One of the Cincinnati mothers in the same-sex marriage case was not only denounced by protesters on the steps of the Supreme Court this week, but she also was admonished by security for breastfeeding her baby there.
Kelly Noe – who was in the nation’s Capitol fighting to have her wife, Kelly McCracken, listed as a parent on the birth certificate for their daughter, Ruby – had been quietly sitting on the steps Monday evening, discreetly breastfeeding the 10-month-old girl, when a male security guard spotted her and snapped, “You are not doing that here.”
McCracken started to argue with the guard, but Noe begrudgingly acquiesced. She stopped feeding Ruby and pulled out a pouch of baby food instead.
The couple acknowledged that on the surface, the nation’s highest court might seem a controversial place to breastfeed, but the scene around them wasn’t exactly one of heightened decorum: Nearby, protesters supported traditional marriage by yelling through a bullhorn that gays and lesbians will be condemned to hell. They also preached about the importance of doing what’s best for children.
Amber Hunt, Moms: You can’t do this at the U.S. Supreme Court (May 1, 2015).*
I hope that Ruby grows up to avoid the narcissism that her parents displayed on the steps of the Supreme Court.**
*Ms. Hunt’s makes no effort to conceal her outrage. I wonder, Ms. Hunt, exactly how one goes about “discreetly” breast-feeding a kid on the steps of the Supreme Court with protestors, television crews and reporters swarming the place on the evening before the gay marriage case was being argued.
**Please don’t start on me about breast-feeding in public. In general, I think that is perfectly fine when a covering is used. My daughter and daughter in law are both doing so. I doubt, however, they would do so on the steps of the Supreme Court discreetly or otherwise while being denounced by protesters. If they did, I would raise hell with them for using their kid as a prop and for an utter disregard of decorum at the high Court.
H/T How Appealing.
Update: An earlier version stated that these events took place on the day the SSM case was being argued. Apparently, this took place the evening before the case was argued. I have corrected my apparent error.