They sound hesitant to legislate from the bench. Maybe they’ll split the baby. They won’t force a state to classify same sex partners who were “married” in another state as “married” in every state. But each state would still have to offer the legal protection of civil unions - presumed inheritance, medical proxy, etc. A patchwork quilt that prevents nasty surprises.
Don’t know- but it certainly does not appear to be the “slam dunk” that was anticipated.
I have no problem the law providing for civil unions. It’s calling a union between two members of the same sex “marriage” when, as Justice Kennedy said, marriage has been defined for thousands of years as between a man and a woman.
How many states have legalized the redefinition of marriage? I mean through an actual legislature (or public vote), not through judicial fiat... A scant handful?
SCOTUS doesn't tend to do a system wide smackdown, and effectively, the only way they don't is by upholding the newly discovered right of gays to call their relationships marriage. Anything else; well, gays can no longer call themselves married in many many places. A massive amount of rulings go out the window.
Having said that, SCOTUS has a rare opportunity to re-establish the judicial branch as the judicial branch and not the legislative branch. I know three votes would welcome this change, and two who might want to dial back the role of the judicial in determining public matters.
The mountain of rulings against marriage is a very tough slope to go up. I don't think there's any valid split the baby choice here. It is the states vs the federal judiciary, and that's a pretty uncomfortable position to be in. Federalism vs States Rights is an age old fight in our country, but the courts aren't supposed to be the front lines in such battles.
I think that the howl of homosexuals will be huge at the end of this, and SCOTUS will make the hard decision to detach from the front lines and will indeed make a ruling that effectively overrules mountains of judgments which has forced marriage redefinition on many states. That they'll find that what people are asking for is so extraordinary that it doesn't fall under the full faith and credit recognition and while states can permit such a redefinition, no state must recognize that same recognition.
I think Roberts gave a good warning in his 'it's a tax' ruling; the court might bend over backwards to let the legislature (and the executive) to push their agendas forward, but the courts aren't the ones to pronounce agendas.
Reading oral arguments are like reading tea leaves - an entertaining diversion, but it is a fantasy vs the real world. But SCOTUS rulings are intended for guidance over long time, and I don't think Roberts nor most of the justices wish to see the courts become the legislative and executive branches of 'last resort.'