Audio From the Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage Arguments

[suzifrommd]

Audio From the Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage Arguments

By The New York Times   April 28, 2015

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/28/us/same-sex-marriage-supreme-court-excerpts.html

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments Tuesday on two questions about states allowing same-sex couples to marry.

[iKate]

The full audio is available on SCOTUS website.

Question 1:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2014/14-556-q1

Question 2:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2014/14-556-q2

[suzifrommd]

OK, I made it all the way through the first transcript. Some observations:

* Roberts, Scalia, and Alito seemed dead set against. I can't imagine them voting in favor of same sex marriage. Sotomeyer, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kagen all made arguments in favor and I'd expect them to vote that way. Kennedy seemed on the fence. He didn't like the respondent's argument about the states compelling interest in preventing same-sex marriage, but he also didn't like the court redefining marriage.

* Was Justice Thomas even THERE???

* The first attorney arguing in favor, Mary Bonauto, seemed tentative and scattershot. I wasn't impressed with her responses. Solicitor General Verilli was much more polished. The attorney for the respondents also didn't impress. He spent too much time talking about how same-sex marriage will erode the bond between married couples and their kids long after it became obvious that only hurt his arguments.

Still, I don't think this is quite the slam dunk everyone thinks it is. It will come down to whether Justice Kennedy is comfortable imposing the court's will on the states, something he seemed somewhat uncomfortable with at times.

[Sydney_NYC]

^^^^^^^^^^^

I totally agree with you as I had the same thoughts. I thought the first attorney arguing in favor, Mary Bonauto really missed the boat when asked why should the court force the state to redefine marriage as same sex marriage has only been around for a very very short time. She tried to say that it's been changing all the time as it has recently. She was asked what has changed in the last 100-200 years. She did mention more rights for women and that women have their rights now too. I think she should have pointed out the it was only a little longer than that, that marriage was more for controlling the wealth of a family to keep wealth in a family. It was not originally a religious thing, but a business contract from one family to another. We've now gone way beyond that now and recently redefined marriage in that sense. It's simply time to redefine it now. Just the fact that they are discussing it as a gay marriage has already redefined it. I think the justice was incorrect to say that traditional marriage hasn't changed in a millennia when it has many times already even prior to SSM.

[iKate]

* Was Justice Thomas even THERE???

Thomas almost never speaks during oral arguments. Every one I've listened to, I've rarely heard him say a word.

Still, I don't think this is quite the slam dunk everyone thinks it is. It will come down to whether Justice Kennedy is comfortable imposing the court's will on the states, something he seemed somewhat uncomfortable with at times.

It will come down to Kennedy being the swing vote. However I can see a 5-4 decision in favor. 6-3 is an unlikely possibility but still a possibility.