Justice Kennedy addressed that issue specifically in his ruling. He says that by denying marriage rights to same-sex couples who have kids, you’re humiliating and demeaning those kids.
By denying their families equal protection under the law by the parents who are raising them and who love them and who make their family. So we can put it in the interests of children, but I think that cuts both ways. And the ruling cuts against that argument. I mean, gay people exist. There’s nothing we can do in public policy can do to make more of us exist or less of us exist.
And you guys for a generation have argued that public policy ought to demean gay people as a way of expressing disapproval of the fact that we exist. But you don’t make any less of us exist, you are just arguing for more discrimination. And more discrimination doesn’t make straight people’s lives any better.
But-- wait for it...
... Legal experts say Justice Scalia was probably right... and I agree.
And so does Rachel Maddow:
Here's the rest:
Scalia "was saying, you realize this ruling means gay people are going to be able to get married, right? You realize that?" Yes, Justice Scalia, we realize that...
Legal experts say the Supreme Court's rulings this week on same-sex marriage send the clear signal the justices are likely to strike down state marriage laws that reach the High Court. [...]
“It’s hard to see Kennedy making an about-face and saying it’s not demeaning when a state does it,” [Ilya Shapiro, a senior legal fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute] said.
Scalia saw the same clues in Kennedy’s decision. He wrote a scathing dissent excoriating Kennedy’s reasoning and dismissing the court’s claim that its decision was limited to federal law.
“By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition,” Scalia wrote [...] "As far as this Court is concerned, no one should be fooled; it is just a matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe..."
As I said at the top of this post, legal experts (and Rachel) say Justice Scalia was probably right, and I agree.
But only just this once.