Chicago Tribune – Supreme Court seems wary of broad gay marriage ruling

Supreme Court seems wary of broad gay marriage ruling
Ads by Google
Illinois needs you
Urge your Senator to vote Yes For Marsy’s Law for Illinois


3:58 p.m. CDT, March 26, 2013

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court signaled reluctance on Tuesday to rule broadly on the question of the right to marriage for gays and lesbians as the justices heard arguments on same-sex marriage for the first time.

As thousands of demonstrators on both sides of America’s long-standing gay rights divide rallied outside, the court heard a spirited, 80-minute oral argument on whether to let stand a California ban on same-sex marriage.LOVE IS LOVE

Despite the case being one of the most eagerly anticipated legal showdowns of the year, some of the nine justices showed an unwillingness to dive headfirst into the delicate and divisive issue.

Though polls show growing support among Americans for gay marriage, only nine states recognize it, while 30 states have constitutional amendments prohibiting it.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, a potential swing vote, gave a clear indication of where he stood when he warned of the court entering “uncharted waters.”

It was the first of two days of arguments. On Wednesday, the court will consider the related question of whether the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denies federal benefits to married same-sex couples, should be struck down.

Rulings in both cases are not expected until June.

In making his antipathy to a broad ruling clear, Kennedy even raised the prospect of the court dismissing the case altogether, a relatively unusual move that would leave intact a federal appeals court ruling that had earlier struck down the California law, known as Proposition 8.

If dismissal were the outcome of the Supreme Court’s consideration of Proposition 8, gay marriages in California could proceed, but the case would have no impact on other states, as gay rights activists had hoped. It would also mean that the high court could stay silent on the issue, at least in the short term.

Kennedy was not the only one with reservations. Justice Samuel Alito also urged caution, noting that gay marriage, as a concept, is “newer than cellphones and the Internet.”

None of the justices indicated support for the Obama administration’s compromise solution, which would strike down Proposition 8 and require the eight other states that already recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships to allow gays and lesbians to marry.


Outside the court, demonstrators did not share the justices’ reluctance to take a clear stand, with hundreds gathered representing both sides. Anti-gay marriage protesters marched past the imposing Supreme Court building accompanied by police on motorcycles, drawing jeers and shouts from a pro-gay marriage rally, but there were no physical confrontations.

“No hate – we just disagree!” yelled one marcher, holding a sign that proclaimed children do best with a mother and father.

Jay Golon, a New York City educator who was at the pro-gay marriage rally, said he has many students with same-sex parents.

“It’s a family,” he said. “That’s all.”

Inside the hushed courtroom, filled to capacity with lawyers and spectators, some of whom had waited for days to get a seat, it quickly became apparent that the justices were more interested in legal technicalities than flowery rhetoric.

One key issue is whether California opponents of gay marriage even had a right to be heard in federal court.

If the court were to find the proponents did not have standing, then it would not reach the merits of that case. That would mean that an earlier federal district court ruling that struck down Proposition 8 would be left intact. Further litigation would ensue over whether the district court rule would apply statewide.

U.S. citizens, in general, do not have a right to sue to enforce laws they favor. Chief Justice John Roberts pressed lawyer Charles Cooper, who represents gay marriage opponents, on why his clients are any different as they seek to enforce Proposition 8.

“I don’t think we’ve ever allowed anything like that,” Roberts said.


On the broader question of same-sex marriage, pressed by attorney Theodore Olson on behalf of two California same-sex couples, some conservative justices seemed eager to raise objections to the court making a definitive statement, citing a lack of scientific data on same-sex couples raising children.

Justice Antonin Scalia said there is “considerable disagreement” about whether gays and lesbians should be able to raise children.

Kennedy agreed that there is “substance to the point that sociological information is new.”

On the liberal wing, justices probed Cooper on his assertion that the government’s interest in promoting procreation is a primary reason for limiting the definition of marriage.

Both Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Stephen Breyer questioned Cooper on how his definition of marriage squares with the fact that infertile opposite-sex couples can marry.

“There are lots of people who get married who can’t have children,” Breyer said.

The court will reconvene on Wednesday morning to weigh the DOMA statute.

Unlike Proposition 8, that case does not give the court the opportunity to issue a broad ruling for or against gay marriage because the case relates only to a federal law that limits the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples for the purposes of federal benefits.

Copyright © 2013, Reuters

Chicago Tribune – Public support for same-sex marriage is growing.

A spouse is a spouse
February 18, 2013

Public support for same-sex marriage is growing.
A little more than two years ago, the Illinois General Assembly took a carefully measured step toward marriage equality, the full legal recognition of committed partnerships, regardless of the parties’ sexual orientation.

With that vote in December 2010, Illinois became the sixth state to recognize civil unions, extending many of the rights and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples.

Now, with the momentum of public support behind them, lawmakers are within one floor vote of going the distance. With the approval of the House — and Gov. Pat Quinn’s promised signature — Illinois would become the 10th state to allow same-sex couples to wed.

The Senate passed the measure Thursday, 34-21. We urge the House to finish the job.

If the measure is approved, state laws would apply equally to marriages between “two persons,” instead of between “a man and a woman.” In the eyes of the law, in other words, a spouse is a spouse. Same-sex couples would have the same benefits and protections as heterosexual couples. And yes, they’d have the state’s official sanction of their marriage.

Government validation isn’t the same as a religious blessing, and it shouldn’t be. That has always been an important distinction, and it’s the reason Illinois and other states acted first to allow civil unions. Marriage has deeply religious connotations for many people, and many faiths have moral objections to same-sex partnerships.

Out of respect for those beliefs, the Illinois measure explicitly states that ministers and churches would not be required to recognize or solemnize gay marriages — in the same way that some churches decline to marry mixed-faith couples or divorced people.

Some religious groups worried that the law would require them to allow same-sex ceremonies in their halls or sanctuaries, in violation of their faith. So Sen. Heather Steans, D-Chicago, amended the bill to assure that churches would not be penalized for refusing to hold same-sex weddings in their facilities.

That change won the support of Sen. Jason Barickman of Champaign, the only Republican to vote in favor of the bill.

We hope Republicans in the House will be brave enough to support this for the reason cited by Barickman, because citizens “want our government to give individuals freedom over their life decisions.”

Allowing same-sex couples to wed under the law would not devalue traditional marriage. It would affirm the bedrock values that underlie and sustain such unions.

Marriage promotes stable families, safeguards the interests of children and rewardscommitted relationships.

Recognizing same-sex marriages demonstrates respect for personal freedoms and keeps government out of the intimate affairs of citizens. More people in same-sex relationships are adopting or giving birth to children; this provides the security of a legal commitment for those children. It’s the fair thing to do.

It’s also smart politics. Support for gay marriage has been building steadily: A 1996 Gallup poll found 27 percent of Americans in favor of allowing same-sex couples to wed; now it’s at 50 percent with a bullet, since the strongest support comes from younger voters.

Public opinion is shifting with remarkable speed. In November, voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington approved referendums allowing gay marriage, and in Minnesota, voters rejected a constitutional amendment to ban it.

That support has been building in Springfield, too, as evidenced by the Senate vote. Illinois Republican Party Chairman Pat Brady announced his support for same-sex marriage, prompting an attempt by some conservatives to oust him from the party post. That attempt failed. Undeterred by the risk of repercussions, Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka, also a Republican, recently urged lawmakers to “go for it.”

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, it’s your turn to step up.