Live blog: Obergefell v. Hodges
-
So several Justices wanted to know, for example, whether a state could deny recognition to all marriages performed in another state. They were skeptical when the suggestion was that a state might be able to do that.
-
More on disruption during Supreme Court args on same-sex marriage, from @Tonymauro: spectator shouted #ssm was a sin http://t.co/55yN3qE4Mm
— Zoe Tillman (@ZoeTillman) April 28, 2015 -
There is some reason to wonder whether the Chief might be angling for a compromise in which the states win the first question (i.e., they do not have to permit same-sex marriages to be performed in their states) but lose the second (i.e., they would have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states). It's very hard to read the Chief, but he did ask questions in the second argument expressing some skepticism over the fact that states don't, in fact, deny recognition to any marriage that does not conform with state law, except same-sex marriages. And, as I mentioned, Justice Scalia asked questions suggesting he might think there was a reason based in the text of Article 4 that would justify ruling for the couples on recognition but not the right to marry. So one could imagine a potential compromise that would effectively allow same sex couples to get married in states that allow it, have their marriages recognized elsewhere, but not have the Court issue a decision that has broad implications for other kinds of sexual orientation discrimination.
-
On the other hand, Justice Kennedy's near silence in the second argument suggests that he did not think that the second question was likely all that important. The only significant question he asked was something like "if we assume states have a sufficiently strong interest that they do not have to allow same-sex marriages in their own state, doesn't that necessarily mean the states have a strong enough interest to permit them to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states?"
-
Of note, everyone seemed to agree that if the couples win the second question on recognition, then a couple living in TN could go to another state (say, MD), get married, come back to TN, and TN would have to treat them as married.
-
If same sex couples lose on marriage, they may face uphill fight on recognition in #SCOTUS. Kennedy quiet.
— Marcia Coyle (@MarciaCoyle) April 28, 2015 -
At 27:00 in the #SCOTUS audio for Question 1: 20 seconds of loud protest against same-sex marriage. http://t.co/owmJPtzY9r
— Victoria Kwan (@victoriakwan_) April 28, 2015 -
To explain a little further, Article 4 says: "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." There were questions about whether a marriage certificate counts as a public act or record?
-
#SCOTUS seems willing to rule that states banning #gaymarriage must recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere #ReutersSCOTUS
— Reuters Legal (@ReutersLegal) April 28, 2015 -
Kennedy's relative silence in the second argument may be good evidence that he intends to rule in favor of the couples on the main question -- that is, it suggests he will vote to require states to allow same-sex marriages in their own states, which will effectively moot the question of whether they are required to recognize the same-sex marriages performed in other states.
-
With oral arguments now over: Justice Anthony Kennedy, a pivotal vote, seemed open to legalizing gay marriage nationwide.
— Lawrence Hurley (@lawrencehurley) April 28, 2015 -
But could it also mean that Kennedy thinks that the second question is totally unnecessary because whatever the decision is on the first should carry over to the second? That is, as you reported him asking, "if we assume states have a sufficiently strong interest that they do not have to allow same-sex marriages in their own state, doesn't that necessarily mean the states have a strong enough interest to permit them to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states?"
-
I am predicting Scalia and Roberts will possibly vote against the states on marriage recognition issue. Is it possible ?
-
Were there any question regarding the Baker v. Nelson case? Even indirectly? Judge Sutton gave it considerable thought in his decision.
-
Ted Olson -- who argued Perry v. Hollingsworth -- at the Court today.
The Legal Times had this story on him earlier this month.
-
You indicated the sense was the first question would make the second question moot. Was there any indication that someone tried to reverse that thought and argue the second question would make the first moot? Essentially if states were forced to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere, what rationale would they have to continue to ban the granting of marriage licenses other than animus? That essentially it would legalize gay marriage in their state other than adding an additional requirement of travel to a state where the marriage could legally be performed.
-
Karen Bleier provides commentary at The Daily Beast, especially on how Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts may vote.
-
Kennedy sends mixed signals as Supreme Court divides on gay marriage http://t.co/wdeTGNJ1qZ via @bpolitics #SCOTUS #SSM
— Greg Stohr (@GregStohr) April 28, 2015 -
If SCOTUS rules in favor of SSM, would it then be a requirement for anyone performing marriages to perform same-sex marriages? Does this include churches?
-
So after the oral arguments today when would SCOTUS actually make and announce their ruling?
-
Was there any discussion of whether this would affect 1st amendment exercise of religion rights, for people like Bakers, Florists, or pizza shop owners, who will not provide services for Gay marriages?
-
BuzzFeed's Chris Geidner: A 5-4 vote in favor of same-sex couples’ marriage rights appears to be the most likely outcome, although Chief Justice John Roberts’ vote shouldn’t be counted out.
-
There are two issues before SCOTUS today in regards to SSM. When it comes time to issue a ruling, will it be two separate rulings or just one? Or do we know?
-
Mary Bonauto addresses media after the argument.
Photo credit: @freedomtomarry -
I'm curious, when the oral arguments were finished, do the justices immediately get together to discus their votes?
-
I have heard a saying: "you can't win a case at oral argument, but you can lose one." Did either side do anything to help or hurt either their case or the case of the opponents?
-
Personal conversations with gay rights advocates revealed to me that the majority of them would not be appeased by allowing civil unions of same-sex couples; they insist on "marriage" Why this attitude when the issues that drive the same-sex marriage question would be satisfied by a "civil union"?
-
Did Kennedy's questioning in Windsor make similar references to "millennia"?
-
Could the Federal government preempt State marriage law discriminating between same- and opposite-sex couples?
-
-
The live blog received 211,799 page views, with an average of 20k watchers at a time, and SCOTUSblog has received 315,000 hits so far today. Thank you all for joining us!
-
Which seems more likely: 5-4 with Kennedy, or 6-3 with Roberts writing a narrower holding?
-
Will there be two separate rulings in this case, one for each question part?
-
Amy is just about to publish her recap of the argument In Plain English. Lyle will also have an in-depth analysis later this afternoon. Thanks again for joining us. We will be live-blogging again tomorrow as opinions are announced.
Submit Event
