Presiding at Same-Sex Wedding, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Emphasizes the Word ‘Constitution’

New York Times ^ | 05/18/2015 | Maureen Dowd

[SeekAndFind]

The groom and groom strolled down the aisle to the mellow strains of “Mr. Sandman.”

Wearing her black robe with her signature white lace collar, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg presided over the marriage on Sunday afternoon of Michael Kahn, the longtime artistic director of the Shakespeare Theater Company in Washington, and Charles Mitchem, who works at an architecture firm in New York.

The gilded setting was elegant: Anderson House in the Embassy Row neighborhood, the headquarters in Washington of the Society of the Cincinnati, a club for the descendants of the French and American soldiers who fought in the Revolutionary War. During the ceremony, the couple slipped black and gold Harry Winston rings onto each other’s fingers.

But the most glittering moment for the crowd came during the ceremony. With a sly look and special emphasis on the word “Constitution,” Justice Ginsburg said that she was pronouncing the two men married by the powers vested in her by the Constitution of the United States.

No one was sure if she was emphasizing her own beliefs or giving a hint to the outcome of the case the Supreme Court is considering whether to decide if same-sex marriage is constitutional.

But the guests began applauding loudly, delighted either way. Justice Ginsburg, who has officiated at same-sex weddings in the past, also seemed delighted, either by their reaction or, perhaps, by the news that she will be played in a movie by Natalie Portman (who, in a strange casting segue, will play Jackie Kennedy Onassis in another film).

[NetAddicted]

Whoa! Guess she decided not to announce that.

[Nero Germanicus]

Ouch! That stings! To be insulted by an anonymous screen name on an Internet blog. What in life could be more painful? A wedgie, perhaps?
Please Brown Deer, don’t accuse me of bending over for Obama, how will I ever recover from the shame and humiliation? ;-)

[Brown Deer]

[miss marmelstein]

Why don’t you knock off your snide style? It doesn’t engender conversation. Plus, I see no contradiction in my comments.

[MacNaughton]

44 I knew Kagan performed a same-sex wedding. I do not believe Sotomayor did. And there are not two lesbians on the Supreme Court.

I have not read anywhere that Sotomayor has officiated a homosexual wedding. 3 female SCOTUS associate justices = Ginsburg-hetero, Kagan-homo, Sotomayor-AFAIK she is hetero. Lots of Freepers think Sotomayor is lesbo, but I haven't read anything, to date, that makes me think she is lesbo.

[Nero Germanicus]

Please stop, you’re going to make me cry.

[Brown Deer]

...two of whom are formerly married to men.

How does that preclude them from being lesbians?

[Lurking Libertarian]

How does that preclude them from being lesbians?

The burden of proof is on the one stating the affirmative. What evidence is there that either Ginsburg or Sotomayor is gay?

[Brown Deer]

The burden of proof is on the one stating the affirmative. What evidence is there that either Ginsburg or Sotomayor is gay?

Why are you asking me for evidence? You made a statement of fact, with absolutely no evidence showing that your statement is true, and are now asking me to disprove your statement? Really?

If you have proof that your statement is true, then please share it with us, otherwise just admit that you don't really know.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Why are you asking me for evidence? You made a statement of fact, with absolutely no evidence showing that your statement is true, and are now asking me to disprove your statement? Really? If you have proof that your statement is true, then please share it with us, otherwise just admit that you don't really know.

Go back up in this thread. Someone posted that there are two lesbians on the Supreme Court. So far as I know, there is zero evidence for that claim.

[Brown Deer]

Go back up in this thread.

I've already read the entire thread. Why should I read it again?

Someone posted that there are two lesbians on the Supreme Court.

So why should I care? One more time, why are you asking me for evidence? What you stated was, "And there are not two lesbians on the Supreme Court." So far, you have not backed up your claim with any proof. You just keep beating around the bush and continue asking me to prove otherwise! I didn't make the claim. You did!

Why can't you admit that you don't really know for sure?

[Ray76]

There is no right to legal recognition of any association of persons, including marriage.