Giants file amicus brief to Supreme Court supporting argument for same-sex marriage

You didn't need another reason to cheer for the Giants. Here's another reason to cheer for the Giants.

Obergefell v. Hodges is a Supreme Court case asking if the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to issue marriage licenses to two people of the same sex, and if states have to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages. This is because both state and federal governments use marital status to determine tax status, as well as benefits and protections, and millions of people who currently aren't eligible would like those protections.

I know one of the rules here is "no politics," but, well, don't be a dingus. Read that sentence about marital status benefits again. The original case is based on "widowers seeking recognition from Ohio of the same-sex marriages mentioned on the deceased's death certificates." This would be a minor procedural glitch that would be taken care of in a five-second up-or-down vote if people weren't so freaking weird.

In support of the petitioners, the Giants filed an amicus brief, meaning they're ... offering support or something ... here, you read the Wikipedia page because I'll screw it up. They're supporting gay marriage. Specifically, because ...

Some of the states in which amici do business make marriage equally available to all of our employees and colleagues; others prohibit marriages between couples of the same sex and refuse to recognize existing same-sex marriages. This dual regime burdens amici. It creates legal uncertainty and imposes unnecessary costs and administrative complexities on employers, and requires differential employer treatment of employees who are similarly situated save for the state where they reside.

Damn skippy. The Rays (and Patriots) also filed in support of the petitioners.

It's not like this is a surprising development, but it's still nice to see the Giants out in front on this. It's not like the Giants' support is going to tip the case, but as an entity that does business in dozens of states, they're certainly qualified to offer their opinion.

Go get 'em, lawyers. Make everyone realize the opposing argument always, always, always makes people sound like angry YouTube comments.

(In the case of Ken Oberkfell v Russ Hodges, I rule that both of them were pretty cool.)

Hat-tip to Barry Petchesky