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.
The rainbow flag is synonymous with a “pentagram”…no more, no less…it is sinister, because it’s implies tolerance and gentleness…when in reality it is gravely evil and synonymous with the “dark one” and his vile agenda of sodomy and clam bumping…
Davidm
You seem to take what the fringe of one fringe element of society says and go off the beam. Every group has its extremists, conservatives are illustrating this now with their circus. People who want to get married will do so. People who don’t want to get married, won’t. That is all there is to it. At issue are the legal and civil aspects of being one of a couple with the tax and other advantages of marriage versus remaining as two individuals. The rest is in your mind. Relax, no one is going to make your marriage anything less than what it was when you got married, unless it is you.
issac wrote: “Relax, no one is going to make your marriage anything less than what it was when you got married, unless it is you.”
You are looking at this in a selfish way. Of course their marriage does not affect my marriage. You have to look at this from a governmental and societal viewpoint. We are not talking about a marriage, but rather the institution of marriage and what it means for society. Feminism has already destroyed much of the institution of marriage, but gay marriage is the death knell to the institution of marriage. It removes two of the most important elements of the institution of marriage.
Suppose for the cause of human rights I think full democracy is the way to go. So I fight for the right of everyone living to have the right to vote. I claim in the name of civil rights that children should vote because they live here, and undocumented foreigners should vote too because they live here, and on and on until every single person is able to vote. On top of that, I say that it is their duty to vote, so everyone must vote. Have I created a better democracy by doing that? Probably not. What I have done is simply created a voting system that has less meaning. That is what is happening with gay marriage. You change the definition of marriage so much that it no longer has the significance or role in society that it once did. This has absolutely nothing to do with civil rights. Nobody is forbidding homosexuals from associating together, nor even forbidding them to marry within the definition of marriage. Thousands of homosexuals have married for millennia and it has always been legal for them to do so. All the sophistry about human rights for gays is a sophisticated lie. Not one person has ever explained how gay marriage is a human right, other than by quoting court cases out of context that marriage is a fundamental right. I would like to see one person explain why marriage must be redefined to eliminate gender diversity in order to protect someone’s civil rights. Try to explain how that works. You can’t because gay marriage is not a civil rights issue.
Well, I guess he’s just going to have to tolerate all those married homosexual couples because he wants American healthcare. Can’t have it all exactly the way one wants.
davidm:
One advantage in Costa Rica is its universal healthcare system covering even permanent residents.
Mike Appleton wrote: “One advantage in Costa Rica is its universal healthcare system covering even permanent residents.”
Interesting anecdote. On Saturday I was at a party talking to a veterinarian friend about the couple just now moving to Costa Rica (they also were at the party). He was telling me about another couple who was actually moving back to the States from Costa Rica. I asked why. He said health care. He said the man was getting into his 70’s and his health was declining. He felt the health care over here is much better with easier access to what he needed. So he decided to move back here.
David
The fact that you use this fringe element of a person expressing opinions that pretty much no one else shares, is cherry picking and kind of pathetic.
issac, Masha Gessen is not a fringe element among the homosexual activists who have been spearheading the gay rights movement. You obviously do not want to deal with facts. She with others fought for gay marriage and engaged in it when it was won in Massachusetts. Her own “family” is a product of doing gay marriage. I have attended gay rights meetings at universities. I have witnessed first hand how they plot to change our country. You can bury your head in the sand and think I am making things up, but I am not. I give you facts and evidence. Your response is to marginalize the facts and maintain your own belief system.
I have in the past in this forum reviewed the court cases that have defined marriage as a human right. They focus upon reproduction to do so, the right of people to propagate and leave descendents. That is the connection that makes marriage a basic human right. The Skinner case quoted by the courts about marriage being a fundamental right involves whether or not the State can sterilize males so that they cannot leave descendents. The answer of the court was that they could not because they were taking away his ability to marry and have children, which is considered a basic human right.
Homosexual marriage has nothing to do with civil rights or human rights. Homosexuals certainly have the right to associate with whoever they want to. We call that a domestic partnership or a civil union. However, homosexuals have no right to change the fundamental definition of the institution of marriage. This would be a violation of the charge given to government to protect the institutions that better mankind. Homosexuality is selfish, done for pleasure, and helps nobody in society. Putting the label of marriage upon their relationship will change none of that. When our government changes marriage for everyone, they commit a crime against society. They change the societal perception of what marriage means. Because marriage is the institution that creates families, the most basic building block of a civilized society is being destroyed. The concept of the family will change and has to change if gay marriage if forced upon everyone as the law of the land.
Masha Gessen is absolutely right. She knows it better than other arm chair quarterbacks such as yourself because she has lived it and has to come to terms with the fact that gay marriage does not work for gays. The next step has to be the legal abolition of marriage and a new way of defining families for everyone. This is the logical consequence of forcing gay marriage upon society because gay marriage lacks the two most important elements of the institution of marriage: 1) a complementary union between two gender disparate individuals, and 2) a vehicle for orderly reproduction. The institution of marriage requires one of these two important elements or it is not marriage. To call a union marriage that lacks one of these two important elements makes a mockery of the institution and will move society away from being civilized toward barbarism. Goodbye families. Hello tribal relations. No, I am not looking forward to that. That is not a victory for human rights. That is a victory for barbarism.
David
The fact that you are preparing to leave reflects poorly on your position as well as the supposed passion you profess. In this country, as well as many others, a person who argues love it or leave it is a detriment to society. The point is to stay and fight. Threatening to leave is no different than a child taking his bat and his ball and ruining the game for all. Running away is an expression of frustration and desperation expressing failure.
America is not alone among the countries of this world built on basic human rights. The only way it will remain in the club is if enough people fight for those basic human rights and don’t fall into the cracks.
Davidm2575
There is no conspiracy and if there is one it is so insignificant it falls in with all the other fringe stuff, like your paranoia. Gays having the right to be married with all of the civil rights our society associates with marriage does nothing to threaten me and my marriage. I don’t share your concerns that go against gay marriage. I do believe that gays exist, are sincere, and have the same civil rights in this union. It is less of a moral or religious thing and more of human rights thing. Your arguments are potentially adaptable for a large number of positions resistant to change. I am a progressive, a socialist, a heterosexual, and have worked as and independent contractor without all of the ‘teats’ society offers for over forty years. I am passionate about my perceptions and open to change at the same time. Most of those with whom I disagree are fixed in their beliefs. Take a good long look and history and see where that gets us.
David
You came across in all the stuff that you wrote, that I read, I assumed you were a Christian. You seem to place religious values high up enough to push basic civil rights aside in this case. I don’t see how one’s beliefs in a god and all the rituals have anything to do with what other believe or who they are. Each religion has their rules and traditions regarding marriage. That should be protected. The infringement of any religion into the basic tenets of a secular society, should not be permitted.
You bring more baggage to this argument than is imaginable, perhaps not for you, but for myself and most people I come into contact with. Your conspiracy theory that something gays wish to partake in is actually designed to destroy that very desire is beyond fantastic. Your illustration of feminism trying to destroy marriage through permitting gay marriage surfaces some fears that you should address, yourself, perhaps with some counseling.
Regarding the justices and tyranny, any swing to the side one does not agree with may seem like tyranny, but only to someone with the inability to understand that there are two polls between which, historically mankind has swung. One is to keep all things as they were at a time that memory has erased the reasons for change. The other is to progress, evolve, and address logically the demands and desires of society. Typically if change works out to be a mistake, society changes back.
After reading your latest remarks, I am still left with the impression, more clear and stronger than before, that you perceive this world through a very narrow perspective and easily connect a travesty to a selected desire of some group or other. Permitting gays to marry and protecting their civil rights under this condition threatens no one and seeks to destroy none of the basic foundations of this country.
Regarding your fear of marriage becoming merely a legal contract between two people, for most of history that is what marriage has been. Only recently has marriage originated through that mysterious chemical connection that has been revered in the arts. There are moments in history, the time of ‘Courtly Love’ where that attraction between a male and a female was first illustrated and begun to be revered. What was also illustrated was the conflict that unions based on love created with unions based on convenience. Typically marriages have been more about creating a powerful union between families.
Your arguments that by gay marriage being included in the legal and civil definitions of marriage the sanctity or value of marriage will be reduced hold no water. Some of the strongest relationships are gay relationships. Bringing normalcy to this condition might just produce more strong relationships instead of making it taboo.
The force of your protests reveal certain fears that probably exist in your world only.
issac wrote: “You seem to place religious values high up enough to push basic civil rights aside in this case.”
No, I do not recognize a logical argument about civil rights at all in this case. It is all a ruse of sophistry. I also do not recognize the gender equality in the argument. Men and women are different from one another. That is why you will never find the NFL forcing all the teams to have an equal number of women and men playing football in the name of gender equality. Same sex unions are inherently different from one another, as every biologist clearly knows. Therefore it is illogical to treat them the same. In regards to marriage, people with same sex orientation have always been allowed to get married and never once been denied it. The problem is that the definition of marriage follows the reproductive consequences of marriage, and the complementary unification that happens between opposite gender unions.
The homosexual community is seeking for affirmation of their sexual addictions. They want society to put their stamp of approval on it. Some seriously think it will make them feel better about themselves. It will not.
issac wrote: “The infringement of any religion into the basic tenets of a secular society, should not be permitted.”
You are speaking according to the modern philosophy of secular humanism. The tenets of our founding fathers who created our current system allowed for religion to have unabridged freedom throughout public society. That is what the separation of church and State was all about, to stop one philosophy from taking over the political system and forcing their viewpoints upon the rest of society. You want to create a secular society. I object to that. Our society should never be secular because it leads to the kind of injustices that we see happening today, with bakers, photographers, and florists being prosecuted for living out their faith.
issac wrote: “Your illustration of feminism trying to destroy marriage through permitting gay marriage surfaces some fears that you should address, yourself, perhaps with some counseling.”
That is not what I said. Feminism laid the groundwork for where we are today, by arguing for gender equality. That fallacy undergirds everything about this so-called new civil rights for homosexuals.
issac wrote: “Permitting gays to marry and protecting their civil rights under this condition threatens no one and seeks to destroy none of the basic foundations of this country.”
You are supremely naive or dishonest. Watch the video I post at the end of this.
issac wrote: “Regarding your fear of marriage becoming merely a legal contract between two people, for most of history that is what marriage has been.”
No. The courts have spoken of it as a special kind of contract that creates relationships. Unlike most legal contracts that can dissolved upon mutual agreement of the parties, in marriage the bond is a matter of law and so to the law must the parties go to dissolve their marriage. They can’t simply agree for the marriage to be dissolved.
issac wrote: “Your arguments that by gay marriage being included in the legal and civil definitions of marriage the sanctity or value of marriage will be reduced hold no water. Some of the strongest relationships are gay relationships.”
No they are not. Some 79% of homosexual men have said that over half their sexual partners were strangers, and 70% said half their sexual partners were people they only had sex with once.
issac wrote: “Bringing normalcy to this condition might just produce more strong relationships instead of making it taboo. The force of your protests reveal certain fears that probably exist in your world only.”
No, not in my world only. I have posted the following audio several times in this forum. You seem to overlook it every time. Maybe this time you should listen to it and consider what this gay activist says. Masha Gessen is a homosexual who married in Massachusetts. She says gays are lying when they claim that gay marriage will not change the institution of marriage. She now claims that the institution of marriage should be abolished. She gives her personal reasons, explaining her own relationships which illustrate why the institution of marriage is not compatible with gay relationships. She asks for a legal system where a child can have 5 parents. Please listen to her for 3 minutes, and then honestly try to tell me that my perspective exists only in my world.
https://youtu.be/nJrmBocx0o4
two cities in the “old testament” were razed to the earth, because not one member of these communities were righteous, “ALL” were steeped in the putrescence of sodomy…men were even lying with animals…another outgrowth of the “dark one”…sodomy and it’s practitioners are in a grave state of mortal sin…compounded even more horrifically if these evildoers receive the Eucharist while engaged in this filth!
this will never happen mike. . the Catholic Church will never sacramentalize or solemnitize this vile act, which mocks the sacredness of marriage between man and woman as a holy union, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve…sodomy is how men get their jollies when “gay”…this is heinous sin, one “that cries to Heaven for vengeance”…marriage is one of the seven sacraments, a holy union, a sacred union..a union of sodomites is demonic, a union spawned in hell my friend…
There is actually a third possible reaction to the decision, assuming it concludes that homosexual marriage is protected under the Fourteenth Amendment, and that is that people will get over it after some period of time and life will go on. Heterosexual marriage will continue, children will be born and raised. Some churches will revise their theology and sacramentalize gay marriage. Other churches will not. There will undoubtedly be a period of angst among opponents, and efforts made to reverse course. But that is all. Those who are predicting the end of civilization or a revolution are dreaming. Those who are calling for impeachment do not recall, as I do, all of the billboards demanding the impeachment of Earl Warren following Brown v. Board of Education. We know how that worked out.
Mike Appleton wrote: “There is actually a third possible reaction to the decision… and that is that people will get over it after some period of time and life will go on.”
You have a point, Mike, but what we did not have back in 1954 were the numerous bad decisions since then. We did not have the 1958 opinion in Cooper v. Aaron that elevated the Supreme Court over the other branches of government. We did not have the Roe v. Wade 1973 decision. We did not have Lawrence v. Texas 2003 decision. We did not have Obamacare where people are being fined for choosing not to purchase health insurance. After a while all these decisions pile up and we realize we are living in a different country where the federal government rules everything and the States and the people no longer have any freedom and rights. We are ruled by an oligarchy of 9 Supreme Court Justices who none of the people voted for.
There is probably a fourth option too. Leaving this country. I know some who are leaving this week. I have wondered myself if it is time. Costa Rica and Panama don’t look too bad.
Those rainbow flags look plenty weird. Almost as weird as those tarot cards Zema reads for the boob-catchers in the audience of the carnival. Good thing she dumped that rum-bum of a husband. It was “the code”…the “code” was worth a fortune, it was gonna be my nest egg…the audiences ate it up…I just needed one more boob-ctacher to get me and Zema into a retirement, maybe in Phoenix, who knows…
Alas
Another “straight” man schooling the gays about the ins and outs of gay relationships. Kinda like how the Pope is the official on “straight” marriages, given his years of experience in a marriage, and all…
davidm
You silence in the fight against divorce is telling.
IF you seek to “preserve marriage” outlaw all divorces.
Max-1 wrote: “IF you seek to “preserve marriage” outlaw all divorces.”
It sounds like a good idea, I think even Jesus himself tried to do that, but once gay marriage is forced upon every State, the next move on the homosexual agenda is to make it easier to dissolve a marriage. Why should they have to go to law to dissolve the relationship? Why can’t they dissolve the contract like other business contracts that do not work out?
It is only the male-female bond through coitus, something no homosexual can engage in because the biological equipment is not complementary, that creates the permanency found within the institution of marriage.
Gay men generally are not interested in the kind of permanent relationship that marriage creates because the same sex union is not at all biologically similar to the opposite sex unions. According to a study I have here, 83% of gay men have had more than 50 partners in their lifetime, and 28% of gay men have had more than 1000 sexual partners.
Annie
One would think that those who’ve concerned themselves with the “preservation” of the “institution” of marriage would actually go out and fight against the very tools available to the heterosexuals to use against the “institution”; DIVORCE.
The true test for these people is where do they stand against said available tools? Why are they silent in the face of said destruction? Their silence in the face of Newt Gingrich’s third marriage… Crickets.
davidm
The correct date in history in 2000, not 2001. FYI
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/19/gay-marriage-around-the-world-2013/#netherlands
Max-1 wrote: “The correct date in history in 2000, not 2001. ”
Your link misleads you. The law went into effect April 1, 2001.
Annie,
It appears that “marriage” is viewed through the prism of a “religious institution” so as to negate the State from administering the Civil Rights aspect of marriage.
In one respect, one could argue that Catholic Marriage is a practice of “religious freedom” while marriage in Islam is not. Or, a “religiously based marriage” holds a higher level of legality over a State officiated marriage.
Oh, to opine for a theocracy…
davidm
If I got married today, how would that harm your marriage?
davidm wrote:
“In the millennia of history, homosexuals have NEVER sought for marriage. Prior to 2001, gay marriage did not exist anywhere on earth.”
= = =
Let’s not forget the history of the criminalization of homosexuality that prevented such unions. It wasn’t until 2003 that sodomy laws were finally struck down in Lawrence vs. Texas https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/558/
It’s easy to say that no marriages happened until…
… It’s a far different thing to say that they were illegal until(fill in year).
Or how is it respectful to same sex parents, when it comes to their children, not to have the same rights heterosexual families have? Because they are different does not mean they are LESS than. They are human, just like the rest of us.
The fact that a gay couple will have the same legal rights a heterosexual couple does, does not equal disrespect of the institution of marriage. How is it respectful to not protect the relationship of longtime partners in a relationship when it comes to rights to visit in the hospital or on the deathbed, or in inheritance issues? Seriously the concern for the institution of marriage seems misplaced. Let’s hear those so who are so concerned try to get divorce abolished.
I. Annie wrote: “The fact that a gay couple will have the same legal rights a heterosexual couple does, does not equal disrespect of the institution of marriage.”
Homosexuals have always had the same legal rights to marry as everyone else, and they have been marrying for thousands of years. Check out this website of this gay man who married without any trouble: http://www.joshweed.com/
Nobody asks you if you are gay when you apply for a license to marry. Nobody has ever rejected a marriage license because one or both of the applicants are gay.
What is disrespecting toward the institution of marriage is forcing society to change the definition and meaning of marriage which gets rid of the gender diversity that is inherent in its definition. It diminishes marriage to mean only a legal contract between two people. It makes marriage only about a romance between any two people rather than all that the institution has meant for thousands of years.