Obergefell, 48, could become as famous as Brown (the lead plaintiff in the historic school-desegregation decision) or Roe (the pseudonym for Norma McCorvey in the case that legalized abortion nationwide). But his goal isn’t to make history; it’s to make sure he is listed as the surviving spouse on his husband’s death certificate.
There are two basic questions being asked of the Supreme Court:
The justices are considering two simple-sounding questions: whether the Constitution requires states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and, if not, whether states must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states where they are legal.
But the arguments were filled with discussions of equal protection and fundamental liberties, how an understanding of the Constitution changes with society, and when majority rule must give way to minority rights.
Justice Kennedy will, in all probability, be the swing vote. Heretofore he has been fairly progressive towards gay rights issues. We shall see.
The real bogus argument to me is to let the people decide. The majority of people are heterosexual. It is human nature to defend one’s own “way” of doing things. The rights of the minority must be protected. We cannot count on the majority not to trample the rights of the minority.
I suggest that most social change would not have occurred if it were left up to the will of the people. What say you on this subject? What will the outcome of Obergefell be?