The oral arguments in Lewis v. Harris (which I watched via webcast) were so fascinating! David Buckel of Lambda Legal, attorney for the gay couples, was up first. After a few minutes of speaking, he was peppered with questions from five of the seven justices. I got nervous, because they were challenging him pretty hard. But after his time was up, it was Patrick DeAlmeida’s turn, the attorney representing New Jersey, and he was challenged even harder – at least four of the justices seemed very skeptical of his arguments. (Two of the justices didn’t speak at all.)
You never know how these things will turn out, but it looks good.
It was pretty exciting to watch. I was worried during the “polygamy” questioning because that was just so bizarre, since it was not one of the objections raised by the state in its brief nor, certainly, is it something which Lambda was advocating. (My theory is that the right to polygamy will eventually be won on the free exercise of religion clause.) I was also concerned during the questions about whether homosexuality was “immutable” or not, a) because if the Constitutional question is whether you can exclude a certain group of people from legal protections based on an arbitrary categorization, I fail to see the difference whether that arbitrary category is immutable or not, and b) because the justice specifically asked if the attorney had a “personal view.” I’m new at this, but that felt improper to me, as well as irrelevant. He was there to represent his clients, not advocate his personal views. Still, that particular justice more than redeemed himself in my opinion a few moments later.
The state’s arguments showed just how silly and weak the opposition to same-sex marriage is. I think it was something of a tactical error on Mr. DeAlmeida’s part to keep insisting that the court needed to defer to the legislature on this point; the justices seemed to bristle a bit at that suggestion. I had to laugh out loud when he actually said that rates of heterosexual marriage would decline if marriage rights were extended to same-sex couples.
Alas, now we have to wait probably several months for the verdict.
I don’t remember him saying that heterosexual marriage rates would decline – I thought he specifically disavowed that argument when one of the justices brought it up.
It was definitely weird when Buckel was asked about his personal view on the immutability of homosexuality.
We’ll have to go back and view the trial again sometime. I’m pretty sure he said straight marriages would decline, because the comment produced a pretty horrendous howl in my office. ; )