Profile
Photos
Comments
Supreme Court Will Hear Gay Marriage Cases
Karen Golinski, right, hugging her wife Amy Cunninghis (Source:AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)
WASHINGTON
-- The Supreme Court will take up California’s ban on same-sex
marriage, a case that could give the justices the chance to rule on
whether gay Americans have the same constitutional right to marry as
heterosexuals.
The justices said Friday they will review a federal
appeals court ruling that struck down the state’s gay marriage ban,
though on narrow grounds. The San Francisco-based appeals court said the
state could not take away the same-sex marriage right that had been
granted by California’s Supreme Court.
The court also will decide
whether Congress can deprive legally married gay couples of federal
benefits otherwise available to married people. A provision of the
federal Defense of Marriage Act limits a range of health and pension
benefits, as well as favorable tax treatment, to heterosexual couples.
The cases probably will be argued in March, with decisions expected by late June.
Gay
marriage is legal, or will be soon, in nine states - Connecticut, Iowa,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont,
Washington - and the District of Columbia. Federal courts in California
have struck down the state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage,
but that ruling has not taken effect while the issue is being appealed.
Voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington approved gay marriage earlier this month.
But
31 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex
marriage. North Carolina was the most recent example in May. In
Minnesota earlier this month, voters defeated a proposal to enshrine a
ban on gay marriage in that state’s constitution.
The biggest
potential issue before the justices comes in the dispute over
California’s Proposition 8, the state constitutional ban on gay marriage
that voters adopted in 2008 after the state Supreme Court ruled that
gay Californians could marry. The case could allow the justices to
decide whether the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection
means that the right to marriage cannot be limited to heterosexuals.
A
decision in favor of gay marriage could set a national rule and
overturn every state constitutional provision and law banning same-sex
marriages. A ruling that upheld California’s ban would be a setback for
gay marriage proponents in the nation’s largest state, although it would
leave open the state-by-state effort to allow gays and lesbians to
marry.
In striking down Proposition 8, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals crafted a narrow ruling that said because gay Californians
already had been given the right to marry, the state could not later
take it away. The ruling studiously avoided any sweeping pronouncements.
The
larger constitutional issue almost certainly will be presented to the
court, but the justices would not necessarily have to rule on it.
The
other issue the high court will take on involves a provision of the
Defense of Marriage Act, known by its acronym DOMA, which defines
marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who
can receive a range of federal benefits.
Four federal district courts and two appeals courts struck down the provision.
The
justices chose for their review the case of 83-year-old Edith Windsor,
who sued to challenge a $363,000 federal estate tax bill after her
partner of 44 years died in 2009.
Windsor, who goes by Edie,
married Thea Spyer in 2007 after doctors told them that Spyer would not
live much longer. She suffered from multiple sclerosis for many years.
Spyer left everything she had to Windsor.
There is no dispute that if Windsor had been married to a man, her estate tax bill would have been $0.
The
2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York agreed with a district
judge that the provision of DOMA deprived Windsor of the constitutional
guarantee of equal protection.
The court is also looking at DOMA with a related case, but on separate grounds. The full faith and credit clause of the Constitution requires states to recognize actions records, divorce decrees, marriage licenes, etc. DOMA was created to provide an exception for sames-sex marriage. There has been some questions about the results of this portion of the hearing. Much of what I am seeing indicates that Chief Justice Roberts would likely vote against DOMA in order to protect a direct interpretation of the constitution's full faith and credit clause, which would likely mean a 5/4 or even 6/3 vote in recognition of same-sex marriages. That is by no means guaranteed, though.
YOu are so right about it being a long, drawn out process, though, I believe that even if the court stumbles in its support, it is only a matter of time before we see full recognition of same-sex marriage. Popular opinion has radically swung in our favor in just the last 6 years, and I think that trend will continue.