Ruth Bader Ginsburg expressed her optimism earlier in February that the court will eventually rule in favor of gay marriage. However, the Supreme Court was still deeply divided on Tuesday when they started to hear oral arguments to the historic Obergefell v. Hodges—even though anti-gay activists are also expecting gay marriage to ultimately win out.

Accepting possible defeat (and being on the wrong side of history) didn’t stop anti-gay activists from making some bogus arguments during the Court's session. One argument was that the court does not have legal right to change hundreds of years of tradition...yeah, okay. RBG shut that down quickly stating that “Marriage today is not what it was under the common law tradition, under the civil law tradition…as a result of this court’s decision in 1982." 


Then the infamous argument came up: the institution of marriage being inherently linked to a couple’s ability to procreate (we’re getting bored of this one). It only makes sense that RBG responded with this hypothetical situation: a straight couple 70 years of age come in (to court) and want to get married. No questions asked, it’s obvious they aren’t going to have any children, but their love is still legally and nationally recognized. 

 One of the final oppositions exists under the belief that “gay marriage impinges on the state” and takes benefits away from straight couples. Note: this argument doesn’t even make sense because when you get an "A" in biology it does not detract from the other students who also got "A"s in biology. Ginsburg retorted with,“You’re not taking away anything from heterosexual couples. They would have the very same…benefits that come with marriage that they do now.” Cue the burn jokes and applause. 




Image c/o Cliff Owen, Associated Press, SNL