I think the animus point could've been forwarded and pushed way more. Three of those bans were put in place during the 2004 elections (just like the vast majority of them), right after Massachusetts allowed same-sex couples to marry (with Mary Bonauto's own case) and I'm sure there are quotes and public statements proving that they were put in place, not to enshrine any "millennia" definition, but to keep same-sex couples from marrying in their own States.
Brusch said the State doesn't care about your sexual orientation, but they clearly did and do now.
The fact that these states don't even allow same-sex couples to enter civil unions is a good argument for animus towards their unions if the state of Michigan "doesn't intend to take away dignity from anyone."
If Michigan placed the children with DeBoer and Jayne Rowse (as legally single women), then the claims that (a) there is an interest to link children with their biological parents (and in their defect, I suppose, a married man and woman) and that (b) the state "respects all parents" fall flat on their face.
You seem really well informed on this stuff and clearly know it better than I do. Do you happen to be studying law?
I'm not happy about the tone of a lot of the questions during Bonauto's part.
Hopefully the majority of Supreme Court Justices (at least 5) were just trying to "act fair" by grilling both sides. I remember there were doubts the 4th and 10th Circuit Appeals Courts would rule in favor because the judge seen as the swing vote seemed like they were hesitant, but in the end those judges broke the tie and said yes to gay marriage. I hope Kennedy says yes to both questions in this case
You seem really well informed on this stuff and clearly know it better than I do. Do you happen to be studying law?
Thanks! I've just become obsessed with these recent marriage cases and I do love to read about judicial proceedings and history. I don't study law, but sometimes I think I should have. It was one of the suggested professions on my HS vocational test, but I was adamant on engineering.
I hope Kennedy says yes to both questions in this case
If he says yes to the first question, isn't the second one automatically rendered moot? So he can't say yes to both? It's either one, the other, or neither?
If he says yes to the first question, isn't the second one automatically rendered moot? So he can't say yes to both? It's either one, the other, or neither?
Oops, yeah in my rush to bed I had a brainfart though why pick up the other state's cases and not just the one that deals with giving out licenses?
JUSTICE KAGAN: Mr. Whalen, just a quick
17
question.
18
MR. WHALEN: Yes, Your Honor.
19
JUSTICE KAGAN: You -- you acknowledge that
20
if the State loses on the first question, then the State
21
also loses on the second question? It's a fortiori?
22
That's --
23
MR. WHALEN: I do, Your Honor.
24
JUSTICE KAGAN: Okay.
I think the animus point could've been forwarded and pushed way more. Three of those bans were put in place during the 2004 elections (just like the vast majority of them), right after Massachusetts allowed same-sex couples to marry (with Mary Bonauto's own case) and I'm sure there are quotes and public statements proving that they were put in place, not to enshrine any "millennia" definition, but to keep same-sex couples from marrying in their own States.
Brusch said the State doesn't care about your sexual orientation, but they clearly did and do now.
The fact that these states don't even allow same-sex couples to enter civil unions is a good argument for animus towards their unions if the state of Michigan "doesn't intend to take away dignity from anyone."
If Michigan placed the children with DeBoer and Jayne Rowse (as legally single women), then the claims that (a) there is an interest to link children with their biological parents (and in their defect, I suppose, a married man and woman) and that (b) the state "respects all parents" fall flat on their face.
I think the petitioners' brief argues that point quite well (23-24).
--
I think Kennedy (and this is all about Kennedy) will ultimately weigh:
1) Changing the institution of marriage or redefining it's "millennia" long definition when pro gay marriage sentiment is brand new (which would mean somehow meddling into the democratic process/ no longer allowing for debate);
2) Taking away State's right to decide the issue of marriage themselves, when if you look at Maine; sometimes change happens quickly without interference from the federal government
Vs.
1) The "fundamental" right of person to marry and the dignity bestowing aspects of marriage
2) 37 states now allow gay marriage thanks to Windsor (and the SC refusal to hear cases); do the SC NOW say that the bans were constitutional?
--
I think there's a (small) chance that Kennedy and Roberts just go for the middle option; say gay marriage is not a constitutional right but that states must recognize out of states marriages.
But that question was silly. It's a given that question 2 becomes irrelevant if gay marriage becomes the law of the land.
I know it was silly, I just found it interesting she asked him that right before he finished. Then again, Kagan and Breyer were leading most of the opposition towards the States.
I know it was silly, I just found it interesting she asked him that right before he finished. Then again, Kagan and Breyer were leading most of the opposition towards the States.
Ohh. It didn't really matter much to me, because the question was asked before by Roberts I think. Could have been Breyer.
I thought that Roberts, Ginsburg and Kennedy (as usual) had the best questions.
I think Alito also had a good question re. "Why would polygamy be a greater break?" and Bonauto's answer was weak.
I don't know why, but I got annoyed with Kagan/Sotomayor for basically helping out Bonauto on multiple questions lol. I wanted Bonauto to argue her points herself.
I don't know why Bonauto had such weak answers for some of those questions. I can understand the heat of the moment and the mental break of being disrupted, but she was asked predictable, basic questions. She should have had a response memorized to comments and questions like the polygamy and "millennia-old" ones. Even if they weren't directly pertinent to the case, it was obvious that they were going to come up from the conservative Justices.
I don't care if another case has to go through for protected class, but I need the Court to not punt again on the first question when 37/50 states have it legalized. Like, JFC. It doesn't matter if this is a "new" issue for several reasons, but most of all because it's been such an overwhelming and irreversible shift. LGBT acceptance has been in the works since Stonewall decades ago, and the growth has been nearly exponential. No one that's pro-gay now is going to change back to anti-gay, least of all the young generation.
I don't know why Bonauto had such weak answers for some of those questions. I can understand the heat of the moment and the mental break of being disrupted, but she was asked predictable, basic questions. She should have had a response memorized to comments and questions like the polygamy and "millennia-old" ones. Even if they weren't directly pertinent to the case, it was obvious that they were going to come up from the conservative Justices.
I don't care if another case has to go through for protected class, but I need the Court to not punt again on the first question when 37/50 states have it legalized. Like, JFC. It doesn't matter if this is a "new" issue for several reasons, but most of all because it's been such an overwhelming and irreversible shift. LGBT acceptance has been in the works since Stonewall decades ago, and the growth has been nearly exponential. No one that's pro-gay now is going to change back to anti-gay, least of all the young generation.
I don't really think that that is what Kennedy/Roberts worry about. I think that they think that the public will soon get to legalizing gay marriage on it's own and that would be a "healthier" way to go about getting rid of marriage-bans; through the democratic process instead of having gay marriage forced upon States. They seem to believe that the States will get there eventually (sooner than later), since like you said, the growth has indeed been nearly exponential, and that because of that no interference by the federal government is needed.
Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama argued the same thing until just recently...
^The Michigan lawyer was such a MESS: Marriage being about dignity is just an accident, it was for state benefits...why do you think couples are suing? For benefits
8th Circuit Court punts to Supreme Court ruling with 5th widely expected to follow:
The 5th had their hearing months ago; I think I know (or hope) the judges know what they are doing. Two of them didn't seem to believe the gay marriage = end of the world crap and may release a ruling any day now that won't give the full 5th Circuit enough time to put the ban back before the Supreme Court rules. There would be a stay, but not a returned ban. I hope we get one more in
