A divided and cautious Supreme Court confronted the constitutional question of same-sex marriage, struggling with how to address a set of cases that could equalize the status of gay couples nationwide or reinforce divisions between states that disagree on such unions.
Legal trends and public opinion have moved toward embracing same-sex marriage with remarkable speed, but Tuesday’s arguments didn’t indicate an outcome recognizing a right for gay unions was preordained.
The court’s liberal justices challenged the rationale four states offered for denying marriage to gays and lesbians, while conservatives questioned why the court shouldn’t leave the question to popular will and legislative wisdom.
Justice Anthony Kennedy—author of the court’s three landmark opinions expanding gay rights since 1996 and likely the deciding vote—gave weight to both sides.
“This definition [of marriage] has been with us for millennia. And it’s very difficult for the court to say, ‘Oh well, we know better,’” he told Mary Bonauto, the lawyer representing 16 gay couples challenging marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee.
But Justice Kennedy also repeatedly questioned the legal justifications offered by the four states, suggesting they underestimated the role marriage plays in bestowing dignity on couples who wish to wed. He also was critical of a central argument made by the states that children would be better off if traditional definitions of marriage remain in place.
Ms. Bonauto characterized the gay-rights movement as a decadeslong struggle to overcome prejudice. Even the claim for same-sex marriage was nothing new, she said, noting the first case asserting it as a right reached the Supreme Court more than 40 years ago.
 |
| CLICK CHART to ENLARGE |
At the same time, she said, heterosexual marriage evolved. What once was a hierarchy “where a woman’s legal identity was absorbed into that of her husband” was now one of equality between spouses. Modern marriage, she said, “is a system in which committed, same-sex couples fit quite well.” She said the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection and due-process guarantees leave no justification for denying marital status to gay couples.
Justice Samuel Alito, sharply skeptical of Ms. Bonauto’s case, asked where the logic ended. Why should marriage be denied to polygamous spouses, he asked, observing that unlike same-sex marriage, polygamy has existed since antiquity.Read the rest of the story HERE and view related video and Audio below:
Audio of Oral Arguments in front of Supreme Court:
PART 1
PART 2
If you like what you see, please "Like" us on Facebook either here or here. Please follow us on Twitter here.
No comments:
Post a Comment