10 Questions the Supreme Court Asked in Obergefell v Hodges Marriage Case

·      Chief Justice Roberts asked whether expanding marriage to include gay couples would lead to marriage’s redefinition

We’ve already redefined marriage: Did Ginsburg’s Dad get a dowry for her?

Did Elena Kagan get raped by her husband and have to marry her?

Was Sotomayor a virgin on her wedding day? Better yet, why not stone Calista Gingrich now?

Can Ginny Thomas be sued under her own name?

Can Alito’s wife own property in her own name?

These already show that we’ve redefined marriage today as a union of equals rather than societally defined roles that are dictated to us. The only definition of marriage is between the two people in it

·         Justice Kennedy expressed concern about whether it was prudent for the Supreme Court to step in and change the definition of an institution that was as old, to use his language as “millennia.” In short, he asked whether it was is imprudent and unwise to suggest that the Supreme Court knows better than ancient history and its belief about marriage.

We’re not talking about the “millennia” What has happened over the millennia? Women were traded for goats, polygamous marriages (Kings and nobility who could afford such), political marriages to join two warring houses or kingdoms, women were also married off when they were teens, arranged marriages, the list can go on and on. There are a lot of traditions that we have abandoned as time goes on. There were once laws that were thought prudent and necessary but only served to oppress

·         Justice Alito expressed skepticism at the idea that traditional or biblical marriage “demeans” gay people. He asked the lawyer in support of same-sex marriage whether that was a “primary purpose.”

Belief in “traditional” marriage? Which tradition is you talking about? I've outlined some earlier and the marriage bans are beliefs codified into law and people can’t just legislate their beliefs without a compelling governmental reason one that is valid no matter who is entering into it, be that straight or gay people, family members or other. It has to make sense because otherwise, it fails

·         Along this same line of questioning, Justice Alito observed that while ancient cultures like Greece embraced homosexuality, they still held marriage as distinct. He asked, “So their limiting marriage to couples of the opposite sex was not based on prejudice against gay people, was it?”

Again this was a different time and culture. Homosexuality and marriage in many cultures were celebrated in places like China, Africa and even in Greco Roman culture. Those relationships were looked at as a rite of passage though I’ve heard they sometimes ended in marriage, or until they were pledged to be married to the opposite sex. But they had a different concept of same sex relationships than we do, along with an understanding of marriage that may not be compatible with life today

·          Justice Breyer hinted at perhaps the most important aspect of this particular case: Letting the states decide. He suggested that this debate is working itself out in the states, asking why not “wait and see whether in fact doing so in other states is or is not harmful to marriage?”

The same thing was said in the Loving case and guess what? The races are still here, sky hasn’t fallen, churches are still able to refuse interracial weddings and what bad came to marriage from interracial couples being married? NOT A THING…The state already decided and it violated Equal Protection. The states don’t get to have a law shielded from constitutional review because they passed it. If that is the case, Equal Protection means nothing

·         Because marriage policy should always be based on sound principle, Justice Alito questioned whether redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would allow polygamous couples to marry. He asked: “What would be the logic of denying them the same right?”

The magic number here is TWO…a Civil Contract between TWO PARTIES! Not only that but I see this question posed to myself and other people who support marriage equality being asked this. This is not my fight and I won’t make the case for or against polygamy because I don’t want polygamy. I just want to be able to make sure that my marriage to my future husband is recognized when I cross state lines.

·         Referencing Bob Jones University’s wrong and sinful banning of interracial dating, Alito asked whether redefining marriage would eventually pose risks (such as the loss of tax-exempt status) to the religious liberty of religious institutions.

This is as ridiculous as Scalia asking if ministers will be forced to officiate marriages they don’t agree with. Not only that but they violated Governmental policy “Under pre-1970 IRS regulations, tax exemptions were awarded to private schools regardless of their racial admissions policies, and Bob Jones University was approved for a tax exemption under that policy. Pursuant to a 1970 revision to IRS regulations that limited tax-exempt status to private schools without racially discriminatory admissions policies, the IRS informed the University on November 30, 1970 that the IRS was planning on revoking its tax exempt status as a "religious, charitable . . . or educational" institution. In response, the University filed suit in 1971 in Bob Jones University v. Schultz.” There was a change in the law that prompted this but the other part is this wasn’t about forcing anyone to officiate a marriage. They blurred the lines with this concern. This policy was later reversed

·         Several of the Court’s more liberal justices pressed what the actual harms are of same-sex marriage. They seemed insistent that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples will not result in tangible harms to society. In short, they thought the state lacked sufficient purpose to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. Along the same lines, they argued that there are “dignitary harms” of denying children the opportunity to grow up in a married same-sex household.

This was the tone that persisted through the arguments when the states presented their cases. Of course procreation and bonding to parents were cited, but infertile couples can marry and children will bond to their parents regardless of the gender of their parents. The kids of gay couples have to be protected too and these marriage bans fall drastically short of the dignity they deserve

·         Justice Sotomayor stated that marriage is a right embedded in the Constitution. Her question was how to continue exercising that right and finding a just cause for excluding some groups from marrying and not others.

Turner v Safley established that the right to marry extended to prisoners. Roadhail v Zablocki said the right extended to deadbeat dads, Loving v Virginia Interracial Couples and not only that but the Court has said some pretty profound things about marriage that extend to both opposite gender and same gender couples. You don’t have to be a man and a woman to commit to one another, love one another, take care of one another. Gay couples are already doing this but our legal rights are spotty if we’re traveling and we have to take our kids to the hospital or an emergency comes up where both need to be recognized like moving to a different state. Louisiana refused to put both parents on a birth certificate for a child, so one of that child’s parents have no rights if the listed parent dies.

·         Justice Ginsberg questioned the attorney defending traditional marriage whether a procreative definition of marriage required prohibiting 70-year olds from marrying (on the biological assumption that elderly individuals cannot and will not procreate).

You don’t have to marry to procreate and you don’t have to procreate to be married. The justification doesn’t stack up because all marriages don’t have to have kids in order to be valid in Civil Society

I have two comments I posted this one on their post


Simply put, legal civil marriage should prevail in the Court. Gay people are raising kids, they need the dignity and respect that straight people need in their homes, when they travel to other states, etc.
Letting the people vote has never solved constitutional crises and it shouldn’t be looked at as a solution. When the states violated Equal Protection & Due Process with Sodomy laws, they could’ve voted all day but they still would’ve been violating the Constitutionally protected activity and privacy rights of those couples. There is no way around that
Religion or tradition is not a way to uphold a law that is unfair and violating our Constitution. No matter how you slice it, the Constitution protects those who agree with me, and those who disagree with me,

Ryan Anderson wrote a  piece about the SCOTUS hearings and I commented this below:(http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/28/inside-the-court-judges-dont-have-a-crystal-ball-on-marriage/?utm_source=The+Witherspoon+Institute&utm_campaign=aad0f5114f-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_15ce6af37b-aad0f5114f-84103917)

1. Marriage is not about kids, if it were kids would be mandated to make the choices about marriage of their parents

2. Did Justice Kagan's dad get livestock for her or RBG?> She's probably old enough to remember that lol
Did Scalia rape a woman and forced to marry her?
Can Ginny Thomas be sued under her own name?
Did Sotomayor marry someone who's not Hispanic?

We've already changed marriage over the MILLENNIA

3. Let the people vote doesn't change the fact that we are faced with a clear violation of the rights and dignity of gay couples and their children. Slavery, women's suffrage, women's reproductive freedoms, Civil Rights & Voting Rights Act all wouldn't have been upheld at the ballot box

4. The will of the people isn't above Constitutional review. To say otherwise makes Equal Protection a hollow concept w/ no force
So I hope you enjoyed the post. The post where the source material is from is here: http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2015/04/29/top-10-questions-the-supreme-court-justices-asked-on-the-constitutional-right-to-same-sex-marriage/