• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Marriage Equality Heads to SCOTUS - Obergefell v. Hodges |OT| The Last Days of Murica

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

esms

Member
All the family law attorneys at my firm are chomping at the bit for this to be ruled on. My boss has been inundated with calls asking her to get into contact with journalists looking to do features on this whole thing haha.
 
A

Arkeband

Banned
Do they decide today? Is this thread / Reddit / celebration in the streets going to spoil the end of these audio logs before I get to it?
 
B

brianmcdoogle

Member
HylianTom said:
For especially notable cases, they'll speed-up the release. Today was definitely a record for how quickly audio was released.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't know why every case can't go up same day. It's annoying.

I'm halfway through the first segment (using the Oyez iPhone app). It's too bad someone thought it would be a good idea to start shouting and protesting during the arguments.
 
S

Spoo

Member
Listening to question 2 is... really pretty cringeworthy in its later sections. This guy seems like he's high.
 
Thaedolus

Thaedolus

Member
ivysaur12 said:
His logic doesn't track at all and he's not really engaging with any of the questions regarding adopted children.
Click to expand...

Hence the rationale for equality: the argument against isn't a rational argument, it's an emotional argument. It's "stop liking things I don't like" encoded into law.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
Oral arguments are airing on CSPAN 3 right now.

(and I can hardly wait to see the dog version of today's proceedings. Hopefully the protester is included!)
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
The Llama said:
Listening to his terrible answers just makes me more confident that he'll lose, which is nice.
Click to expand...

I get that Metaphoreous is on the right side on this (hey Meta), but you'd expect someone of his caliber to make arguments for the states. This is someone who would get tossed out of a GAF thread with one well-cited Mumei post!
 
B

boiled goose

good with gravy
Sex discrimination is totally a valid argument for SSM. Gender and sex are somewhat ambiguous and arbitrary.

If government bans SSM marriage then it is also in the business of determining gender.
 
A

alvmew

Member
ivysaur12 said:
Whoa my god, not to be that guy, but... that gay voice on the lawyer for the states. My god.
Click to expand...

I was gonna be that guy and post this when I started listening, so thanks for doing it for me Ivy. Lol.

I mean his voice was practically Derrick level...

gay-enough-for-you.gif


Drama
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, I think many States would be surprised, with reference to traditional marriages, they are not enhancing the dignity of both the parties. I'm puzzled by that. But you have another point to make.

MR. BURSCH: Well, the -- the main point there is -- is the State's don't intend to bestow dignity, but if you turn it into a dignity bestowing institution, then other family structures and children who are excluded from their definition would suffer a dignitary harm. You know, so you can't draw the line there.
Click to expand...

I understand these are words that are coming out of Mr. Bursch's mouth, and he's argued a half dozen or so cases in front of the SCOTUS, but good lord.
 
B

boiled goose

good with gravy
Peltz said:
?

I don't follow... can you elaborate on your post?
Click to expand...

Basically if the government says you are a man and can only marry a woman, it has to first establish that you are a man and your future spouse is a woman. These static gender and sex labels are pretty outdated.

Basically sex and gender ard complicated. Two consenting adults is much more simple.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
boiled goose said:
Basically if the government says you are a man and can only marry a woman, it has to first establish that you are a man and your future spouse is a woman. These static gender and sex labels are pretty outdated.

Basically sex and gender ard complicated. Two consenting adults is much more simple.
Click to expand...

You're already engaging with gender on a deeper level than the SCOTUS has ever done :p
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
TacticalFox88 said:
I kept saying "What" with every phrase that I read.

WHAT is he talking about?
Click to expand...

I'm trying to understand what he's talking about. I understand his main point that legalizing marriage equality will make marriage an adult-centered institution that will weaken the bond between children and their parents. He's wrong and that makes no sense, but that at least tracks. I guess.

I don't understand what he's saying once he gets prodded.
 
A

Arkeband

Banned
Are marriages annulled if a man is married to a woman, but then sex changes to a woman?

I guess, at what point does the state step in and be like "oh no you don't!" - is it when they recognize themselves as a woman and have been living as a woman for X amount of years, or when they legally change their sex from M to F? (I don't even know the process involved with that)
 
A

Ambient80

Member
So every media outlet I've listened to so far (ok, only like three, but still) seems to think that so far it looks like the SCOTUS is gonna rule against SSM, or at least say it's a states rights issue. Is this true? I haven't listened to any of the audio yet, though, so maybe they're just ratings-mongering.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Ambient80 said:
So every media outlet I've listened to so far (ok, only like three, but still) seems to think that so far it looks like the SCOTUS is gonna rule against SSM, or at least say it's a states rights issue. Is this true? I haven't listened to any of the audio yet, though, so maybe they're just ratings-mongering.
Click to expand...

That's very likely the opposite of what's going to happen/the take away from most court observers.

EDIT: Let me expand: By take away, I mean, most seem to believe it's either too close to tell to that it's pretty obvious what the court will do. In fact, it's been pretty obvious what the court will do for a while now.
 
H

HK-47

Oh, bitch bitch bitch.
Ambient80 said:
So every media outlet I've listened to so far (ok, only like three, but still) seems to think that so far it looks like the SCOTUS is gonna rule against SSM, or at least say it's a states rights issue. Is this true? I haven't listened to any of the audio yet, though, so maybe they're just ratings-mongering.
Click to expand...

Which outlets? Cause if its TV then reality is likely the opposite of whatever they say.
 
C

cartoon_soldier

Member
Pyrokai said:
Well.....this one doesn't sound too promising:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielf...tions-of-a-ruling-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/4/
Click to expand...

You have 4 liberal justices that will vote for SSM.

Scalia, Alito and Thomas will vote against.

Kennedy asked questions of everyone (except for the issue of whether SSM out of state should be recognized). That part is important, because it may show that the he wants to move towards making SSM bans illegal which makes the 2nd argument of out of state recognition moot. At the same time he was wondering if the court should change the accepted definition of marriage that was in society for a long time.

Roberts also asked questions of both sides.

The thing with Kennedy and Roberts is they tend to ask a lot of questions without really tipping their hat in these kinds of cases. Sometimes the questions are about playing Devil's advocate. Kennedy is the real swing vote here.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
cartoon_soldier said:
You have 4 liberal justices that will vote for SSM.

Scalia, Alito and Thomas will vote against.

Kennedy asked questions of everyone (except for the issue of whether SSM out of state should be recognized). That part is important, because it may show that the he wants to move towards making SSM bans illegal which makes the 2nd argument of out of state recognition moot.

Roberts also asked questions of both sides.

Kennedy is the real swing vote here.
Click to expand...

He asked the same question -- and really, the only question -- that could be asked to Bonuato, and probably the issue he struggles with most -- "Marriage has been this way for a millennia, why change it?" And the Forbes article is sort of incorrect. He didn't "repeatedly" bring this up on his own volition, but he brought it up because he didn't believe that Bonuato was actually answering the question asked by Souter (or was it Breyer? Hard to tell without the transcript in front of me).

He didn't really reveal much of his hand, but he seemed much more concerned -- as he has been in the past -- with the families and children of gay couples and their own dignity and liberty. That's the basis of his jurisprudence.

And this isn't really a question that is decided on oral arguments. Or even briefs. This was decided far earlier when the SCOTUS decided to deny cert to the 5 cases in September. Or issue a stay in Florida. I mean, you could even go far enough back and say that Kennedy has been ready for this since Hollingsworth. He wanted to rule on the merits. He was in the minority.
 
A

Ambient80

Member
ivysaur12 said:
That's very likely the opposite of what's going to happen/the take away from most court observers.

EDIT: Let me expand: By take away, I mean, most seem to believe it's either too close to tell to that it's pretty obvious what the court will do. In fact, it's been pretty obvious what the court will do for a while now.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought, but they all seemed to agree when I listened in so I was like "WTF happened?? Am I taking crazy pills?!" lol. I imagine most of the 24 hour channels are gonna keep saying it's unknown/incredibly close in order to drum up hype/curiosity for ratings.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
Yup. Kennedy seemed to weigh the "tradition" and "who decides?" factors against "dignity" and "liberty" and "equal protection" factors. The state did a horrible job demonstrating harm to their tradition/who decides/state interest arguments.. while the harm to families (kids included, which is a point Kennedy loooooves to focus upon) as a result of deprivation of marriage is quite measurable.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
HylianTom said:
Yup. Kennedy seemed to weigh the "tradition" and "who decides?" factors against "dignity" and "liberty" and "equal protection" factors. The state did a horrible job demonstrating harm to their tradition/who decides/state interest arguments.. while the harm to families (kids included, which is a point Kennedy loooooves to focus upon) as a result of deprivation of marriage is quite measurable.
Click to expand...

I don't think Kennedy particularly cares about the "who decides?" factor, but the idea of tradition might give him pause. Part of the argument seemed to be him considering "how much time" is needed, but it seemed kind of clear from the second part of the first question where he was leaning -- dignity.

I don't think we'll get any scrutiny decision, which is unfortunate, but that will come up again on another day, I suppose. In the end, that'll probably be the more important case.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
ivysaur12 said:
And the Forbes article is sort of incorrect. He didn't "repeatedly" bring this up on his own volition, but he brought it up because he didn't believe that Bonuato was actually answering the question asked by Souter (or was it Breyer? Hard to tell without the transcript in front of me).
Click to expand...

Definitely not Souter, since he's retired.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
ivysaur12 said:
I don't think Kennedy particularly cares about the "who decides?" factor, but the idea of tradition might give him pause. Part of the argument seemed to be him considering "how much time" is needed, but it seemed kind of clear from the second part of the first question where he was leaning -- dignity.

I don't think we'll get any scrutiny decision, which is unfortunate, but that will come up again on another day, I suppose. In the end, that'll probably be the more important case.
Click to expand...

It was really encouraging that he cited Loving on that "how much time?" question. It also stuck out like a sore thumb that scrutiny didn't come-up.

(and my other half, currently listening to Bursch, just asked me, "Is this a gay guy who's trying to throw the states' case?")(yikes)

We've been hearing and saying for a long time, "don't try to read too much from oral argument. Don't do it!" But damn, it's so difficult not to.
 
P

Pyrokai

Member
ivysaur12 said:
That's... not really the correct take away from the oral arguments, at all. I mean, it's one takeaway, but not a complete one.
Click to expand...

cartoon_soldier said:
You have 4 liberal justices that will vote for SSM.

Scalia, Alito and Thomas will vote against.

Kennedy asked questions of everyone (except for the issue of whether SSM out of state should be recognized). That part is important, because it may show that the he wants to move towards making SSM bans illegal which makes the 2nd argument of out of state recognition moot. At the same time he was wondering if the court should change the accepted definition of marriage that was in society for a long time.

Roberts also asked questions of both sides.

The thing with Kennedy and Roberts is they tend to ask a lot of questions without really tipping their hat in these kinds of cases. Sometimes the questions are about playing Devil's advocate. Kennedy is the real swing vote here.
Click to expand...

Well, that's at least somewhat promising, I guess. Thanks for deciphering for me.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
As far as tea leaves go, Kennedy's silence in question 2, coupled with his only question, seem to point to where this is going. If he really was going to "compromise", I find it very hard to believe he wouldn't have been a more active questioner.
 
S

Sobriquet

Member
Wow, Joseph Whalen's arguments are embarrassing.

MR. WHALEN: Part of the reason why I wanted to mention this in particular [is] because a large part of the Petitioners’ focus has been on the impact on the children that are involved. And­ I think it’s important for the Court to recognize that in many States, ­and I can tell you in Tennessee that the definition of parent has always been biologically-­based. That marital presumption of parentage has its foundation in biology. It has its foundation in the man-­woman relationship. So when and if a State were required to recognize a same-­sex marriage and so therefore, change the pronouns and change the terminology to apply–

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Oh, but you do that for adoptions. What’s ­­the problem? This is a really big deal?

MR. WHALEN: It ­­is a big deal, Your Honor, because you are changing the way the State defines a parent. And in the adoption context, you have to understand adoption and the traditional definition­­ of marriage, they work in tandem. They work together. And as Mr. Bursch described, the objective with regard to marriage is to link children with their biological parents. When that breaks down, then there’s adoption. And so yes, there’s an effort to ­–

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Do you think that a State can fail to recognize the birth certificate of a particular –­­ another State? … Do you think the word “records” in the Constitution includes birth certificates?

MR. WHALEN: Yes.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So California without any reason, no suspicion of fraud, no anything, could it refuse to recognize another State’s birth certificate?

MR. WHALEN: I ­­have to admit, Your Honor, I can’t speak to that intelligently.
Click to expand...
 
B

boiled goose

good with gravy
The whole institution of marriage rhetoric is such BS and I'm surprised justices are even engaging.

Marriage used to be forced.
Marriage used to be a business transaction.
Children used to be offered as spouses.
Polygamy.

Today society is largely accepting of SSM. Even some religions.

We are only arguing for Civil rights here. Is it fair or is it unfair?

The institution of slavery had a long legacy.
 
C

Cat Party

Member
Didn't listen to the arguments, but based on what you folks are saying, it sounds like Kennedy was getting the state to box itself in. Makes it easier to reject their arguments later in his inevitable majority opinion supporting SSM.
 
A

Arkeband

Banned
Cat Party said:
Didn't listen to the arguments, but based on what you folks are saying, it sounds like Kennedy was getting the state to box itself in. Makes it easier to reject their arguments later in his inevitable majority opinion supporting SSM.
Click to expand...

This probably doesn't factor into their overall decision, but the State was consistently laughed at for almost all of their arguments.
 
P

Paskil

Member
If you thought it was painful to listen to, you should have been in the courtroom. I felt bad for the guy. I actually squirmed a few times when he was trying to answer. The last few minutes basically dominated the entire argument, and was a beautiful example of actual harm.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

US Supreme Court refuses Epic bid to let App Store order take effect in Apple case
2 3 4
177
9K
SmokedMeat replied
Happy Independence Day, GAF
48
2K
German Hops replied
Ancient Roman figures brought to life via AI
Science 2 3
100
6K
Dirk Benedict replied
(Unanimous) Texas Supreme Court: No inherent right to gay marriage benefits
2 3
138
13K
Spoiled Milk replied
Majority of U.S. Muslims Now Support Gay Marriage, While White Evangelical Christians Remain Opposed
2 3
112
8K
Phoenix RISING replied
Top Bottom