Supreme Court hears historic same-sex marriage arguments

[Surya Gayatri]

Source: AP News - excite

WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is asking skeptical questions as the court hears arguments over the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry.

Kennedy, whose vote is seen as pivotal, said Tuesday that marriage has been understood as one man and one woman for "millennia-plus time." He said same-sex marriage has been debated in earnest for only about 10 years and he wondered whether scholars and the public need more time.

He told a lawyer representing same-sex couples that it's "very difficult" for the court to say "we know better."

Chief Justice John Roberts said that gay couples are not seeking to join the institution of marriage, they are seeking to change it.

The session was interrupted after about 30 minutes a protester yelling loudly. He was removed by security.






Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20150428/us--supreme_court-gay_marriage-f204f7a7be.html

---

Kennedy reveling in his "swing vote" role.

So, racism and misogyny have also been the rule for "millennia-plus time."

Does that mean they should be upheld legally as well?

[geek tragedy]

1. Ugh, Kennedy sending bad, bad signals.

He's obsessed with the notion that marriage as an institution had been man-woman for 'millennia'

[LibertyLover]

2. Kennedy is wrong -

for millenia it was 1 man plus a bunch of women, a couple of servants and a slave or three. And the argument is about equal protection and treatment under the law. An article I read today in the Washington Post Express mentioned that there were some 1000 perks available to married couples. If that's the case, then same sex couples should be able to avail themselves equally. Gods, I hope the Court gets this right.

[Surya Gayatri]

4. Boom...'1 man plus a bunch of women, a couple of servants and a slave or three.'

[mahatmakanejeeves]

3. Live updates: Follow the arguments

Supreme Court hears arguments in same-sex marriage case: Highlights from oral arguments

By Sandhya Somashekhar and Terri Rupar April 28 at 11:31 AM

The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments Tuesday in the four cases consolidated under the title of Obergefell v. Hodges. The justices will consider whether the Constitution requires states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and whether states must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states where they are legal.

Electronic devices are not allowed in the courtroom, so we’re bringing you the highlights of the case on a time delay. The time stamps here show what time this happened within the court.

Roberts, Kennedy: Why not wait and see?

10:22 a.m.: Kennedy suggested that there hasn’t been enough time to truly see the effect of redefining marriage. “If we’re not going to wait, it’s only fair to say we’re not going to consult the social science,” he said.

Bonauto responded: “Waiting is not neutral.”

[closeupready]

8. "Why not wait and see?" Um because justice delayed is justice denied?

??

[lancer78]

5. Thank you Ralph Nader

Your legacy is intact.

[dbackjon]

6. Yup

And if Clinton gets the nomination, a good portion of DU will try to ensure a Republican SCOTUS for the next 25 years.

[JDPriestly]

7. Sounds like Kennedy and Roberts may be caught up in a maningless

semantic vortex.

They should be thinking about the rights and privileges associated with the legal institution of marriage and how individuals in our society are deprived of those rights and privileges based on their gender.

Sounds like, rather than apply the 14th Amendment as today's understanding of the human condition requires it, Kennedy and Roberts are looking for an excuse to continue an abominable institution: discrimination based on gender.

Young people no longer want that kind of gender discrimination. We need to get young people to vote against this stuffy old-guard mentality.

Sounds just like the arguments for slavery and for keeping women pregnant and in the kitchen: well, it's always been that way.

What a weak argument.

[bigdarryl]

9. As I've said 2016 is ALL about the Supreme Court from what I see this LGBT case in front of the

Court Isn't going to end well

[LanternWaste]

10. Application of his arguments to the Loving v VA case didn't work out very well either.

Application of his arguments to the Loving v VA case didn't work out very well either.