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.
http://nytimes.com.co/marcus-bachmann-files-for-divorce-fresh-on-heels-of-scotus-ruling/
Oh my. Maybe this is the first casualty in the war against heterosexual marriage!
STILLWATER, Minn. –” Fresh on the heels of today’s decision by the Supreme Court that the right to same-sex marriage is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, comes news from Minnesota that Marcus Bachmann, husband of former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, has filed for divorce.”
Just not crazy about moronic knuckle-dragging reactionary Republicans that indulge in mindless, fruitless, selfish losing tactics.
But I’m not angry. I’m reconciled to the reality that there is no shortage of stupid reactionaries in this country.
Seems the doctor has no use for the law. Apparently he’s of the opinion and feel crowed and in his opinion these judges in Aabama make him feel real icky.
Seems the doctor has anger issues.
Olly,
Seems like there is more than one knuckle-dragging moronic judge in Alabama
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/26/alabama-counties-stop-issuing-marriage-licenses-indefinitely/
Regarding the marriage between HumpinDog and his human pal Betty Lou Thema Liz. I forgot to mention that Betty Lou Thelma Liz is legally blind. She is about 3/4 blind. She can see HumpinDog and large shapes but can not read or drive a car or do much housework. HumpinDog is her guide dog and has a guide dog harness which she holds when they walk. She will not back off from the marriage thing and is scheduled to take some flights out on Monday which eventually get her and her guide dog to Cuba. She intends to get a marriage license there and get married by a judge.
When they get back she wants North Carolina to recognize their marriage. They plan on adopting a human child. And a Labrador. I will explain more on Monday.
Doctoryes,
Acutally that is one Judge in one county of Alabama. You tell me, is he following the law?
“Alabama law that says “marriage licenses may be issued by the judges of probate” in the state.
“The word ‘may’ provides probate judges with the option of whether or not to engage in the practice of issuing marriage licenses,” Judge Allen said, ‘and I have chosen not to perform that function.”
Who knew? Alabama is promoting shacking up. 😧
Oh….and by the way…..Christmas Day still remains a Federal holiday, does it not? Would love to see the atheists now take that on. I bet the SCOTUS would take a pass on hearing that one. There’s one hot potato no one’s gonna touch.
Radical leftist officials in Alabama announce they will no longer issue marriage licenses to anyone – gay or straight – ever again in Alabama.
Whoops.
Change that to: upstanding Republican officials announce….
_______________________________________________________
I wonder how long that brilliant tactic will work?
doctoryes – how did you get radical leftists out of Alabama? Democrats left over from the Bull Conners’ days?
Kennedy and Roberts are borderline but you are spot on with Sotomayor, Kagen, Ginsburg and Breyer.
Now at ten thirty p.m. the two bent dogs have informed me that they no longer wish to marry.
Pattycake, Pattycake,
Baker’s man.
Make me a cake as fast as you can.
Glaze and paste it and stamp it with a T.
Put it in the oven for Buster and Me.
As long as moral/ethical/faith-based conscientious objection to participating in any and all activities in support of same-sex marriage is respected, and those objecting are not vilified for their personal beliefs I have not a care about who marries who. Any individual or organization which knowingly and willingly acts against the interests of a conscientious objector, thus depriving them of their own constitutional rights should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
It takes an “activist judge” to willfully deny another human being inaliable Rights to another human being. See Dredd Scott.
Thank God the US Supreme Court only has four of these “activist judges” bench warming these days.
@Isaac
Well, because of the intransigence of people like you, one day the world will see:
https://squeekyfrommgr.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/ape.jpg
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
“If I want a cake and you are in business to make cakes, you make me a fuc*ing cake.”
I’ll bake you a cake, that’s what bakeries do. But I will subcontract all my decorating out to decorators that specialize in different themes. I don’t control their pricing and you might find the decorator that does the gay weddings’ pricing a bit high, but at least you’ll get your fuc*ing cake.
Paul
I have most of a degree in the History of Western Literature and almost another in Art History. This ‘hobby’ time at universities in Canada and France lead me to study the origins of Christianity as well as other religions. What I sketched is not only well founded but is merely the tip of the iceberg of how Christianity and other religions came to be. Common threads are that they were all of a moment where the time was ripe, they could have easily been based on any one of several contenders-Christianity could have been Manichean, or any one of the other followings that it expunged. Christianity today is an organization that is based on the power of faith among those that support it. It started as an organization that was based on the power of eradicating other beliefs. It has only been the last few hundred years that world domination has separated from religion and become purely economic. Start from the Reformation and go back to the beginning of time and religion has been the ‘Stars and Bars’ of armies.
All one needed was some spiritual support and the vilest of deeds could be performed against the non believer or even the believer that didn’t quite get it right.
Christianity has survived and grown because of man’s need for answers and community. However, it was created on tactics and strategies common to all organizations seeking power. It had to. It was that or go the way of the Cathars, or the Gnostics, or move East like the Orthodox. It wasn’t for the love of god that the popes wiped out any and all they felt might threaten their power.
A Christian sees one thing, good people striving to believe what they must. This alone is most recent. Step out of the box and you see the same old schtick. It’s been going on since the beginning of time. Only now, recently, but not yet finished is religion being put where it should be, private, personal, and behind civil rights and common sense. If you want to believe in your story that’s your business but in no way should your myths be forced on me. If I want a cake and you are in business to make cakes, you make me a fuc*ing cake.
issac – stick to cakes or history. Pick one. I actually took a course in the history of Early Christianity. It was an eye-opener.
“Now the precedent has been set,” Richard said. “The administrative process has demonstrated what it will do if this happens, so it’s a matter of setting somebody up and collecting money. It’s that simple. It’s all they have to do.”
http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/19/fearing-another-lawsuit-christian-business-owners-stopped-hosting-all-weddings-now-their-business-is-dead/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=saturday&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRogvq3AZKXonjHpfsX67ukoXKO%2Fgokz2EFye%2BLIHETpodcMRcFqN6%2BTFAwTG5toziV8R7jHKM1t0sEQWBHm
justagurl,
We could be here awhile identifying all the different ways slavery was justified throughout history and it wasn’t until the age of enlightenment and natural rights theory that all of those justifications were proven to be unjust. The United States government is chartered to secure our inalienable rights and we have a growing population that have regressed in their understanding of just what this nation was founded on. They are being taught that those founding principles, and that includes the belief in inalienable rights, don’t apply to 21st century civil society. When we abandon inalienable rights and roll back the clock to the days when goverment decides who gets what rights then we have opened the door for no one to be secure in their life, liberty and property.
Olly – slavery is still with us and sex slavery is a major problem in the US.