Posted on 04/28/2015 8:42:02 AM PDT by VinL
Members of the Supreme Court questioned on Tuesday whether now is the right time to force states to allow same-sex couples to marry, pointing to how quickly public opinion has shifted on the issue of marriage equality.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was a key figure in striking down the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013, suggested that he might be worried about the court moving too quickly to force states to marry same-sex couples.
“This definition has been with us for millennia,” Kennedy said of male-female marriages. The justice also said it would be very difficult for the court to say it knows better than the public on the issue.
(Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...
Breyer used similar language, telling the lawyer: "Suddenly, you want nine people outside the ballot box to require states that don't want to do it to change what marriage is."
Might they opt for the Ted Cruz solution?
So...are the justices going to punt?
Reading “skepticism” or anything else into the questions asked by Supreme Court justices is a fool’s errand.
Wording people, wording. “oral arguments”?
NY TIMES-
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said that he had looked up definitions of marriage and had been unable to find one written before a dozen years ago that did not define it as between a man and a woman. “If you succeed, that definition will not be operable,” the Chief Justice said. “You are not seeking to join the institution. You are seeking to change the institution.”
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who many consider the likely swing vote on the case, weighed in with skepticism as the advocates for gay marriage made their case. He said the definition of marriage “has been with us for millennia.”
It’s very difficult for the court to say, ‘Oh, we know better,’ ” he said.
Justice Antonin Scalia echoed Justice Kennedy’s concerns about the weight of history and the relatively recentness of gay marriage. About halfway through Mary L. Bonauto’s argument for the recognition of a right to same-sex marriage, Justice Scalia asked whether she knew of “any society prior to the Netherlands in 2001 that permitted same sex marriages?” He repeated Justice Kennedy’s observation that the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman has been in effect “for millennia.”
Having argued before many a Fed Appellate court including SCOTUS, be assured that trying to read the tea leaves from Judge’s questions is a fool’s errand.
Pray, pray, pray, pray.
I wanted a Justice to ask the proponents ‘which word will be the next word to be redefined to make a minority feel better about themselves? And what will prevent the next redefinition of the word ‘marriage’ to include plural marriages and interspecies marriages?’.
Just a reminder that, in a controversial case like this one, it’s not worth reading too much into oral arguments. Remember that, coming out of the Obamacare arguments a few years ago, it seemed clear that the Court was going to strike down Obamacare.
Members of the Supreme Court questioned on Tuesday whether now is the right time to force states to allow same-sex couples to marry, pointing to how quickly public opinion has shifted on the issue of marriage equality.
Whether it’s Constitutional or not depends on public opinion? Really?
“whether now is the right time to force states to allow”?
As if the restrictions on the fedgov CHANGE with time?
I wanted a Justice to ask the proponents ‘which word will be the next word to be redefined to make a minority feel better about themselves? And what will prevent the next redefinition of the word ‘marriage’ to include plural marriages and interspecies marriages?’.
Good one. We are getting to the point that this “ please everyones insecurity “ will one day lead to someone asking for the last two as they feel they are part of the aggrieved.
Gone are the days of “ do your thing” but just don’t bother me about it....
Now everything has to be “ legalized” and “ protected”
It is wrong for them to even point to opinion polls when those can be so easily manipulated. The only opinion polls the court should be concerned with are the ones that happened at official polling places on election days. If opinions have changed it must be proven in the same way. You can’t just have states passing amendments and a couple of years later overturn the amendments based on “opinion polls.” You have to go through the same process and prove the change by repealing the amendments the official way.
Public opinion? I always thought if it wasn't covered in the Constitution it was left to the States and the people. Sounds like a simple decision to me. But...then again... I am not highly educated. Sorry, I lost my head for a minute. //sarc off//
“Remember that, coming out of the Obamacare arguments a few years ago, it seemed clear that the Court was going to strike down Obamacare.
And it would have too if Roberts had not been blackmailed...
If they would at least punt it back to the states, that would be something.
"What happens when children seek damages for being denied the right to be raised by both of their natural parents?"
Has anyone asked these questions?
Yes indeed. In fact, the more that the justices who are usually “iffy” ask questions which might make favorable points for our side, the more nervous I get.
As opposed to written?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.