The following quotes on the Supreme Court's gay marriage arguments are from the New York Times article which can be viewed HERE.
Yesterday the Supreme Court heard arguments for two and a half hours on two cases involving gay marriage.
Justice Kennedy said:
“This definition has been with us for millennia. And it’s very difficult for the court to say, ‘Oh, well, we know better.’ ” He added that “the social science on this” — the value and perils of same-sex marriage — is “too new.”
Indeed, it has. And even ancient Rome, in the midst of their decline when homosexual behavior was quite common, even then, they did not recognize marriage as any other combination than that of a man and a woman.
Justice Kennedy went on:
Same-sex couples say, of course: ‘We understand the nobility and the sacredness of the marriage. We know we can’t procreate but we want the other attributes of it in order to show that we, too, have a dignity that can be fulfilled,’ ” Justice Kennedy said, strongly suggesting that the reasoning resonated with him.
And the attorney for the gay couple...
“….Mary L. Bonauto, representing more than a dozen gay and lesbian couples, urged the justices to remove “the stain of unworthiness” that marriage bans produce.”
When Justice Kennedy explains that gays want to be recognized as having "a dignity that can be fulfilled," I think he has inadvertently identified the true motivation behind the desire of gays to have their unions recognized as marriage. I know what I am about to say could be very hurtful to homosexuals, who would no doubt deny it. But it is important to speak the truth about matters of this grave importance. The issue of gay marriage, I believe, is about moral legitimacy. Gays want to be free from the awareness that many, many people believe that their intimate behavior is immoral. I imagine there is a very oppressive shame associated with the knowledge that great religions, such as Christianity, have always taught that their unions are gravely against the good.
Yes, I have no doubt that gays would like the "stain of unworthiness" to be removed. But the Supreme Court, no matter how they rule, cannot do that.
Justice Scalia asked:
“Do you know of any society, prior to the Netherlands in 2001, that permitted same-sex marriage?” he asked Ms. Bonauto. She said no, at least as a legal matter.”
“You’re not seeking to join the institution,” he said. “You’re seeking to change what the institution is.”
Justice Breyer said, "Marriage is about as basic a right as there is."
Now I am not a judge or a Constitutional scholar. I'm not even an attorney. But I have read the Bill of Rights and a right for members of the same sex to marry is not in there. Are there innate human rights that are not in the Constitution? Well, yes, and the most basic is surely a right to life, a right that the Supreme Court threw out the window in 1973. There is no "right to marriage," it would seem to me, Justice Breyer. And isn't that the entire point of this case? Is it not to determine whether or not there is such a right?
If the Supreme Court rules that there is a Constitutional "right to marriage" for gays (and who knows what other combinations down the road. There is no legitimate reason to prevent other combos if they decide there is a "right to marry.") Then the name of the Supreme Court should be changed to the Supreme Oligarchs.
I for one have had enough of the Supreme Court usurping the democratic process. Everyone knows full well there is no right to abortion in the Constitution and there is no right to gay marriage. If they rule that there is, I hope there will be a powerful and deliberate effort on the part of the American people to at least require terms limits for these oligarchs!!