This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2015, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

Can't get into the U.S. Supreme Court building to hear tomorrow's arguments on the same-sex marriage case?

We've got some pretty good arguments going on right here.

Starting more than a year ago, when New York Times columnist and blogger Ross Douthat, who helps that newspaper by being a reliable voice for a more conservative mindset, suggested that the debate over same-sex marriage was over, that the side favoring marriage equality had won, and it was just a matter of negotiating the terms of surrender.

Maybe it's as simple as not using words like "bigot" to describe those who favor, or favored, restricting marriage to heterosexual couples.

Marriage equality remains constitutional destiny — Paul C. Burke and Brett L. Tolman | For The Salt Lake Tribune

" ... All of these arguments against same-sex marriage have been discredited. The Supreme Court held in 2003 that states may not attempt to legislate morality by criminalizing homosexual conduct. Even staunch adversaries of marriage equality now concede that gay people are a distinct group of people defined by their sexual orientation, and there is broad scientific consensus that same-sex parents are no less capable than opposite-sex parents. ..."

Marriage bans violate law as segregation did — Cass Sunstein | Bloomberg View

"The same-sex marriage cases, which will be argued Tuesday, may well rank among the most important constitutional disputes in American history. The best analogy is Brown v. Board of Education, the iconic 1954 decision in which the Supreme Court struck down school segregation. The parallel is very close, and it clarifies what the same-sex marriage cases are really about.

"Almost everyone now celebrates Brown as self-evidently correct. But beware of hindsight. It obscures the intense disagreements that preceded that decision, and the firestorms that followed it. At the time, eminently sensible people insisted that the court had overreached, not least because racial segregation was entrenched in many states, and because it was not at all obvious that the Constitution stood in its way. ..."

— Marriage definition on Supreme Court docket — don't turn believers into bigots | Deseret News Editorial

"On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in four cases that could have profound and lasting impacts on the nation's cherished foundational support for religious freedom and tolerance.

"Should a majority of the court agree with the plaintiffs that laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman are grounded in animus, or hostility, toward gays and lesbians, or that they are evidence of prejudice, ignorance or bigotry, many religious believers would find themselves turned into second-class citizens. ..."

The word "crazy" has been thrown around, too.

Anti-equality Utahns not giving up without a fight — George Pyle | The Salt Lake Tribune

" 'This is the South, and we're proud of our crazy people. We don't hide them up in the attic. We bring them right down to the living room to show them off.' — Julia Sugarbaker, 'Designing Women'

"This is Utah, and we're a little more conflicted about it. ..."

Though some of the online comments on that article wanted to stick to the b-word.

" ... But I must point out that [Gene] Schaerr and [Matthew] Holland are not crazy. They are bigots. They're highly educated bigots. But a bigot is a bigot is a bigot. ... — jherring5"

Other views (or, maybe, other examples of grasping at straws, seeking a way to save something from a lost cause):

Can the Supreme Court find compromise on same-sex marriage? — Drew Clark | The Deseret News

"The legal, jurisdictional and political twists and turns in same-sex marriage saga have been numerous. The question squarely before the Supreme Court this Tuesday is, 'Does the 14th Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?'

"That's the central question, but not the only one. And therein lies a thread of possibility: Might the Supreme Court do something unexpected to diffuse this emotionally charged controversy? ..."

Let people, not courts, define marriage — Sen. Mike Lee | For The Deseret News

"Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case involving four separate lawsuits, each dealing with the same question: does the U.S. Constitution require the redefinition of marriage?

"The answer is simple: there is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting the states from retaining the traditional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. ..."