to.pledge his daughter to marry a stranger for 3 goats and a cow.
Doughosier
Scalia doesn’t seem to believe there are gay people. He thinks homosexuality is an action or a choice. I wonder if he really thinks that way or he just knows that bigots have no argument otherwise.
Will L
@Spike: You said it, except you forgot the quotes around “christian”. 😀
Greg Wallin
Marriage is not defined by those outside of it, but by those within it.
Daniel Salmeron
Marriage is definitely not defined by religion either
Giancarlo85
@Pete: Marriage is not a religious rite. You are thinking of a ceremony. Political marriages have existed for centuries. Learn your definitions. Marriage is a legal and civic contract. Not religious. Atheists get married too.
Giancarlo85
So sick of these libertarians. Marriage is a legal contract. If you think domestic partnerships (oh please) or civil unions are good enough, go get a reality check.
dbmyers
@Daniel Alvarado: Actually we just need five of them (out of nine)!
dbmyers
@Realitycheck: Excellent read on the current court. I agree with you 100%.
Shofixti
@Giancarlo85: Seems like an almost pre-scripted response, mate. Name calling is just uncivil now, eh.
What is right-wing (I’m a greenie) about the assertion that no particular size of relationship (2, 3, 4 or more) has any more or any less objective claim to “a legal and civic contract”? If you can actually explain why marriage must only recognise two people, please elucidate. You have already eliminated any religious reasons for enshrining “only two”, what other reason is there?
Giancarlo85
@Shofixti: You don’t have a sound or rational argument. This isn’t about your demented views on relationships (btw you’re NOT a green, I’ve already said I am one [much like the Green Party in Germany]).
This is an argument about same sex marriage which is regarding two adults. Polygamy is not relevant to this discussion. And yes, I think it should be legal but that is a different topic. Learn how to stay on topic, please!
Giancarlo85
*And I mean civil contract, not civic. That seems to be an auto-correct error. 🙂 I shouldn’t use my cell phone.
dbmyers
@Realitycheck: Thank you very much for providing these links!
Saint Law
@MarionPaige: “Gay people are not marrying.”
This is the most stupid lie you’ve ever told.
Saint Law
I’m not interested in getting married. That does not blind me to an obvious fact: many, many gay people are.
To construct an argument on some putative ideal of what gay people ‘ought’ to be is to ignore a truth: many, many gay people are, by romantic inclination and personal ethic: “heterocentric”; just as many heterosexual people favor multiple partners and/or relationships bound by affection and not a note from City Hall.
The thing is, as things stand, the latter posses a choice the former do not.
Legally recognised and codified marriage gives gays that same choice.
Daggerman
…this is something that I cannot seem to make people understand? The Human Race has NOT been around on this planet for that long..so why can’t we change our habits?—why has marriage especially got to be there just for heterosexuals? There’s no reason why we as a specie can’t change! Think! Marriage is a human right not a heterosexual privilege..
jeremy dale
It will never be “Supreme Marriage Equality” until an American can marry a foreigner of the same sex and both live and work in the U.S.A. Why not solve this next problem at the same time so that we don’t have to go there later, we know its’coming. Lets’ step out of the box and into the 21st. century so that we can solve related problems like grown ups and not have to take like forever.
Cam
I wish the court was the bastian of intellectual giants that it has been at some times in the past.
Whether or not marriage is being “Redefined” is not an issue, and should have no bearing on the case.
Is discrimination against LGBT’s in marriage constitutional or not, end of story. All of this handwringing by Kennedy and others just shows that the court is no longer a judicial body but one that seems to worry about politics, and the sensitivities of people who don’t like change.
They need to just do their jobs, is it constitutional? If it isn’t (Which it isn’t) then whether or not something is being “Redefined” doesn’t matter. Grow a set.
Celtic
How do you conclude gay marriage is not a constitutional matter?
GreatGatsby2011
@MarionPaige: “Gay People are not marrying.”
Fascinating. My husband of six years will be interested to learn that, according to some pathetic internet troll, we aren’t actually married because “gay people are not marrying”.
Celtic
If it were not for the not-so-Christian right and the fact that several of the Justices are Roman Catholic (four by my count; maybe five) there might be greater hope for a fair and legitimate outcome: Including gay marriage as a constitutional right. But, the Supreme Court is an elite club of not terribly elite intellectuals. Scalia, Alito and Thomas act more like goofy little frat boys than taking this entire matter seriously. Frankly, I consider them a huge disgrace to what is becoming known as the U.S. Not-so-Just Justice System. They swim in the same sewer alongside all the other inept power brokers in DC. My respect for this nation’s so-called leaders has taken a major nosedive over these last few decades.
Giancarlo85
@GreatGatsby2011: Don’t pay attention to Marion… a bitter little troll who is upset that marriage will never happen for itself.
jultoe
We are all “heterocentric” in that our natural origin is heterosexual. We are persons produced by a binding nature, in which we struggle for freedom to act and choose. The unions of our biological parents, who provided the genetic material of which our bodies are made, are natural marriages, socially declared by the presence of our personage in society. Our bodies function by the natural cooperation of their genetic elements from male and female gendered sources. By this cooperation, our bodies define into either gender, and are birthed from female wombs, into the society of man on earth, as gendered individuals. Our growth is an act of nature. Its gestation is life. Its cessation is death. Our freedom is the action of our own wills, and accrues toward natural and social maturity, impeded by natural and social conflict that aims us toward death. Our defense and aim is to emulate the bonding that is within us, and celebrate the bonding that is within others. This leads to social marriage that is the emulation of natural marriage, portrayed in exclusive and mutual cooperation and celebration between two individual contributors
jultoe
We proceed from infancy through childhood, into adulthood whose declaration is the natural and final accumulation of full dental capacity, the growing in of our set of thirty-two teeth. Here, polity assigns and accepts full responsibility for actions and choices.
Billysees
It think the Court should keep the momentum of the 37 states that allow marriage equality to continue to the other 13 states.
That’s the best way to go for everybody, especially the LGBT community.