The Supreme Court gay marriage arguments: What the justices revealed — quote by quote

A rainbow-colored flag flies in front of the Supreme Court on Monday, the day before the court heard arguments on the constitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage. (Andrew Harnik/AP Photo)

In the same-sex-marriage oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, eight of the justices revealed their personalities and their very different approaches to marriage equality in particular and the Constitution in general. What follows are the most revealing quotes, in order of seniority, from each of the justices who spoke at the argument (Justice Thomas was silent), along with their central concern and contribution to the

Chief Justice Roberts has long been troubled by the idea that courts might short-circuit a democratic debate over marriage equality by imposing a constitutional right to marry by judicial fiat. In his dissent from the Windsor case in 2013, he wrote that he was reluctant to “tar the political branches with the brush of bigotry” without convincing evidence that a law’s “principal purpose was to codify malice.” He might vote to uphold same-sex-marriage bans on the grounds that the people, not judges, should decide the future of marriage.

Roberts also hinted that same-sex-marriage bans might be vulnerable as a form of sex discrimination. “I’m not sure it’s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve the case,” he said. “I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?” Still, a majority of the court seems more interested in striking down the bans as a violation of liberty, equality, and dignity, and it would be surprising if Roberts joined majority opinion emphasizing sex discrimination.

debate.

Justice Scalia was especially troubled by the possibility that ministers might be required to conduct same-sex weddings that violated their religious convictions. Some commentators seized on his question as evidence that he believes the constitutional recognition of same-sex marriage is inevitable and wants to engage in damage control. Justice Kagan responded that rabbis at the moment are not required to marry Jews and non-Jews. She spoke from experience, having had to persuade her own New York City rabbi toconduct his first bat mitzvah after she turned 12.