Cara L. Gallagher, weekend contributor
History happened yesterday. Will you remember where you were when the same-sex marriage decisions came down? I will. I was inside the Court when we all sat up somewhat shocked to hear the first case of the day was Obergefell v. Hodges. Again, I am lousy at predicting what cases we’ll get decisions on each day. This fact is already entered into the record. But because it was a decision of such importance, for the first time, I stopped writing, listened, and looked around to see how the audience, the public, were not only hearing but experiencing what I was hearing.
It wasn’t obvious from the start of Kennedy’s reading of the majority (made up of the four liberal justices) decision that it would come out on the side of the same-sex couples, many of which were in the Court to hear their case. He started off referencing the “millennia” of the institution of marriage. Those who listened to the oral arguments back in March will recall Kennedy used this word a lot to question Mary Bonauto, the attorney for the same-sex couples, on why the definition of marriage should be expanded to include same-sex couples when, for so long, it has been reserved to one man-one woman.
Kennedy quickly addressed the legal justification for supporting the same-sex couples. The majority ruled same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry, just as opposite sex couples do. The Due Process clause and Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment protect this right and states must recognize the marriage licenses of couples. To the majority, the definition of marriage is not static and has never been. It has evolved from a time when women were married off to men chosen by their parents for financial gain, where their rights were subsumed to men (coverture), to one that primarily served procreative purposes, and finally to the version that exists today – marry who you love for whatever reason you want. Such personal choice has been celebrated in a patchwork system where some states allow gay marriage while others do not. But today’s decision mandates uniformity in legal doctrine. According to the majority, “A first premise of the Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy.”
Emboldening the majority’s defense of their opinion is the belief that same-sex couples with children deserve the dignity and eradication of stigma that will flow from not simply social norms and practices, but legal acceptance of their unions from the states in which they live. Yes, a federal decision on this matter quashes public debate and takes the political decision-making power out of the hands of states, some moving faster on same-sex marriage legislation than others. On that point, the majority said, “The dynamic of our constitutional system is that individuals need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. This is why ‘fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.’” (The latter quote is cited in the decision from West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette)
It was at this moment that I stopped and looked around at the faces in the Court. Listening with smiles and quiet tears were several people sitting near me. I saw the petitioners and a member of the clergy sitting, perhaps appropriately, on opposite sides of the aisle in the general public area. Justice Stevens was in the Court as well. In the seats of the Supreme Court bar, which are front and center inside the Court, was notable same-sex marriage advocate and U.S. Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Pam Karlan, Mary Bonauto, and Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. The Court often feels like it’s in an unnecessary state of lock down – especially on decision days – so the security marshals ban celebrations, cheers, cries, or any other expression. But the feeling was jubilation, complete and total satisfaction. Once dismissed, many near me stood up, hugged, and wiped away tears.
As jubilant and electrified as some people were, the subsequent dissent read by Chief Justice Roberts killed any and all enthusiasm in the room. Roberts may have read his dissent – one of four dissents written by every member of the minority group – to remind everyone that yesterday’s Obamacare ruling is not the liberal pivot you may have thought you were getting from the Roberts Court. I wrote about the potential for this pivot just last night after the King case was announced. In his blistering dissent that lasted as long, if not longer, than the time it took Kennedy to read the majority opinion, he openly threw shine on his bench mates: “Today, five lawyers have ordered states to change their laws,””Just who do we think we are?”
The power to decide laws defining marriage has and should forever be a power held by the states, derived from the people, according to Roberts’ dissent. “This Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us.” This is the default response the conservative justices often give in federalist cases like this one.
What stung the most and hit the people who’d just been told they are equal in the eyes of the law the hardest was his final paragraph: “Indeed, however heartened the proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause.” Further, “If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”
The “acceptance” line read to a class of people for whom acceptance both socially and constitutionally is so seldom protected by the Federal government, was the hardest to watch wash over those sitting near me.
Roberts may have gotten the last word in, but the same-sex and LGBTQ members and allies gathered together in the biggest crowd of people I’ve ever seen outside the SCOTUS, got the last laugh. They have legal protections rooted in two fundamental Constitutional principles. This decision came down at the perfect time as some cities celebrate their Pride Day this weekend and thousands of others will spend their celebrations at wedding receptions and enjoying honeymoons.
Follow Cara as she spends one more day covering the final three SCOTUS cases this term. @SupremeBystandr
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.
Well, Squeeky, you got your cats for company, so you won’t be too lonely.😻
I saw this on Facebook, I thought it was so cute.
https://duckduckgrayduck.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/cat-lady.jpg
Squeek, I like your attitude. There are so many needy women posting on dating websites looking for men to keep them warm on cold nights. You meet people naturally, IN THE FLESH.
@I.Annie
I am sure there are some good ones out there, and it would be a crying shame for me to take one of them away from some other woman who would love them, and appreciate them. Sooo, I am doing them a kindness. I have test drove a few models, and I think I am better off just walking.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Whoa Squeeky, that’s pretty sad. But hey it’s your life. Men aren’t all that bad sweetie, there are good ones out there if you look in the right places. The bar might not be the optimal place to start.
@I.Annie
Not me. I prefer my peace and sanity. Boyfriends are like having a retarded dog around. They’re cute, in a clumsy. slobbery kind of way, but you can’t housebreak them, or teach them to do tricks because they’re stupid and forget everything you teach them. Then, let somebody walk by with a piece of beef jerky, and off they go! Sooo, if I go out with Fabia and her latest soul-mate, I am quite content to leave whoever paid for my drinks at the bar. Plenty of girls there. They’ll find somebody else to go home with.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter.
Where’s YOUR boyfriend Squeeky? Maybe some good lovin’ will cure what ails ya. No need to get drunk as a skunk honey. It’s much more fun staying in and making your OWN sweetie something good to eat on a Sunday morning…er afternoon. 😉
I.Annie
Oh I am just getting started! I ended up drunk as a skunk last night, and am just now starting to see straight. Fabia (aka Penelope) is still passed out in bed with her latest boyfriend. And they both have court in the morning, and stuff to review today. Sooo, I guess I need to make more coffee for them. I am going to try to talk him into going to Waffle House and picking up some omelets and hash browns with onions and cheese for us all. That is always good for a hangover.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
https://www.dropbox.com/s/q1ova82tbv1vk1s/marriage.jpg?dl=0
Squeeky,
I love those fortune cookies. Confucius seemed lucid.
You go, Girl.
Twisted.
stevegroen,
Marriage evolved to protect the bond of the husband and wife from debasement by seduction by extramarital parties and to protect the children of the husband and wife.
Marriage exists to protect the family.
Homosexuals cannot produce children.
Homosexuals cannot be married.
Homosexual marriage is a contradiction in terms, impossible, frivolous charade and fraudulent.
To indulge homosexuals desire mock and diminish actual marriage is bizarre, incoherent and iconoclastic.
It only proves that American governance has failed and has been absconded with by extremist radical
special interest groups.
Homosexuals can engage in contracts.
Homosexuals are free individuals who can negotiate contracts for employee benefits, for example.
@stevegroen
You know what, if I thought the Gaystapo would stop at gay marriage, I wouldn’t care much at all if it was legal. Because the whole issue is a silly farce. Gay men wanting to be in committed monogamous relationships??? Oh my God, ROTFLMAO!!! How stupid does someone have to be to believe in that???
And frankly, I don’t even care a whole lot about it now, because the twits aren’t going to be getting married in large numbers anyway, unless the government starts handing out Sodomy Tax Credits to balance out the lack of EIC credits.
But what I do see as a danger, is society’s failure to see as “abnormal behavior” that which is clearly “abnormal.” Because that opens the door to a lot worse nonsense. Delusions have a way of taking over a country, and the results usually aren’t pretty, I tease about the Sodomy and Fisting courses in Sex-Ed classes, but even that isn’t that far fetched. I can foresee all sorts of “heteronomative” slurs taking the place of “homophobic” slurs as the 98% is bullied by the 2% who have the media on their side. Goodness knows what kind of intellectual dreck that is going to dump on our country.
Sooo, if you want to make your self feel good about all the “love”, knock yourself out. But, over there in the gay shadows, there is something lurking, that just doesn’t feel right. . .
Like Confucius said, “Be careful what you ask for. You might get it.”
Squeeky Fromm
Girl reporter
justagurlinseattle
“Congress is the Representative of the People.
“that is total BS.. and I mean that wholeheartedly.
How can it be, when it is Gerrymandered beyond recognition?”
Democrats and Republicans who get into office care only about the power,
NOT the people.
and fact is, over 60% of Americans support Gay Marriage. So, the people do support
this. This is a majority who support Gay Marriage.”
*****
In California, Utah and other states, the direct vote on homosexual issues was NO.
When the people vote, radical liberals manipulate the process into the court of their favorite liberal judge.
This issue has been moved by the radicals to another place liberals win, the SCOTUS.
The place this issue needs to be decided is the voting booth of the People.
If a direct vote is not possible, it must become a state issue.
The Congress speaks for or represents, the People.
The People are the sovereign, not the executive or judicial branch.
The corruption is in the judicial branch.
To be sure, limits on government and most American freedom have been abolished beginning with the righteous abolition of slavery – the floodgates were opened and Marx’s collectivism rushed in. With the abolition of slavery, it has been impossible to put the Genie back in the bottle.
As the 18th Amendment was appropriately repealed by the 21st, America needs to regain its coherence and rationality and be repealed back to the Preamble, Constitution and Bill or Rights (original – most amendments were done without a quorum, through coercion, under duress, improperly ratified or clearly unconstitutional – as was Lincoln’s entire “Reign of Terror”).
DECISIONS AND LEGISLATION PREDICATED ON UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW
ARE SIMILARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
From “society’s viewpoint”? Really? No, it’s more like from Squeeky’s small bigoted worldview. Squeeky, it says a lot about you that you are incapable of recognizing that other people unlike yourself can experience love, affection, companionship, mutual respect, commitment. How can anyone be so small minded and narrow? What breeds such personalities? Fundamentalist teachings, corporal punishment, what is it? Did some gay man harm you in some way at some point in your life? I really don’t understand this level of animosity toward gay men.
@justagurl
Gays haven’t been stopped from “loving” each other. That is nonsense. Heck they have been “loving” each other sooo darn much, the cops have to bust them out of the city parks at night, and Interstate rest areas, and public restrooms.
And, heck, we don’t even recognize the “right” of some horny man, to “love” the hooker he just paid $20 to for oral pleasures. From society’s viewpoint, gay “love” is about on a par with “masturbation.” Prostitution would be more deserving of society’s attention since that act does sometimes result in offspring. But “gay” sex is nothing more than somebody’s weird way to have an org*sm. What’s next, do we have to let shoe fetishists marry a pair of high heels??? I mean, who’s to say their love isn’t just as real as gays???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter: There must be a real war going on in your head if you’re interest enough in what goes on in somebody else’s bedroom to bar him or her the right to marry.
@Justagurl
There you go again! Rules are a bad thing, if you don’t like them, but rules are just peachy if you like them! You are being completely and absurdly inconsistent.
And yes, if you are a vegan, and want to own a McDonalds, you have the right! And if it is the Muslim’s own deli, and he don’t want to sell ham, then good for him! That’s his right! I won’t go there for bacon.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Yeah Jack, they wanted to have EQUAL opportunity to marry the people they loved.
See, I have no problem with people are what they want to believe.
It is their right to believe in any god they want.
It is everybody’s right to be treated equally.
If I was a Vegan, I would NOT feel it is my RIGHT to own a McDonalds.
If I was a Christian, and I wanted to open a business, I would have to decide
what is MORE important, my Christian Beliefs, OR, wanting to own a business.
Owning a business is NOT a RIGHT.
So, if I want to open a business, I need to abide by the rules, and those rules are
that EVERYBODY who comes into your store, florist, or bakery will be served the
same items.
When I do business with a christian, I am not taking part, or condoning
their god. I am simply doing business with them.
There are Christian Scientists who don’t believe in blood transfusions,
do we allow them to follow their faith if they are an ER Doctor and allow them to deny blood transfusions
because it goes against their faith?
Hell NO!!!!
That would be ridiculous.
Why would they become an ER Doctor if they can’t or will refuse to preform their
duties as a doctor?
Same goes with a Muslim working at a deli counter, they should NOT be able to deny service
to people who want ham. Their job is to package and sell the ham.
If they want to allow their faith to get in the way of that, then they should chose a
job where they will not have to handle ham.
When the businesses start allowing people who work in those businesses to deny
certain services due to their religion, where does it end?
At the deli counter?
at the ER, with a blood transfusion?
Vegans owning McDonalds and denying people burgers made from animal beef?
Pharmacists not filling prescriptions because it goes against their religion?
Back in the Civil Rights era, people wanted to use their religion to deny service
to people of color, that was thankfully NOT OK, and eventually those people came to grips
with having to serve black people equally to white people.
They were not happy about it, but, they learned to live with it.
This is what will happen with Gay marriage.
Eventually, they will just learn to understand that if their religion will get in the
way of them preforming their business equally, then they will have to chose
between having a business or following their religion, NOBODY is stopping
them from following their religion, they will just have to find a different business.
It was much better in America when people kept their religion in their PRIVATE LIFE.
Fine, practice any religion you want… that is OK.
Just don’t start a business and try to use religion as a means to discriminate or not
do your job due to your religious beliefs getting in the way,
that is NOT OK.
Nobody is trying to keep people from practicing their religion.
Owning a business is NOT a fundamental right.
justa,
Perhaps the problem is that you don’t understand the difference between what feels good and what our written law says.
Same-sex couples are free to live with each other. Free to love each other. They are free to go where they want and do whatever they want (within the law as consenting adults).
What they wanted was more. They wanted to have the state (the people of the state) sanction their union. They wanted the public approval from others for what they privately chose to do. -Some states chose to do just that. Other states did not.
@justagirl
Because societies and civilizations do not work very well if everybody just does whatever they want. You gotta have rules. For example, the same people who support gay marriage FREEDOM, do not support Christian Baker FREEDOM. Oh no, there, they want all kinds of rules and protections and penalties. There, they want to tell somebody what they had better do, OR ELSE!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter