The Supreme Court wasn't constituted to decide if society is "ready" for this or that. So what' may or may not have been been done for millennium-plus has nothing to do with anything. Their job is to make determinations of US law.

This was made inevitable when the state starting providing legal benefits to married people. It becomes a simple equality under the law question.

"A license from the government to a private citizen doesn't come with a requirement that they exercise it consistently."

Pharmacists and AIDS meds, pharmacists and abortificants, etc. This gets it on record from liberal justices that religion still gets to trump some issues.

I personally can not wait for the flood of gay wedding invitations. I eagerly anticipate going to a different, awesomely fabulous reception party every weekend for years.

You know that's a picture of Alito, not Scalia as the caption suggests, right? I would hope so, given that you're reporting on the Supreme Court.

Also, fuck the shitty forced use of Shutterstock photos all over Slog, it is so low-budget and annoying.

Why do you have a picture of Chief Justice Roberts labeled as Justice Scalia?

You know that's a picture of Ruth Bader Ginsberg right? And not Scalia at all?

Since marriage is an agreement between two, and only two individuals, extending it to same sex couples constitutes no redefinition while extending it to polygamists would. The entire legal code surrounding marriage would have to be rewritten, while nothing at all changes when same sex couples gain legal recognition.

I'm not opposed to polygamy getting legal recognition one day, but someone will have to work out the law, and find a way to ensure that all parties entering into plural marriage are given equal protection. And those fighting for that change will have to show that that's how they envision their polygamist marriages. The FLDS version must remain quite illegal, and they'll have to be denied a place in the campaign by fair minded polygamists who really do see all partners as equals.

Bursch's arguments appear to revolve around marriage being about procreation. Not all heterosexual couples have children and gay couples can have children so that argument doesn't make sense.

@8, it probably makes all the sense in the world to four justices, especially the Catholic one with all the kids and grandkids.

And FWIW, today is Justice Kagan's 55th Birthday - hardly "old" even by Millennial hipster standards.

I'm pro-marriage equality... but I've got a bone to pick with two of your statements:

1) While this argument may compare favorably to Loving v. Virginia for the purposes of some of the legal questions and potential outcomes at play, I don't think it works historically. When the Court was considering the question of interracial marriages, which had been outlawed in the U.S., it was pretty clear that such marriages were allowed in other places and had occurred throughout history.

2) People always like to make fun of Scalia (I know, it's easy), but he has one of the sharpest legal minds in this country, and he doesn't bring up questions just for the fun of it. It IS a good question to ask how a state could provide the same license to government officials and to religious leaders to perform marriages, and then argue that the government officials must serve all people who approach them for the service but that the religious leaders are allowed to discriminate.

I know many folks on the left always like to say these issues in our country are not a threat to religious folks, but they obviously MUST be from a legal and constitutional standpoint. The same just applied in the arguments around the law in Indiana. Why is it illegal for a business like a coffee shop or a book store to discriminate against LGBT customers but it is okay for such a business to do so if it happens to be owned and run by a religious organization, especially if it operates out of a religious institution's property. And don't just say "freedom of religion." How do we protect the religious beliefs of an organization, but not the members of said organization individually?

So, a judge might be required to marry people (and I would imagine there has to be some way for them to recuse themselves), but religious people are granted the right to do so, but aren't forced. Ask any Catholic priest if you can get married to a buddhist out in the garden, and they'll tell you "no" without worrying about getting sued. That line of thinking is ridiculous.

LOL @ 4–6.

#11 - Your attempt to distinguish Loving is BS as it attempts to make homosexuality into something uniquely strange or foreign and it also minimizes the extent of racial animus that has infected this country since its founding. Also, hate to break it to you but same sex marriage has been legal in other countries and states for decades now but nice try. Also, Scalia may have had a sharp legal mind 20 years ago but he has devolved into a caricature of a right wing hack who gets his talking points from Fox news. Religious liberty is no more implicated with gay rights than it was for racial and gender civil rights - the same argument was made then and the response is the same - religious liberty does not insulate you from generally applicable laws, especially those that have third party beneficiaries. As far as individual religious beliefs as opposed to organizations, the first amendment extends a limited constitutional immunity to churches qua churches but everything beyond that, including religious non-profits, such as schools and hospitals, is completely discretionary. So, it is a policy decision made by legislation and frankly I would prefer if all the discretionary exemptions were repealed. Religion gets too much of a free ride in this society as it is. So, nice try concern trolling but piss off.

@11:

It's a completely stupid, pointless, and obviously willfully obtuse question, as Kagan's insightful riposte clearly indicates. If Scalia is truly as smart as you imply, he already KNOWS religious organizations have much greater latitude in terms of determining whose marriages they will or won't sanctify and under what conditions. Granting same-sex couples the right to marry won't impinge on this one iota, since there will be civil authorities (not to mention friendly religious organizations) willing and capable of performing the requisite ceremony in their stead. And no one is arguing religious groups MUST perform gay weddings in any case; only that same-sex couples have the right to be married in principle. Scalia is just throwing a sop to his conservative Catholic allies, and giving the appearance, albeit a truly lame, ineffectual one, of standing up for "religious liberty" when he is well aware such liberty isn't in the least bit threatened by the outcome of this case.

@11

There are two types of marriage being argued over here - religious and civil. The state recognizes only civil marriage. It is widespread in the United States for states to allow religious officiants to perform the civil and religious ceremonies simultaneously - hence a lot of confusion in people's minds. But you can separate the two. You can get a minister, rabbi, priest, what-have-you to perform a purely religious marriage ceremony, without the state-issued license, and the state will not recognize it as a legal marriage; the religious institution, on the other hand, will consider you married. You can get the state to provide a Justice of the Peace or other official to preside over a civil ceremony and the state will consider you legally married, whether or not you have a religious ceremony. Your church or synagogue or mosque will probably not consider you married without their ceremony, but the state does not care. In some other countries, the civil and religious ceremonies are kept separate.

What is at issue before the Court is the whether states can be forced to recognize and perform the civil marriages of same-sex couples. The state has no interest in whether a religious institution performs a religious marriage or not, since the state will not recognize it, so there is no reason to coerce a religious official to perform a marriage. The state will perform a civil ceremony - the only kind it recognizes - regardless of what religious institutions do. So the first amendment will not be violated if the Supreme Court upholds the right of same-sex couples to marry.

For a longer discussion of this issue, with more ammunition to use against the bigots among your family and friends, see comment #4, by Keith Johnson, in reply to Dan Savage's post re: Marco Rubio conceding that being gay is not a choice, April 20, 2015. It's long but I think worth reading. Here's the link:

http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/20…

COMTE your argument is flawed by the obvious; There are other bakers, florists, photographers who will participate in same sex weddings, yet the ones who object are brought before civil and quasi criminal proceedings. How long before this tactic is employed against churches and ministers? Not long, I am sure, Denmark has already compelled churches to conduct same sex marriages, and a couple was planning to bring suit in Britain to compel the Anglicans to do the same.

@17: Nondiscrimination statutes only apply to businesses serving the public. Churches and other sorts of temples only serve those of their religion. Also, bills legalizing same-sex marriage generally have a provision in there explicitly stating that clergy can't be compelled to perform a wedding that they oppose for religious reasons.

I don't get why the haters constantly bring up "polygamy" as a slippery slope for same-sex marriage. To the extent you think polygamy is problematic, and to the extent you think the slope is "slippery"-- isn't polygamy a much worse problem for traditionalists?

After all, traditional marriage was between a man and many wives. The Bible is filled with dudes with multiple wives: Jacob had two (and banged both their handmaidens as well), David had eight wives, and Solomon famously had 700 wives. The Jews are not alone, as ancient Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. all permitted polygamy.

So if your argument is that marriage should stay as it's always been, as reflected in religious texts, then how do you justify excluding polygamy?

@17: Private organizations-- whose services are limited to their own members-- can freely discriminate. Famously, the Supreme Court recently held that the Boy Scouts of America can exclude all the gays they want from their organization. Further note that BSA practices a more blatant form of discrimination: they don't allow girls! Yet no one serious doubts their right to do the latter.

In other words, concerns about priests being forced to marry gays are simply wrong. Anyone who actually knows a priest knows that they can (and do) refuse to marry whomever they want, for any reason they want.

@13 It was actually Alito before it got fixed... I can see how one might think it was Ruth, but Roberts, no way.

It's a testament to Baume's writing ability that it overcame my increasingly short attention span, especially when discussing dry legal proceedings over things that don't directly affect me (being straight and already married).

Kennedy's remarks slay me. Nobody went to the moon in millennia. People used to have slaves for millennia. Things change, Justice Kennedy. One thing doesn't - you can be on the right side of history or the wrong side.

How about this explanation? Scalia wants the Court to legalize same-sex marriage. This would take the issue out of the 2016 election. Republican candidates wouldn't have to state their unpopular anti-equality stance. I think @17 is incorrect. I think Danish priests can refuse to perform same-sex marriages: http://www.ft.dk/samling/20111/lovforsla…

@2 A license to a private citizen does not come with that requirement, but when that citizen is acting as a representative of a non-church incorporated business it is required. Incorporated businesses get specific and enumerated benefits and protections from the government, also known as "we the people", and in return for those benefits and protections provided by you, me, and everyone else in the country, including gay people, the incorporated business and those who act in its stead must serve all customers alike, no exceptions.

Great article, Matt, loved the personal touch -- I’ll be back.

And for those who want the skinny on polygamy, you can find it here, socially speaking, it would be a disaster. The complications of its legality put forth in that article stand alone in making it a ridiculous ‘slippery slope’ comparison -- much of it common sense when you stop to think about it. Add that to the fact that it was EXPLICITLY approved of by God (according to ‘the’ Bible 2 Samuel 12), and the fact that the opposition to marriage equality campaign is fueled almost exclusively by dominionist conservative supremacists, usually means its usage is either evidence of criminal ignorance or express malice. Unless that’s the point Alito was trying to elicit.

@17 Regarding Denmark and England, the churches in question are state churches, churches who receive tax money. They must by law be as open as the rest of government. No individual clergy member is required to officiate the weddings. If those churches don't want to be entangled in the issue, they can choose to separate from the state and forego the government largess.

@22 What do you mean these proceedings don't affect you? Don't you know that if gay marriage is legalized your marriage will be instantly nullified and your wife will leave you for a leather dyke?