Ten years is plenty long enough to assess whether permitting sodomy (which isn’t something all gay people practice, nor practiced exclusively by gay people) has done harm to society.
Even with such poor reasoning on the anti-SSM side, its telling that none of us think that Scalia, Thomas, or Alito will be voting for legalization. In my lifetime, I haven’t seen a more one-sided argument that so many people are still vehemently opposed to. I would love it if the decision was unanimous though, stick that in the opponent’s craw
I’ve only listened to the first 12 minutes of orals, but I really feel the pro-gay attorney didn’t answer a single one of the Court’s questions, and, damnit, they were really good and non-bigotted questions. I’m afraid to listen to the rest.
I only wish I knew who was speaking. Ginsburg is the only one I’m sure of, and she sounds frail.
That’s not the question that the Court is answering. It isn’t even answering the question of whether SSM is a good idea. It is attempting to answer whether a definition of marriage, unheard of until 1993, is now constitutionally required.
Blackmun’s dissent in Furman v.Georgia is a good read. He talks about how much he hates capital punishment, how ineffective and immoral it is, but cannot then say that the Constitution forbids it.
But, we’ve done this many times before, and no minds are changing. We’ll just have to wait until June.
(Emphasis mine)
I do not think that means what you think that means.
I think you mean 1971. Or possibly 1061, although that’s admittedly a bit of a stretch, unless you were really deep into researching the issue - it’s a pretty obscure example. 342 is less so. It was a pretty big deal at the time. Not nearly as big as what happened in 69, or five years earlier, in 64, of course.
I’m guessing you have no idea what any of those dates mean? Probably shouldn’t go around shooting your mouth off about what was “unheard of” in 1993, then.
I find it very helpful to scroll along with the transcript as I listen.
You should listen to it all. The attorneys for the States/anti-SSM completely fail at making a cogent argument and get much more grief from the Justices.
Kennedy’s questions during the orals for the first part make me think he has already decided which way he will vote but is trying to find an argument that will support what he wants to do. I also thought the fact he said almost nothing during the argument on the second question is telling as that issue becomes irrelevant if a majority finds in favor of a right to SSM on the first question.
And yeah, this helped me too.
That’s a good point because the Constitution is silent on the issue of free speech, but quite explicit on the issue of marriage.
I just finished the Question 2 transcript and it seems like the Justices are throwing in the towel on that one. It is a given if Question 1 determines that all states must permit same sex marriages that they also must recognize them. I think it also goes the other way: if the Court upholds same sex marriage bans, then it has found a legitimate public policy basis for treating the two differently, and therefore can refuse to recognize them. As the attorney for the states pointed out, it would be a worthless endeavor to ban SSM: any same sex couple could travel to a different state, get married, then return home with all of the benefits of marriage. The state law would be of no real force.
I wonder why the Court wanted to hear arguments on Question 2?
I quickly flipped through the constitution, Loving v Virginia (one thing that followed it was the “Virginia is for lovers” campaign, which would’ve rang hollow otherwise), and other references and have concluded that I was whooshed.
Don’t worry, as it appears John Mace was looking for connections in a different format than what was written. The examples were not direct parallels between cases, as is so blatantly obvious since neither C.U. nor this case have to do with race, but more with the idea of leaving a shitty legacy of bad decisions.
Really?
So how come some friends who live a few blocks away, Jack Baker & Mike McConnell, were able to get married 43 years ago, if that was unheard of until 21 years later?
And how come at their 1972 State Convention the Minnesota Democratic Party passed a resolution in favor of Marriage Equality, if such a thing was unheard of?
Maybe it’s just in your mind, jtgain, that this was “unheard of”.
It’s a toss-up to me. Certainly it helps to know who is speaking, but maybe I’m not enough of a multi-tasker to fully appreciate the tone of voice when I’m distracted by the text. Sometimes I listen, then read the transcript sequentially, but life is too short for that sometimes.
That’s the most unheard-of thing he ever heard of!
He means at the federal level.
I too thought the pro-gay attorney did a terrible job. I think there were answers (and good ones) to the questions the justices were asking (such as the millennia questions). I wanted to shout at my computer. Very frustrating. That said I am willing to bet she spent weeks in strategy sessions with a team of attorneys and I can only assume they foresaw such questions and decided this was the best way to handle them. I dunno…I don’t get it though.
My only solace was that I believe oral arguments are near meaningless to the SCOTUS. I am willing to bet each justice already has a damn good idea of where they stand before oral arguments ever start and it is highly doubtful an attorney will push them off their position. It is more judicial theater than anything else.
That is just a guess though. If anyone knows for sure please chime in.
They’re not completely useless, but in most cases they probably have little impact.
Some years ago, the story goes, the Virginia legislature considered a bill to decriminalize adultery, but the bill didn’t pass. Someone joked that the tourism motto should be changed to, “Virginia is for ‘just good friends.’”
You may find listening to Nina Totenberg’s report on NPR to be helpful. She identifies who is speaking so you can put a name to the voice.