It should be no surprise that Supreme Court justices have a history of presiding over weddings. But when the wedding ceremonies they choose to officiate show an unmistakable bias toward a contentious and divisive issue, it shows that they are not the impartial, objective arbiters of the law as they would have you believe.
Over the weekend, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor presided over her first same-sex wedding, marrying off a pair of women who are involved in alphabet rights.
From the Washington Blade, a same-sex advocates publication:
U.S. Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor officiated on Saturday the wedding of a lesbian couple with a history of LGBT advocacy, the Washington Blade has learned.
Sotomayor performed the wedding of Ingrid Duran and Catherine Pino, who are founders of D&P Creative Strategies. The organization seeks to increase the role of corporate, legislative and philanthropic efforts in addressing concerns of Latinos, women and LGBT people.
According to one source familiar with the event, the wedding took place in D.C. at Potomac View Terrace. U.S. Treasurer Rosa Gumataotao Rios, Rep. Xavier Beccera (D-Calif.), Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.), Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.) and Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) were present for the ceremony, the source said.
Sotomayor now joins the ranks of three other Supreme Court justices–all female, two of whom still sit alongside her on the bench–who have presided over same-sex weddings. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg officiated at least three same-sex weddings before the Obergefell v. Hodges decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide this last June. Justice Elena Kagan presided over a same-sex wedding in September of last year. Retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor officiated at a gay couple’s wedding in 2013.
With three of the five individuals who voted in favor of same-sex marriage now having officiated over same-sex marriages themselves, it’s clear that the highest court in the nation was stacked from the get-go on this issue. Ginsburg and Kagan should have recused themselves from the Obergefell v. Hodges case, since their predilection was obvious before the judgment went down.
As for Sotomayor, her action contradicts the words she said in response to Senator Chuck Grassley during her 2009 confirmation hearings. Right after she avoided answering questions regarding her stance on the precedent set by the 1971 Baker v. Nelson case on gay marriage, Grassley asked her if judges “should and must take into account gender, ethnic background, or other personal preferences in their decision-making process.”
She said, “No, I do not believe that judges should use their personal feelings, beliefs or value systems, or make — to influence their outcomes, and neither do I believe that they should consider the gender, race or ethnicity of any group that’s before them. I absolutely do not believe that. With respect to — yes, is the — is the goal of justice to be impartial? That is the central role of a judge. The judge is the impartial decision-maker before parties who come before them.”
Now that she has presided over a same-sex marriage just a few short months after ruling in favor of that type of ceremony, it’s safe to say she wasn’t being sincere about her impartiality during her confirmation process.
Sure, everyone has their own ideologies and biases that are impossible to dismiss no matter the profession one takes. But as a Supreme Court justice, at least make an effort to appear objective and ethical. These three sitting justices–Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor–show that objectivity and ethics are foreign concepts to them. Their personal views influenced their decision in the same-sex marriage case–a decision that has redefined the word “marriage,” violated the constitutional rights of the states, transformed the United States judicial branch into a legislative body, and changed the moral landscape of this country. Their ability to judge in a neutral fashion must be called into question and challenged in earnest, or who knows how else they’ll impose their personal agendas on the rest of us.
To say that the SCOTUS ruling on same-sex marriage was an impartial decision is a flat-out lie. It should be more than obvious to everyone now.
