SCOTUSBlog as usual has the best coverage: Argument recap: DOMA is in trouble (FINAL UPDATE) : SCOTUSblog
While as the ACA/Obamacare ruling taught us, reading too much into oral arguments is a very bad plan, still, the arguments today cannot be taken as anything other than a very bed day for DOMA supporters.Justice Kennedy told Clement that there was “a real risk” that DOMA would interfere with the traditional authority of states to regulate marriage. Kennedy also seemed troubled about the sweeping breadth of DOMA’s Section 3, noting that its ban on benefits to already married same-sex couples under 1,100 laws and programs would mean that the federal government was “intertwined with citizens’ daily lives.” He questioned Congress’s very authority to pass such a broad law.
Moreover, Kennedy questioned Clement’s most basic argument — that Congress was only reaching for uniformity, so that federal agencies would not have to sort out who was or was not married legally in deciding who could qualify for federal marital benefits, because some states were on the verge of recognizing same-sex marriage.
Along with sharply negative comments about DOMA by the Court’s four more liberal members, Kennedy’s stance could put the law on the edge of constitutional extinction. But, if the Court were to do that based on states’ rights premises, the final ruling might not say much at all about whether same-sex couples were any closer to gaining an equal right to marry under the Constitution.
Transcript of today's arguments:
Gay Danish couples win right to marry in church - Telegraph
So why do gays get the special right to change the definition of marriage then? Why are other sexual special interest groups excluded? You're claiming gays "have a fundamental civil right to marry". Why only them and not others?The church ceremony isn't part of the equation. We're talking about the legal contract that the government recognizes. Churches don't have to perform a marriage ceremony for straight couples either, you know. I have a right to free speech, but that doesn't mean I have a right to use Fox News' equipment to broadcast my free speech. They are under no obligation to host my free expression. I have the right to an attorney when accused of a crime, but that doesn't mean any particular lawyer is legally compelled to represent me.
Blacks aren't blacks because of who they have sex with. Skin color is not relevant to behavior. That's why it's racist to claim gay marriage is a civil right. Blacks were targeted and persecuted for what they looked like. Gays want to change the definition of marriage. It twisted to equate the two on a moral level.
If a bisexual wants to marry both a man and woman, who are you to deny them their civil right to do so? Who they love doesn't harm you. Why deny their right to marry who they want?
Only one other "sexual special interest group" is about other consenting adults, which is polygamists. If you want to "marry" whips and chains, fine, but they can't enter into a contract.So why do gays get the special right to change the definition of marriage then? Why are other sexual special interest groups excluded? You're claiming gays "have a fundamental civil right to marry". Why only them and not others?