By Cara L. Gallagher, weekend contributor
Who has two thumbs, a lame but accommodating social life, and listened to 150 minutes of oral arguments about same-sex marriage this weekend? This girl.
By now, you’ve likely read or seen a lot of coverage recapping this term’s same-sex marriage cases bundled into Obergefell v. Hodges. Certainly if you have the time and inclination to listen to the oral arguments, do it. The link to both recordings – two separate recordings uploaded to the Court’s website because the traditional time of 60 minutes for oral arguments was extended since five cases were consolidated into one – is here. But if you’re a functioning human being with a life and no time to listen to oral arguments, here’s what I learned after listening to the oral arguments, a couple podcasts, and a few articles.
1. This is a constitutional case, not a statutory case. The two primary questions in the cases – whether gay couples can marry and whether states must recognize out-of-state marriage certificates of same-sex couples – are about the 14th Amendment’s equal protection and due process clauses. Many SCOTUS cases are about policies, or statutes, rather than straight constitutional cases. People often try to make statutory cases into constitutional issues when they’re not, like Hobby Lobby, which many perceived was a 1st Amendment right to religious practice case rather than a case about a statute passed by Congress called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
2. Just before Solicitor General Donald Verrilli started to defend the same-sex couples on behalf of the government, a man sitting in the general public seats shouted his admonishment of homosexuality. The audio makes it hard to hear specifics, but reporters inside the Court wrote the man stated, “The bible teaches us that, if you support gay marriage, then you can burn in hell” and that it’s an abomination. Marshals carried him out and later Justice Scalia replied, “That’s rather refreshing actually.” Whether Scalia found the message or the messenger of the outburst refreshing – since it wasn’t another Citizens United condemnation from frequent Supreme Court protestors 99Rise – was unclear. His commentary was well-received garnering laughs from the audience.
3. This case has significant political implications to the 2016 election. I can’t take credit for this observation because I didn’t consider the political fallout post-decision until I listened to a podcast about the case. No doubt, the candidates already have a response in the hopper for a post-opinion sound bite, late June. Rubio and Paul have already said they believe in traditional marriage between one man and one woman and that the states regulate marriage laws, not the Courts. Huckabee thinks marriage is up to a state, a man, a woman, and the couple’s faith.
If the Court decides there is no constitutionally protected right for same-sex couples to marry, upholding bans in 14 states, the Democratic candidates will blast the Court for violating the human rights of same-sex couples securing support they already have from gay voters. Republicans will consider this a win and quietly commend the Courts for showing deference to the states. On the other hand, if the Court rules in favor of not only same sex marriage but also universal recognition of marriage certificates in all 50 states, Hilary and Bernie celebrate and the issue becomes a political football for Republican candidates to run with as they clamor to the right.
A decision in the Obergefell case should be announced in late June.
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
As far as gay rights go, perhaps these rights should be spelled out and presented more clearly to the public.
Davidm2575
I get the impression that when you mention disrespect and threaten that the strength of your beliefs depend on others sharing them. If you are a strong Christian, as you present yourself, then how can people who simply wish to have the same civil advantages as all Americans be a threat to you and your way of life.
I am an American and happen to be a Canadian as well. I see religious people all over the world and in these two countries especially exercising their beliefs without demanding that others do so in the same way.
Why are you threatened? Why do you feel disrespected?
issac wrote: “If you are a strong Christian, as you present yourself, then how can people who simply wish to have the same civil advantages as all Americans be a threat to you and your way of life.”
As I have told you before, I am not a Christian, nor do I present myself as one. For you to make such a simple factual mistake like this one shows how little you pay attention to my logical arguments. I do recognize religious liberties as foundational to this Republic, and I agree with the premise of separating church and State. When the State tramples over religious liberties, and runs roughshod over their sacred institutions like marriage, redefining it in a way that is completely contrary to nature and theories of Evolution as well as theories of Creation, the logical members of the population are going to have a problem with it.
In the millennia of history, homosexuals have NEVER sought for marriage. Prior to 2001, gay marriage did not exist anywhere on earth. This whole thing over the last fourteen years is one big ruse to destroy the institution of marriage. It is the pinnacle of feminism that emasculates men and destroys the institutions that have made civilization great. Those who call gay marriage a civil right have been fooled by sophistry. When our Justices are so easily deceived, especially the female Justices who are moved more by emotion than logic, it crumbles the very foundation of our Judiciary. The power of the Judiciary is being eroded as thousands of people in our society lose respect for them to make right judgments.
This matter has nothing to do with me being threatened or feeling disrespected. It has to do with the Judiciary being disrespected by thousands of people because they rule with tyranny over the people being moved by capricious emotions and whims rather than blind justice. Two of the Justices have already performed gay marriages. Did they even consider recusing themselves from the vote? Of course not. That would take honor to the judicial process that is supposed to be blind.
Castro’s daughter leads the Gay march in Cuba…
Max-1, thanks for sharing the video. It is interesting to see the reaction to the impending judgment.
There are two remedies to the impending judgment. One is impeachment of the Justices for tyranny. They cannot declare 2 + 2 = 5 and expect everybody to accept it. The other avenue is to convene a Constitutional convention to repeal the Fourteenth Amendment and write appropriate amendments to curtail the power usurped by the federal government over the States.
Unfortunately, people may not have the patience for either of these avenues. In 1857, the Justices in Dred Scott ruled contrary to the platform of the Republican party, and instead of moving toward a Constitutional Convention to undo the bad judgment of the High Court, the President instead led us in a civil war. Let’s hope we do not go down that path again in reaction this time to the homosexuals who are forcing their will of sexual immorality upon the rest of society.
Maybe this is all cyclical. The radical homosexual activists will “break down” the “gender” walls; OK. But what if it becomes an uncontrollable “chain reaction” and society breaks down completely, reverting to the “Lord of the Flies” mode. We could see those who deviate, jump back in the and pray for the protection of the closet. Be careful what you wish for.
IA,
The guy who “yelled out” was a plant. Duh. Remember Lee Harvey Oswald who was a “Patsy.” You might want to read up on “intelligence” operations. Maybe you shouldn’t believe what you believe.
That guy who yelled out sounded like a complete lunatic.
With all due respect, I think this article is extremely shallow and gives little meaning to the issues involved. It seems to tip-toe through a minefield leading someone to think there is nothing here, let’s move on.
1. This case is not really a constitutional issue at all because the Constitution says nothing about marriage. Nothing. Marriage has always been regulated by the States because of that. This case is caused by propaganda claiming civil rights for sexuality. It is based upon a complete disrespect for gender diversity and a hatred for the institution of marriage between a man and a woman. It is hatred for the order of nature whereby humans are born into this world as male and female, and the male completes the female and the female completes the male through the institution of marriage. If the Justices treat this as a Constitutional issue involving the civil rights of so-called homosexuals (there actually is no such class as homosexuals because nearly all homosexuals have had heterosexual relationships), they will have demonstrated their complete loss of judgment and will be deemed unfit to judge constitutional issues. They will bring great disrespect upon the judiciary and that is not good for our country.
2. I was physically present at the Supreme Court that Tuesday on April 28. I know the man who was arrested for interrupting the Court. He is a Christian pastor from Los Angeles, California. He slept several nights on the sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court so that he would keep his place in line in order to get into the courtroom. He ended up being the very last person allowed a seat. I personally listened to all the oral arguments because I think this is an important watershed moment in our country’s history. It will be as divisive a decision as Roe v. Wade if the Court divines a constitutional right from the Fourteenth Amendment, despite it never saying a word about marriage. If they go that way, their judicial tyranny will be clear to a large number of people in this country. It only took 30% of America to rebel against England and establish a new government. Some people forget that.
3. There certainly are political implications regarding their decision. Their decision will reveal just how independent the Judiciary really is regarding the political process.
It seems if you go back far enough there have always been gays. This is probably the most important intersection between nature and nurture in the history of mankind. When gays obtain the same civil rights as everyone else and if they don’t over step like trying to force religion to marry them, the schism between East and West will definitely get wider. A woman’s right to drive a car will become back page news.
Atheist leaders of Western powers, then gay leaders, then first partners. I still have two questions: how do they choose who is the wife and who is the husband and is the effeminate and butch attributes of some nature or nurture. It would go a long way if some of the guys got rid of the lisps and some of the girls shaved what will never be a beard.
Bernie Sanders is running on the Democratic ticket in Democratic Primaries. He has not declared himself to run as an Independent in the General Election against Hillary. So in the General Election he will not be running for President or even General. And by the way, a Commander in Chief is more than a General. So why we call it a General Election is beyond me. But if he does decide to run as an Independent in the General Election he might get my vote. We need a socialized medical system like Canada. We don’t need no more troops on the ground East of Corfu. The Koch Brothers are going to Hell when their time comes so make it come sooner and don’t vote for Hillary or BushieBoy. Yeah it will be Bushie Boy and Hillary The 8th. And Bill will be back in the White House with his cigar looking for a Monica. Something stinks about the whole scenario. If Bushie Boy would divorce his wife and spunk up with Monica I would vote for him. But turnabout is fair play. Monica should run on the Cigar Party Ticket.
Cara,
I’m trying to base line the facts. Meet an 80 year old Huaorani Indian Jungle Warrior from Ecuador at 1:30 mark.
I still can’t find evidence that these people marry man-man or female-female. They don’t read or write or know bible or other religions.
That’s the problem. Who can tell?
It strikes me as a shame that we, as a nation, have devoted so much energy to something so incredibly meaningless. Ultimately, this isn’t much more than an argument over whose love will be sanctioned or not–like an out of control Romeo & Juliet. It matters profoundly to the star-crossed lovers, but for everyone else in the play it is just a blown-up frenzy of ego and hubris. I support people marrying anyone who can legally consent not just because it seems right and not really my business, but because restricting and bullying anyone on the basis of something so insignificant is about as small and petty as something can be. That said, the case is going to be fascinating. I have a hard time believing that the conservatives on the bench will concede any points–but it does occur to me that an outcome that recognizes homosexuals’ rights will galvanize the hell out of the Tea Party and Republican Party bases–probably enough to defeat Hillary Clinton, who will lose at least 7% to Bernie Sanders.
Alexander Fraser Tytler –
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
Homosexual marriage is incoherent and indulgent, moral largesse.
The SCOTUS was to be a great big NO.
No has segued into yes.
The judicial had one charge; to assure actions comport with law.
The SCOTUS is the singular American failure.
It began with the tyranny of Lincoln. It may end with unbridled indulgence.
The inmates have taken over the asylum.
Excellent! Thanks for this summary, Cara.
If the Court does approve of same-sex marriage throughout the Confederation, imagine what they will do with polygamy next! 😀
I think if they decide for same sex marriage they are going to have to be very careful how they decide exactly what marriage is.
Thank you for the summary. What is certain is that no matter what the Supremes say there will be consternation among one or more camps that will vocalize their opinion for the rest of us hear.
Cara: if you could provide some answers on this issue, please do so. I know that marriage between a man and several wives at the same time was somehow outlawed. I am wondering if this was a constitutional issue. Mark Twain had a good observation and comment in his book Roughing It. He commended Mormon men for marrying so many homely women. I am wondering if the plural wives thing will be legal if same sex marriage is legal, particularly if it is a religiously held belief. My half blind guy has about six girlfriends who hang out in the bar he frequents and he is contemplating marriage. I bark to him, and into the Dogalogue Machine so he can totally understand me, that he needs to marry all six because they are all wealthy and good looking. He could become a Mormon if that was necessary. Please let me know. I think that this issue will be on the Supreme Court agenda in a few years. Where would Thomas be on this issue? I think we would have Alito’s vote.
Cara, thanks for listening to all the arguments so we don’t have to! Actually I did listen to some of the arguments. It was tough trying to get a feel of which way they would vote in the end. Those Supremes surely don’t make it easy for us prognosticators. I agree that whichever way they go someone won’t be happy. We see the comments from the far right groups already threatening to not obey the rulings and for warnings of apocalyptic punishments, like another great flood to pillars of salt. If the Justices rule in favor of national recognition of gay marriage, I suspect we’ll all be just fine, after a few years of turmoil. When the earth not having had stood still or been bombarded with comets, even those longing to use up their beans and rice and canned goods from the shelter, will relax and wonder what all the fuss was about.
This thread may get ugly but that’s not on you!
Cara, Another good post. I concur w/ what SteveH just said. You break down these cases well. I’ll listen to the podcasts in the morning. I’m a morning person.
Very nice article, Cara. Your simple but not condescending explanations (e.g., constitutional vs statutory case) are especially helpful to those of us who aren’t lawyers; your recognition that while all this is important, so is spending time with other pursuits, like family, is refreshing on this blog. And while you waded into partisan politics, you didn’t preach or condemn.
You are a welcome addition to the weekend contributor stable.