Amy Davidson writes about a “very odd exchange” at the Supreme Court hearing on Prop 8 today, and the role of procreation in the case: “If our only concern in all this is what’s good for the children,” she writes, “then we should support same-sex marriage. It protects the children of same-sex couples. It harms no one.” Read more: http://nyr.kr/13uwffo

(Source: newyorker.com)

The news, on the front page of the Times this morning, that dozens of leading Republicans had signed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the case of Proposition 8, the California gay-marriage ban, merited the A1 treatment that it received. Despite their party and their own past positions, Jon Huntsman, Meg Whitman, Ken Duberstein, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and others said that they supported a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage. This comes two days before the Obama Administration must decide whether it is ready to file a similar brief. In the most high-profile Supreme Court case of the year, with the future of how we view civil rights and treat our fellow-citizens at stake, someone had quietly engineered enough prominent conservatives from the opposition party to sign onto a legal brief supporting full equality for gay and lesbian Americans. That someone was Ken Mehlman, the openly gay former political director of the George W. Bush White House, the campaign manager for Bush’s 2004 reëlection campaign, and the former chairman of the Republican National Committee. 

Richard Socarides on Ken Mehlman’s gay-marriage mission: http://nyr.kr/Weh7Q1

Photograph by Chip Somodevilla/Getty.

Margaret Talbot looks at the arguments challenging the constitutionality of same-sex-marriage bans that will go before the Supreme Court in March: “Maybe love’s not all you need in a definition of marriage, but it’s got to be in there somewhere…” http://nyr.kr/XR0WC8

This week in Comment, Amy Davidson writes about the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case and asks the question, “Who is hurt by gay marriage?” She will be live-chatting with readers today at 3 P.M. E.S.T, so join in, or leave a question for her now.

An excerpt from her piece:

“Not all supporters of marriage equality are happy about that prospect. They want to get married in a proper way—with the support and approval of friends and neighbors. Before Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Lambda Legal, an advocacy group, had been conducting a careful campaign in state legislatures and courts. (Same-sex couples can now marry in five states and Washington, D.C., and public opinion has shifted markedly.) As Margaret Talbot wrote in this magazine, many activists were wary of the federal case and of the lead lawyers, Theodore Olson and David Boies. If they got to the Supreme Court before the ground was prepared, might there be a precedent-setting loss? Would a victory premised on a judge throwing out a referendum feel legitimate—especially if the opposition didn’t even get to appeal?

But the technicality presented by standing isn’t just technical. It raises a larger issue. If Prop. 8’s proponents don’t have standing to sue, then who does? Who is hurt by gay marriage?”

Back in the January 18th issue of the magazine, Margaret Talbot wrote about the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case. Here is an excerpt from her blog post on yesterday’s Prop. 8 ruling:

“Judge Walker’s ruling is only the beginning; Prop. 8’s defenders will appeal, and the case will likely make it the Supreme Court. But one thing this case will carry with it all the way up is an evidentiary record that is a lot stronger on one side than on the other. (Among other things, Judge Walker called the testimony of the writer David Blankenhorn, one of the two witnesses defending Prop. 8, “unreliable and entitled to essentially no weight.”) If I were on the anti-gay marriage side, I’d start wondering if I had the facts to shore up my moral disapproval.”