Audio of today's hearing has been released: HTTP://tinyurl.com/dxefy2a
Haven't listened yet but stories sound like the chance of a nationwide ruling - or any ruling beyond California - are pretty bleak. I didn't think the court would be that bold but I have to say I'm a little disappointed nonetheless.
However the news for CA residents appears much more hopeful. The Supremes don't sound like they want to touch the case, and if that happens, marriages could resume in CA.
On to DOMA tomorrow. Since it involves federal law, I don't think the justices will be able to duck it so easily.
Now, undoubtedly, the right would sic their attack-dog legal groups like the Liberty Counsel on the issue and come up with all sorts of bizarre ideas to prevent marriages, but I don't see nearly as many avenues for success.
Also, if you prefer to build consensus by allowing the state-by-state strategy, there is a real fairness issue involved. People in states like Texas or Mississippi might have to wait DECADES to marry while those in New York have already been doing so. Yes, one could always move, but is it really fair to require someone to give up possibly their lifetime home so they can enjoy a right that others have by virtue of place of residence?
Anyway, it's clear the court isn't about to issue a broad ruling yet, so we have to keep plugging away and test the court again when more states have made marriage legal and when the polls are even stronger.
The news was much better on DOMA, however. In today's hearing, it was pretty clear that a majority of the court is considering at least overturning the benefits portion of the law. I always expected that likely, as the law is just blatantly unconstitutional to anyone who believes that gay people are full U.S. citizens (which some conservatives do not).
Where I part with you is that it's not as simple as you're going to get married or you're not. Who would think that after all of these years since Roe v. Wade that women, in some states, would have to submit to a vaginal sonogram if they want an abortion? Every year, conservative politically leaning states continue to pass more onerous laws making access to a safe abortion illegal, expensive, difficult, and/or non-existent. I'm amazed to the ends that some of these state legislatures will go to inhibit rights of individuals, and the same stands with same-sex marriage. Look at the funding that was pulled for women with prenatal care in Texas because it was supposedly associated with abortion, or look at the post yesterday about the legislators having a fit over a mop sink as they thought it was for Muslims to wash their feet--you don't think these same legislators will not bring forth laws trying to inhibit the rights and benefits of same-sex couples if there is a broad ruling? That's Ginsburg's point. If it's fought state by state, rather than some judicial fiat those championing against same-sex marriage will ultimately loose and it will be part of the fabric of the nation. If it's imposed from the court then it's going to be a long fight, and no, the conservatives critics will not "quickly die down".
A sweeping ruling would lead to blood-curdling howls from conservatives, bigots and the religious right. But those would quickly die down. But I think the court is afraid of being vilified as a liberal activist court.
The public is going to have to lead the way on this issue. The good news is its getting there. But not enough yet to persuade the court.
The justices appear to want no part of the prop 8 case. Let's see what they think about DOMA. People are actually being harmed by that law so I don't see how they can avoid dealing with it.
In one of your earlier blogs Bear, I was trying to state (in the most syntactically challenged double negative way!) that it does not look like [the laws] will change in in Texas anytime soon when it comes to today's hearing. The justices have different motivations for not wanting to make a broad ruling. The most telling I think is Ginsburg, while obviously a supporter of same-sex marriage, does not want to make a broad ruling only in that she thinks it will hurt the cause and make for years of excessive litigation. I can understand her logic in that it should be decided and codified in a civil debate state by state rather than judicial fiat, but it so sucks thinking of all the fighting and bigotry that will have to be overcome in a state by state process.
Here's an article in the Times from a couple of days ago that gets more into some of the liberal justices' thinking, some of the comments in the article were mirrored in today's case: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/us/roes-shadow- … l&_r=0 I'm unsuccessful at posting a link from the New Yorker, but Jeffrey Toobin, in the March 11 issue, writes on Justice Ginsburg and gives an interesting analysis of where she thinks this case is heading. It's worth the read if you can access it.
In the interim, I can only hope for the best.