Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the tiny liberal well-beyond the point of decrepitude, will be the first member of the high court to perform a same-sex marriage.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will become the first Supreme Court member to conduct a same-sex marriage ceremony Saturday when she officiates at the Washington wedding of Kennedy Center President Michael M. Kaiser.
The gala wedding of Kaiser and economist John Roberts at the performing arts center brings together the nation’s highest court and the capital’s high society and will mark a new milepost in the recognition of same-sex unions.
Such marriages were virtually unheard of a little more than a decade ago but now are legal in the nation’s capital, 13 states and in all or part of 17 other countries. After victories at the Supreme Court earlier this summer, a wave of litigation is challenging bans on same-sex marriages in states where they remain prohibited.
The issue of same-sex marriage remains a point of contention on this blog. This writer (TerranceH) believes marriage is between one man and one woman, but is not overly concerned with the growing acceptance of same-sex marriages. Put plainly, I don’t care one way or the other. I’ve debated the issue many times, from both sides, and see no point in doing so now since disagreeing parties will never find a middle-ground.
With that being said, my question is whether or not it is appropriate for a Supreme Court Justice of the United States to sanctify, if you will, that which remains illegal in 37 states.
Justice Ginsberg favors same-sex marriage with the same fervor as a squirrel burying a nut – and of course that’s her right. But Supreme Court Justices should not be gallivanting about town making provocative political or social statements. They should behave with the integrity and impartiality their position demands.