<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[The Dish]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://dish.andrewsullivan.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Andrew Sullivan]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/author/sullydish/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[It Wasn&#8217;t Activist&nbsp;Judges]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://sullydish.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/164726975.jpg"><img data-attachment-id="159388" data-permalink="https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/03/27/who-won-the-argument-ii/us-justice-gay-marriage-7/" data-orig-file="https://sullydish.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/164726975.jpg?w=580&#038;h=394" data-orig-size="4200,2857" data-comments-opened="0" data-image-meta="{&quot;aperture&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;credit&quot;:&quot;AFP\/Getty Images&quot;,&quot;camera&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;caption&quot;:&quot;A same-sex marriage supporter has her forehead painted with rainbow colors as she joins demonstration in front of the Supreme Court on March 27, 2013 in Washington, DC. The US Supreme Court tackled same-sex unions for a second day Wednesday, hearing arguments for and against the 1996 US law defining marriage as between one man and one woman. After the nine justices mulled arguments on a California law outlawing gay marriage on Tuesday, they took up a challenge to the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The 1996 law prevents couples who have tied the knot in nine states -- where same-sex marriage is legal -- from enjoying the same federal rights as heterosexual couples. AFP PHOTO\/Jewel Samad        (Photo credit should read JEWEL SAMAD\/AFP\/Getty Images)&quot;,&quot;created_timestamp&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;copyright&quot;:&quot;2013 AFP&quot;,&quot;focal_length&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;iso&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;shutter_speed&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;title&quot;:&quot;US-JUSTICE-GAY-MARRIAGE&quot;}" data-image-title="US-JUSTICE-GAY-MARRIAGE" data-image-description="&lt;p&gt;A same-sex marriage supporter has her forehead painted with rainbow colors as she joins demonstration in front of the Supreme Court on March 27, 2013 in Washington, DC. The US Supreme Court tackled same-sex unions for a second day Wednesday, hearing arguments for and against the 1996 US law defining marriage as between one man and one woman. After the nine justices mulled arguments on a California law outlawing gay marriage on Tuesday, they took up a challenge to the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The 1996 law prevents couples who have tied the knot in nine states &#8212; where same-sex marriage is legal &#8212; from enjoying the same federal rights as heterosexual couples. AFP PHOTO/Jewel Samad        (Photo credit should read JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images)&lt;/p&gt;
" data-medium-file="https://sullydish.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/164726975.jpg?w=580&#038;h=394?w=300" data-large-file="https://sullydish.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/164726975.jpg?w=580&#038;h=394?w=1024" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-159388" alt="US-JUSTICE-GAY-MARRIAGE" src="https://sullydish.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/164726975.jpg?w=580&#038;h=394" width="580" height="394" srcset="https://sullydish.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/164726975.jpg?w=580&amp;h=394 580w, https://sullydish.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/164726975.jpg?w=1158&amp;h=788 1158w, https://sullydish.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/164726975.jpg?w=150&amp;h=102 150w, https://sullydish.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/164726975.jpg?w=300&amp;h=204 300w, https://sullydish.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/164726975.jpg?w=768&amp;h=522 768w, https://sullydish.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/164726975.jpg?w=1024&amp;h=697 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 580px) 100vw, 580px" /></a></p>
<p>Richard Posner <a href="http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113816/how-gay-marriage-became-legitimate">considers</a> how marriage equality gained acceptance:</p>
<blockquote><p>All in all, the judicial role in the rise of homosexual marriage seems to have been quite modest. Probably the courts have done little either to accelerate the trend in acceptance of such marriage or, through backlash, to retard the trend. In retrospect, the growing acceptance of homosexual marriage seems a natural consequence of the sexual revolution that began in the 1960s rather than an effect, even to a small degree, of litigation. That should come as no surprise when one thinks of another significant social and cultural development in America in the same era: the virtual disappearance of discrimination against Jews, Catholics, Irish Americans, Italian Americans, and Asian Americans, which also owed very little to litigation.</p></blockquote>
<p>Scott Lemieux <a href="http://prospect.org/article/why-courts-matter-lbgt-rights">counters</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>Posner’s key mistake is to assume that gays and lesbians are merely seeking public acceptance. But while public acceptance may be <em>necessary</em> for the advancement of fundamental rights it’s not <em>sufficient</em>; gays and lesbians actually also want their legal rights protected. Litigation may not have much to do with the former but it has been very important to the latter.</p></blockquote>
<p>In a <a href="http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/07/posner-on-the-courts-and-lbgt-rights">follow-up post</a>, Lemieux addresses another element of Posner&#8217;s article &#8211; on the importance of <em>Lawrence</em>.</p>
<p>(Photo: A same-sex marriage supporter has her forehead painted with rainbow colors as she joins demonstration in front of the Supreme Court on March 27, 2013 in Washington, DC. By Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images)</p>
]]></html><thumbnail_url><![CDATA[https://sullydish.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/164726975.jpg?fit=440%2C330]]></thumbnail_url><thumbnail_width><![CDATA[440]]></thumbnail_width><thumbnail_height><![CDATA[299]]></thumbnail_height></oembed>