Supreme Court to take up Prop. 8, DOMA
Updated 7:25 PM ET
The Supreme Court announced Friday that it will consider the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act and California's ban on marriage, two cases that could have a significant impact on marriage laws across the country.
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996, prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages. Both the First and Second Circuit Court of appeals have struck down a provision of the law denying federal benefits, like Social Security benefits or the ability to file joint tax returns, to same-sex couples legally married. Because of these lower court rulings, DOMA has been declared unconstitutional in some regions of the country but not others -- an issue the Supreme Court now has a chance to rectify by reviewing the Second Circuit decision.
- Gay couples get marriage licenses in Washington state
- CBS News Poll: 51 percent support same-sex marriage
The court will also consider California's Proposition 8, the ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage that voters passed in 2008. Prop. 8 passed after the California Supreme Court granted same-sex couples the right to marry, putting California voters in the unique position of taking away rights granted by the court. After Prop. 8 passed, a federal court followed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said Prop. 8 was unconstitutional.
Same-sex couples get married in Wash.
The high court is expected to hear arguments in both cases in March and issue rulings over the summer.
CBS News correspondent John Blackstone reported that many supporters of same-sex marriage were hoping the Supreme Court would not take this case. "It's bad news in the sense that if the court had denied review, we would have seen marriages very quickly within a few days again not only in San Francisco, but all over California," said Therese Stewart, San Francisco's deputy city attorney.
By taking up the Prop. 8 case, the court has given itself the opportunity to rule on the fundamental issue of whether same-sex couples have a right to get married -- that could extend marriage rights to same-sex couples nationwide. However, because of the unique circumstances of the case -- in which rights were taken away after they were granted by the state Supreme Court -- the court's ultimate ruling may only apply to California.
Alternatively, the court may not rule on the right to marry at all: The Supreme Court will also consider whether the proponents of Prop. 8 have any standing in court. If they don't, then the Supreme Court would send the case back to the lower courts to be properly defended. However, California's governor and attorney general -- the parties who would typically defend Prop. 8 -- are certain to refuse to defend the law, which would mean the current lower court rulings in favor of same-sex marriage would be left standing.
While this scenario wouldn't necessarily have a nationwide impact, it would still be a significant victory for gay rights activists. If the lower court rulings allowing same-sex marriage in California were allowed to stand, it would almost double the number of Americans living in a "marriage equality" state to 28 percent, the gay rights group the Human Rights Campaign told CBSNews.com
Public opinion seems to be shifting towards acceptance of same-sex marriage. In 2011, Gallup found for the first time that a majority of Americans supported it. And on Election Day this year, three states passed ballot initiatives allowing same-sex couples to marry -- making this year the first ever in which voters passed initiatives in favor, rather than against, same-sex marriage. The issue, however, is far from resolved. While nine states plus the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage, many more -- 39 states -- prohibit it.
Tony Perkins, president of the conservative group the Family Research Council, said in a statement today that his organization is confident that DOMA is constitutional and hopeful the court will uphold Prop. 8. If it does not, Perkins said the issue of marriage could become even more divisive than the high court's Roe v. Wade decision.
"Marriage, unlike abortion laws in the 1970s, has been incorporated into the state constitutions of 30 states," he said. "Voters in these states will not accept an activist court redefining our most fundamental social institution."
The Human Rights Campaign, meanwhile, also said it is hopeful about the court cases. "As the Court has ruled 14 times in the past, marriage is a fundamental right and I believe they will side with liberty, freedom and equality, moving us toward a more perfect union as they have done in the past," Human Rights Campaign president Chad Griffin said in a statement.
Popular in Politics
- FBI director acknowledges domestic drone use 134 Comments
- Obama and Berlin: Faded echoes meet new realities
- Smooth, on-time Obamacare rollout no sure thing: GAO
- Obama on NSA programs: Americans "not getting the complete story"
- House Republicans pass 20-week limit on abortions 473 Comments
- Immigration reform would cut deficit, analysis shows 80 Comments
- GOP Sen. Murkowski backs same-sex marriage
- Obama renews push for a nuclear disarmament legacy
1. Brown v. Board of Education (1954): The Court ruled that even if segregated black and white schools were of equal quality in facilities and teachers, segregation by itself was harmful to black students and so was unconstitutional.
Gay and lesbian couples are gender segregated couples. Based on this ruling, even with equal quality in homes and education, segregation by itself is harmful and unconstitutional.
2. A Deleware case stated segregated schools are not equal and cannot be made equal so therefore are deprived under the equal protection of the laws.
This stated segregation was not protected under the equal protection of the laws. Single gender marriages are not equal and cannot be made equal so therefore...
3. Loving v Virginia(1965) ended laws limiting marriage between a man and a woman of one race. It was viewed as another way to promote one race over another.
Gay and lesbian couples are single gender relationships. They present a way to promote one gender over another.
4. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): "It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects."
Men and women are obligated to commit to one another in a relationship that brings both to the table called "home" to learn from, discuss with and teach all generations the benefits of integrating men and women at home and in the work place.
To use a common term of the day, marriage is designed to promote "tollerance" between a man and a woman.
If I don't get the same rights as you do - I'm not going to fulfill the same responsibilities that you do.
Come find me - and then throw me in prison where you'll have to PAY for my room and board and education and training and whatever other benefits I'll be able to suck the system dry of - including all the gay sex I could possible ever want, with both guards AND prisoners.
It'd suck to be in prison - but I'd be getting the last laugh on all of you homophobes.
Only moneyed up adulterers, greed is great, black copters, terror baby, tax dodging, assault by loofah, homophobic, bribe taking, bathroom loitering, money laundering, dead or in jail poaching, racists, legitimate rape or even better "Gods will" for rape animals know the finer points a "family values" & marriage...
Its all in the "book"...
Have to think this won't be the last time they show their true colors...
It would seem clear that the supreme court will uphold doma and reverse the appeals court decision to void the californian's decision to deny right to marriage strictly on legal grounds and because we have a conservative court and state's rights seems important to them and an appeal's court overthrowing a legal action of the people will be seen as federal intervention on state's right where the law as to who is married is made.
Under this same logic they may void doma but my bet is that a conservative court will not reverse it.
If this court somehow decides that homosexuals have a right to marriage we may have a firestorm not seen since roe v wade and a further hatred for the courts by conservatives and a further and extreme polarization betweeen left and right.
Pundits who follow this do not expect a broad decision rather one specific to each law. I do not expect a decision in either direction as to the right to homosexual's being married. I think more likely they will leave it to the states individually to decide on who can have a legal marriage.
I am much more ambivalent on doma because past practice was the govt basing who is married based on state law. this may mean that doma will be overturned.