March toward matrimony

[question everything]

This graphics says it all

[question everything]

1. Self kick (not that any DUer needs any convincing) (nt)

[hifiguy]

2. Fence-sitters on the SCOTUS tend to take note of prevailing

social trends. I still say 6-3 for marriage equality.

[question everything]

3. Agree. And I love Justice Ginsburg comment

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/04/29/3652468/justice-ginsburg-eviscerates-case-marriage-equality-just-five-sentences/

[Same-sex couples] wouldn’t be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was a millennium ago. I mean, it wasn’t possible. Same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a subordinate relationship. Yes, it was marriage between a man and a woman, but the man decided where the couple would be domiciled; it was her obligation to follow him.

There was a change in the institution of marriage to make it egalitarian when it wasn’t egalitarian. And same-sex unions wouldn’t — wouldn’t fit into what marriage was once.

[hifiguy]

4. The most interesting question of the whole argument for me

came from Roberts: "Can't we decide this case under settled sex-discrimination law?"

If he goes that way, Ginsburg can show him the way there. She MADE most of "settled sex-discrimination law" as an attorney arguing in front of the SCOTUS. Roberts seems to be looking for the most uncontroversial precedents to use as a basis for affirming marriage equality.