The steps of the Supreme Court were abuzz with activity and bedecked with rainbow flags and signs demanding religious liberty Tuesday morning as the high court prepared to hear oral arguments for a case that may decide the future of American marriage.
“We’re here to protect religious liberty in this debate,” said Kassie Dulin of the Liberty Institute, an advocacy group which argues states should be allowed to make their own decisions on same-sex unions. “We believe that people should not only be free to hold their beliefs, but also to speak and act on those beliefs.”
Sophia Lin and Ross Rattanasena, students at George Washington University, were at the court early. Mr. Rattanasena waved a sign reading, “More gay weddings, less red weddings.”
“I would love to see a court hand down a decision for all 50 states,” said Mr. Rattanasena. Separating contractual unions from religious considerations “might be the best solution” to the current debate.
“Religion definitely has a ceremonial role to play, but that can’t determine the whole decision,” he said.
A rally by LGBT activists featured two performances of the National Anthem by the D.C. Gay Men’s Chorus, but there were some less pleasant confrontations during the morning.
Elizabeth Santorum, the daughter of prominent gay marriage opponent and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, was heckled while she tried to speak.
After speaking, Ms. Santorum was met by a chorus of boos and jeers, and a single protester, carrying a rainbow flag and a pro-gay rights poster, accosted the 24-year-old and told her, “Your father is a bigot.”
Both sides rehearsed their arguments for and against gay marriage as the justices heard the legal debate inside.
“There are four words on the front of the Supreme Court building, ’Equal justice under law,’” said Jason Rahlan of Human Rights Campaign, which argues gays have a constitutional right to marry. “We just want gays and lesbians to have the right to marry whom they love.”
Other groups, however, saw the issue as one having to do with states’ rights and the same jurisprudence that struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act two years ago.
Caleb Dalton, litigation counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, said in an interview that the oral arguments made by the defendants would center on the Windsor decision, which said that the State of New York had the right to define marriage as it had voted, and the the federal marriage legislation had no bearing on that decision.
At the front off the crowd, several traditional marriage groups gathered for a rally, the theme of which was religious freedom.
“Each state should be able to determine its own path on marriage,” said Rep. Bill Flores, Texas Republican and the rally’s first speaker.
Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, took the stage to jeers from counter-protesters as he proclaimed that “the days of comfortable Christianity are over” and that he and others there “will never be intimidated.”
Fifty feet away, participants in a rival rally were arguing that the high court should hand down a decision nationally mandating same sex marriage.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.