First off, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said he thought that issues like marriage equality should be left to public vote. Joe.My.God reports:
In a speech titled “Mullahs of the West: Judges as Moral Arbiters,” the outspoken and conservative jurist told the N.C. Bar Association that constitutional law is threatened by a growing belief in the “judge moralist.” In that role, judges are bestowed with special expertise to determine right and wrong in such matters as abortion, doctor-assisted suicide, the death penalty and same-sex marriage. Scalia said that approach presents two problems: Judges are not moral experts, and many of the moral issues now coming before the courts have no “scientifically demonstrable right answer.” As such, he said, it’s a community’s job to decide what it finds morally acceptable, not the courts’. While justices are not permitted to comment on pending cases, the Charlotte Observer notes that Scalia “frequently listed homosexuality” among the issues that should not be ruled upon by judges.
Over at NBC news Miranda Leitsinger reports that marriage equality opponents are threatening a constitutional amendment Supreme Court doesn’t rule their favor:
John Eastman, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, which has plowed tens of millions of dollars into more than 30 votes on state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, wouldn’t elaborate on the strategy meetings. But he said “every possible scenario and outcome and gambit are being considered because this fight is critically important. If the Supreme Court … manufactures a right to same-sex marriage out of the Constitution, then the remedy would be a constitutional amendment,” he said Friday. The Family Research Council has supported a marriage amendment in the past, Sprigg said.
Yeah, good luck with that – you couldn’t even get that off the ground when you had George Bush as president and a Republican Congress. And things have changed.
And finally, over at the Huffington Post, Waymon Hudson looks at the US Supreme Court and the marriage equality cases in a new video:
The latest episode of Gay TV on the Go’s LGBT politics show Critical Thinking Hosted by Waymon Hudson breaks down the arguments and possible outcomes of the two historic marriage equality cases being heard by the Supreme Court. The first case is Hollingsworth v. Perry, which challenges the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in that state. The second case is United States v. Windsor, which takes on the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage only as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” for federal recognition and benefits.
See the video at the link above.
One more day (or maybe four more days) until the Court rules. Pins and needles, I tell you.