Sue and Joe and Tom
Chief Justice John Roberts, during the oral arguments made in April before the Supreme Court regarding the issue of gay marriage:
“If Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?”
This notion that laws against gay marriage may be based in sexual discrimination, that is discrimination by reason of gender NOT orientation, is a new twist and one that might have far reaching consequences beyond the whole gay marriage case. The justices met on May 1 in private conference and took their vote on whether gay marriage should be legal in all fifty states, but we won’t know their decision till the end of this month. But based on what went on in the oral arguments, legal experts predict the vote may even be a 6 to 3 majority, with Roberts siding this us.
Wonder what the odds the bookies in Vegas are giving.
As for the opposition, it appeared they made a case as wimpy as a methed-up cock coming down from Viagra. Besides the silly procreation argument going south (how many str8 couples marry for companionship or money, not to have kids?), opponents claimed legalizing SSM would “reduce the rate that opposite sex couples stay together.” Why? Because a lot of DL guys would leave their wives for their boyfriends? Also total bullshit is the tired old states rights claim that such change in the institution “imposes a substantial burden on the state’s ability to self-govern.” Huh? Aren’t they going to make the same money off SSM licenses that they would off of heteros’? If states rights ruled supreme after the civil rights legislation of the sixties, Alabama would still have white water fountains and colored water fountains.
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito did make the point that if “we rule in your favor … and then after that a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license, would there be any grounds for denying them a license?” Maybe not, but from what I hear, polygamy is still alive and well out West. And again, who cares? The only complication as I see it is who sleeps with who when.
I remember liberal Associate Justice Elena Kagan last year, when the Supreme Court stopped short of making SSM the law of the land, commented that it was a social issue that needed to “percolate.”
Well, I think that coffee pot has boiled all over the stove by now, wouldn’t you say?