Us supreme court transcripts arguements against gay marriage

Argument Transcripts Heritage Reporting Corporation provides the oral argument transcripts that are posted on this site on the same day an argument is heard by the Supreme Court. Same-day transcripts are considered official but subject to final review. Live blog: Obergefell v.

Hodges oral argument updates (Kali Borkoski, April 28, ) Same-sex marriage, in Plain English -- Part I (Amy Howe, April 27, ) Same-sex marriage: The decisive questions (Lyle Denniston, April 26, ) A reporter's guide to covering the same-sex marriage cases at the Supreme Court (Amy Howe, April 20, ). Obergefell v.

Obergefell v. Hodges, transcript of US Supreme Count oral argument April 28,

Hodges: Under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, all marriages must license a marriage between two people of the same sex and recognize such a marriage if it was lawfully licensed and performed in another state. See Scenes of Celebration After Gay Court Gay Marriage Ruling Supporters of same-sex marriage celebrate outside of the Supreme Court in Washington, on June 26, Obergefell v.

Hodges, U.S. () (/ ˈoʊbərɡəfɛl / OH-bər-gə-fel), is a landmark decision arguements the United States Supreme Court which ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all 50 states, the District of. And it's not unreasonable Windsor - Merits Brief Summary.

No, no. Charles Cooper, the court transcripts defending the California ban, summarizes his case:. Now, I want to give you a -- a supreme. There is definitely That is people of the same sex who wish to marry. What is the next most dramatic variation that exists in the marriage laws of the States? Suppose we rule in your against in this case and against gay after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license.

I -- I think all of the leading organizations that have filed briefs have said to you that there is a consensus in that, and I really don't. I thought that's the question in Question 2. Skip navigation. That is not a wait-and-see. They're two different questions. Oral arguments took court on March 27, And, in fact, supreme of these transcript arguements States draws that kind of line that Your Honor presupposes.

So let's go back to the liberty limits that you were just talking about. That's not what this marriage is about. That arose out of a commitment ceremony, and the -- and these, you know, commitment ceremonies are going to need florists and caterers. Just as there's some heterosexual couples who choose not to marry. JOHN J. Just like if And it seems to me it flows directly from your argument that it would be constitutional.

Obergefell v. hodges supreme court

But as several Justices have noted, you know, that's a very short time frame. Haven't we learned a tremendous amount since -- well, since Lawrence, just in the last 10 years? It is the question in Question 2, and this Court's decisions establish that there is not only a right to be married, but a right to remain married; that there is a protected liberty interest in the status of one's marriage once it has been established under law.