43
Justices hear arguments on gay marriage
WASHINGTON
Walking up the marble steps and into the gigantic, column-lined building Tuesday morning, married couple Kelly McCracken and Kelly Noe were overwhelmed by the energy — both negative and positive — of the crowd that had gathered outside the U.S. Supreme Court.
The line wrapped around the building, culminating in hundreds directly in front of the courthouse steps.
Same-sex marriage protesters and advocates alike waved flags and signs, chanted, sang and shouted.
Hearing shouts and seeing signs — such as one that read, “Perverts are an abomination to God” — from people protesting same-sex marriage was difficult for them, said McCracken. She originally is from Warren and now lives in a Cincinnati suburb with Noe and their 11-month-old daughter, Ruby.
McCracken and Noe are plaintiffs in the landmark same-sex marriage case for which the Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments Tuesday. The court is considering two questions: Whether states are required to perform same-sex marriages, and whether they are obligated to recognize same-sex marriages performed out-of-state. A decision is expected in June.
Cases concerning same-sex marriage bans in Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee and Michigan were combined and justices heard 21/2 hours of arguments Tuesday.
“There was a protester who was somehow let into the courtroom,” McCracken said, standing outside the courthouse after the hearing. “He sat through the first round of arguments, and then burst out. He was screaming and told everybody that the Bible teaches that if you practice homosexual behavior, you burn in hell.”
McCracken’s mother, Pam Politsky Bernard of Warren, also expressed confusion at the negative reactions. Mostly, however, she seemed awestruck by her daughter.
“It makes me proud that she’s my daughter. Proud that she’s standing up for rights,” she said.
“It’s amazing the lengths people will go through to protest when really, my wife and I getting married doesn’t affect [them] at all,” McCracken said. “It’s painful, because it’s just so ugly and hateful, when all we’re out here doing is preaching love.”
Love was a common theme among people in the crowd Tuesday. Although protesters were perhaps louder and placed their signs more prominently in front of the Supreme Court building, same-sex marriage supporters seemed to make up most of the crowd and often broke into chants such as “love can’t wait” and “love conquers hate.”
While some people protested for religious reasons, other religious groups expressed support.
One man, wearing a large cross around his neck and waving a gay pride flag, held a sign that read: “I am a Christian, and I am gay, and I was made in God’s image.”
Another man brandished a sign reading, “Catholics for Equality,” while a woman next to him displayed the words, “Baptist clergy for marriage equality.”
Egan Orion, executive director of Seattle’s Pride Fest, carried a sign that said, “Make love legal.”
“I’m not fighting for me,” he said. “I’m fighting for others. ... We need a national law.”
Gay marriage is legal in 36 states. The court remains divided on whether marriage is a constitutional right.
“The justices were questioning back, and sometimes it seemed like they were on one side of the law, and then when the state would speak the justices would ask questions that seemed like they were on our side of the law,” McCracken said, describing the hearing as “tense.”
McCracken said she doesn’t have any indication what way the case will go.
During questioning Tuesday, justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer seemed to indicate that they would vote in favor of the plaintiffs.
Conservative justices have expressed more skepticism.
Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice John Roberts asked questions that seemed to indicate doubt, while Justice Clarence Thomas did not.
The swing vote for the case widely is considered to be Justice Anthony Kennedy. He did not indicate Tuesday what side he was leaning toward, but he questioned various angles of the issue.
“A couple of the justices were saying how marriage is a fundamental right and shouldn’t be limited to one group of people,” McCracken said. “Which makes sense to me and it makes me feel like maybe they are seeing our side because as an American, and as a human we have that fundamental right to equalty.”