+

Cookies on the Business Insider India website

Business Insider India has updated its Privacy and Cookie policy. We use cookies to ensure that we give you the better experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we\'ll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on the Business Insider India website. However, you can change your cookie setting at any time by clicking on our Cookie Policy at any time. You can also see our Privacy Policy.

Close
HomeQuizzoneWhatsappShare Flash Reads
 

Antonin Scalia and John Roberts actually had tough questions for gay marriage opponents

Apr 28, 2015, 22:44 IST

The Supreme Court is hearing a huge fight over gay marriage on Tuesday, and two of the court's conservative justices had tough questions for opponents of same-sex marriage.

Advertisement

During arguments over same-sex marriage bans in four states, Chief Justice John Roberts had an interesting hypothetical question for lawyers arguing for those bans. Here's how the Wall Street Journal summarized that question:

Sue loves Joe and Tom also loves Joe, but Sue can marry Joe, while Tom can't, he said. "Why isn't that a straightforward case of sexual discrimination?" he asked.

The arguments on Tuesday focus on two key questions: 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out of state?

Advertisement

It's possible the high court could hand down a compromise ruling answering "no" to the first question but "yes" to the second. That ruling wouldn't require states to grant their own gay marriages but would force them to recognize those granted to other states.

In his own question for the states, Justice Antonin Scalia asked a question that hinted maybe the answer to that second question should be "yes."

"A little surprisingly, Justice Scalia asked tough questions of the State," Kevin Russell wrote for ScotusBlog. "He wanted to know why the text of the Full Faith and Credit provision did not extend to marriages."

That provision of the Constitution requires states to respect "the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."

Advertisement

NOW WATCH: Barney Frank has a grim outlook for the 2016 elections

Please enable Javascript to watch this video
You are subscribed to notifications!
Looks like you've blocked notifications!
Next Article