Skip to comments.SCOTUS: Oral Arguments on Same-sex marriage today [Live Thread] (Audio available by 2:00 ET)
Posted on 03/26/2013 10:05:42 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
Today the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for about 80 minutes in Hollingsworth v. Perry, which is the lawsuit regarding California's Proposition 8. Two gay couples brought suit on the grounds that the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Since the State of California refuses to defend Proposition 8, opponents of gay marriage sought to enforce it in Hollingsworth v. Perry. Generally, citizens do not have legal standing to enforce laws with which they agree. Several justices expressed doubt that gay marriage opponents have standing in this case.
"I don't think we've ever allowed anything like that," said Chief Justice John Roberts.
"I just wonder if this case was properly granted," said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
"Why is taking a case now the answer?" asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Addressing the merits of the case, Justice Anthony Kennedy focused on the "imminent injury" to children in California.
"Theres some 40,000 children in California that live with same-sex parents. They want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important."
Justices Alito and Kennedy raised the possibility that the court is moving too fast to address whether or not same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.
"We have five years of information to pose against 2,000 years of history or more," said Justice Anthony Kennedy.
"You want us to step in and assess the effects of this institution, which is newer than cellphones and/or the Internet?" asked Justice Samuel A. Alito.
On the subject of how same-sex marriage harms traditional marriage, Justice Elena Kagan asked, "How does this cause and effect work?"
On the subject of procreation being the state's key interest in the insitution of marriage, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said, "There are lots of people who get married who cant have children."
I apologize for the choppiness of the article. I wanted to get an update to you before the audio is available.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Thanks, looking forward for more updates.
Is that 1:00 California time?
“Oral arguments.” Perhaps a poor choice of words.
Nope. That’s what they’re called.
The will of the people only counts when it goes the way liberals want it to go.
Eastern time since SCOTUS is in D.C.
P.S. Kagan and Roberts should recuse themselves for conflict of interest!
As a refresher,
What is exactly 9th court decision on Prop 8?
We all know how this will end.
Sotomayer, Kagan, and Ginsburg plus not a single protestant on the US Supreme Court.
FWIW, my impression of the quotes I’ve seen from the discussion on standing is that there is a serious legal question as to whether or not the defendants have the right to be heard in federal court.
If the court dismisses this case on the basis of standing, that would leave in place the 9th Circuit decision overturning Proposition 8.
Chief Justice Roberts seems firmly on the side that standing should not be granted. As usual, Justice Kennedy made statements that could go either way.
The lawyer defending Prop 8 should demand that if the justices intend to strike down the law that they strike down all laws banning any kind of marriage. You can’t rule that one kind of marriage must now be accepted and any other type be excluded. Any and every type relationship must be given equal status as well by the Gay and Lesbian’s rational. While they’re at it, demand the tax code reflect their ruling as well. No more deductions and different rates that don’t apply to every one. Either every one has them and pays the same rate or it’s unconstitutional.
The 9th Circuit overturned Prop. 8 and struck down the ban on gay-marriage.
This is the stupidest argument for gay marriage, and it doesn't surprise me it comes from Breyer, since Souter is no longer there to be the village idiot.
Why don't we allow brothers and sisters to marry, or close relations? Precisely because of the harm if they should have children. But, according to Breyer, many marriages don't have children, so clearly there is no rational basis to deny brothers and sisters the "right" to marry.
And since the concept of traditional marriage is that you get married, and THEN have children,and not the other way around, under the "Breyer" standard marriage makes no sense, because NOBODY WHO GETS MARRIED has children at the time they get married.
In reality, the point of marriage WAS to have children. There were few people getting married simply to guarantee themselves a partner. That some people can't have kids is of no consequence -- most can. That some people choose not to is of no consequence -- most do. And that marriage doesn't always work out the way government had intended, doesn't mean marriage has to be modified in a way that guarantees that it won't work the way government intends.
Since there is no way to guarantee that a particular couple WILL HAVE CHILDREN before you grant the license, in the history of the world up until now, marriage has been defined precisely in the way that was most likely to lead to the outcome. So, we don't let brothers and sisters marry. We don't let same-sex couples marry.
Frankly, there is no particular reason for the state to recognize the marriage of two people who are past childbearing age. But marriage has always been allowed between unrelated men and women.
Even in our darker history, the rules are based on children -- we didn't allow mixed-race marriages NOT because we were concerned about a white guy having sex with a black woman, but because of irrational fear of mixed-race children.
The bad part of the rest of this summary of the oral arguments is that most of them have nothing to do with what the court is SUPPOSED to be deciding -- NOT whether it makes sense to ban gay marriage or allow it, but whether the constitution REQUIRES that two people of the same sex be allowed to get government sanction for "marriage".
Roberts might be right that they don’t usually allow this, but it makes no sense to call for a lack of standing.
If the PEOPLE of a state have the right to amend their constitution, which they clearly do in California, then the PEOPLE of the state should directly have standing to defend their constitutional amendment against claims that it violates the federal constitution.
Oddly, given that Roberts went out of his way to give deference to the legislative branch in his Obamacare ruling, I would expect that he would reject the constitutional question here, and let the congress have it’s way. And I would expect he would cite all the recent “We are for gay marriage” pronouncements by elected representatives as a clear indication that there is nothing stopping the congress, or a state, from approving gay marriage if they want.
... And that is based on the current SC. We could have several retirements over the next few years. Most major media, educational and political institutions except the house will be controlled by liberals. And the house has weak RINO leadership and controlled by fear.