THE SUPREME COURT,
THE KNOWLEDGEABLE NINE, EL GRANDE JUSTIVO.
ROBES, ROBES, ROBES.
YESTERDAY, AMERICA DROPPED DOWN ON ONE KNEE AND PROPOSED ORAL
ARGUMENTS THAT COULD SETTLE THE QUESTION OF MARRIAGE EQUALITY
FOR GAY PEOPLE.
>> THE COURT WILL ANSWER TWO QUESTIONS-- CAN STATES REFUSE TO
ISSUE MARRIAGE LICENSES TO SAME-SEX COUPLES, AND CAN THEY
DECLINE TO RECOGNIZE SAME-SEX MARRIAGES THAT WERE LEGALLY
GRANTED SOMEWHERE ELSE.
>> Jon: AND CAN THE COURT ANSWER THOSE WHILE TRAVELING THE WORLD.
THAT'S RIGHT, THE SUPREME COURT IS HEARING THOSE
CASES WHILE PARTICIPATING IN THIS YEAR'S "AMAZING RACE."
( LAUGHTER ) SHE SEEMS-- SHE SEEMS PERFECTLY
COMFORTABLE ON A ZIP LINE.
( LAUGHTER ) OF COURSE, AN ISSUE THIS
IMPORTANT WAS BOUND TO DRAW A CROWD, MAKING THEIR FINAL
ARGUMENTS.
THE PROGAY MARRIAGE CAMP WENT WITH HOW CAN A JUST GOD NOT
ALLOW TWO MEN THIS INTO BEARD CARE NOT BE TOGETHER?
WHILE THE ANTIGAY MARRIAGE CROWD WENT WITH WHY DON'T WE SUMMON
THE ANCIENT HEBREWS AND SEE WHAT THEY SAY?
BY THE WAY, YES, THAT IS A SHOFAR, AND YES, THE ANTIGAY MAN
IS BLOWING IT.
( LAUGHTER ) ( APPLAUSE )
BUT, IT WOULDN'T -- IRONY. ALL RIGHT.
( CHEERS AND APPLAUSE ) BUT IT WOULDN'T BE UP TO THOSE
OUTSIDE THE COURT.
>> THIS WILL, IN ALL LIKELIHOOD COME DOWN TO JUSTICE KENNEDY.
>> Jon: KENNEDY, KENNEDY, KENNEDY!
THE ONLY JUSTICE ANYONE EVER CARES ABOUT IS KENNEDY.
HE'S THE MARCIA TO THE SUPREME COURT'S EIGHT JANS.
BUT TUESDAY'S SESSION WAS MAINLY A FORUM FOR
GAY MARRIAGE OPPONENTS TO AIR THEIR BEST AND
FINAL ARGUMENTS WHICH WE LOOK AT IN TONIGHT'S SEGMENT, YOU GOT
NOTHING, SO-CALLED BECAUSE OPPONENTS OF GAY MARRIAGE GOT
NOTHING.
AND THEY TRIED EVERYTHING, STARTING WITH THE GOOD, OLD,
CLASSIC SLIPPERY SLOPE.
>> SUPPOSE WE RULE IN YOUR FAVOR IN THIS CASE, AND AFTER THAT, A
GROUP CONSISTING OF TWO MEN AND TWO WOMEN APPLY FOR A MARRIAGE
LICENSE.
WOULD THERE BE ANY GROUND FOR DENYING THEM A LICENSE?
>> Jon: WHY SHOULD GAY PEOPLE HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR
ANYONE WHO IS EVER GOING TO WANT TO GET MARRIED AFTER THEY GET
THE RIGHT TO MARRY?
WHEN WOMEN FOUGHT FOR SUFFRAGE NO WAS ONE LIKE WHAT IF ONE DAY
A DOG WANTS TO VOTE.
HOW ABOUT THAT, LADIES?
BECAUSE NEXT THING YOU KNOW THE STATE OF OUR UNION IS...
( BARK )
BY THE WAY, I LIKE THAT THE SPEAKER IS A CAT.
I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT IS.
SO THAT WAS ONE DUMB ARGUMENT BUT HARDLY THE ONLY ONE.
>> IF YOU PREVAIL HERE, THERE WILL BE NO MORE DEBATE.
I MEAN, CLOSING THE DEBATE CAN CLOSE MINDS, AND IT WILL HAVE A
CONSEQUENCE ON HOW THIS NEW INSTITUTION IS ACCEPTED.
PEOPLE FEEL VERY DIFFERENTLY ABOUT SOMETHING IF THEY HAVE A
CHANCE TO VOTE ON IT THAN IF IT'S IMPOSED ON THEM BY-- BY THE
COURTS.
>> Jon: SURE, NO, THAT MAKES SENSE.
IF YOU DON'T IMPOSE GAY MARRIAGE
FOLKS LIKE THIS WILL BE MORE OPEN MINDED.
( LAUGHTER ) TO EVOLVING THEIR POSITION.
YEAH, THERE YOU GO.
SEE.
( LAUGHTER ) ( APPLAUSE )
YEAH.
BUT THE POINT WAS CLEAR.
THIS CASE THREATENS NOT JUST MARRIAGE BUT OUR VERY DEMOCRACY.
>> WHEN YOU ENACT SOCIAL CHANGE OF THIS MAGNITUDE THROUGH THE
FEDERAL COURTS THAT'S NOT THE WAY THAT OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESS
IS SUPPOSED TO WORK, AND THERE ARE LONG-TERM HARMS TO OUR
COUNTRY AND TO THAT FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTY INTEREST TO GOVERN
OURSELVES.
>> Jon: FIRST OF ALL, LET ME JUST SAY I LOVE YOUR LAWYER
COSTUME.
( LAUGHTER ) ( APPLAUSE )
SECONDLY, IT'S BALLS FOR A YOUNG GUY TO WALK INTO THE SUPREME
COURT AND SAY I KNOW YOU THINK MARBURY VERSUS MADISON GIVES
YOU THE RIGHT TO DECIDE THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS BUT I
SAY WE'RE A DIRECT DEMOCRACY.
NOW, WHICH ONE OF YOU PRICKS IS GOING TO BUY ME BOOZE, I'M 19?
( LAUGHTER ) BUT HERE'S THE THING.
WE HAVE BOTH A FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTY TO GOVERN AND A COURT
EMPOWERED TO STOP US FROM ABUSING THAT LIBERTY TO TAKE
OTHER PEOPLE'S LIBERTY.
THAT'S HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS.
AND IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THE COURT'S DECISION, WELL THEN YOU
JUST HAVE TO SUCK IT UP, SOMETIMES FOR YEARS, WITH
HORRIBLE CONSEQUENCES.
( LAUGHTER ) ( APPLAUSE )
SO ENOUGH WITH THE DEMOCRACY!
ENOUGH!
CAN A BROTHER GET A LAME APPEAL TO HISTORY ARGUMENT UP IN HERE?
>> EVERY DEFINITION THAT I LOOKED UP PRIOR TO ABOUT A DOZEN
YEARS AGO DEFINED MARRIAGE AS THE UNITY BETWEEN A MAN
AND A WOMAN AS HUSBAND AND WIFE.
OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU SUCCEED, THAT CORE DEFINITION WILL NO LONGER
BE OPERABLE.
YOU'RE NOT SEEKING TO JOIN THE INSTITUTION.
YOU'RE SEEKING TO CHANGE WHAT THE INSTITUTION IS.
>> Jon: THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE HAS ALMOST NEVER NOT
BEEN CHANGING.
BEFORE THE LAST CENTURY, MARRIAGE WASN'T ONE MAN AND ONE
WOMAN.
IT WAS ONE MAN AND HIS NEW PIECE OF VAGINA PROPERTY.
( LAUGHTER ) CHANGE CAN BE GOOD.
( LAUGHTER ) BUT THE ANTIGAY CRAY-CRAY--
( APPLAUSE ) PROBABLY PEAKED WITH THIS
DISCUSSION ABOUT THE POINT OF MARRIAGE ITSELF.
>> IF YOU'RE CHANGING THE MEANING OF MARRIAGE FROM ONE
WHERE IT'S BASED ON THE BIOLOGICAL BOND TO ONE
WHERE IT'S BASED ON EMOTIONAL COMMITMENT, THEN ADULTS
COULD THINK, RIGHTLY, THAT THIS RELATIONSHIP IS MORE ABOUT
ADULTS AND NOT ABOUT THE KIDS.
>> Jon: WHOA!
( LAUGHTER ) GAY MARRIAGE ISN'T ABOUT KIDS?
HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TO PARK SLOPE?
OH, LOOK!
THE ELIZABETHS HAVE THE NEW DYSON UPPA BABY XL HOVER
CARRIAGE.
THAT WON'T BE HARD TO CLIMB OVER TO GET INTO BEANS AND SUCH.
( LAUGHTER ) BUT, ALL RIGHT, LET'S PLAY THIS
OUT.
>> SUPPOSE THAT THERE'S A STATE WITH A VERY
PRO-CREATION-CENTERED VIEW OF MARRIAGE OF THE KIND THAT YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT.
SO WHEN PEOPLE COME IN AND ASK FOR A MARRIAGE LICENSE, THEY
JUST ASK A SIMPLE QUESTION, "DO YOU WANT CHILDREN?"
AND IF THE ANSWER IS NO, THE STATE SAYS, "NO MARRIAGE LICENSE
FOR YOU."
WOULD THAT BE CONSTITUTIONAL?
>> Jon: OH SNAP, THAT WAS VERY RABBINICAL.
SOMEWHAT OBTUSE.
ANYONE WANT TO TAKE A MORE PRACTICAL SWING AT THIS?
>> SUPPOSE A 70-YEAR-OLD COUPLE COMES IN AND THEY WANT--
( LAUGHTER ) ( APPLAUSE )
( CHEERS AND APPLAUSE ) >> Jon: AND THIS
70-YEAR-OLD COUPLE, NO MATTER HOW MUCH THEY'RE ( BLEEP ), AND
THEY'RE ( BLEEP ) A LOT -- IN THE SIT-DOWN SHOWER, ON THAT--
ON THAT ELECTRIC STAIR CHAIR, BENT OVER THE MAHJONG TABLE--
THEY'RE NOT HAVING KIDS.
IS THEIRS NOT A CONSTITUTIONALLY WORTHY ( BLEEP )-FEST FILLED
LOVE AS WELL?
( LAUGHTER ) BUT FAIR QUESTION.
WHAT IF-- WHAT IF A COUPLE OF 70-YEAR-OLDS WANT TO GET
MARRIED, COUNSELOR?
IF MARRIAGE IS FOR HAVING KIDS WHY SHOULD THAT BE ALLOWED?
AND WHEN ANSWERING TRY TO STEP AS HARD AND DEEP INTO A PILE OF
DOG ( BLEEP ) AS POSSIBLE.
>> WELL, A 70-YEAR-OLD MAN, OBVIOUSLY, IS STILL CAPABLE OF
HAVING CHILDREN AND YOU LIKE TO KEEP THAT WITHIN THE MARRIAGE.
>> Jon: YOU KNOW, I THINK HE WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF
ANSWERING HAM ANA-HAM ANA-HAM ANA.
SPINNING THE BOW TIE, THROWING A SMOKE BOMB AND GETTING THE
( BLEEP ) OUT OF ROOM.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS-- IF ORAL ARGUMENTS HAVE ANY IMPACT
ON THE FINAL RESULTS, JUNE IS GOING TO BE A NICE TIME FOR A
GAY WEDDING.