It would be premature to declare that the US supreme court will guarantee a right to same-sex marriage in all 50 states, but that’s where the smart money is: today’s oral argument allows supporters of marriage equality to remain optimistic that nationwide legalization is in the not-so-distant future.

But what was, perhaps, even more fun than a win in the offing was that the desperation of opponents of same-sex marriage leading up to today’s argument in Obergefell v Hodges was palpable. The most telling example is the remarkably widespread calls for Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan to recuse themselves from the case because both officiated same-sex marriages, allegedly rendering them unfit to hear the case. “Both Kagan and Ginsburg have not only been partial to same-sex marriage but they have also proven themselves to be activists in favor of it,” declared the American Family Association.

It should go without saying that this argument is absurd. The standpoint of white, male, heterosexual Roman Catholics – like fellow justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy – is no more “neutral” than anyone else’s. Kagan and Ginsburg officiating same-sex weddings is no more relevant than Clarance Thomas having officiated one of Rush Limbaugh’s innumerable marriages. Justice Ginsburg’s socially liberal views are no more relevant than Justice Scalia’s often-stated socially conservative views. And, Ginsburg asked the first question at argument, settling any question of recusal with a firm “no way” from the Notorious RBG.

And yet, it’s hard to blame opponents of same-sex marriage for making such hilariously disingenuous arguments: their arguments against marriage equality on the merits are no better. The amicus briefs filed by opponents of same-sex marriage are a sorry lot, rife with unfounded speculation and junk science.