Washington – The Supreme Court will take up California’s ban on same-sex marriage, a case that could give the justices the chance to rule on whether gay Americans have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals.
Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
The justices said Friday they will review a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the state’s gay marriage ban, though on narrow grounds. The San Francisco-based appeals court said the state could not take away the same-sex marriage right that had been granted by California’s Supreme Court.
The court also will decide whether Congress can deprive legally married gay couples of federal benefits otherwise available to married people. A provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act limits a range of health and pension benefits, as well as favorable tax treatment, to heterosexual couples.
The cases probably will be argued in March, with decisions expected by late June.
Gay marriage is legal, or will be soon, in nine states – Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington – and the District of Columbia. Federal courts in California have struck down the state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, but that ruling has not taken effect while the issue is being appealed.
Voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington approved gay marriage earlier this month.
But 31 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. North Carolina was the most recent example in May. In Minnesota earlier this month, voters defeated a proposal to enshrine a ban on gay marriage in that state’s constitution.
The biggest potential issue before the justices comes in the dispute over California’s Proposition 8, the state constitutional ban on gay marriage that voters adopted in 2008 after the state Supreme Court ruled that gay Californians could marry. The case could allow the justices to decide whether the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection means that the right to marriage cannot be limited to heterosexuals.
A decision in favor of gay marriage could set a national rule and overturn every state constitutional provision and law banning same-sex marriages. A ruling that upheld California’s ban would be a setback for gay marriage proponents in the nation’s largest state, although it would leave open the state-by-state effort to allow gays and lesbians to marry.
In striking down Proposition 8, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals crafted a narrow ruling that said because gay Californians already had been given the right to marry, the state could not later take it away. The ruling studiously avoided any sweeping pronouncements.
The larger constitutional issue almost certainly will be presented to the court, but the justices would not necessarily have to rule on it.
The other issue the high court will take on involves a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, known by its acronym DOMA, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal benefits.
Four federal district courts and two appeals courts struck down the provision.
The justices chose for their review the case of 83-year-old Edith Windsor, who sued to challenge a $363,000 federal estate tax bill after her partner of 44 years died in 2009.
Windsor, who goes by Edie, married Thea Spyer in 2007 after doctors told them that Spyer would not live much longer. She suffered from multiple sclerosis for many years. Spyer left everything she had to Windsor.
There is no dispute that if Windsor had been married to a man, her estate tax bill would have been $0.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York agreed with a district judge that the provision of DOMA deprived Windsor of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.
Whatever position one takes on the issue of gay marriage, it would be smart if the court strikes down the Federal law and allows each state to legislate the matter on its own. Many states, like New York, will decide its OK and others won’t but there should be no national mandate on a lifestyle decision that gained more support each year. Yidden will continue to believe what we believe on the basis of daas torah. We didn’t need a federal law to tell us its wrong and we don’t accept a state law as telling us what we should do individually. However, individual New Yorkers should have the same economic and personal rights whatever their lifestyle and its time the Court said thats OK>
If the Supreme Court does not rule that marriage is defined as man and woman, the United States is doomed. The Medrash says that the fate of the Generation of the Flood was sealed only because they “wrote Kesubos [marriage contracts] for homosexual relationships.”
This is a very different subject from equal financial and other secular rights of same-sex partners.
Jewish people are not for this dirty subject.
Next a man will be allowed to marry his sister or mother. And why not his dog. About a year ago I met a modern orthodox ex chassidic couple who claim they were the lawyers supporting californias gay marriage law. I told the woman that soon her husband will marry seven wives. He put on a big smile and she angrily reacted that she won’t be part of it. I told her you sure will as they got up to leave the Restaraunt. America will be history if this passes.
Wud pro gay accept having all the rights and privaleges but call it something else such as civil union or sincere comittment?
And if not why?
Be forewarned – I don’t think SCOTUS is seeking to determine whether gay marriage is “right” or “wrong.” They are not in the business of legislating morality. The issues here are manyfold, including: does the Federal Government have the authority to legislate marriage, which has heretofore been an area solely reserved to the states, and 2) how does this issue affect the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. That is, technically, if Vermont marries two men, and they move to Texas, must Texas recognize their status, even though Texas may choose not to allow said marriages. As things currently stand, the answer is yes! Just as Texas must respect custody decisions, child support decisions, etc of other states, they must respect marriages of other states. This may be up for consideration / re-interpretation. There are many issues here and they are all legal and constitutional in nature. I suspect this is what SCOTUS is concerned with, not the “right” or “wrong.”
So-called “homosexuals” (the Torah never defines a person based on what they call today “sexual orientation”, and never even has a word to call a person who engages in homosexuality, it only says the act is forbidden, and makes no differentiation between “gay” or “straight” people), have always had the same right as so-called “heterosexuals”, all people have the right to marry a non-relative of the opposite sex, no matter how they feel. So- called “heterosexuals” also could not marry those of the same gender, so it is totally equal. This is a made up issue by people who seek to uproot tradition out of rebellion.