Supporters of traditional marriage and same-sex marriage gather in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington April 28. The high court began hearing arguments in cases involving four states that bar same-sex marriage. (CNS photo/Tyler Orsburn) See SCOTUS-ADVOCATES April 28, 2015. Supporters of traditional marriage and same-sex marriage gather in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington April 28. The high court began hearing arguments in cases involving four states that bar same-sex marriage. (CNS photo/Tyler Orsburn) See SCOTUS-ADVOCATES April 28, 2015.

High court considers place of same-sex marriage in states that bar it

By Patricia Zapor
Catholic News Service

WASHINGTON (CNS) — The questions raised by Supreme Court justices as they considered April 28 whether they should rule that same-sex marriage should be made legal nationwide covered a gamut of rights concerns — religious, equal protection, states’ ability to enact their own laws.

In two and a half hours of oral arguments, the line of questions and the answers by attorneys representing both sides made clear that all concerned recognize the potential for the court’s ruling to be history-making.

Even the justices who sounded inclined to allow states to continue to ban same-sex marriage and refuse to recognize such marriages from other states seemed to recognize that it is no longer a question of "if" but "when" and "who decides" that same-sex marriages are allowed.

"The issue is not whether there should be same-sex marriage, but who should decide," said Justice Antonin Scalia in an exchange with Mary Bonauto, attorney for James Obergefell and other petitioners seeking the right to have same-sex marriage allowed or recognized in their states.

"And you’re asking us to decide it for this society when no other society until 2001 ever had it," Scalia added.

Chief Justice John Roberts observed that the country has moved quickly from firm opposition to such marriages — and a nationwide prohibition on them — to the current broad acceptance and a majority of states allowing same sex marriage. Numerous legal observers have drawn a connection between the marriage cases and the speed with which the nation had to accept the legality of abortion when the court ruled in 1973 that it is constitutionally protected. They suggest that a constitutional finding in favor of same-sex marriage would similarly preempt voters’ rights to decide such a complex moral issue.

"If you prevail," he told Bonauto, the nationwide legal debate about the issue will be over, but the people who are still making up their minds how they feel about same sex marriage will be deprived of the chance to weigh in about how their states act.

"People feel very differently about something if they have a chance to vote on it than if it’s imposed on them by the courts," Roberts said.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who often is a swing vote in cases that divide along liberal/conservative lines, and Justice Samuel Alito also raised questions about the speed with which same-sex marriage has become accepted and whether the court should be wading in to find a constitutional right at this time.

Kennedy said the 10-year period over which U.S. states have begun to allow same-sex marriage is a short amount of time on which to base a ruling to change that.

"This definition has been with us for millennia," he said. "And it’s very difficult for the court to say, oh, well, we know better."

Alito observed that, "until the end of the 20th century, there never was a nation or culture that recognized marriage between two people of the same sex.?

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out that the cases seeking reversal of rulings that upheld state bans on same-sex marriage wouldn’t be up for the court’s consideration "if marriage was what it was a millennium ago." She gave the example of another change in how marriage is understood, citing times when a woman’s role in a marriage was subservient to the man’s decisions. "There was a change in marriage to make it egalitarian when it wasn’t egalitarian."

Bonauto expanded on that, saying that for centuries the U.S. and Europe had a system "where a woman’s legal identity was absorbed into that of her husband and men and women had different prescribed legal roles. And again, because of equality and changing social circumstances all of those gender differences in the rights and responsibilities of the married pair have been eliminated. And that, of course, is a system in which committed same-sex couples fit quite well."

Scalia also raised questions about whether clergy would be required to participate in same-sex marriages that violate their religious beliefs.

No ministers in states with same-sex marriage have been forced to preside at marriages they don’t wish to perform, Bonauto said. But Scalia persisted, saying that if such marriages are constitutionally protected, they will have to do so.

Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer stepped into the issue.

"There are many rabbis that will not conduct marriages between Jews and non-Jews, notwithstanding that we have a constitutional prohibition against religious discrimination," she said. "And those rabbis get all the powers and privileges of the state."

Breyer quoted the First Amendment: "It’s called Congress shall make no law respecting the freedom of religion."

The attorney representing the states that want to keep their bans on same-sex marriage, Michigan’s special assistant attorney general John J. Bursch, argued that if the court finds a constitutional right to such marriages, it would lead to fewer marriages between heterosexual couples and therefore fewer children being raised in two-parent households.

"There’s harm if you change the definition because, in people’s minds, if marriage and creating children don’t have anything to do with each other, then what do you expect" You expect more children outside of marriage." That’s why, he said, the state must follow through with its obligation to protect children by keeping marriage defined in the way that lends itself to parents raising their own biological children.

In the second question the court took up, whether states that don’t permit same-sex marriages are obligated to recognize such unions performed in other states, attorney Douglas Hallward-Driemeier repeatedly referred to his clients’ marriages being dissolved by the states where they live.

"These petitioners have built their lives around their marriages, including bringing children into their families, just as opposite-sex couples have done," Hallward-Driemeier said. "But the non-recognition laws undermine the stability of these families."

The court’s ruling is expected before it adjourns for the term in late June.


Copyright ?2015 Catholic News Service/USCCB. All rights reserved. This article may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed.
CNS ? 3211 Fourth St NE ? Washington DC 20017 ? 202.541.3250


Copyright © 2024 Catholic News Service, Inc. All rights reserved. Linking is encouraged, but republishing or redistributing, including by framing or similar means, without the publisher's prior written permission is prohibited.

No, Thanks


eNewsletter