Could this simple argument prove key to a pro-same-sex marriage ruling in the Supreme Court?

A simple argument in favour of same-sex marriage has been raised in the Supreme Court, which may allow justices unsure which way to vote to make a decision.

The nine Supreme Court Justices earlier this week  heard oral arguments in a ground-breaking case concerning marriage bans in the states of Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, and Kentucky, in the first large-scale Supreme Court action on the issue since a ruling in 5-4 favour of equality during 2013’s United States v Windsor.

Justice John G Roberts Jr may have found a way to vote for same-sex marriage, by only considering the issue in terms of sexual discrimination, rather than to do with sexuality.

During arguments on the issue earlier this week, Justice Roberts said: “I’m not sure it’s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve this case… I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?”

The New York Times suggests the theory, which was considered a few times during earlier proceedings on same-sex marriage across the US, could be a way for the Chief Justice to avoid being accused of being “on the wrong side of history.

Halfway through the arguments, a man interrupted proceedings, screaming the words “homosexuality is an abomination”.

The Justices are expected to rule on the issue in June.

• TV
• Dec 18 2024

All 14 seasons of Doctor Who ranked from worst to best