More SSM Amici Briefs

Update: A few more were added, including a short one on the development of marriage itself over American history.  This includes changes in race and gender, plus the role of the courts.  An important discussion to refute talk of "traditional" marriage that stereotypes same sex marriage as a unique change. 

On the amicus briefs page for the SSM cases, there are a lot more briefs, mostly for plaintiffs. The amici for the states' side has not arrived yet. I counted two so far for neither party, including the Eagle Forum trying to argue for a domestic relations exception that simply hasn't been the case. 

Another should appeal to a special "I got a great solution!" category in these debates -- just label things "civil unions." Wonder why loads of states didn't do that, but barred civil unions for same sex couples too?  The brief argues "marriage" (why not civil union?) should be self-definitional and it is an Establishment Clause violation to favor one side by assigning it to those that some religions might oppose (after all, the word "marriage" is cited in the Bible!).  This is sort of too cute by half argument doesn't recognize the basics -- the people who oppose SSM do not want to give various benefits that they see are "marriage-like," whatever you call them. And, they already have a view of "marriage" that does not always overlap with the state's view, but single out one form of it here for disfavor. 

I still don't see a brief that provides a detailed discussion of how same sex marriages developed over time and was not just something that just popped up in 2003. An overall off-kilter brief points to the potential here by pointing out that same sex couples did try to get married, if by subterfuge, hundreds of years ago. A Quakers brief points out that in the 1980s they started to have same sex marriage ceremonies. But, neither is an in depth look at the subject, as compared to briefs that cover the history of discrimination.  One of the petitioners' briefs also briefly cites recognition of unions in some localities back to the 1980s.

This has been something of a hobbyhorse of mine -- it's important to show how same sex marriage is part of a continuing history, not to artificially start when modern day states or countries recognized same sex unions in the 1990s.  A final reference to history can be found in a brief supporting the sex/gender discrimination argument (I find it convincing, but it got little traction)  in which a reasonable argument is made that protecting same sex marriage is "originalist." It is part of avoiding caste and/or class discrimination, the case turning on a changing understanding on the facts, including the "natural" aspects of the sexes. 

Such briefs are more advocacy than something that convinces judges though they can and have shown to be useful to some degree. And, various topics, including conflict of law issues involving marriages are helpfully spelled out.  Finally, the "people's brief" is there and it turns out my name is included (if not there).  And, 207,550 other people. Feel so special.