New York Times to SCOTUS: Rule Broadly for Gay Marriage

Even as the Supreme Court justices - motivated by bigotry or cowardice - scramble looking for ways to stop the inevitable tide toward nationwide marriage equality and duck the main issue of Hollingsworth v. Perry, the out pouring of support from major newspapers and individuals continues to grow.  Indeed, Facebook when very red yesterday as an HRC image exploded across the Internet.  Meanwhile, the National Organization for Marriages anti-gay hate march turned out underwhelming numbers despite much hoopla by NOM in its lead up.  Joining the chorus of publications urging the Court to face the marriage equality issue is the New York Times (locally, both the Daily Press and Virginian Pilot have taken this stance).  Here are excerpts from the Times editorial:

If the court decides the case on the merits, it is hard to imagine that a majority could be swayed by the arguments offered by Charles Cooper, the lawyer for the marriage ban’s supporters. Even if his presentation had been more fluent, there was no way to overcome the incoherence of his position.

The core of Mr. Cooper’s argument was that a ruling allowing same-sex marriage would be “redefining” marriage in a way that undermines the “responsible procreation” of children. Yet California allows same-sex couples to adopt children, and many heterosexual couples who can’t have children get married. 

When Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked him if — outside the marriage context — he could “think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens,” he could not. When Justice Elena Kagan asked him to describe “what harm to the institution of marriage or to opposite-sex couples” would occur if same-sex couples were allowed to marry, he failed to provide a single example.

Neither the Federal District Court in California nor the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found any of his arguments persuasive.

By contrast, Theodore Olson, representing the supporters of same-sex marriage, had the benefit of solid logic on his side. Noting the long line of Supreme Court cases that have declared marriage a fundamental right, he argued that society had no rational basis denying same-sex couples the dignity that marriage affords. 

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who may be a swing vote, remarked, “We have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more.” But he pointed out to Mr. Cooper, “There are some 40,000 children in California” with same-sex parents and “they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don’t you think?” 

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., in support of Mr. Olson’s clients, made a cautious, lawyerly argument that the court should rule that California and the seven other states that allow civil unions equivalent to marriage could not deny same-sex couples the status of marriage — and should leave for another day the broader issue as applied to all other states. But he acknowledged that “waiting is not a neutral act” and that it “imposes real costs.”

Personally,  I find the blather about only having "five years of information" disingenuous.  The reality is that millions of children are living with gay parents and they are harmed every single day by the denial of marriage rights to their parents.  But then again, the Christofascists don't really give a damn about children, at least not after they come out of the womb.  Their hypocrisy is as always stunning.