Today was gay-marriage day at the Supreme Court. Read the transcript here.
Key points, I think, were two lines of questioning directed from the bench to Ted Olson, one from Antonin Scalia (“You ”” you’ve led me right into a question I was going to ask…”), and one from Sonia Sotomayor (“Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you’re being asked…”).
I think Mr. Olson’s response to Justice Sotomayor was either an equivocation on the concept of “conduct” (I don’t see why marriage is “conduct” for some and not for others), or question-begging on the definition of marriage (which of course the matter being decided).
The respondents (that is, Mr. Olson and amicus curiae Donald Verrilli, who want to see California’s ban on SSM overturned) also found themselves in the curious position of arguing that a same-sex marriage ban would be unconstitutional in states that have already established civil unions with parallel benefits for gay couples, but would be constitutional in less-progressive states that haven’t! As Justice Breyer points out, this could cause states where there is scant support for gay marriage to be reluctant even to consider recognizing civil unions.
Anyway, go and have a look yourself, and see what you think. It’s important and instructive to read these things — legislation, arguments in the Court, executive orders, etc. This is where the rubber meets the road; this is all there is. This is where abstractions are transduced into realities that affect us all.
One Comment
Still have my address Malcolm? Besides having to temporarily rent a keyboard which, I’ll want the fee included along with the new keyboard you’ll be sending along.
Remember, poor ol’ JK keeps odd hours and beginning a post with:
Today was gay-marriage day at the Supreme Court.
is apt to beget spluttering.
(I’m thinking due to my mind’s eye conjuring immediately Justices Scalia and Kennedy … the fishmonger must’ve replaced my tuna not with escolar but rather puffer.)