I had read a lot of the commentary about what was said yesterday and what it may mean, but as usual, you put it into terminology that is understandable and even fun. Thanks for all you do to help keep us informed.
Dissecting the Supreme Court's Top Marriage Arguments
There's no way to know exactly how the Supreme Court will rule — or even when — but considering how yesterday's oral argument went, it's okay to feel cautiously optimistic. As expected, it looks like it will all come down to Justice Anthony Kennedy. Whichever side can persuade him to swing their way seems likely to emerge victorious in late June. Kennedy was tough to read during Tuesday's arguments, asking difficult questions of both sides; but he seemed to hone in on the issue of dignity.
I'm a little disappointed that I've never heard anyone frame it as the right to determine who your legal family is. I mean there are so many laws that pertain to your spouse, child, or parent. Marriage is the primary way citizens are allowed to create their family. And to deny that right to gay couples because their genitals are the same is asinine.
I'm ashamed that these conservatives call themselves supreme court justices. Their arguments against gay marriage are not rooted in the Constitution. They're rooted in a failed argument.
I LOVED that last remark by Bonauto too. I wish she had also added "or the people who voted to keep these couples out of the institution of marriage based on false stereotypical views of their lives without even knowing them."
I wouldn't feel that optimistic about the first question, when Bursch said the couples "want the government to go into their lives and give them benefits" it cuts right through what many of the Justices probably think about government relations with the people. In Lawrence v Texas you wanted the government out, but with this case you want it to go into your life. Although one may say the government is already a part of our lives and the obvious exclusion from its regulations has repercussions in a variety of situations. The government was already on Obergefell's life when they told him he was not married to his late husband, the government would be in DeBoer and Rowse's live, because if one of them dies some of their children will be taken away.
It's still not clear how the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not apply to marriage (or at least some of its related policies), so that makes me more optimistic towards the second question, because it was also argued more strongly by the attorney, specially when he said "the majority has to live by same the laws as the minority."
Good Job Matt. But I think you missed a key part of the arguments that should be talked about more. And this makes me not so cure that Roberts is 100% on the state's side. He stated "I'm not sure it's 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 on sexual discrimination?" This shows me that he may be thinking of voting on the gay rights side but for a different reason that the others with sex discrimination and gender bias. That shows me he might just be AS in the middle as Kennedy.
So basically to sum it up: you have my permission to feel optimistic.
Top Supreme Court Arguments For & Against Marriage
#LoveIsLove #LGBT #Lesbian #Gay #BiSexual #TransGender #MarriageEquality #Time4Marriage #FreedomToMarry #UnitedForMarriage #Love #Family #SCOTUS #Michigan #Texas
Matt, ever read any of John Boswell's books?
Thanks, Matt. Good job. As always.
I really like this channel most of all. Highlights your natural talent!
Matt I just love all your vids and all your hard work keep it up.
I had read a lot of the commentary about what was said yesterday and what it may mean, but as usual, you put it into terminology that is understandable and even fun. Thanks for all you do to help keep us informed.
Dissecting the Supreme Court's Top Marriage Arguments
There's no way to know exactly how the Supreme Court will rule — or even when — but considering how yesterday's oral argument went, it's okay to feel cautiously optimistic.
As expected, it looks like it will all come down to Justice Anthony Kennedy. Whichever side can persuade him to swing their way seems likely to emerge victorious in late June. Kennedy was tough to read during Tuesday's arguments, asking difficult questions of both sides; but he seemed to hone in on the issue of dignity.
I'm a little disappointed that I've never heard anyone frame it as the right to determine who your legal family is. I mean there are so many laws that pertain to your spouse, child, or parent. Marriage is the primary way citizens are allowed to create their family. And to deny that right to gay couples because their genitals are the same is asinine.
Thank you for the videos, they're great!
I'm ashamed that these conservatives call themselves supreme court justices. Their arguments against gay marriage are not rooted in the Constitution. They're rooted in a failed argument.
They aren't qualified to sit at that bench.
Matt, you are brilliant at bringing clarity to many issues. Keep up the great work, mate! Kuddos to you!
Once again you out did yourself with yet another awesomely informative video,than YOU and keep up the good work
I LOVED that last remark by Bonauto too. I wish she had also added "or the people who voted to keep these couples out of the institution of marriage based on false stereotypical views of their lives without even knowing them."
I wouldn't feel that optimistic about the first question, when Bursch said the couples "want the government to go into their lives and give them benefits" it cuts right through what many of the Justices probably think about government relations with the people. In Lawrence v Texas you wanted the government out, but with this case you want it to go into your life. Although one may say the government is already a part of our lives and the obvious exclusion from its regulations has repercussions in a variety of situations. The government was already on Obergefell's life when they told him he was not married to his late husband, the government would be in DeBoer and Rowse's live, because if one of them dies some of their children will be taken away.
It's still not clear how the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not apply to marriage (or at least some of its related policies), so that makes me more optimistic towards the second question, because it was also argued more strongly by the attorney, specially when he said "the majority has to live by same the laws as the minority."
Good Job Matt. But I think you missed a key part of the arguments that should be talked about more. And this makes me not so cure that Roberts is 100% on the state's side. He stated "I'm not sure it's 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 on sexual discrimination?" This shows me that he may be thinking of voting on the gay rights side but for a different reason that the others with sex discrimination and gender bias. That shows me he might just be AS in the middle as Kennedy.
You are incredible! Thanks so much for this video!
Matt always does such a great job here …. Thanks for being the one stop information place for so many of us …
just be aware, that just becaunse gays will be alloewd to marry, does not mean that they will be equal yet
there are still to many states that allow legal discrimation based on sexuality, so dont put donn your protest signs yet
we have won the battle, but where far from winning hte war
Excellent, Matt!
Matt Baume watched the SCOTUS oral arguments on marriage equality.
So you don't have to! Here is his summary.