Matters of Supreme importance

In case you’ve been in a Nepali monastery for the past week or so with the battery on your iPad completely drained, the Supreme Court of the US is hearing arguments on two cases involving how governments accommodate (or don’t) the institution of marriage. Specifically, whether states can enact laws banning same-sex marriage (California’s Proposition 8, from 2008), and whether the Federal government can define a marriage as being solely between one man and one woman (the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) of 1996).

There’s not been such a potential for blushes and sly asides in the Court since the Supremes in 1964 took on the issue of determining what pornography is. (Okay, officially that was a ruling that obscenity wasn’t in fact free speech and was therefore not protected under the provisions of the First Amendment. But you’ll perhaps recall the high point of that case was Justice Potter Stewart’s admission that pornography was bloody difficult to define legally, “but I know it when I see it.”)

You can find coverage on the arguments pretty much anywhere in the mainstream media and the lunatic fringe. I like two speculative viewpoints: Andy Borowitz’s “report” of Antonin Scalia throwing a hissy fit at having to hear about gay couples all week long, And The Onion’s “story” about the entire Court engaging in a gigantic yawn and proclaiming that the whole same-sex marriage thing is a big drink of no-alcohol beer.

So far I’ve not seen any comment on the fact that six guys in dresses form the majority of the team that’s going to decide these issues. I guess that’s what I’m here for—to point out important things like that.