The Supreme Court has agreed to hear cases challenging DOMA and Prop 8 which deny same sex marriage.
The Supreme Court put itself at the center of the nation’s debate over whether gay couples have the same fundamental right to marry as heterosexuals, agreeing Friday to review state and federal efforts to preserve a traditional definition of husband and wife.
In agreeing to hear cases from California and New York, the court raised the possibility of a groundbreaking constitutional decision on whether the right to marry may be limited because of sexual orientation. At the same time, the justices also will have the ability to issue narrower rulings on a subject that continues to divide the American public.
The cases will probably be heard in historic sessions at the court in late March, with decisions to come when the justices finish their work at the end of June.
The court’s first review of same-sex marriage comes at a fast-moving but unsettled time in the nation’s consideration of gay rights. Last month brought Election Day victories for same-sex marriage supporters in three states, including Maryland, and the reelection of President Obama, the first chief executive to endorse the right of gays to marry.
But the vast majority of states ban such unions, and 31 of them have amended their constitutions to enshrine the traditional definition of heterosexual marriage.
The acceptance of the same-sex marriage cases heralds a landmark term for the court on civil rights issues; it had already agreed to consider whether racial preferences may play a role in college admissions and the future of a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 enacted to protect minorities.
The court was almost obliged to review the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as between a man and a woman and withholds federal benefits from same-sex couples legally married in the states where they live. The law affects things such as health insurance, taxes and medical leave.
In 2011, the Obama administration announced that it would no longer defend DOMA because it violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause. 4 district courts and 2 courts of appeal have declared DOMA unconstitutional. Ted Olson will bring the challenge to Prop 8. Olson, who has been very instrumental in defending same sex issues in court, was Solicitor General under Reagan.
The tide of public opinion has shifted on same sex marriage in recent years. In some cases the shift has been drastic. In fact, 4 states actually had referendums legalizing same sex marriage that passed. So why is it so important to make same sex marriage nationally legal? Don’t states handle marriage conditions?
One only has to think back to Loving v. Virginia (2967) to answer that question. Prior to 1967 it was illegal for blacks and whites to marry. As 2003, Lawrence v. Texas decriminalized sexual acts amongst consenting adults as late . The states have been a bastion of rights violators when it comes to sex and marriage issues.
Furthermore, with DOMA in place, the Federal government is forbidden to recognizing same sex marriages from states where such marriages are legal. This restriction affects the military as well as income taxes, social security benefits, Medicare, and other federally guaranteed rights that married couples enjoy.
It seems to me that it time for the Supreme Court to cast its opinion once and for all. Those who oppose same-sex marriage are gearing up for the fight of their lives. I do not think they will prevail. This case just seems too cut and dry.
It seems almost odd that one group of people would be denied the right to marry when everyone else could–especially when marriage is simply a legal contract between couples. What makes a good or bad marriage is certainly not the government.
If that is all it is…then that can be accomplished now with legal contracts.
I say lets go the other way. Lets get government completely out of marriage. No benefits to being married or penalties. No more tenants by the entirety….etc. I mean…what’s the point to having it since so many are living together without being married and getting along fine.
Let the churches decide who they want to marry, and the happy couple is married.
I could almost agree with you. I would not mind civil unions with the income tax benefit, and other current marriage benefits.
Those people who just live together are going to find out how badly they need some of those benefits one of these old days….when it rolls around to social security time for instance.
“especially when marriage is simply a legal contract between couples”
Unfortunately you’re right, but it use to have a much deeper and moral meaning. Now some view it as simply a more economic business arrangement to be terminated as easily as it was formed.
If gay people want to subject themselves to marriage, with all the attendant difficulties and legal ramifications….go for it. Just don’t force churches that object to it to engage in it.
But…in the case of divorce….who gets the alimony, the house, and the kids? Usually in heterosexual relationships, its the woman. The next few years are sure to cause a ruckus in divorce and family law….all sorts of precedents are going to be set.
Where’s my popcorn…..
In Virginia, most of the time both parents get custody. It is difficult to get alimony.
I agree, churches should be able to marry who they want to, both same sex and hetero couples.
There’s no way that the government could force a church to marry a couple (heterosexual or homosexual) that the church felt, for religious reasons, was not worthy of the status. The issue here isn’t about church approaches to marriage and it never has been. This is about the State.
Totally agree. The church’s right has never been questioned, to my knowledge.
@Scout
Not yet. But they are attempting to force it in places like Massachusetts.
Give it time. The gov’t WILL attempt to force religious organizations to do it or be labeled bigoted and be penalized. The church’s right to control basic tenets has been challenged elsewhere. Catholic adoption agencies and medical facilities HAVE closed due to attempts to force them to adapt to the idea of homosexuals being allowed to adopt, abortions being available, etc.
So, I say, its time to completely separate the power of the state and the church.
What catholic medical facilities have closed because they have been forced to adapt to ideas about abortion and homosexuality?
Just out of curiosity, why shouldn’t homosexuals be allowed to adopt?
@Moon-howler
I don’t know. I’m not the one arguing about it. But the Catholic charities that promote and coordinate adoption don’t like it due to religious reasons and so, cannot coordinate with gays that want to adopt. I’m not a very good Roman Catholic and don’t base my arguments on their tenets.
I will retract the part about closing. I remembered that from something that I read, but, cannot now track it down.
It is a topic that should be discussed however. Can couples be denied adoption because of race? mixed race? religion? I think they can.
I am just not positive. I don’t just mean by Catholic charities. I am sure there are all sorts of special group adoption agencies. Jerry Falwell used to run one also.
The core point is that no church will ever be forced by local, state, or federal authorities (at least not under the current Constitution) to marry any couple of any description that that church deems unworthy of marriage status for religious reasons. Full stop.
@Scout
You hope.
Here’s one pastor’s view. I look at his argument from the basis of the way laws and politics are actually used in this country to advance agendas, not whether gay people should get “married” or not.
http://catholiclane.com/gay-marriage-coming-after-the-church/
It’s not a matter of hope, CS. My statement is bulletproof. The link you provided is way off the point. It addresses a provision in the Washington State bill that says that churches that sell wedding venues to the public can’t discriminate on the basis of the genders of the blissful couple. But most mainline Christian churches don’t sell wedding space to the public. Those who marry there have to meet some kind of religious test or be members of the church. This would stop the Drive-Through Wedding Chapel in Las Vegas (if Las Vegas were in Washington State) from saying NO to a gay couple, but not a Catholic parish church that reserves use of its property for those it deems theologically eligible to be married.
Recall that my statement is that government will never be able (as long as we have a First Amendment) to force a church to marry a couple that does not meet that church’s theological requirements for marriage. There are a lot of things I say here that are just my opinion. This statement has the quality of iron-clad fact.