Big Marriage Equality Update: Supreme Court Seating Chart, Articles, Links, Quotes,

(a map of the Supreme court layout)

$6,000: Cost of obtaining a Supreme Court seat for marriage cases.

ReinerRob Reiner and Ken Mehlman speak to TPM in front of SCOTUS.

Jonathan Capehart urges caution on SCOTUS: "The quasi-triumphant coverage of this week’s Supreme Court oral arguments in cases related to marriage equality is making me uncomfortable. Not because I don’t want the high court to rule in a way that upholds the dignity and equal protection of same-sex couples who are or want to be married, but because I don’t think lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Americans fully appreciate just how tenuous things are on the court right now. The undeniable forward momentum propelling today’s hopeful enthusiasm could be the very thing that keeps the Supreme Court from going big."

United for Marriage Tumblr.

Michelangelo Signorile: How we got to the Supreme Court. "What I want to say first is that the path to the Supreme Court by gay marriage advocates is a lesson for every movement. What took the LGBT rights movement to this moment, and indeed what has taken us to moments of truth and potential victory more often than not, are those who went against the established leaders and groups and ultimately pushed an agenda from the grassroots."

CNN: "Rob Portman effect" fuels support for same-sex marriage. "The number of Americans who support same-sex marriage has risen by almost the same amount in that time – from 40% in 2007 to 53% today – strongly suggesting that the rise in support for gay marriage is due in part to the rising number of Americans who have become aware that someone close to them is gay."

ScaliaA list of Antonin Scalia's provocative comments on gay issues.

Advocate: NOM's Dirty Money.

NYT: In less than 50 years, a sea change on gay rights.

Politico: GOP youth 'evolve' on gay marriage.

Alabama Republican Senator Jeff Sessions: "I think people are free to marry any way they want to," Sessions said. "But churches are free to set standards for marriage."

Republicans see cash opportunity in marriage equality support: "Republican fundraiser Jim McCray agreed. 'I think it will open up donors across the board, because it demonstrates Republicans are trying to recreate the big tent they were known for,' McCray said. It’s not clear how much money could come from donors supportive of the party’s move toward new thoughts on gay marriage. Pro gay-rights donors have long been an important source of campaign cash for Democrats, including after President Barack Obama pushed through a repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which barred openly gay people from serving in the military. And operatives believe the money is there for Republicans, too."

Washington Post: 3 charts showing why the political fight on gay marriage is over.


  1. says

    Thanks for drawing attention to the statements of that bigot Scalia.
    These hateful comments, which he consistently uses, are the reason why any application to the Supreme Court today must begin with the question of his recusing himself ….
    He has prejudged this issue and must not now sit masquerading as an impartial judge.

  2. jamal49 says

    I agree with Jonathan Capehart. There is no way of knowing how the Supreme Court will rule until they rule. Traditionally, SCOTUS does not sway to public opinion (one can dispute that Chief Justice Roberts’ cowardly opinion on the Affordable Health Care Act might have been somewhat of a pander to public opinion). So be cautious with your hope and optimism. Things in the public opinion sphere look positive for us. But, where SCOTUS is concerned, it ain’t over until it’s over.

  3. Hagatha says

    Jack –

    All of us have opinions and are free to express them. A judge is not supposed to be without opinions, he has taken an oath to set aside those opinions which are not based in the law, or in the case of the Supreme Court the Constitution. Fairness is not on the table- Constitutional law is the only consideration. Given that, it’s difficult to imagine how any justice could find that gay people are not entitled to equal protection under law and policy in their relationship with the government.

    The only “out” here, would be to find no point of similarity for comparison. That’s not probable.

  4. Hagatha says

    Please read Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v Texas. Yes, he “voted” against Lawrence in that case, but in his dissent he acknowledges that the majority opinion has paved the way for same-sex marriage (in addition to a host of what he would consider social menaces).

    This will be fun to watch.