Supreme Court heard oral arguments on same-sex marriage today, and Justice Kennedy is gonna be Justice Kennedy.
Audio of the session is here.
Best evid Kennedy will strike down SSM bans is disinterest in “recognition” case. If bans survived, he would be interested in recognition.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) April 28, 2015
Open Thread.
dubo
I’m vomiting at the “but this will change the institution” arguments of the justices
As a traditionalist, I will always believe that marriage is a contract between a man and one or more women he has purchased
Brachiator
What’s a Supreme Court argument without a little crazy protest:
Update 11:13 a.m.: The man who disrupted court arguments this morning was yelling and screaming outside the courtroom doors before police officers dragged him out of the building and put him in handcuffs, according to Lane Hudson, a witness who was standing outside the courtroom doors.
“He was yelling and screaming about God, fire and brimstone were going to rain down on this country if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage,” she said.
Midwest Product
Roberts:
6-3 if Kennedy goes the right way, otherwise 5-4. Roberts knows he’ll still be around to live with this decision as society continues evolving in the coming decades, at 78 Kennedy can feel more comfortable being on the wrong side of history since he knows he’ll be dead soon anyhow.
catclub
@Brachiator: I sure wish I could bet with him on the coming fire and brimstone.
The Very Reverend Crimson Fire of Compassion
I’m always stunned by the “but marriage has always been between one man and woman” bullshit. Read your bibles, you illiterate bigots! It’s full of multiple forms of marriage, only one of which resembles even superficially the one-man, one-woman concept that is itself a recent invention of “Western” culture. As for the argument that no society has ever sanctioned gay marriage, that’s also utter bullshit. Try over 6,000 years of gay/bisexual/lesbian/transgender marriages in Native American cultures. This whole “Let’s pretend that everyone is as ignorant of history as we’re pretending to be.” is just disingenuous rationalization.
Belafon
@efgoldman: Is a touch of pneumonia like a mild heart attack?
Mike J
@Midwest Product:
50 years from today, we’ll be hearing about how Republicans and Christians were at the forefront of shoring up the institution of marriage by extending it’s benefits to gay people.
burnspbesq
If Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, … why isn’t that a straightforward question to be settled with pistols at 20 paces?
Zandar
@Midwest Product: This.
Roberts is very, very vulnerable to the legacy argument, and there’s no corporate interests to placate here (if anything, the corporations back same-sex marriage from a strictly financial consumer bottom line)
burnspbesq
@Mike J:
Hell, we’ll be hearing that before the Iowa caucuses.
Tree With Water
@Midwest Product: If the lawyer had a sense of humor he might have responded, “because Joe is trapped in a sham marriage, Tom is in fact in love with someone else, and Sue is a slut who would sleep with a corpse”.
Elizabelle
@efgoldman: Night, night, ef. Wish I could be there to mix you up a hot soothing concoction.
Hope you feel better soonest.
Citizen Alan
It is sobering to realize that nearly all the progress on the gay rights issues has been in the federal courts and could all be undone by the end of June based solely on the whims of Anthony Kennedy.
Origuy
@dubo:
FIFY
dmsilev
@Brachiator:
Rick Santorum?
dmsilev
@Origuy: Don’t forget the husband’s liege lord.
cd6
“Oh boy!” Peter Hallman stood in the doorway, and took in the whole, glorious scene in front of him. A campaign headquarters! How exciting!
“You must be the new guy,” said another nearby boy. “Welcome to Santorum HQ!”
“Thanks!” gushed Peter.
“I’m Thomas. Did you have trouble finding the place?”
“Nope, my mom dropped me off no problem, and the door was right behind the craftbook supplies, like you said.” Santorum Headquarters was currently renting space in a backroom of a Jo-Ann Fabrics in downtown Okoboji, Iowa.
“Well, let me give you the tour,” Thomas said. He turned and gestured towards the messy row of desks, where lots of other boys were bustling to and fro, shuffling paperwork, and stuffing envelopes. “Actually… its not much of a tour. There’s just this big room.”
“Golly, how exciting,” said Peter.
“Everyone here is a volunteer, too. We’re the most dedicated guys. This is a very tight list. You are a lucky one, to get in!”
“I know,” said Peter. “My dad had to pull some strings for me.”
“Did he make a big donation?”
“He said he would put three separate Santorum 2016 signs in the yard,”
“WHOA!” said Thomas. He was amazed. Peter nodded solemnly.
“So…” Peter paused a second, and then asked the question he couldn’t hold back. “Is he here?”
“Yes,” said Thomas. “In his office.”
“There’s an office?”
“Well, there is a unisex restroom in the corner, that we let the Senator use as an office.”
And like that, as if summoned by their idle chatter, Rick Santorum, the former Senator from Pennsylvania, and reigning winner of the Iowa causes, emerged.
“Everyone, can I have a moment?” His wooden voice cascaded through the room.
Peter gulped in anticipation. He set down his small box of supplies (with his t shirt, his rosary, his brown bag packed lunch, and his dog eared copy of the Senator’s book), and joined the group crowding around the candidate.
“Today, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments regarding Same Sex Marriage.”
The crowd of boys hissed. Peter joined in, because he wanted to fit in.
“This is, as you are all aware, the most important issue in the history of mankind. It’s critical that we are victorious, that the evildoers of SSM are defeated. This is vital for the survival of America.”
Peter’s eyes watered from pride. He was here, listening to the Senator, in the flesh. The sweater vest was even more glorious to behold in person than it looked on tv.
“I’d like everyone to join me in prayer, to hope the Supreme Court hears us, before we begin today’s campaign events.” The group joined hands, and murmured desperate hope that the vile sodomists would be defeated in court.
“Ok, that’s that,” Santorum looked up. “What’s the news for the campaign today?”
“We’ve got a new volunteer,” said Thomas. “This is Peter! It’s his first day!”
The other boys clapped and showered Peter with “gee whiz” and “welcome aboard, bud!” platitudes.
“Thanks!” said Peter. “Happy to be here!”
“We’re happy to have you,” said Santorum himself. “We are, as you can see, a bit short staffed. But once we climb in the polls, up to ninth, or maybe even eighth place…. we’ll be overwhelmed with volunteers.”
Peter nodded, as did the other boys.
“In the meantime, Peter,” Santorum asked, “Would you mind being our Chief Press Secretary? Again, we’re pretty thin right now.”
“Oh boy!” said Peter.
=====
Santorum Headquarters, Okoboji Jo-Ann Fabrics
Okoboji, Iowa
4-28-15
Amir Khalid
@burnspbesq:
What if Sue and Tom kill each other, and Joe ends up with no one? Gewalt ist keine Lösung.
PurpleGirl
@dubo:
As a(n Iron Age) traditionalist, I will always believe that marriage is a contract between a man and one or more women he has purchased
Fixt that for you.
catclub
@Zandar:
The all powerful family law lawyers get a whole new bunch of clients?
OTOC: the health insurance companies have a lively interest. The Christian right gets the hindmost twice in a row (knocking on wood.)
rikyrah
Mnemosyne:
Sorry about your bad news. My mother passed away from lung cancer. I had worked with her declining health due to diabetes, and all those related issues for 15 years.
Lung cancer blew me away, considering she had quit smoking 27 years before being diagnosed.
My prayers are with you and your family.
Kropadope
@Citizen Alan:
I’m not overly concerned. The only partisan* defections on this issue have been from Republican-appointed judges. Kennedy has a pretty strong history on this and Roberts may even support a right to gay marriage in the end, considering the precedents set by the court system at every level.
*Yes, I know there is no official party designation for judges.
Matt McIrvin
@dubo: Ginsburg pushed back at that, pointing out that the big change in marriage had already happened, quite recently in historic terms: the change to a union between legal equals rather than a man taking possession of a woman as something like chattel. That’s what makes it possible to conclude that the sex of the participants doesn’t really matter.
CONGRATULATIONS!
@Mike J: I’d like to laugh but it is, in fact, a certainty that this will happen.
Punchy
I’m not understanding the tweet. Can someone translate?
dmsilev
So, when paying a father his bride-price, should the number of cows or camels be adjusted for inflation? Or should we be paying in iPhones now?
Kropadope
@Punchy: If Kennedy were planning on ruling against same-sex marriage, he would be looking into the prospect that same-sex marriages should have the same standing and all the same legal protections as other marriages.
Belafon
@Punchy: I think it says that Kennedy wasn’t all that interested in the case that challenged whether states that banned SSM would have to recognize marriages from other states. Which imples that he’s planning on voting to end all bans. Otherwise, he’d be more interested in dealing with existing marriages and how they should be recognized across states.
Amir Khalid
@Punchy:
I think this post from the Guardian’s liveblog explains it well:
Justice Kennedy’s “relative silence in the second argument may be
Punchy
@Belafon: Got it. Why fret the second question if it’s about to become moot due to his feelings on the first question.
Assuming he votes this way, that puts Scalia in a dissent. Could be the most epic dissent ever. How much bigotry can one SCOTUS judge pack into 30 pages of blind fury?
NotMax
@Brachiator
Still time to invest in asbestos umbrella futures.
Turgidson
@Citizen Alan:
Even if the Justices decide not to create a federal Constitutional right, I really really doubt they’ll issue an opinion that tries to put the genie back in the bottle. SSM will stay legal where it’s already legal and the DOMA decision will stand. I think the worst outcome they’ll consider is a punt. Which would be disappointing but not “undoing” the progress made so far.
Roberts is a regressive right-wing asshole, but he’s no fool. The only thing more important to him than comforting the comfortable and corporate hegemony is his legacy as Chief Justice. He knows which way the wind is blowing.
Walker
@Zandar:
Except concern for his legacy did not help with voter rights. I think he will end up on the wrong side of history there.
Keith G
I just found out that Aleto knows fuck all nada about Ancient Greek history/culture.
Also, the pro gay marriage advocate should have been just a smidgen more assertive.
Matt McIrvin
@Turgidson: If there isn’t a federal constitutional right, then in the states where same-sex marriage is only legal because of a federal circuit court ruling, that gets overturned. That’s a lot of them: most of the places where same-sex marriage became legal over just the past year or two. I guess California would be an exception because of the unusual specifics of Perry v. Brown.
At this point, legalizing same-sex marriage nationally is really the only way they can not cause massive disruption, because of the denial of stays on federal decisions last year.
Keith G
Also re: comparison to polygamy.
Christ on a cracker!! I wish the advocate would have pointed out that one chooses to be a polygamist and as such states can regulate that choice.
Being gay is what a person is and equal protection shall not be assigned based on innate qualities built into one’s person-hood.
D58826
@dubo: I’m also a traditionalist when it comes to marriage. If traditional biblical marriage was good enough for Solomon then I see no reason to change it. The only problem I have is I can’t afford an apartment large enough to hold the 500 wives and concubines that the tradition requires.
srv
@cd6: I’m pretty sure University of Okoboji doesn’t have a Public Relations degree program.
Still bummed they dropped my cousin’s Quantum Chromodynamics summer class.
Keith G
Three times now, progressive Justices have had to assist the pro gay marriage advocate in answering Scalia’s inquiries.
Oy.
burnspbesq
I think my hatred of Scalia is at its maximum when he asks a deliberately obtuse hypothetical, like his colloquy with petitioners’ counsel that assumed the Exercise Clause out of existence.
And the whole issue of “leaving the question to the political process” is ridiculous. The issue was decided through the political process–by the Congress that proposed the Fourteenth Amendment, and by the 28 state legislatures that ratified it.
Paul in KY
@The Very Reverend Crimson Fire of Compassion: I think that is shorthand for ‘marriage, in our English common law tradition, has only been between one man & one woman, at a time’.
Paul in KY
@cd6: I would assume there is a mole at Satanum HQ, or this was all overheard by someone trying to buy percale fabric.
Paul in KY
@dmsilev: I think bitcoins would be the currency now.
Paul in KY
@D58826: I would think that in this modern era you could have the wives/concubines chip in on the hanger you will require.
Matt McIrvin
@Keith G: Is that the proper distinction to make? I’ve certainly heard from more than one poly person that they can’t be monogamous.
I think the proper distinction is the one that did come up: that allowing polygamy opens up a large number of additional practical questions about interpreting things like custody and inheritance law. These issues don’t arise with same-sex marriage, since marriage has already evolved into a legally egalitarian institution such that allowing it between same-sex partners is really just a matter of lifting a restriction.
That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t recognize some right to polygamous marriage, but it does mean that there’s a state interest in not declaring it legal without a lot of further work.
Wally Ballou
Ugh. Kirk Gibson has been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease.
D58826
@Paul in KY: AN excellent compromise between the traditional and the modern. Would not want to be accused of being set in my ways:-)
Keith G
@Matt McIrvin: You seem to be equating the ability to be monogamous (or not) with the right of marriage. That is entirely different than one’s emotional orientation.
Edit
Not to be flip, but a poly person’s claim is not a basis for argumentation of this issue.
Brachiator
@The Very Reverend Crimson Fire of Compassion:
Here, some Christians rely on the myths in Genesis (2:24) as foundational: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Obviously, selective reading then has to be used to ignore the variations of kinds of marriage later depicted in the Bible.
The problem is that some Christians hold that the Bible is the only history you ever need to know.
Keith G
Okay, now the “other side” is up to bat. It is encouraging that their primary argument is on it’s surface so laughable.
Keith G
Kagen and Ginsburg engaging in a tag-team slap down. This portion of the stream is more fun than Game of Thrones.
schrodinger's cat
@The Very Reverend Crimson Fire of Compassion: I agree, the institution of marriage has evolved and is evolving. Who gets to define what is traditional?
boatboy_srq
@burnspbesq: Because wingnuts will always assume Tom would be the better shot, and we must Protect Teh Wimminz. Me, I’m betting on Sue.
@Belafon: Nope. Like a slight fracture.
boatboy_srq
@The Very Reverend Crimson Fire of Compassion:
More like listening to students who’ve only read the Barton works on history.
Turgidson
@Matt McIrvin:
Good point. I sort of assumed that the Justices would find some way to engineer a holding that allowed the status quo to stand without granting the right, but as you describe, it would be tricky, if not totally unworkable. I don’t even know what form the relief would take if they tried this.
burnspbesq
The title of this post is an interesting shout-out to Cornel West.
burnspbesq
The condescension of respondent’s counsel toward the female Justices is infuriating. I’d really like to pop this guy in the mouth.
Brachiator
@D58826:
There is also the precedent established by Solomon’s father, David. Here, marriage is the union of a man and the woman (Bathsheba) that you have stolen from another man.
Keith G
@burnspbesq: In the first or second question?
burnspbesq
@Keith G:
First.
Keith G
@burnspbesq: I just heard him as being poorly prepared to argue a series of points which made no rational sense. He really was not used to swimming in the deep end.
catclub
@Brachiator:
As long as they can make sure to ignore the history of the Bible itself.
D58826
@Brachiator: Well actually David started several traditions. The husband of his first wife conveniently died. His second wife was King Saul’s daughter and his third wife was one of Saul’s wives. And the Mother of the 2nd wife. Bathsheba was number 6. Not much is know about 4 or 5. I would love to see the him try to explain that to the Family Values summit. I think it would be easier to explain Santorium’s animal marriage fetish
shortstop
@Keith G: Actually, Bursch is extremely used to swimming in the deep end: look him up. What happened today is that he was on the side with no compelling legal arguments, and his performance reflected it.
Matt McIrvin
@Keith G: I guess it’s more that I really don’t want LGBT rights to lean on whether sexual orientation is innate or not.
Matt McIrvin
@Turgidson: After I posted that it occurred to me that part of the reasoning in the Prop. 8 case seemed to be that it was wrong for a state to take away the right to marry from a group after granting it. I suppose it might be possible to thread that needle for the federal case, but I think it might take a whole other suit.