Did Ruth Bader Ginsburg offer a clue on marriage equality?
Over the weekend, less than a month after the Supreme Court heard arguments on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg presided over the wedding of Shakespeare Theatre artistic director Michael Kahn and interior designer Charles Mitchem. According to New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, a guest at the wedding, Ginsburg delivered her portion, including saying she was officiating by the power vested in her by the United States Constitution, “with a sly look and special emphasis on the word ‘Constitution.’“
Dowd wrote that guests applauded, though “no one was sure if she was emphasizing her own beliefs or giving a hint to the outcome of the case the Supreme Court is considering whether to decide if same-sex marriage is constitutional.” A decision in that case, which will determine whether same-sex marriage is recognized throughout the country, is expected at the end of the term, usually late June.
No one seriously believes that Ginsburg, a liberal stalwart on the court, will be the swing vote in the decision in the case, Obergefell v. Hodges – that would be Justice Anthony Kennedy. The justices generally meet a few days after a case is argued for a closed door conference to take an initial vote tally and assign opinions, so under normal circumstances, Ginsburg would already know the case’s outcome. But more likely, the often-careful Ginsburg was emphasizing “constitution” at that moment to underscore her own vision of that document, which she has long held can expand to embrace people who were left out at the founding – including gays and lesbians.
This is the third time Ginsburg has been known to preside over a same-sex wedding; two of the weddings have involved prominent people in the performing arts, unsurprising given how many evenings Ginsburg spends at the theater.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/did-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offer-clue-marriage-equality
= new reply since forum marked as read
Chiefs worry about their historical legacies. Roberts won't want to be seen as being on the wrong side of a historical inevitability.
He asked at argument whether the issue could be settled under established sex-discrimination law and the equality proponents' answer was "yes." And RBG literally made most of that law herself as an advocate before the SCOTUS so he ask her what's what. She knows. 
