+

Cookies on the Business Insider India website

Business Insider India has updated its Privacy and Cookie policy. We use cookies to ensure that we give you the better experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we\'ll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on the Business Insider India website. However, you can change your cookie setting at any time by clicking on our Cookie Policy at any time. You can also see our Privacy Policy.

Close
HomeQuizzoneWhatsappShare Flash Reads
 

The Two Gay Marriage Cases Could Totally Undermine Each Other

Mar 30, 2013, 02:58 IST

Getty Images/Justin SullivanGay marriage advocates rally outside San Francisco Court in 2011.The legal arguments made by two groups who are both fighting for gay marriage might be at odds with each other.

Advertisement

The "irresolvable depth" of the tension between the two gay marriage cases became evident during arguments this week, SCOTUSBlog's Tom Goldstein points out.

One case challenges the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act and argues the federal government should recognize same-sex marriages that are currently legal in nine states. (DOMA, enacted in 1996, limits marriage to man-woman couples for federal law purposes.)

The other case, however, is a challenge to Proposition 8, a California law that banned gay marriage. A federal court (which is part of the federal government) overturned the law, and gay rights activists are fighting to keep the law overturned.

"The challenge to DOMA is undergirded by a sense that marriage is a matter for state rather than federal regulation," Goldstein writes in SCOTUSBlog. "The challenge to Proposition 8 is a direct challenge to just such a decision by a state."

Advertisement

The tension between the two legal theories was evident when Roberta Kaplan was arguing the case against DOMA for her client, 83-year-old lesbian widow Edith Windsor.

Kaplan argued that DOMA violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, rather than stressing that it infringes on states' rights under the principles of federalism.

Chief Justice John Roberts asked Kaplan whether it would violate states' rights if the federal government "went the other way" and said gay couples explicitly had the right to marry.

Here's the exchange that followed:

MS. KAPLAN: "I think the question under the Equal Protection Clause is -- is what the distinction is [between gay couples and straight couples].

Advertisement

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS: "No, no. I know that. You're following the lead of the Solicitor General and returning to the Equal Protection Clause every time I ask a federalism question."

It's pretty clear why Kaplan and the lawyer for the gay-friendly Obama administration might want to focus on the equal protection argument rather than the federalism argument.

If the Supreme Court says the federal government can't regulate marriage, then the feds can't step in and say every state must allow same-sex unions.

So, if DOMA dies on federalism grounds alone, gay rights activists might have to wait a while before every state in the union legalizes gay marriage on its own.

You are subscribed to notifications!
Looks like you've blocked notifications!
Next Article