the fight for dose in same sex marriage what a time
- Wednesday arguments focus on federal Defense of Marriage Act
- Law enacted in 1996 defines marriage as between a man and a woman
- It also denies Social Security, other spousal benefits to same-sex couples
- Tuesday's arguments focused on California same-sex marriage ban; court offered no clear direction
The momentous week kicked
off on Tuesday with arguments over California's same-sex marriage ban,
and there was little indication when they concluded how the court might
rule.
The stakes are high as
the justices could, in one scenario, fundamentally alter how American
law treats marriage with polls showing the public becoming more aware of
the issue, and in some cases, more in favor of allowing gays and
lesbians to legally wed.
This all further
intensifies interest in Wednesday's arguments on the constitutionality
of a federal law that, like California, defines marriage as only between
a man and a woman.
But a practical impact of
the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act means federal tax, Social Security,
pension, and bankruptcy benefits, and family medical leave protections
-- do not apply to gay and lesbian couples.
The appeal centers on
that element and involves Edith "Edie" Windsor, who was forced to assume
an estate tax bill much larger than other married couples would have to
pay.
Because her decades-long
partner was a woman, the federal government did not recognize the
same-sex marriage in legal terms, even though their home state of New
York did.
Obama opposes law, House to defend
The justices on Tuesday
seemed to lack consensus on both jurisdictional and constitutional
questions of the voter-approved California law, known as Proposition 8.
The federal statute also
presents tricky gateway or "standing" questions that threaten to stall
any final consideration of its constitutionality.
Those were expected to be the focus of much of Wednesday's arguments.
Led by President Barack
Obama's recent political about-face on same-sex marriage, his
administration opposes the Defense of Marriage Act.
Traditionally the
solicitor general would defend the government's interest in a Supreme
Court case. But Obama, who supports same-sex marriage, has already
ordered the Justice Department to not take up the matter in court.
That raised the question of whether any party could rightfully step in and defend the law.
Besides the
constitutional issue, the justices had specifically ordered both sides
to argue a supplemental question: Whether congressional Republicans,
operating officially as the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the
House, have "standing" or legal authority to make the case.
Lawyers representing the
House GOP said that they should be able to take the lead, since both
Windsor and the administration are taking the same legal position.
"Without the House's
participation," said attorney Paul Clement, representing House leaders,
"it is hard to see how there is any case or controversy here at all."
Windsor's legal team
also said the House leaders could defend the law, at least partially,
suggesting she wants resolution to the constitutional questions as soon
as possible.
"I was devastated by the
loss of the great love of my life, and I was also very sick, then had
to deal with pulling together enough money to pay for the taxes," the
83-year-old Windsor told CNN recently.
The California case
The overriding legal
question in the California case is whether the Constitution's guarantee
of equal protection under the law prevents states from defining marriage
as that state has done.
Some 80 minutes of arguments left no clear picture of how things might go.
The court could
historically alter how the law treats marriage, striking down laws
across the country banning same-sex marriage and matching an apparent
cultural shift toward acceptance of same-sex couples.
Or it could leave the
current patchwork of state laws in place, choosing to let state
legislatures and state courts sort it all out.
"This was a deeply
divided Supreme Court, and a court that seemed almost to be groping for
an answer here," CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin said after the
arguments.
Four of the more liberal
justices seemed at least open to the idea that same-sex marriage should
be allowed in California. Three of the more conservative justices
seemed aligned with the view that it should only be for a man and a
woman, and it's likely they'd be joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, who
doesn't speak at arguments.
That could leave Justice Anthony Kennedy as, has often been the case, the swing vote.
While admitting the
law's defenders are "not just any citizens," Kennedy raised concerns
about whether just the possibility of same-sex marriage was enough to
establish they had suffered harm -- a key jurisdictional hurdle allowing
them to appeal in the first place.
A decision is not likely before June.
Andrew Pugno, general
counsel for the Protect Marriage Coalition, the group defending
Proposition 8, said its attorney had "credibly presented the winning
case for marriage."
"We think the hearing went very well," he told reporters.
Attorneys representing
the two couples seeking to overturn Proposition 8, meanwhile, said they
couldn't tell how the court would rule.
"We are confident where
the American people are going with this," said Theodore Olson. "We don't
know for sure what the United States Supreme Court is going to do, but
we're very, very grateful they listened, they heard, they asked hard
questions, and there's no denying where the right is."
Nine states permit same-sex marriage
One of the plaintiff
couples -- Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo of Burbank, California, who
want to marry but can't because of Proposition 8 -- contend the state is
discriminating against them because of their sexuality.
"This is about our
freedom and our liberty," Katami said. "We are not trying to topple
marriage. We are not trying to redefine marriage. What we are trying to
say is that equality is the backbone of our country."
Forty-one states now
forbid same-sex marriage, although nine of them allow civil
partnerships. Nine other states allow same-sex marriage, and about
120,000 same-sex couples have gotten married, according to estimates.
Prohibitions seem to run counter to polls that show rising support overall for same-sex marriage.
A CNN/ORC International
poll released on Monday found 53% of Americans now support same-sex
marriage, up from 40% in 2007. As to how the federal government should
handle the issue, another CNN/ORC International poll out Tuesday found
56% of the public feels the federal government should also legally
recognize same-sex marriages.
0 comments