Sunday, October 19, 2014
YOLO COUNTY NEWS
99 CENTS

Court may sidestep major ruling on gay marriage

Marcus, left, and Daniel  German-Dominguez stand outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., Tuesday before the court's hearing on California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. AP photo

Marcus, left, and Daniel German-Dominguez stand outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Tuesday, March 26, 2013, before the court's hearing on California’s voter approved ban on same-sex marriage. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

By
From page A1 | March 27, 2013 |

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court dove into a historic debate on gay rights Tuesday that could soon lead to resumption of same-sex marriage in California, but the justices signaled they may not be ready for a major national ruling on whether America’s gays and lesbians have a right to marry.

The court’s first major examination of gay rights in 10 years was to continue Wednesday, when the justices will consider the federal law that prevents legally married gay couples from receiving a range of benefits afforded straight married people.

The issue before the court on Tuesday was more fundamental:

Does the Constitution require that people be allowed to marry whom they choose, regardless of either partner’s gender?

Trying to predict which way the justices are leaning based on the questions they pose often amounts to puzzling over tea leaves, even for experts.

“I do think based on the oral arguments today it is unlikely that Prop. 8 (California’s voter-approved gay marriage ban) will be upheld by the court,” UC Davis law professor Courtney Joslin said Tuesday after reading the transcripts. “Beyond that, it becomes more difficult to predict what’s going to happen. It is certainly possible the court will hold the proponents of Prop. 8 do not have (legal) standing (to defend it in court).”

A skeptical Justice Samuel Alito cautioned against a broad ruling in favor of gay marriage precisely because the issue is so new.

“You want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cellphones or the Internet? I mean, we do not have the ability to see the future,” Alito said.

Indeed, it was clear from the start of the 80-minute argument in a packed courtroom, that the justices, including some liberals who seemed open to gay marriage, had doubts about whether they should even be hearing the challenge to Prop. 8.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, the potentially decisive vote on a closely divided court, suggested the justices could dismiss the case with no ruling at all.

Such an outcome almost certainly would allow gay marriages to resume in California but would have no impact elsewhere.

Outcome in doubt

There was no majority apparent for any particular outcome, and many doubts were expressed by justices about the arguments advanced by lawyers for the opponents of gay marriage in California, by the supporters and by the Obama administration, which is in favor of same-sex marriage rights. The administration’s entry into the case followed President Barack Obama’s declaration of support for gay marriage.

On the one hand, Kennedy acknowledged the recentness of same-sex unions, a point stressed repeatedly by Charles Cooper, the lawyer for the defenders of Prop. 8. Cooper said the court should uphold the ban as a valid expression of the people’s will and let the vigorous political debate over gay marriage continue.

But Kennedy pressed him also to address the interests of the estimated 40,000 children in California who have same-sex parents.

“They want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don’t you think?” Kennedy said.

Yet when Theodore Olson, the lawyer for two same-sex couples, urged the court to support such marriage rights everywhere, Kennedy feared such a ruling would push the court into “uncharted waters.” Olson said the court similarly ventured into the unknown in 1967 when it struck down bans on interracial marriage in 16 states.

Kennedy challenged the accuracy of that comment, noting that other countries had had interracial marriages for hundreds of years.

The justice, a Sacramento native whose vote usually decides the closest cases, also made clear he did not like the rationale of the federal appeals court that struck down Prop. 8, even though it cited earlier opinions in favor of gay rights that Kennedy had written.

That appeals court ruling applied only to California, where same-sex couples briefly had the right to marry before the state’s voters in November 2008 adopted Prop. 8, a constitutional amendment that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Several members of the court also were troubled by the Obama administration’s main contention that when states offer same-sex couples civil union rights of marriage, as California and eight other states do, they also must allow marriage. The other states are Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Rhode Island.

“So a state that has made considerable progress has to go all the way, but at least the government’s position is, if the state has done absolutely nothing at all, then it can do as it will,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.

Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether gay marriage proponents were arguing over a mere label. “Same-sex couples have every other right. It’s just about the label,” Roberts said.

California options

In the California case, if the court wants to find an exit without making a decision about gay marriage, it has two basic options.

It could rule that the opponents have no right, or legal standing, to defend Proposition 8 in court. Such an outcome also would leave in place the trial court decision in favor of the two same-sex couples who sued for the right to marry.

On a practical level, California officials probably would order county clerks across the state to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples, although some more conservative counties might object.

Alternatively, the justices could determine that they should not have agreed to hear the case in the first place, as happens a couple of times a term on average. In that situation, the court issues a one-sentence order dismissing the case “as improvidently granted.”

The effect of that would be to leave in place the appeals court ruling, which in the case of Proposition 8, applies only to California. The appeals court also voted to strike down the ban, but on somewhat different grounds than the trial court.

Same-sex marriage is legal in nine states and the District of Columbia. Thirty states ban same-sex marriage in their constitutions, while 10 states bar them under state laws. New Mexico law is silent on the issue.

Polls have shown increasing support in the country for gay marriage. According to a Pew Research Center poll conducted in mid-March, 49 percent of Americans now favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, with 44 percent opposed.

Children considered

A good part of the give-and-take Tuesday concerned Cooper’s argument that the state has a legitimate interest in limiting marriage to heterosexuals since they have the unique ability to have children.

He and Justice Elena Kagan engaged in a lengthy, sometimes humorous, exchange on the topic.

If a state can use the ability to have children as a reason to prohibit same-sex marriage, what about couples over the age of 55? Kagan asked.

“Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both parties to the couple are infertile,” Cooper said.

Kagan cut in: “I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.”

At another point, Justice Antonin Scalia, who has dissented in the court’s previous gay rights cases, invoked the well-being of children to bolster Cooper’s case.

“If you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, you must permit adoption by same-sex couples, and there’s considerable disagreement among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not,” Scalia said.

Opponents of same-sex marriage are relying heavily on “responsible procreation” as an argument  in both the Prop. 8 case argued Tuesday and Wednesday’s Defense of Marriage Act case.

Joslin, the UCD professor, said that notion only began making appearances in judicial opinions in 2003, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled the state could not deny marriage rights to same-sex couples. Since then, she said, it has appeared in numerous cases involving same-sex marriage.

“As a legal matter, the right to marry is distinct from the right to procreate. In the past, the ability and the right to get married has not been conditioned on the couple’s ability or desire to procreate,” said Joslin, who co-authored a brief submitted in Wednesday’s case on behalf  of 40 family and child welfare law professors.

In it, she argues that there is no legal basis supporting the assertion that federal law favors biological parentage over the decisions of same-sex or opposite-sex couples to adopt children or of couples who conceive children through assisted reproduction.

The California case was argued 10 years to the day after the court took up a challenge to Texas’ anti-sodomy statute. That case ended with a forceful ruling prohibiting states from criminalizing sexual relations between consenting adults.

Kennedy was the author of the decision in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, and he is being closely watched for how he might vote on the California ban. He cautioned in the Lawrence case that it had nothing to do with gay marriage, but dissenting Justice Scalia predicted the decision would lead to the invalidation of state laws against same-sex marriage.

Kennedy’s decision is widely cited in the briefs in support of same-sex unions.

The California couples, Kris Perry and Sandy Stier of Berkeley and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo of Burbank, filed their federal lawsuit in May 2009 to overturn the same-sex marriage ban that voters approved the previous November. The ballot measure halted same-sex unions in California, which began in June 2008 after a ruling from the California Supreme Court.

Roughly 18,000 couples were wed in the nearly five months that same-sex marriage was legal and those marriages remain valid in California.

— Enterprise staff writer Cory Golden contributed to this report.

Comments

comments

Wire and staff reports

  • Recent Posts

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this newspaper and receive notifications of new articles by email.

  • .

    News

    Return to sender: MRAP removal options go to council

    By Dave Ryan | From Page: A1 | Gallery

     
    $18.75M grant aims to build global food security

    By Special to The Enterprise | From Page: A1 | Gallery

     
    Howzat! Cricket tradition grows in Davis

    By Lily Holmes | From Page: A1 | Gallery

    Housing First pilot project targets West Sac homeless

    By Anne Ternus-Bellamy | From Page: A1

     
    Evidentiary hearing set for man shot by CHP

    By Lauren Keene | From Page: A2

     
    For the record

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: A2

    Cop witnesses car-pedestrian collision

    By Lauren Keene | From Page: A2

     
    Hawaii hit by winds, rain as hurricane veers west

    By The Associated Press | From Page: A2

    Safe viewing of solar eclipse planned

    By Special to The Enterprise | From Page: A3

     
    Fill the Boot for the hungry

    By Lauren Keene | From Page: A3

     
    Quiz Master Gardeners at open house

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: A3

    Celebrate origami at Davis library

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: A3

     
    Firefighters on the town

    By Wayne Tilcock | From Page: A3

    Donate used books at Co-op

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: A3

     
    Love-life tips on ‘Heart to Heart’

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: A3

    Volunteers sought to chip in on parks cleanup

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: A3

     
    Crash victim ID’d as Woodland man

    By Lauren Keene | From Page: A3

    Senior Computer Club hears from county official

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: A3

     
    Guns to be discharged at police range

    By Lauren Keene | From Page: A3

    DHS ski and snowboard swap set on Nov. 9

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: A3

     
    Wolk sets ‘Morning with the Mayor’

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: A3

    Apply by Friday for Biberstein grants

    By Special to The Enterprise | From Page: A4

     
    Esparto home targeted in three-city pot bust

    By Lauren Keene | From Page: A4

     
    Wolk earns perfect score from senior advocates

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: A7

    UCD celebrates 50 years of global agricultural success

    By Special to The Enterprise | From Page: A9 | Gallery

     
    Special education information night scheduled

    By Jeff Hudson | From Page: A11

    Be on the lookout for tagged Monarch butterflies

    By Kathy Keatley Garvey | From Page: A16 | Gallery

     
    .

    Forum

    Old news disturbs the present

    By Creators Syndicate | From Page: B5

     
    A bionic hand with feeling

    By The Associated Press | From Page: A8

    Take time to reach out for help

    By Creators Syndicate | From Page: A8

     
    Are we there yet? Yik Yakking the day away

    By Tanya Perez | From Page: A8

    Teach cyclists to obey laws

    By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A14

     
    Proposed lights harm kids

    By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A14

    Ain’t Snow Mountain high enough

    By Our View | From Page: A14

     
    Let’s take Davis’ energy future seriously

    By Special to The Enterprise | From Page: A14

    Be careful cycling on Fifth

    By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A15

     
    Water theater isn’t fun

    By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A15

    Elect Granda to board

    By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A15

     
    Yes on Prop. 47: reasonable changes to curb recidivism, save money

    By Special to The Enterprise | From Page: A15

    No on Prop. 47: an end to safe neighborhoods, and more victims

    By Special to The Enterprise | From Page: A15

     
    .

    Sports

     
    Devils stick it to Chico, cancer

    By Evan Ream | From Page: B1 | Gallery

    Vargas emerges from crowded Aggie WR corps

    By Bruce Gallaudet | From Page: B1 | Gallery

     
    Competitive Aggies fall at No. 6/7 Montana

    By Bruce Gallaudet | From Page: B1 | Gallery

    JV Devils fall to Franklin

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: B2

     
    Niemi leads Sharks to win

    By The Associated Press | From Page: B4

    UCD roundup: Big crowd sees Aggies nip Guachos

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: B8 | Gallery

     
    .

    Features

    .

    Arts

    .

    Business

     
    Davis is a temple for fine beverages

    By Wendy Weitzel | From Page: A5 | Gallery

    35 employers will be at West Sac job fair

    By Special to The Enterprise | From Page: A6

     
    Rob White: Building an economy on innovation

    By Rob White | From Page: A6

    Arcadia Biosciences earns spot on global innovation list

    By Special to The Enterprise | From Page: A6

     
    .

    Obituaries

    Peggy Belenis Swisher

    By Special to The Enterprise | From Page: A4

     
    Sadie Louise Barga

    By Special to The Enterprise | From Page: A4

    Morgan Wheeler

    By Special to The Enterprise | From Page: A4

     
    .

    Comics

    Comics: Sunday, October 19, 2014

    By Creator | From Page: B8