The Coming Gay-Marriage Ruling

[DemocratSinceBirth]

The fight to bring marriage equality to all fifty states heads to the Supreme Court again later this month, with an extraordinary two and a half hours of oral argument set for the morning of Tuesday, April 28th. The four cases before the Court deal with marriage bans in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee. But their potential repercussions are much broader.

Two years ago, the Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the landmark case of United States v. Windsor, where it held, in broad language, that Congress could not deny federal recognition to same-sex marriages performed in states that permit them. Now marriage-equality activists hope that the Court will extend the Windsor rationale and language into a rule that requires every state to allow gays to marry. Most observers expect that it will, and that the impact of such a ruling will eventually extend beyond marriage rights, transforming how gay Americans are perceived and reducing discrimination against them more broadly.



With the Court seemingly on the verge of an historic precedent, the selection of the lawyers for oral argument became a point of some contention among the many attorneys involved in the various cases.

During a confidential selection process that included a “moot-off” (essentially Supreme Court auditions), lawyers for all of the plaintiffs agreed on Mary Bonauto—who argued the first successful gay-marriage case, in Massachusetts, in 2003, and who has been one of the leading advocates for the cause since its inception—as their main advocate before the high court. She will argue on the central question framed by the Court: “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?” Although a leading advocate for marriage rights, Bonauto has never argued a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. She will tell the Justices that marriage restrictions deny gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law and that such statutes also deprive them of a core liberty protected by the due-process clause of the Constitution.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-coming-gay-marriage-ruling?intcid=mod-latest

[Behind the Aegis]

1. Really? This went to page 3 with no comments and only 109 reads?!

This sends a real message.

Personally, I am pessimistically optimistic. "Expect the worst, hope for the best; you won't be surprised either way."

[beam me up scottie]

2. Didn't see it before.

Happy to give a rec.

[Behind the Aegis]

3. Excuses, excuses!

I know many likely didn't see it, but it just really bothers me because this could effectively provide an end to my marriage before my first anniversary. I know many are thinking this is a "slam dunk", but I just can't get on board with that mentality. "Oh Prop 8 will never pass, after all it is California!" Uh-huh.

[beam me up scottie]

4. I have a bad feeling about this.

I would love to think that this court wouldn't allow the states to decide something this important, but they haven't done much to inspire confidence.

This is about human rights, it should be a slam dunk.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Some folks can only focus on one thing at a time...

I am not saying I am some great exception but my posting history indicates I am interested in a potpourri of subjects of concerns to forward thinking people.

[Behind the Aegis]

7. Yeah, but it is really depressing.

I don't know what will happen, but I know it will affect my life and millions of others.

[Hekate]

5. KnR

[tritsofme]

8. The only thing that concerns me about this case is that Roberts may try to write for the majority.

Sensing inevitable defeat, Roberts may choose to write the opinion himself and narrow/water it down as much as he can.

I'm not sure how far he could push it, but such a scenario would not surprise me.

[joeybee12]

9. I'm trying to be optimistic, that Roberts will worry about his legacy...

and doesn't want to be on the wrong side of history...there are 5 votes for equality, I believe, three definite nos, and Roberts weighing his options.