Not really sure what "INCREDIBLY high" means (reminds me of the Princess Bride). Seems like Kagan had a bigger reason to recuse herself from the ObamaCare trial, but she did not, and Roberts supported her decision as did a number of legal ethics specialists.

This seems like small potatoes comparatively.

There is a difference between a bias and a conflict of interest. The Supreme Court justices all have rather well known biases. We pretty much know where they are going to vote on most issues.

It doesn't matter. The fact is that they have demonstrated bias. That simple fact demands recusal because their impartiality has been demonstrably violated.

Judges routinely recuse themselves from cases where they have a fiduciary interest in the outcome of the case, such as when even a spouse has a large stock interest in a specific company which could be affected by a ruling. Judges who speak out and openly, giving their _opinions_ on specific social issues are also duty-bound to recuse themselves when cases on that matter are brought before them.

Chuckle!

The standard is INCREDIBLY high - one can not show a preference in the outcome or one is _obligated_ to recuse. I've read from several scholars from both sides who all agreed that both Justices abandoned their duties to recuse in the matter. These were legal scholars and all agreed that no reasonable person could interpret their actions as impartial, thus they should have recused themselves.

Would be none if there was just a straight flat tax on every individual regardless of status...


But then there goes Government control.

This is not an interest in the outcome, just a position. If they had a gay child, or gay partner themselves, that might.

There is no "right" for gays to legally marry. Marriage between a man and a woman is based on religious and traditional laws. Based upon tradition, various states have made various laws regarding it. The original purpose of marriage was procreation, followed by the need to care for the child and provide for the family's well being in order to do so. Now, there are other reasons for marriage such as love and companionship without the need for children. More and more, gay couples are beginning to sound like a little child who sees someone else with something he wants and is throwing a fit in order to get it. Gays have options open to them not the least of which is moving to a State that allows gay marriage. Why this has become such a huge issue borders on the inane.

Agreed, which is why the LGBT community went to the Gov't to sanction what they want to do because most churches would not! Why should 3% of the population garner over 90% of the MSM news cycle? Sorry that question is rhetorical!

I am no longer confused as to the intent of your article. Thank you. I was just about to post the following comment when I saw yours:

"I guess I am a bit confused here as to the intent of your article. On the surface is a defense of the necessity of objective definitions and the futility of attempting any meaningful debate in the absence of objectivity. But this argument seems incomplete and I am left with the impression that you are defending the policy of the states to violate the rights of some of their citizens to have their associations with other individuals recognized equally under the law, on the basis that their proposed definition is incorrect. "

Now I understand.

So by your logic the state has an interest in requiring that a woman be married (to a man) once she gives birth to a child or have the option (be forced) to give that child up.

But . . . to the extent that the state is responsible for the welfare of children, that responsibility exists regardless of whether or not the parents are or were married. So how does this responsibility lead to a state “interest” in defining what does and does not constitute a marriage?

If the precise meaning of words is foundational to a free society and individual rights, then the deliberate blurring of those meanings can only be helpful to those whose intention it is to destroy that freedom and those rights.

I demand the right to "differently structured" marriage. My wife and I have each owned diesel pickup trucks (mine the one-ton, hers the 3/4 ton) for about 25 years, and we think it's high time we be allowed our right to marry our trucks. We are being very reasonable in all of this, and are -not- demanding to marry our horses. Just the trucks.

AND, if that religion is opposed to said marriage due to their doctrines, then they should not be forced to "bless" or provide a ceremony.

I will point out that being in favor of gay marriage and having officiated at one that took place under a state law does not, necessarily, imply that they think it is a right under the federal constitution.

Of course, they probably do.

Naturally, the first thought of the Libertarian is that if the government would get out of the way, the problem would solve itself. Let government stop issuing marriage licenses or otherwise involving itself in matrimony and, bingo, no more argument about states that do or do not permit gay "marriage."

As Ayn Rand interpreted the application of human rights to children ("Respective Obligations of Parents and Children,), parents should be held legally responsible for taking care of their children within their financial means. The argument is that children, by their nature, require such care and parents knew that before bringing them into existence. If the parents cannot or will not care for the child, and, say, prefer to be punished, instead, then the state must assume responsibility for the children. The state thus has an "interest" is the defining characteristic of marriage: that a man and woman enter into a long-term sexual relationship--not always consummated, but always with that potential. None of this has anything to do, notice, with gay "marriage" because it is not marriage. It is another kind of union with different defining characteristics.

I am neither for nor against the LGBT community. Whether they have the "right" to marry is irrelevant at the Federal level. That is an issue for the People and or the States. The Constitution says nothing of marriage nor should it. Marriage is a religious contractual agreement for those who choose to enter.

The role of a Justice is to be objective and impartial. If one has already sided through previous action with either the plaintiff or the defendant, Supreme Court rules mandate that they recuse themselves. It is the same reason judges who have monetary interests in certain companies recuse themselves when certain cases involving those clients come before the Court - to maintain the impartiality of the rulings. Both Kagan and Ginsberg have also openly given speeches actively agitating for a change in the law. If that isn't a complete violation of impartiality, I don't know what is.

Not much in the article about the point of having some government "agency" agree some relationship is a marriage.

Government got involved in the marriage "business" so they could control who got married (same race please..., no brothers/sisters, maybe first cousins depending on place/state,.. etc), and
to control relationships (automatic subsidies and penalties via tax codes, and automatic protections w/o contracts - kids, divorce, inheritance, etc.)

The article seems to be all about relationships - which is great - but not why people seem to really want the government "sanction" of being married.

I agree with the other posters here - the government should be out of the relationship and marriage business.
And also that a relationship between two different sexes should receive some special treatment not available to two or more same/different/non- sex people.

(I wonder how many thousands of pages of tax codes changes that would entail...)

Definitions are crucial and so is the etymology of the term. The idea of marriage as between a man and woman began in tribal customs all over the world as assurances of adding to the size and wealth of the families. it became in the Christian religion the celebration of God's will for humankind. The church then went to the State to force marriage as the only union as a means of building God's family. Now the State finds its mandate for equality is against the religious basis on which marriage is based. I recommend ending state regulation of marriage and let the churches decide who they will join to build God's family and the churches coffers. Let the State have civil unions to establish contractual relations between consenting adults. Animals should be excluded to PETA's regret..

Why would this require them to excuse themselves? I'm sure other justices have officiated at straight marriages, and some have probably gone to church where arguments against gay marriage were presented.

Like you way of looking at it.

Nice article.

One thing I found reprehensible was that neither Ginsburg nor Kagan recused themselves, despite having officiated in gay "marriage' ceremonies.

Of course, if you remove the state sanction from marriage, polygamous, poly amorous and polyandrous marriages could all come to pass; but it is perhaps belaboring the obvious to note that those arrangements are undertaken today, just without state sanction.

I don't think the state has any business in marriage. The idea of a civil union makes some sense - for everybody - to encompass the legal contract.

But marriage? Let individual churches conduct religious marriages as they see fit. Let the non-religious make what arrangements suit them. Keep the government the hell out of it.

"It is worth asking how that battle would be changed if the recognition of the right to have homosexual relationships is linked with the “right” of homosexuals to an officially recognized marriage."
I agree with this part. I wish the state were less involved in our lives so state-sanction of marriage would be moot.

"Indeed, the argument that forwards gay “marriage” must accept all forms of polygamy and asexual “relationships” as “marriages”"
This is a slippery slope. One change does not always lead to the next. In this case, though, it's correct. We are already working on polyamory.