Althouse: The transcript and the audio for this morning's oral argument about same-sex marriage is now available.

April 28, 2015

The transcript and the audio for this morning's oral argument about same-sex marriage is now available.

Get it at SCOTUSblog.

I'm going to listen, and I'll be back with some comments a while later.

UPDATE: SCOTUSblog removed the needed links from the top of its page. You can get the audio here and here and the transcripts — PDF and PDF — (at the Supreme Court's own page). The case name is Obergefell v. Hodges.

32 comments:

Etienne said...: Marriage licenses, like Drivers licenses, and Beautician licenses, are all State issued.

Although having a federal license for all these things may save money in the end.

I hope they federalize marriage. I know a woman and her daughter that would be good for that new federal industry.

States can get back to things more important.; 4/28/15, 1:35 PM
traditionalguy said...: A new millennium deserves a new culture for the next 1000 years.

But couldn't that big of a decision at least be made by a 2/3rds vote...6-3 and not the barely decided 5-4?; 4/28/15, 1:40 PM
Anonymous said...: That's the only question remaining right now.

How many Supremes think it's been written into our constitution that marriage isn't what we all thought it was these last centuries.

I'm going to be surprised if it is anything less than 6-3, but I'm going out on a limb and going to say it's 7-2.; 4/28/15, 2:00 PM
jimbino said...: Yo Eric,

Some 20 centuries ago, both Jesus and St Paul, lifetime bachelors, counseled against marriage.

Can you cite a Biblical model for modern Amerikan marriage? I didn't think so.; 4/28/15, 2:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Yo Jimbimo,

Genesis 2:22-24

Then the Lord God made a woman from the ribh he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh;

she shall be called ‘woman,’

for she was taken out of man.”

24That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.; 4/28/15, 2:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Yo Jimbino,

This is what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7:1-2

It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband

You see the but there? Paul says it's good not to marry because then you can devout your life to God, rather than splitting your attention between God and a woman.

However, he includes a but because he knows people burn with a passion for sex, and therefore, they should get married. To a woman.; 4/28/15, 2:17 PM
Patrick Henry was right! said...: The left wing Justices made only political arguments that would support their vote for homosexual marriage as state legislators.
This is an easy case based on Windsor. There is no federal constitutional right of any kind regarding marriage. It's a state issue. Loving was about racial animus, badges and incidents of slavery. Not the same thing, since we di dnot have a civil war to free the homosexuals. Windsor did that.; 4/28/15, 2:23 PM
Meade said...: "Not the same thing, since we di dnot have a civil war to free the homosexuals."

Maybe we learned our lesson about having civil wars.; 4/28/15, 2:35 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: "Maybe we learned our lesson about having civil wars."

Umm, we learned our lesson about slavery, and that civil wars were sometimes necessary.; 4/28/15, 2:41 PM
Etienne said...: If all the states stopped issuing licenses to anyone, would that help?

Hint, hint...; 4/28/15, 2:48 PM
jimbino said...: Yo Eric,

24That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

Where's the biblical "till death us do part" bit or the child-support bit or the mother-in-law bit, or any of the other curses that attend modern Amerikan marriage?; 4/28/15, 2:49 PM
Quayle said...: Ann,
Perhaps for our benefit, you could also discuss some points in one of the amicus briefs: (reposeted for ease of reading)

"Recognizing a new right to same-sex marriage would harm religious liberty. That harm is avoidable because neither the Constitution nor this Court’s precedents dictates a single definition of marriage for the Nation. Preserving religious liberty is a compelling reason not to give the Fourteenth Amendment a novel reading that would require every State to license and recognize marriage between persons of the same sex. At a minimum, the Court should carefully consider how a ruling mandating same-sex marriage would adversely affect religious liberty.

Our religious beliefs, reason, and practical experience with families lead us to support the man woman definition of marriage. Contrary to malicious caricatures, we do so not out of animus or ignorance but out of concern, conviction, and love. These beliefs are rooted in our theologies and in centuries of one-to one counseling and personal experience with intact and broken families, functionally fatherless children, and single mothers. These beliefs and experiences are also imbedded in our way of life and in the very identities of our people and faith communities. They form the basis of our families. They shape our judgments about what constitutes a just society and how that society is best ordered for the freedom and good of all. And, because they are based on our understanding of truths that do not change, we cannot abandon them as vestiges of what some suppose to be a benighted past.

A decision that traditional marriage laws are grounded in animus would demean us and our beliefs. It would stigmatize us as fools or bigots, akin to racists. In time it would impede full participation in democratic life, as our beliefs concerning marriage, family, and sexuality are placed beyond the constitutional pale. It would nullify our votes on key public policy issues – including on the laws before the Court in this case. Because we cannot renounce our scriptural beliefs, a finding of animus would consign us to second-class status as citizens whose religious convictions about vital aspects of society are deemed illegitimate. Assaults on our religious institutions and our rights of free exercise, speech, and association would intensify….

The Constitution marks a wiser course by leaving the people free to decide the great marriage debate through their State democratic institutions. Allowing all citizens an equal voice in shaping their common destiny is the only way the diverse views of a free people can be respected on this matter of profound political, social, and religious importance. That is the only way this issue can be resolved without inflicting grave harm on millions of religious believers and their cherished beliefs and institutions.; 4/28/15, 2:51 PM
mccullough said...: The second argument, whether states have to recognize same sex marriages performed in another case, is an interesting legal issue. The first issue, whether the Constitution requires same sex marriage, is an intersting political issue. The justices have no insight on this over any other citizen.; 4/28/15, 2:54 PM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: Meade said...

Maybe we learned our lesson about having civil wars.

Maybe you did, and maybe I did. Ta-Nehisi Coates, I'm not so sure about.; 4/28/15, 3:10 PM
Anonymous said...: http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/28/im-gay-and-i-oppose-same-sex-marriage/; 4/28/15, 3:40 PM
PB said...: Is a contract that is contingent on certain state laws, regulations or subsidies valid in other states?

No.

One state cannot compell or bind another state to actions which are not allowed in that other state's jurisdiction.; 4/28/15, 3:43 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: What's with calling it same sex marriage? Why don't they call it gay marriage or homosexual marriage?; 4/28/15, 3:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Jimbino rambled;

Where's the biblical "till death us do part" bit or the child-support bit or the mother-in-law bit, or any of the other curses that attend modern Amerikan marriage?

Do you think you're making sense? Are you drunk?; 4/28/15, 3:48 PM
jimbino said...: Eric says:

Do you think you're making sense? Are you drunk?

If I weren't drunk, I wouldn't be able to countenance your drivel. I asked for a biblical model for modern Amerikan marriage and you responded with a Genesis passage that has nothing to do with marriage whatsoever and much to do with sex and breeding.

I suggest the Biblical model to be that of the Book of Job.; 4/28/15, 3:53 PM
grandpa said...: As to the second Constitutional question, I think that Article 4 covers it: "Full, Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to public Acts, Records and Judicial Proceedings of every other State." States are to recognize same-sex marriages solemnized in other States where it the law.; 4/28/15, 3:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Jimbino spews;

If I weren't drunk, I wouldn't be able to countenance your drivel.

Drunk it is then.; 4/28/15, 3:56 PM
traditionalguy said...: I for one welcome you the gays into Marital Rules. Now, have you heard about Adultery and the special punishments it entails. Scripture says that when you commit sexual sin such as adultery you sin against your own body.

Welcome aboard.; 4/28/15, 4:11 PM
Carl Pham said...: Glad they restricted it to oral arguments.; 4/28/15, 4:19 PM
jr565 said...: Carl Pham wrote:
Glad they restricted it to oral arguments.

As opposed to anal arguments?; 4/28/15, 5:00 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: The S. Court upholding the right to SSM will end public fixation on/fighting about SSM/gay matters in exactly the same way the Obama presidency brought about an end t racial conflict in America.

It's hard to imagine a future where NPR devotes MORE time to (tendentious) stories about gay issues, but they'll find a way.; 4/28/15, 5:07 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: My NPR station this morning:
Story about local people tuning in to oral arguments: interview from two women who wed in another state, interview with a Lambda Legal worker excited about the case, interview with a couple who marched in a recent Pride parade on what the case means to them. StoryCorp segment with two gay men who recently married in the state (unofficially), how they met, fell in love, dealt with an ex-partner's death, etc. Anodyne quote from Governor's office saying the state will abide by any S. Court decision.
Fair and balanced, ya'll.; 4/28/15, 5:11 PM
John henry said...: Audio is NOT at Scotusblog.com. At least nowhere I could find. It is at the Supremecourt.gov site.

Here are the links to the MP3 files in 2 parts

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

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2014/14-556-q2; 4/28/15, 6:07 PM
Deirdre Mundy said...: They've already made up their minds. The oral arguments are just about how they're going to write up the justification for the forgone conclusion.; 4/28/15, 6:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Blogger Deirdre Mundy said...
They've already made up their minds. The oral arguments are just about how they're going to write up the justification for the forgone conclusion.

Yep.

And this has some serious consequences for our rule of law and society going forward.; 4/28/15, 6:14 PM
n.n said...: jr565:

The counterpart to oral in the nether region is rectal. The analog to the anus would be the mouth, but it doesn't provoke the same psychosexual or physical response.; 4/28/15, 7:22 PM
Etienne said...: eric said...And this has some serious consequences for our rule of law and society going forward.

I see it as a big win for law students.

Just think, you're expanding the marriage business 50%.

The number of divorces goes up, the need for lawyers goes up, the need for judges goes up.

Construction will be needed for larger court houses, capital buildings.

Streets will have to be widened.

It's a miracle from God! (well, I exaggerate)...; 4/29/15, 2:59 AM
SeanF said...: HoodlumDoodlum: The S. Court upholding the right to SSM will end public fixation on/fighting about SSM/gay matters in exactly the same way the Obama presidency brought about an end t racial conflict in America.

Oh, you missed the obvious analogy. "...in exactly the same way Roe v. Wade ended public fixation on/fighting about abortion."; 4/29/15, 8:29 AM