This is a Cato special podcast. I'm Caleb Brown. Does the 14th Amendment mean that

states may not prohibit same-sex marriages and are states also required to recognize same-sex

marriages duly performed in other states. Those questions will be before the

Supreme Court this term. The editor of Cato's Supreme Court review, Ilia Shapiro comments.

There's room there that the court created for itself to kind of split the baby.

And there could be some moderate position perhaps orchestrated by Chief Justice Roberts joined

by everyone except say Scalia to go the moderate route of striking down the non-recognition of out-of-state marriages while not requiring states to extend marriage

licenses?

That's possible.

But I think the smart money is to say that they'll go one way or the other full hog.

I think I guess it was Ruth Bader Ginsburg as sort of a lead-in during the Windsor

oral argument said,

can we just do this thing now and then come back

in a couple of years and sweep up the crumbs, essentially?

Well, a lot of us were saying that they should have done it then.

Remember at that time, there was the challenge to Doma,

the federal benefits to lawfully married gay couples.

And those provisions, those federal provisions were struck down.

At the same time, the court threw out on procedural grounds the challenge to

prop 8, California's state constitutional gay marriage ban and a lot of us on procedural

grounds criticize the court's eventual decision I think that was John

Robert sort of dodging the question.

...