• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« The Morning Wrap | Main | Patton Boggs Laid Off Unspecified Number of Lawyers, Story Says »

March 01, 2013


Karen Grube

The Supreme Court would be totally irresponsible to make any other decision than to support the voters of California in their choice to preserve traditional marriage. It's simple. Kids need both a mom and a dad. Even President Obama said he wished he'd had a dad around as he was growing up. It would be totally outrageous of the Supreme Court to impose a decision that would deny children their right to be raised by their real mom and dad. The very thought of removing the gender requirement from marriage would be like removing the age requirement or the requirement of having only a single spouse. How stupid would that be? Emotional attachment cannot be the only requirement for marriage unless the intent is to destroy the whole concept of what a family really is.

It's simple biology. Only the union of one man and one woman can create a child. Every kid ever born has one mother and one father. I have yet to hear that two women alone or two men alone can create a child without outside interference. When they can, it would be a biological miracle but that miracle might give a decent reason for allowing genderless marriage. Until then, let's hope ALL of the justices have enough common sense and common decency to agree that marriage should be and will be under U.S. law, solely the union of one man and one woman.


Pugno's "impugn" argument may make great press, but it falls flat if you read the briefs.

The Government went to the trouble of quoting an earlier dissent by Justice Kennedy, specifically stating that prejudice is often unwitting and societally programmed, and should not be read as to imply intention or moral fault.

If that's what the likeliest deciding vote thinks, then at best Pugno is barking up the wrong tree - and, at worst, he is going to irk the Justice casting the key vote and provoke him to say his piece again.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad