Only in June will we know if gay marriage is crossing the Alabama state line into Georgia!

A divide court takes same-sex marriage head on

By Gary S. Cox

While the national media eyes were focused on this past Tuesday’s oral arguments for Obergefell v. Hodges, Monday’s actions by the U.S. Supreme Court slipped under the radar of most of the

Forbes

Forbes

mainstream media. In an early morning announcement, the High Court released a statement declining to issue a stay requested by the Alabama Attorney General to block same-sex marriages until the much anticipated late June 2015 ruling. The vote was 7 to 2 NOT to issue the stay. This action, in effect, legalized same-sex marriages in our neighboring state, bringing same-sex marriage to Georgia’s borders. The court could have easily issued the stay. Some court pundits indicate the Alabama case portends the ultimate June ruling – otherwise, “Why allow same-sex marriages in Alabama to move forward only to have them called in legal limbo at a later date?”

As for Tuesday’s oral arguments, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg proved herself to be the liberal Titan she is. She gutted the “traditional marriage” argument by stating, “Marriage was a relationship of a dominant male to a subordinate female … the court ended that concept in 1982 when Louisiana’s ‘Head and Master Rule’ was struck down …” Ginsberg did the same thing with the rationale that marriage was to promote strong relations and for procreation; she set about systematically attacking any arguments against same-sex marriage. Justice Ginsberg was equally combative in the second hour of arguments over whether or not a state has the right to refuse to recognize a marriage lawfully made in another state. She called it “unprecedented” for another state not to recognize a marriage legally made in another state.

Justice Kennedy, who is considered the “decider” (the swing vote), seemed, on occasion to argue both for “traditional marriage” questioning whether the court should be redefining marriage and for same-sex marriage noting that gay people are capable of being loving parents through adoption and procreation is not the sole purpose of marriage.  It was noted by many court watchers that Kennedy didn’t “tip his hand” until the question of whether one state has the right to refuse to recognize the marriage lawfully made in another state. Kennedy remained silent … this is a moot point if the court rules in favor of same-sex marriage, thus Kennedy’s silence.

The most surprising question from the bench came from Chief Justice John Roberts. At the opening of the session, Roberts asked, “I’m not sure it is necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve this case. I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?” His point of it being a sex discrimination case was not argued by either side, leaving open the possibility of the Chief Justice being a possible 5th vote not based on citizens having a constitutional right to marry but solely on gender bias.