Profoundly Confused by Analysis of the SCOTUS Oral Arguments on Gay Marriage

Supremes

It always confuses me how special rights are equal rights.
Check it out:


The Supreme Court had oral arguments today on Proposition 8 in California, same-sex marriage. This is another thing that confused me, because what happened, people started sending me tweets from the SCOTUSblog. Now, the SCOTUSblog, Supreme Court of the United States, is a blog run by people who apparently are excellent at interpreting the questions and comments made by the justices during oral arguments and then making predictions on how the case will end up based on that.

So I’m getting all of these tweets, and they’re very conflicting. But I’m being told that they all mean the same thing, but I’m looking at ’em and they can’t possibly mean the same thing. Here’s the upshot of it. Oral arguments were held today, and the Bloomberg story on this — and the SCOTUSblog people made note of this as well — the US Supreme Court raised the prospect that it will decline to say whether the Constitution gives homosexuals the right to marry in an argument that reveals a deep divide among the justices.

Now, the SCOTUSblog said unequivocally… This was not a prediction from these guys. They said that after oral arguments, there were not five votes to invalidate Prop 8. That’s the first thing. They said that after they’d studied the oral argument questions and comments and so forth from both lawyers (all the justices that participated), that there were not five votes to essentially legalize same-sex marriage. There were not five votes to overturn Prop 8.

GET MORE STORIES LIKE THIS

IN YOUR INBOX!

Sign up for our daily email and get the stories everyone is talking about.

Email

Previous post

Why Draw the Line at Couples?

Next post

No Standing at the Ninth Circus?

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.