The nine justices will consider California's Proposition 8, which voters passed in 2008 to define marriage as between a man and woman and to overturn a state Supreme Court decision earlier that year that approved same-sex marriage.
A San Francisco judge ruled broadly for the two couples who brought the Prop 8 challenge, finding that the equal protection provided by the Constitution required that they — and by extension other same-sex couples across the country — be allowed to marry.
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled for the couples more narrowly. It said that once California had extended the right to marry — about 18,000 same-sex couples wed before Prop 8 was approved — it could not be withdrawn.
The U.S. Supreme Court's affirmation of that decision would limit the impact to California.
But those are not the only options before the nine justices. They could conclude that the Constitution is silent on the issue and that California voters were within their rights to write into the state constitution a traditional definition of marriage.
They could also decide that the issue is not properly before the court. Because California's political leaders disagree with Prop 8 and have chosen not to defend it, the court will have to decide whether proponents of the measure may be the ones to do so.
If not, the state probably will be free to again issues marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
On Wednesday, the court will hear a more modest constitutional challenge. It concerns the Defense of Marriage Act, passed by Congress in 1996 to withhold federal recognition of same-sex unions performed in states where it is legal. At the time, there were none. But now nine states, including Maryland, plus the District of Columbia have legalized such unions.
Lower courts have found the law unconstitutional. They say that withholding federal benefits such as preferential tax breaks, Social Security survivor benefits, medical leave and other awards is discriminatory when both heterosexual and homosexual couples are legally married.
The cases put the court at the center of a highly charged and emotional debate with moral, religious and social ramifications. About four-fifths of the states ban same-sex marriage. But at the same time, polls show that a growing number of Americans have openly gay friends or relatives and believe homosexuality is not a choice.
A greater number of Americans say they believe same-sex marriage should be legal than say it should be prohibited, and the sentiment is especially true among the young.
But those who support Proposition 8 say that is all the more reason the court should stay out of the issue and allow the democratic process to work.
"By reaffirming the traditional definition of marriage, the people of California have not even discouraged, much less criminalized, any private behavior or personal relationship," Washington lawyer Charles J. Cooper told the court in a brief defending Prop 8. "Rather, California has simply reserved a special form of recognition and support to those relationships that have long been thought to uniquely further vital societal interests."
Among them are responsible procreation and child-rearing, wrote Cooper, who will have 30 minutes before the court to make his case.
The challenge to Prop 8 was brought by an unlikely pair of lawyers. Conservative stalwart Theodore B. Olson and liberal Democrat David Boies — adversaries before the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore — teamed up to represent Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier, a lesbian couple from Berkeley, and Jeffrey Zarrillo and Paul Katami, two gay men from Burbank.
The Constitution, they tell the court, "simply does not tolerate the permanent exclusion of gay men and lesbians from the most important relation in life."
Olson will argue for the couples and split his time with Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr.
After President Obama declared that his own "evolution" on the issue led him to believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, the government weighed in on the side of overturning Prop 8.
It does not go as far as Olson advocates. Instead, it says that states such as California, which offers gay couples full rights, must also extend the right of marriage. Such a position, if accepted by the justices, would probably allow same-sex marriage in an additional eight states.
Discuss this topic and other political issues in the politics discussion forums.
0 comments:
Post a Comment