Civil and Human Rights

US top court poised to rule on gay marriage

By Chantal Valery

 

WASHINGTON — Barring an unexpected turn of events, the US Supreme Court is poised to issue a historic ruling on gay marriage this week — but it is unlikely to legalize the practice country-wide.

 

Traditionally, the highest court in the land hands down decisions before its summer break of cases heard in the preceding months, generally leaving the most momentous for last.

 

While at the end of June 2012 it was President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform, this season gay marriage is expected to round out the rulings.

 

Of course, that’s unless the nine justices — five appointed by Republican presidents and four by Democrats — have difficulty reaching agreement and decide to revisit the matter in the fall.

 

With the court shrouded in secrecy, a frenzy is expected when the panel presided over by conservative Justice John Roberts divulges whether the definition of marriage can be extended to include same-sex couples.

 

In a country where 12 US states plus the capital allow gays and lesbians to marry, the top court is due to take a stance on two appeals and decide whether the principle of equality defended by the constitution has been violated.

 

In the first case, a gay widow from New York, Edith Windsor, backed by the Obama administration, challenges the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

 

The controversial 1996 law denies married gay and lesbian couples the same federal rights and benefits that heterosexual couples take for granted, from tax breaks and welfare benefits to access to a hospitalized spouse.

 

The second case deals with the the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, a 2008 ballot initiative that saw a majority of voters in the nation’s most populous state ban same-sex marriage.

 

At its hearing at the end of March, the top court seemed ready to repeal DOMA but reluctant to legalize gay marriage in California.

 

The court could rule on California alone, on the states that have similar legislation on civil unions, or on those that still ban gay marriage.

 

“This term, in particular, it’s very risky to bet on what the Supreme Court will do,” said lawyer Elizabeth Wydra, who works for the Constitutional Accountability Center.

 

As with most of the important cases, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who usually votes with the right, “could be the deciding factor,” she said.

 

David Cruz, law professor at the University of Southern California, said it was very unlikely that the court would adopt a broad ruling that strikes down all gay marriage bans.

 

“I think seeing all same-sex couples being able to get married in every state is probably not going to happen immediately … because of the tradition in the court: the Justices often move in steps, they rule incrementally,” he said.

 

Thomas Keck, political science professor at Syracuse University, said that whatever the justices decide, “it is going to be high-profile and it is going to get lots of attention.”

 

Fifty-three percent of Americans support gay marriage, according to a recent survey by the Gallup polling institute.

 

A survey by the Pew Research Center found that 47 percent of nearly 500 gay marriage news stories studied between March 18 through May 12 — a period marked by Supreme Court deliberations — primarily focused on support for the measure.

 

The high court could also decide that the lawsuits are not admissible due to the judicial incompetence of one of the parties: the anti-gay activists who are defending “Proposition 8,” a group of Republican lawmakers who want to protect traditional marriage through DOMA, or the Obama administration, which, after first defending the law, is calling for it to be overturned.

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington is considering whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is considering whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional. 
Civil and Human Rights
March 18, 2025

Equality and Protection: The Forgotten Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment

102 Denv. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2025)
Civil and Human Rights
North Dakota Supreme Court

Access Independent Health Services Inc. v. Wrigley

In Access Independent Health Services Inc. v. Wrigley, the North Dakota Supreme Court is considering whether North Dakota’s abortion ban violates the state constitution.