These are nobody's memories
April 26, 2015 12:32 PM   Subscribe

"There is nothing borrowed, or blue." As the Sixth Circuit marriage cases head to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, LGBT organizations make their closing arguments via YouTube.
posted by roomthreeseventeen (16 comments total) 8 users marked this as a favorite
 
I don't even know where to start. I am hovering between feeling like I'm going to throw up and I'm going to leak all the tears (actually, the tears are winning at the moment), and I suspect it's going to be that way until June.

These videos are great. Thanks for posting them.
posted by joycehealy at 3:50 PM on April 26, 2015 [1 favorite]


goddammit I'm gonna get my keyboard wet
posted by Anonymous at 5:35 PM on April 26, 2015


Okay that first one. It's so dusty in here
posted by Mizu at 9:17 PM on April 26, 2015 [1 favorite]


that last one punched me right in all the feels

Just thinking about all those people across the USA, waiting with bated breath for these arguments, and then all of us around the world joining you on tenterhooks while the Justices deliberate.

I can't wait for that day. I'm choosing to believe they will make the right decision--or five of them will, anyway.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:02 AM on April 27, 2015


I hope the anti-marriage arguments are as asinine as the ones they used in the Prop 8 case, just so their utter absurdity can be preserved in the annals of landmark SCOTUS proceedings for generations to come.
posted by Rhaomi at 10:34 AM on April 27, 2015 [1 favorite]


I hope the anti-marriage arguments are as asinine as the ones they used in the Prop 8 case, just so their utter absurdity can be preserved in the annals of landmark SCOTUS proceedings for generations to come.

Irin Carmon: Here are the wildest arguments against marriage equality
posted by zombieflanders at 12:30 PM on April 27, 2015


On reflection, it's really about whether one Justice makes the right decision. Notorious RBG, Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer, we know what they'll say.

Come on, Kennedy. Do the right thing.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:46 PM on April 27, 2015


SCOTUSBlog's liveblog makes it sound like Kennedy is getting weasely:
Justice Kennedy said he had "a word on his mind .. and that word is millennia"
[...]
He pointed out that the definition of marriage had prevailed for millennia and it seemed a fast change; on the other hand, he noted that the time between Lawrence and this case was about equal to the time between Brown and Loving -- this raised the question for him of whether this might all be too fast to redefine such a long standing institution
Of course, oral arguments don't necessarily determine the end goal, and this could just be Kennedy testing the plaintiffs to get them to provide stronger arguments. Meanwhile, the Notorious RBG continues to be fucking awesome:
One seemingly striking moment came when Justice Ginsburg spoke of how it was recent changes to the institution of marriage that made it appropriate for gay and lesbian couples -- in particular, it becoming an egalitarian institution rather than one dominated by the male partners who determined where and how the couple would live
posted by zombieflanders at 8:21 AM on April 28, 2015 [3 favorites]


> He pointed out that the definition of marriage had prevailed for millennia

FFS. Which definition is that, exactly?
posted by desuetude at 11:58 AM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]


I'm not letting myself hope. I just can't, not when I live in Michigan and our state government seems damned and determined to make sure marriage equality will not happen. I hoped all the times before, and my illegal wife and I waited all day in line at the courthouse for a certificate that didn't come before time ran out on the single day that we might get legally married here, and now religious freedom bills are making sure that even if marriage equality passes, anti-gay earthlings still have a way to let us know that they consider us second-class citizens. Maybe it won't matter that I can see my wife in hospital if the doctor refuses to treat her anyway. Or vice versa.

So yes, victory would be a good thing. But I never trust that it will last. And I never trust that it will not be fought from some other angle.

One day it won't be an issue anymore. I really do believe that. But for me, I can only be gutted so many times before I stop letting myself hope I will have this in my lifetime.
posted by custardfairy at 12:02 PM on April 28, 2015 [2 favorites]


Which definition is that, exactly?
The one he wants people to think is the only one.

I listened to the whole thing and found it maddening.

Listen along! (Wait, should there be a Fanfare for this? Is there one already!!?!?!?)
Question 1
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2014/14-556-q1

Question 2
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2014/14-556-q1

An interesting guide to what to pay attention to while you listen.
http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1701&context=pubs
posted by Seamus at 1:11 PM on April 28, 2015


custardfairy, I don't have as skin in the game as you do, but I listen to every word, feeling the lash of every ridiculous claim against equality knowing that it it will affect my loved ones and good people across the country whom I do not know. It hurts my heart to think that the basic human rights of so many people are in the hands of 9 people. At this point, it would almost be better to have it in the hands of whatever percentage will vote of the 318.9 million people in the US. But even that would be a slap in the face of every single one of us, having basic human rights voted upon.
I take small comfort in the fact that the upcoming generations seem to be more tolerant than their parents. I only hope my son is a better man than me and that he and his generation can fix a lot of the shit my generation and my parents generation will leave behind.
I'm sorry.
posted by Seamus at 1:18 PM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]


Christian leaders threaten civil disobedience if Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage
“We respectfully warn the Supreme Court not to cross that line,” read a document titled, Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage. “We stand united together in defense of marriage. Make no mistake about our resolve.”

“While there are many things we can endure, redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural order and the common good that this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross,” the pledge states.

The signees are a who’s who of religious leaders including former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, National Religious Broadcasters president Jerry Johnson, Pastor John Hagee, and Franklin Graham, president and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse.

The pledge was co-drafted by Deacon Keith Fournier, a Catholic deacon, and Mat Staver, the founder of Liberty Counsel. Also involved in the document were Rick Scarborough, the president of Vision America Action and James Dobson, the founder of Family Talk Radio.

[...]

Conferring a moral and legal equivalency to any relationship other than marriage between a man and a woman, by legislative or judicial fiat, sends the message that children do not need a mother and a father. As a policy matter, such unions convey the message that moms and dads are completely irrelevant to the well-being of children.

The pledge references the Dred Scott decision, a case legalizing eugenics, and the Holocaust to justify its opposition to the Court's authority.
posted by Rhaomi at 7:24 AM on April 29, 2015 [2 favorites]


> The one he wants people to think is the only one.

It's just an asinine concept to cite. We're talking about the legal definition of civil marriage in the United States, which has not been around for "millennia." The traditions he is referencing are the religious traditions around the recognition of marriage, but church doctrine is not on the table for debate here. (Of course, Judeo-Christian tradition is hardly a good citation for the "traditional" definition of marriage, given the polygamy and all. But I digress.)
posted by desuetude at 7:59 AM on April 29, 2015 [1 favorite]


Transcripts, for those who prefer reading to listening: Question 1, Question 2.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:50 AM on April 29, 2015 [1 favorite]


Christian leaders threaten civil disobedience if Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage

Ok, good for them, considering religious leaders will in no way be forced to do anything against their religion.
And non-leader Christians? Them neither.
Don't want to get in trouble for not supplying a service? Stop being a public accommodation.
But I don't think, in reality, going to go anywhere. It will fade away and the old hardliners will hide their heads again until the next fight comes.

The thing that I have found most interesting about the whole "baking wedding cakes for teh gays" thing is that it has brought a certain level respectability to the old racists. The new argument is that no one owns your labor and that no one should be able to force you into a business dealing against your will just because they are gay or black. It's like we're right back to the '60s again. No need to hide your racist bullshit anymore! Let your bigot flag fly!
I can only hope this is another dying quiver of a obsolete beast.

(I really need to stop reading comments on other internet sites. But then, it prepares me so well for talking to my in-laws.)
posted by Seamus at 3:42 PM on April 29, 2015 [1 favorite]


« Older Back to the roots: the real meaning of a "power...   |   Do the hokey pokie Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments