It all might
start to change this week.
Today and
tomorrow are the days that marriage equality supporters have been waiting for,
when the Supreme Court takes on the issue in two separate cases.
On Tuesday,
the court will hear one hour of testimony on California’s Proposition 8 case,
formally known as Hollingsworth vs Perry. On Wednesday, the justices will
devote 110 minutes to hear arguments on the so-called federal Defense of Marriage Act,
United States vs. Windsor.
LGBT rights
supporters and detractors were lining up as early as last Thursday to be in the
courtroom for the arguments.
We wondered
what specific issues the justices would be looking at in the two cases, and
what possible outcomes the justices may decide.
Let’s take
Prop 8 first
According to
Geoffrey Stone, an expert on constitutional law and former dean at the
University of Chicago Law School, the court will likely make one of four
decisions in hearing Prop 8 on Tuesday:
1) Not hear the case
2) Agree with the opinion of Judge Stephen
Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit, which would limit the decision only to
California
3) Rule Prop 8 unconstitutional, but only in
states where marriage is currently legal and states that already give LGBT
people some protections – like civil unions or domestic partnerships
4) Rule Prop 8 unconstitutional in total –
meaning LGBT people have a right to marry everywhere U.S. law is applicable
Stone thinks
the last scenario is unlikely, given the makeup of the court and recent suggestions by liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that the Supreme Court may
have “moved too far too fast” in the 1973 Roe vs. Wade case, thus giving rise
to the bitter divide over abortion that still rages 40 years later.
The second
option – agreeing with the lower court’s decision – would slow down the
process, by ruling Prop 8 unconstitutional only on the grounds that when a
state has already legalized marriage equality, it can’t take that right away.
That is the ruling the Ninth Circuit made in February of 2012 in deciding the
Prop 8 case. Judge Reinhardt specifically declined to consider whether same-sex
marriage is constitutional, ruling narrowly on the ability of states to take
away rights it has already granted. Since California is the only state in the
country that has granted LGBT couples the right to marry, then taken that right
away, California only would be affected by this decision.
The second
option is also more in line with a decision Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in1996 striking down Colorado’s Amendment 2, which the court said discriminated
against LGBT people and therefore violated the Equal Protection Clause.
The third
option, Stone thinks, is the most likely – that states that recognize same-sex
couples on some level have to recognize marriage. Some legal watchers have
dubbed this the “eight state solution,” in that it would automatically legalize
same-sex marriage in eight states – Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode
Island, Delaware and Hawaii – but it wouldn’t hold marriage legal in states
such as Mississippi or Utah, which have constitutional amendments banning same-sex
marriage.
It will now
also include Colorado, which passed a civil unions law this past Thursday.
Stone said that the decision to grant LGBT couples some rights in Colorado will,
if the third option is adopted, trump the constitutional amendment banning
marriage equality the state passed in 2006.
So, if the
third option prevails, and the Court rules Prop 8 unconstitutional, but only
applies it to states that have marriage laws already or states that have some same-sex
couple protection, that will be 19 states, plus the District of Columbia, where
same-sex couples can get married.
This is
exactly the outcome that the Obama administration has argued for the in its
amicus brief to the court.
“It’s an
intermediate step for the courts to eventually invalidate the laws against same-sex
marriage,” Stone said. “The Justices might want to go slow – even though the
majority of people favor same-sex marriage, there are states in the union which
would consider it an outrage.”
Of course,
the court may simply decide that there is no case to be made. In both Prop 8
and DOMA, Stone pointed out, “the State of California and the Justice
Department have been clear that they think those laws are unconstitutional.”
That means that a government entity is not arguing against the issue at hand.
In the case of Prop 8, California is not defending the state law. The justices
may decide that since a government is not arguing for its own law, then the
Court will not hear the case.
Marriage
equality advocates don’t want that scenario, as it would allow the Ninth
Circuit decision to stand – which only rules that LGBT people can get married
in California.
Now let’s
look at DOMA
The Justices
will also decide if those that are arguing for the so-called Defense of Marriage Act have
legal standing to do so, given that the Obama administration is not defending
the law.
You’ll get
up-to-date information on both cases here on the blog, and up-to-the-moment
updates by Liking us on Facebook and Following us on Twitter!
Two lowercourts last year ruled DOMA unconstitutional, so if the justices don’t hear the
case, those rulings will stand and the federal government will give the same
benefits to same-sex married couples as it currently does to opposite sex
married couples.
There’s also
the possibility that the Court will rule that DOMA is constitutional.
“I think that’s highly unlikely,” said Stone.
“I don’t think there’s any scenario in which Anthony Kennedy would do that.”
Stone
believes that Kennedy wants to write these opinions affirming some
constitutionality of marriage equality. And he believes that Kennedy wants to
write the next opinion – in a few years –
legalizing same-sex marriage for all states.
DOMA, he
thinks, will be struck down, both because “Kennedy will be skeptical of denial
of same-sex marriage” and because of the issue of whether the Federal
government has any business telling people who they can marry. That, Stone
asserted, could possibly be the issue that draws Chief Justice John Roberts to
vote for striking DOMA down as well.
If DOMA is
struck down, it will mean that LGBT couples will be afforded the approximately
1,100 federal benefits that opposite sex couples already get. It will not mean
that states that don’t honor marriage equality will have to recognize same-sex
marriages performed in other states. That’s an issue pertaining to the Full
Faith and Credit clause of the constitution, which deals with contract law.










