Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear arguments in what could be the consolidated cases that lead to the recognition of a right to same-sex marriage under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. I will be interviewed on the case on CNN around 9 am on Tuesday morning.

It was only two years ago that the Supreme Court struck down the denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples in United States v. Windsor. However, as in past cases, the Court struggled mightily to avoid recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

It was only in 1986 in Bowers v Hardwick that Justice Lewis Powell told his clerk “I don’t believe I ever met a homosexual.” The clerk was Carter Cabell Chinnis, Jr., who was gay but Powell did not know it. In that disgraceful decision (which Powell added his vote as the fifth vote for the majority in upholding laws criminalizing homosexual relations), Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote “Condemnation of [homosexual] practices is firmly rooted in Judeao-Christian moral and ethical standards.”

225px-Anthony_Kennedy_OfficialJustice Anthony Kennedy may now be ready to cast the fifth vote to finally establish a constitutional right for same-sex marriage. The Court will hear two questions in Obergefell vs. Hodges (as well as three related cases from Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee): 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? and 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

Oral argument will last 90 minutes on the first question and 60 minutes on the second question.

A decision is expected in June.


  1. Squeeky
    Seriously. You waited all night for me to start posting so as to troll me? That, honey, is about you.

    1. Max The reason the state has a vested interest in promoting heterosexual marriage is that such sex CAN and may well result in a child being born. Since this is how humans bring forth a new generation, it is of vital state interest to promote structures that will provide for the child Since nobody knows for sure who is fertile and who is not in most marriages, it makes sense for the state to promote this. Now if gay sex ever results in a child being formed,, then I will insist that gay marriage is necessary. Until that happens, I can see no benefit to the state in providing gay marriage rights. As citizens we have an obligation to our country, not just to take and demand the most goodies.

      Nobody forces ANY gay person to marry, so your wild assertions are not valid. I merely observed that with no gay marriage, many gays will opt to start a family and marry a person of the opposite sex.

  2. ps
    Preserve marriage… The institution by outlawing divorce… The one legal tool that breaks up “traditional marriages”.

  3. Randy
    Re: procreate

    Um, first please point to the resolution or movement to limit heterosexual marriage to FERTILE couples ONLY.

    Um, second point to the resolution or movement to outlaw elder marriages.

    You can’t… And that is the point I’m making. You got nothing to back your argument on.

  4. ps
    I won’t even ask to discuss the moral aspects of defrauding another human being so as to bilk the Government… Ernoy the same benefits as stratight people… Ugh!

  5. Randy
    Are you seriously proposing that it is perfectly ethical to perpetrate a fraud by forcing LGBT people to marry someone of the opposite sex in order to enjoy benefits regularly reserved just for straight people? Really?

  6. Annie
    And the sheet manufacturer in China May be concerned by what happens in between those sheets, too.

  7. randyjet

    It seems to me that a lot of this is semantics. What marriage means to those who wish it to remain between those of the opposite sex versus what it means to gays, a statement that assures them civil rights and stops discrimination.

    The component of promoting procreation has not been a factor in modern Western societies for a long time. The concept of child rearing has included many diverse arrangements for most of Western history. Uncles in better circumstances raising the children of their siblings, youth raised by communities rather than the typical domestic family, and other arrangement either forced or accepted, have been around since the times of the Ancient Romans.

    My position is that gays should be afforded the same civil rights of marriage. At the same time they should not be discriminated against. Religion should be kept out of it unless the specific religion chooses to participate. I don’t know how that relates to the Democratic Party platform of 2008.

    There will always be points where the civil rights of one condition will collide with the civil rights of another. On one hand a person who bakes cakes for the public should bake cakes for anyone in that public. If they don’t want to bake a cake for a gay person they will have the option to leave the business or duke it out in the public legal arena. There is no law that will settle all situations.

  8. Ah that artisan who carved the honeymoon bed for the gay couple is “participating” in the honeymoon ⁉️ 👀

  9. randyjet

    “When they come out and affect us all.” They are part of ‘us all’. I don’t feel that any religious denomination should be forced to perform gay marriages. There was and continues to be the idea of a separation of civil and religious life in America. However, if gays want to get married and enjoy the same civil conditions while accepting the same civil responsibilities then I am for it. This covers taxes, inheritances, children, etc. But, no religion should be obligated to adhere to gay rights just as no religion should interfere with gay rights. I see it as a sterile civil set of issues. Of course, there will be gray areas to be fought over and that is where the laws that apply to all come in.

    A gay person enjoying the same civil rights as I, in no way diminishes mine. My relationship with my wife and family is in no way affected by gays getting married. I find it unfortunate that the value of so many relationships in this country depends on whether or not this or that group shares the same rights. The essence of a marriage is a healthy relationship between two people. It two guys validate each other or two women validate each other, so what.

    Perhaps it’s time some people started to review the strengths of their convictions, without forcing them on others.

    1. issac, Gays already have the same rights as the rest of us. As I stated earlier, millions of gays are legally married to members of the opposite sex. They even have kids and families. Now if the state were to enact a straightness test for a marriage license and swear that they were not gay, THEN that would be discrimination and the state would have to present reasons for that test. What you are advocating is that the definition of marriage be changed and that the state has no right to define the contract it issues.

      One component of the idea of only allowing marriages of the traditional kind is to promote procreation. One has to wonder if those gay men who are married now to the opposite sex would have gotten married and had children if gay marriage were allowed. I rather doubt that.

      My personal view is that civil unions are perfectly adequate to help gays get rid of some of the problems they have legally. So I stand on the Democratic Party platform of 2008.

  10. Squeeky, You are doing SUPERBLY! And, internet problems are maddening. We often have problems w/ internet when we move into our place in San Diego. This year has been pretty good. But, we have horrible cellular service. We are @ a spot in Mission Beach that is below sea level and those cell towers just don’t reach us well. I hate talking on the phone so it’s not that big a deal for me.

  11. DBQ
    Re: printer florists and bakers RFRA

    Bakers, florists and the like are finding out that States with non discrimination laws protecting LGBT people are subject TO the law and aren’t given preferential treatment by the Courts based on their faith. And that’s the thorn in the side, isn’t it?

  12. DBQ
    I sell tickets for a living… Should I care who buys them from based on the type of sexual relations they have? It would appear that a “limited” Government would excuse itself from everyone’s bedroom, NO?

  13. Annie
    Imagine a world where the taylor, the florist, the photographer, the baker, the caterer, etc had to be invited to participate in straight marriages before they could consent to baking and arranging… I know life isn’t like that and the horse draws the cart, so why is it suddenly an argument that these people are “participating IN” a wedding if it’s a SSM when they haven’t been invited?

  14. DBQ
    Children getting married???
    And usually the room is reserved for the Honeymoon.

    Now, usually someone in the wedding pays for the marriage. Why would you pay for someone else’s wedding if you’re refusing to even attend, and especially if you haven’t been invited in the first place…?

  15. @ Max

    Therefor I can also assume that if a black man seeks to marry a white man, they’re covered, just not two white men or two black men?

    Let me make myself perfectly clear. I don’t give a rat’s @ss who gets married to who as long as it doesn’t come out of my taxpaying pocket supporting those marriages. I don’t give a flying “F” what other people do to or with each other as long as everyone is consenting adults and there is not murder or torture going on and you do it out of my sight. Please…..get a room!

    I’m not too keen on Same Sex marriages with children involved because the verdict on the psychological effects on children is not in yet. Children don’t get to consent and they are not adults.

    I do care about other people being forced to approve, participate, bake cakes, celebrate the event, demands that we all go …”.oooooh aaaaaah…how sweet it all is”

    I do care about my 1st Amendment rights and my 2nd as well. They go hand in hand IMO. But as to who marries who. Who sthups who.

    I don’t care.

    Is that clear enough for you???

Comments are closed.