The Supreme
Court held oral arguments for two same-sex marriage cases this past Tuesday and
Wednesday. Both cases have drawn
so much attention that people started to line-up in the front of the Court the
Friday prior. Interestingly, not everyone
in line wanted to be part of the historic moment; instead, some of them were
paid to be there so interested parties could get the limited seats to the
courtroom on the day of the argument—this is the first time that people line up
three days in advance at the Supreme Court.[1] Clearly, this shows the historic
prominence of these two cases.
It looks
like today the majority opinion in the United States supports same-sex
marriage. Though traditionally
being conservative, more members from the Republican Party are openly supporting
the marital right of gays and lesbians.[2] It seems the time for national change
has come. Republican kingmaker
Karl Rove recently said publicly that next Republican president might support same-sex
marriage.[3] Recently, Republican Senator Rob
Portman, a once possible running companion for Mitt Romney in last year’s
election, decided to endorse same-sex marriage because his son is gay.[4] In fact, dozens of prominent
Republicans signed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, supporting a
constitutional right for same-sex marriage. Theodore Olson, the former solicitor general of the Bush
administration, as well as a prominent conservative, suggested that same-sex
marriage is in accordance with the “conservative values of ‘limited government
and maximizing individual freedom.’”[5]
In one of
the current Supreme Court cases, Perry v.
Brown, the question before the Court is whether the ban on same-sex
marriage in the amended California Constitution violates the federal
Constitution.[6] The second case, Windsor v. US, focuses on whether a state has the right to deny spousal
benefits according to the definition of “marriage” and “spouse” under the Defense
of Marriage Act (DOMA). Section Seven
of DOMA declares,[7] “[i]n determining
the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or
interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United
States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one
woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the
opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”
Same-sex
relationships have substantially changed the Constitutional protections of
family autonomy, encompassing more than the right to marry. If state legislatures intend to give
same-sex couples more than a marriage license, it gives rise to a substantial
change of family law and economic protections. But before a legislature makes such a determination, the central
question is whether a homosexual’s right to marry is in accord with the
Constitution.
In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court
recognized the right to marry as a fundamental right. In that case, a Virginia law criminalized persons engaged in
interracial marriage. The Court
struck down the Virginia law and reasoned that “[t]he freedom to marry has long
been recognized as one of the vital persona rights essential to the orderly
pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of
man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.” Therefore, the Court protected the
marital right under the Due Process Clause.
The Supreme
Court has not heard many cases regarding same-sex issues. When the Court had the chance to deal
with such issues, its left too many questions open. In Lawrence v. Texas,
the Court declared unconstitutional a Texas law that prohibited “deviate sexual
intercourse.” Under the Texas law,
it was an offense to engage in homosexual sodomy. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, doubted the historical
premises in Bowers v. Hardwick, reasoning
that there was “no longstanding history in this country of laws directed at homosexual
conduct as a distinct matter.” Specifically,
Justice Kennedy pointed out that the purpose for prohibiting sodomy in criminal
law was to cover the situation when a predator committed a sexual assault that
did not constitute rape in criminal system.
The
dissenting opinions in Lawrence are
particularly important because they were written by Justice Scalia and Justice
Thomas respectively––both Justices are still on the bench for the same-sex
marriage cases currently being deliberated. Justice Scalia, famous for upholding conservative traditions,
criticized the majority opinion in Lawrence
for avoiding the discussion of whether homosexual sodomy is a fundamental right
under the Due Process Clause and not subjecting the Texas law to strict
scrutiny. And, he was on point
that the majority in Lawrence failed
to subject the same-sex marital right analysis to strict scrutiny. Only Justice O’Connor’s concurring
opinion mentioned that the Texas law should be subject to review on rational
basis–– that the state law to interfere with individual rights is justifiable
because the law is rationally related to preserve a state interest.
One big
issue in Windsor is which standard of
review should be used. The Second
Circuit, in reviewing Windsor, expressed its concern that “there is some
doctrinal instability in this area.”[8] Apparently, supporters of same-sex
marriage rights would like to urge the Supreme Court to adopt strict scrutiny––usually
used in cases involving fundamental rights in the Constitution––imposing a
higher burden of proof on the government.
If the Supreme Court is going to use strict scrutiny, it will send a strong
signal to the public that same-sex marital right is a fundamental right, which
the Court seems to avoid discussing in Lawrence. Perhaps it is time for the Supreme
Court to make the doctrine clearer by shaping modern family law.
The argument
in Perry shows that the Court is
sharply divided on this issue.
Justice Roberts raised a very interesting question about the “label”
nature of same-sex marriage. Since,
in California, same-sex couples enjoy almost every right as heterosexual couples,
including adopting children, the license to marriage seems to be more of a
label rather than the fight for a fundamental right. In Tuesday’s argument in Perry,
Mr. Olson, the counsel for the same-sex couples, answered the question directly
by comparing the marriage status to citizenship, stating that acknowledging
one’s marriage status actually means more than just a label. Justice Sotomayer asked the counsel for
the government how to reconcile the rationale of protecting procreation in
marriage when the Court allows people over 55 to get married but refused
homosexuals’ marital right.
Apparently, counsel for the government avoided the question. Nevertheless, in the eyes of some––including
California’s lawyers–– protecting procreation could be a strong argument for
refusing homosexuals’ marital right because this is exact rationale the Court
expressed in Loving when it decided
to protect the right to marry as a fundamental right.
As
predicted, Justice Scalia did not change his traditional opinion at all. He kept inquiring when a used-to-be-constitutional
right becomes unconstitutional and emphasized that this question is very
important for the Court to make a decision.[9] Justice Scalia even proposed that to
raise a child by a same-sex couple would harm the development of a child. Just like the New York Times pointed out, “[n]o one expects the conservative
78-year-old jurist to have a sudden equal-protection epiphany.”[10] The New
York Times even made a list of his recent track record about “his political
and personal prejudices.”[11]
Justice Kennedy, who is considered
to be the swing vote in this case, expressed his struggle with the question
whether Proposition 8 in Perry
qualified to be sex discrimination because of the gender-based classification
issue.[12] But Ilya Somin, a blogger for The Volokh Conspiracy, posted the
opinion that, if a female could marry a male, but another male cannot marry to
the same male, it is gender-based discrimination.[13]
At some
point during the oral argument, the Justices started to ask whether there is the
possibility of making this case only apply to California instead of nationwide. Justice Alito said, “[w]e do not have
the ability to see the future.” In
fact, the slippery-slope argument here could be: if we allow same-sex marriage to change the traditional
definition of marriage, would there be one day that we will allow a
multi-partner marriage? The notion
seems to be very offensive, but one could use the same argument for defending
this offensive position––that the law should not single out a class of people
who are willing to have more than one sexual partner in marriage. It seems that every Justice, no matter
how divided they are, knows this decision will be a bold one with serious
ramifications in multi-facets of the law going forward, regardless of the
ultimate result.
Xing Liu
Blogger, Criminal Law Brief
Link to Oral Arguments: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/supreme-court-oral-arguments-gay-marriage-full-audio-18817944
Picture courtesy of:
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/states/states/entry/c/louisiana
[1]
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/days-early-a-line-forms-at-the-supreme-court/
[2]
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/03/26/the-52-percent-republican-support-for-same-sex-marriage-is-growing/
[3]
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/gay-issues/karl-rove-next-gop-presidential-noninee-could-support-gay-marriage
[4]
http://wqad.com/2013/03/24/republicans-see-shift-in-party-ahead-of-same-sex-marriage-arguments/
[5]
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/us/politics/prominent-republicans-sign-brief-in-support-of-gay-marriage.html?pagewanted=all
[6]
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/us/background-on-same-sex-marriage-case-at-supreme-court.html
[7]
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ199/pdf/PLAW-104publ199.pdf
[8]http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18269360752832114637&q=Windsor+v.+U.S.&hl=en&as_sdt=2,9&as_vis=1
[9]
http://www.businessinsider.com/scalia-gay-marriage-prop-8-case-supreme-court-2013-3
[10]
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/scalias-gay-marriage-problem/
[11] Id.
[12]
http://www.volokh.com/2013/03/26/justice-kennedy-on-proposition-8-and-sex-discrimination/
[13] Id.
[14]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-supreme-court-takes-up-gay-marriage/2013/03/25/baf4e3e8-9578-11e2-bc8a-934ce979aa74_story.html
[15]
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2013/03/27/kennedy-seems-inclined-towards-striking-down-doma/
[16]
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/26/politics/same-sex-marriage-court
Very nice blog.I enjoyed it...............
ReplyDeleteLargest selection of memorials and printable funeral program templates.
www.funeralpamphlets.com