USA: Lawyers make their cases to the press, after arguing gay marriage before Supreme Court

Record ID: 278363

  • Title: USA: Lawyers make their cases to the press, after arguing gay marriage before Supreme Court
  • Date: 26th March 2013
  • Summary: WASHINGTON. D.C., UNITED STATES (MARCH 26, 2013) (REUTERS) WIDE OF CROWD IN FRONT OF SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
  • Embargoed: 10th April 2013 13:00
  • Keywords:
  • Location: Usa
  • Country: USA
  • Topics: Legal System,Politics,People
  • Reuters ID: LVA8PQTVE6QE2KK1I2N4OQLGC6JM
  • Story Text: Supreme Court justices signaled on Tuesday (March 26) that they are reluctant to embrace a broad ruling finding a fundamental right to marriage for gays and lesbians across the United States.
    As sign-waving demonstrators massed outside, the court completed more than an hour of oral argument on whether to let stand a California ban on same-sex marriage without indicating a clear path forward.
    Swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy raised concerns about the court entering "uncharted waters" on an issue that divides the states.
    Kennedy even raised the prospect of the court dismissing the case, a relatively unusual move that would leave intact a federal Appeals Court ruling that struck down the law, known as Proposition 8.
    In a similar vein, Justice Samuel Alito also urged caution, noting that gay marriage as a concept is "newer than cellphones and the Internet."
    "I think the most remarkable thing that happened in there was that there was no attempt to defend the ban on gay and lesbian marriage, there was no indication of any harm. All that was said in there was that this important constitutional right ought to be decided at the state level as opposed to the federal government but it is a federal constitution that we have and it's a federal constitution that guarantees fundamental rights to every citizen in every state," said David Boies, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs arguing against Proposition 8.
    None of the justices indicated support for the Obama administration's favored solution, which would strike down Proposition 8 and require the other eight states that already recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships to allow gays and lesbians to marry.
    Earlier in the argument, the justices probed lawyers on both sides on the technical issue of whether California opponents of gay marriage had a right to be heard in federal court.
    Although there was no apparent consensus on that point, if the court were to find the proponents did not have standing it would not reach the merits and then the federal District Court ruling that struck down Proposition 8 would be left intact.
    "The other side no one really offered a defense for the awful discrimination that takes place when gay and lesbian citizens are not denied the right given to everyone else to have their family relationship recognized and respected equally," said the other attorney arguing against Proposition 8, Ted Olson.
    U.S. citizens in general do not have a right to sue to enforce laws they favor. Chief Justice John Roberts pressed lawyer Charles Cooper, who represents gay marriage opponents, on why his clients are any different as they seek to enforce Proposition 8.
    Prior to expressing his doubts about whether the court should decide the case, Kennedy pressed Cooper on the "imminent legal injury" facing almost 40,000 California children being raised by gay and lesbian couples.
    Cooper, facing a barrage of questions mostly from the Supreme Court's liberal wing, called California's law the equivalent of a "pause button."
    "We believe that Proposition 8 is constitutional. The place for the decision to be made regarding redefining marriage is with the people not with the courts," Cooper said on the steps of the Supreme Court after oral arguments were completed.
    It was that sentiment that was repeated by ProtectMarriage.com lead counsel Andrew Pugno, who has led the funding for the defense of Proposition 8.
    "Our position all along as been that the political process, that means state by state, states deciding for themselves, that's the forum where this debate belongs and that this is not something that should be imposed by the judiciary, by the courts and so a victory here for us means that this issue returns to the people and their legislatures where the debate belongs," Pugno said.
    Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, arguing on behalf of the Obama administration in support of striking down the law, said the California ban was not a "pause button" but a "delete button."
    On Wednesday, the court will consider the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which limits the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples. Rulings in both cases are expected by the end of June.
  • Copyright Holder: REUTERS
  • Copyright Notice: (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2015. Open For Restrictions - http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp
  • Usage Terms/Restrictions: None
Register