Political Gabfest - Extra: The "Wait! There's Marriage Equality!" Edition
Slate News
Slate Podcasts
4.5 • 6K Ratings
🗓️ 26 June 2015
⏱️ 12 minutes
🧾️ Download transcript
Summary
On this special mini-episode, everyone drops what they were doing to talk about a historic day at the Supreme Court. Emily Bazelon (calling from the side of a highway somewhere in New England), John Dickerson (hidden away in the CBS compound), and David Plotz react to the 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, determining that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional.Join Slate Plus! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial today at www.slate.com/gabfestplus. Twitter: @SlateGabfest Facebook: facebook.com/Gabfest Email: gabfest@slate.com Show notes at slate.com/gabfest
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Transcript
Click on a timestamp to play from that location
| 0:00.0 | Hello and welcome to the Slate Political Gab Fest, our second GabFest for June 26th. |
| 0:12.4 | The wait, there's Marriage Equality Edition. I'm David Flots. I am in the Slate DC studio. |
| 0:20.0 | John Dickerson is somewhere else. He's at CBS. Face the Nation. And Emily Bazelon is pulled over by the side of the road where she both wrote an article and now is doing a podcast. Really not to be recommended, let us say. Yeah, don't get hit while we're doing this. Stay in the car, Emily, do not get other cars. No, no, I'm like way off the road. She's driven into the middle of a field. I'm just hot because I'm sitting in the car. Then you're having the experience that John and I have every week in our studio, so it's... True enough. That's what's going on. Emily, take us away. The case, which is Oberfeld versus Dodges, What is it? They need a more euphonic name for this case. |
| 0:54.9 | I know, right? It's going to take us a while to even pronounce it. But yes, we have marriage |
| 0:59.5 | equality. We have the right to get married if you are a gay couple throughout the entire country. |
| 1:04.9 | In one big bang, with a lot of drama and grand language about our evolving progressive constitution in the hands |
| 1:15.2 | of Justice Anthony Kennedy and four liberals on the court. |
| 1:19.0 | And very much to the despair of the four conservatives on the court who all wrote to say |
| 1:25.9 | that this is an act of judicial supremacy, that it |
| 1:29.3 | bypassed the democratic process in a really destructive way. So it's like a really well-jointed |
| 1:35.2 | fight over how you make big social change. As you read the case, Emily, what is the case that |
| 1:41.6 | Justice Kennedy makes against this idea that this is judicial supremacy? |
| 1:45.9 | Where does he find the constitutional case for marriage equality? |
| 1:50.8 | Which the conservatives say doesn't exist. |
| 1:53.8 | Yeah, well, he doesn't, he can't argue with judicial supremacy directly, I don't think. |
| 1:58.3 | But he does make a constitutional case. |
| 2:00.5 | He talks about how the |
| 2:02.1 | definition of liberty changes over time in this country and has before. And his best precedent is |
| 2:08.6 | Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 ruling in which the court overturned state bans against interracial |
| 2:15.7 | marriage. That's a really good moment in which the court did a kind of similar move to the one it |
| 2:22.7 | is making today. |
| 2:23.9 | But you have to be okay with this notion that the Constitution changes over time and |
... |
Please login to see the full transcript.
Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Slate Podcasts, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.
Generated transcripts are the property of Slate Podcasts and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.
Copyright © Tapesearch 2026.