Because I said so? Because it is coherent? Because Elfwreck is amazing? Pick one!
I can’t believe how fucking IGNORANT lawyers are about marriage laws in this country. Lawyers in general, sure, but lawyers arguing before the Supreme Court about the definition of marriage and what it means to people and how states should and must react to it…
I’d expect them to know that there are several states, right now, where 12-year-olds can get married. (They require parental and sometimes judicial consent, and some only allow it in special circumstances–which generally means a pregnancy.) I’d expect them to know that marriage has not “always been” one man-one woman, even here. (Admittedly, UT giving up polygyny was a requirement for statehood. But a US territory that allowed multi-person marriages after the practice of slavery ended means that the idea shouldn’t be
JUSTICE SCALIA: So there there’s nothing in the Constitution that requires a State to acknowledge even those marriages in other States that that are the same.
MR. WHALEN: That’s essentially correct, Your Honor.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Really?
When Scalia is questioning your arguments against same-sex marriage, you know you’re on shaky ground. Scalia’s really, really not happy with the final ruling… but he sure as hell wasn’t supportive of Whalen’s attempts to explain his side.