(NPR) Legal Battle Over Gay Marriage Hits The Supreme Court Today

People have been lining up outside the U.S. Supreme Court for days hoping that they will be among the lucky ones to get a seat for Tuesday’s historic arguments on gay marriage.

As of now, gay marriage is legal in 36 states. By the end of this Supreme Court term, either same-sex couples will be able to wed in all 50 states, or gay marriage bans may be reinstituted in many of the states where they’ve previously been struck down.

Tuesday’s Supreme Court arguments focus on two questions: First, whether bans on gay marriage are constitutional; and second, if they are, whether those states with bans may refuse to recognize out-of-state gay marriages performed where they are legal.

The court has scheduled an extraordinary 2 1/2 hours of argument and will make the audio available online later Tuesday.

Read it all.

Posted in * Culture-Watch, * Economics, Politics, --Civil Unions & Partnerships, Anthropology, Ethics / Moral Theology, Law & Legal Issues, Marriage & Family, Politics in General, Sexuality, Theology

3 comments on “(NPR) Legal Battle Over Gay Marriage Hits The Supreme Court Today

  1. David Keller says:

    There a million things that could be said about this article, but I will say only two. First, gay “marriage” is not legal in 36 states. In the majority of states where it is done, it is still against the law. The Federal Coutrs have ordered states to perform them but ther are not legal under the law. Second, there is a logical compromise which answers all the allied concerns of the marriage proponents, but which still lets states define marriage: a state could allow a gay/lesbian couple to register a domestic partnership for tax, property, insurance reasons, but not for marriage. Gay activists are against this logical compromise, however, because their goal is not as stated , but rather to destroy marriage and the family. They are the ultimate Narcissists.

  2. BlueOntario says:

    I didn’t hear anything like legal rights associated with marriage discussed in the snippets on cnn.com. Was there any presentation of what the definition of marriage means and suggestion that legal rights or responsibilities perhaps should have less to do with the institution, per se, and more with the people, citizens, who are coupling (or more as the case may become)?

  3. Jim the Puritan says:

    I think the deeper issue that needs to be pondered is that if marriage is redefined by the Supreme Court, Christians effectively will no longer be part of American society. This is what Jesus called Christians to, to be in the world but not of the world, but most American Christians up until now have been lulled into believing that the United States was founded upon and still honors Christian values.