Here’s what to expect on April 28, when the Supreme Court hears oral argument on marriage equality. First, the justices are only asking two questions: does the Constitution require states to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples; and are states required to honor marriage licenses from other states?
Mary Bonauto will argue question one, and Doug Hallward-Driemeir question two. They both got 30 minutes apiece. The states defending their ban will get 45 minutes for question 1 and 30 minutes for question 2. The Soliciter General will get 15 minutes to argue on behalf of the government. So it’ll all be over pretty quick. Then comes several weeks of waiting and speculating, with a ruling probably at the end of June.
The National Organization for Marriage will not be arguing in court, but they did submit a brief last week. They’re claiming that public opinion is still closely divided on marriage equality. That is not even remotely true. Dozens of national surveys show a pretty clear trend. NOM does cite two surveys that show a majority oppose the freedom to marry. But guess who paid for those surveys? The National Organization for Marriage. What a coincidence.
Also, it’s worth pointing out — even if it was true that support was declining, that doesn’t matter. NOM devoted a big chunk of their brief to arguing about opinion polls. But public opinion has nothing to do with either of the two questions the Supreme Court asked. So, good job, NOM.
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.
Also this week, the 8th circuit committed to hearing cases from Arkansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Dakota on May 12. Two former magistrates in North Carolina have sued for the right to discriminate against gay and lesbian couples. And a lesbian couple in Guam has sued after being denied a marriage license. Guam is part of the US and covered by the Ninth Circuit, which overturned marriage bans several months ago. So hopefully this will be an easy one to clear up.
SpunkyBunks
IF the Supreme Court rules against us, we should have to pay lower taxes to reflect our reduced worth (inequality) as US citizens.
hrnpip
But that’s been NOM’s argument all along: Gays are icky and gay sex is icky (despite NOM constantly thinking about gay sex) and people don’t like icky things, so it shouldn’t be allowed by the Constitution.
GayEGO
What NOM does not understand is that LGBTs are not icky it is NOM because NOM stands for Nauseous Odious Morons! :>)
GayEGO
SCOTUS has consistently ruled in favor of Marriage Equality since they overturned section 3 of DOMA. It is likely that they will continue to support Marriage Equality as it would be contradictory for them to change their decision process, making them unreliable.
LubbockGayMale
NOM doesn’t get it (and can’t be educated)! We are tax paying, law abiding citizens who are entitled to the same freedoms and rights as any other citizens. Their poll arguments were used against women and blacks in the past, but didn’t prevail. Keep your fingers crossed with this SCOTUS, tho.
loren_1955
@GayEGO: Had to chuckle…when I first read your thought my mind saw Nauseous Odious Mormons. I reread and saw Morons. Then I thought…what’s the difference??? NOM was started and led by Mormons.
jwtraveler
@SpunkyBunks: In 29 states LGBT people still have no housing or employment rights. Gay rights is not all about gay marriage.
AxelDC
I don’t see how the Supreme Court does not overturn the rest of DOMA. It was obvious in 1996 when Bill Clinton signed it that it violated the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution. You simply cannot have marriages that are accepted in only parts of the country. How can someone be married in one state and not in another?
This is probably the best case scenario for conservatives: the US Supreme Court declares that states don’t have to issue marriage licenses, but it’s hard to see how they allow states to ignore contracts made in another state. This was the logic of the Windsor case in 2013. If this logic prevails, then states like Utah can stop issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, but those couples can go to LA or Vegas and get married and return home legally married across the US.
It’s also not hard to see how the Supreme Court applies the logic of Loving v. Virginia (1967) to gays and make it a civil rights issue. In either case, I don’t see how gay rights opponents walk away with any real victory.
Giancarlo85
The Supreme Court has refused to listen to appeals on the expiration of stays from states like Florida in 7-2 decisions. Even Roberts and Alito basically greenlighted same sex marriages. They can’t go back on that.
And public opinion polls have no relevance in court.
AlliterationAddict
SCOTUS has historically considered public opinion polling when determining the level of scrutiny to apply to a case. So emphasizes the declining opposition to same-sex marriage is relevant to the case and actually a relatively clever legal argument. Now, NOM is only resorting to this kind of strategy because they know that any high level of scrutiny will yield a pro marriage equality ruling. They’re caught between a rock and a hard place here, and personally, I couldn’t be happier about that. It’s about time they faded into irrelevance and I don’t have to put up with their bigotry and intolerance any longer. But the legal aspects of this case are actually quite interesting, if you look into how lawyers from each side are trying to build their case.
Saint Law
NOM – the sound you make falling face down on a giant dick.
Volvoguy
how does the Supreme Court say no to the remaining 13 states, when other states allow same sex marriage.
it going to be a slam dunk for same sex marriage , how can they rule against these people, they won’t .
it’s all rhetoric and will be legal in June.!!!!
captainburrito
@Volvoguy: Theoretically if the marriage bans were upheld it would extend to more than 13 states and reduce the gay marriage states back to about 18.
captainburrito
@AxelDC: FF&C actually does not require states to recognize all marriages from other states. There is a public policy exception in the application of that rule and if a state has a law prohibiting the recognition of x type of marriage then that will stand unless a court over-rules it.
That most marriages from out of state or even another country are recognized is voluntary and not obligatory. For much of American history states did not always recognize most of the categories. They synchronized over time so that most of the categories were settled.
Some states still legally do not recognize first cousin marriages from out of state. These are simply not that controversial with no movement to change it and really only become relevant if the couple are outed or there is an estate battle.
Marriage under the standard of FF&C is just another area of state law. FF&C only applies full force to actual court rulings. The consequence of a FF&C that is too strong is that every state would be legislating for the other 49 states and the laws of the other 49 would over-ride her own.
Mack
I think the Supremes have already made up their minds when they refused to hear appeals after appeals regarding SSM. The reasons for these hearings are because the bans has been upheld by the Federal Court that represents them. The Supremes wants to hear why they should be allowed to permit the bans when all others have been shot down. I think we’ll see a 7-2 ruling on this. I could be wrong but from all appearances with the appeals in other states this is the going number.
Giancarlo85
@AlliterationAddict: TOTAL NONSENSE! They didn’t consider public opinion when it came to interracial marriage, which was majority opposed by voters at the time of Loving V Virginia. So your statement that the court considers public opinion is a wrong one. The court has tossed popularly supported amendments in the past all the time.
Public opinion going one way or another has no legal relevance, and that was evident in Loving V. Virginia. The Warren Court ruled in a way that went up against public opinion. I do admit that was the Warren court, but this court won’t rule in favor of public opinion in several states.
Several states, which have seen the court deny appeals to extend stays against same sex marriage, have opinion polls that run against same sex marriage. If the Court was SO concerned about public opinion polling, they would have extended those stays.
stanhope
Any group that would have Thomas and Scalia as members should not be dismissed. They might do anything idiotic.