Here is the Transcript and Audio of Supreme Court DOMA Arguments


Here is the transcript and audio of today's Supreme Court DOMA arguments. Analysis from our legal editor Ari Ezra Waldman is coming in two parts: Part 1 available HERE, and Part 2 HERE.

Transcript below: 

12-307_jnt1 by towleroad


  1. Lynel says

    Can someone kindly start making supportive comments toward gay marriage on the Los Angeles NBC 4 facebook page. I’m SHOCKED at how homophobic so many in Los Angeles can be (and virtually all Hispanic and black posters, which breaks my heart as a latino) but these comments being made against gay marriage are deplorable and there’s only me and a couple others defending our rights.

    Someone please contribute to the gay marriage discussion on top of the NBC 4 LA/Burbank facebook page

  2. Barca says

    @ Lynel, I am doing just the thing. It’s sad to see so many minorities not getting it. But it’s fun to educate people. “Why vote if you’re going to take away the results of that vote?” Oh lord, basic US Government policy. :-)

  3. SFRowGuy says

    Are laws written to define with is legal and lawful or what is illegal and unlawful? So much is dependent on precise definition of words that linguists can turn a phrase meaning one thing into something different or opposite on nothing more than the position of words in a sentence. I wouldn’t be surprise if the people in Congress who wrote DOMA didn’t hash out exactly how to word the law that made it seem broad in scope and yet distinctly narrow in implementation — the exclusion of same-sex couples, and then seemly remove any impetus on the Federal level and place any and all ambiguity on the states. Does all this BS mean that if Utah reversed it’s law making polygamy illegal, that the Federal gov. would have to recognize those marriages? No, because there are federal laws that state it illegal. And if a state decided that a man can marry a farm animal (!) that the Federal government would have to recognize it. No. I don’t know if there is a federal law regarding that, but if there isn’t, does there need to be? Just because something isn’t stated, doesn’t make it legal, or true.

    Case in point regarding linguists and what is defined and implied; A pantry as 20 eggs, 10 white and 10 brown. Mary is told she can go in to the pantry and take out all non-white eggs. But Mary wants to take all the eggs. So she turns off the light in the pantry, and takes all 20 eggs. The color white is a condition of light. In total darkness there are no white or brown eggs. Only eggs. A law stating one thing does not necessarily, or really, exclude anything that it does not state.

Leave A Reply