Windy City Media Group Frontpage News

THE VOICE OF CHICAGO'S GAY, LESBIAN, BI, TRANS AND QUEER COMMUNITY SINCE 1985

home search facebook twitter join
Gay News Sponsor Windy City Times 2023-12-13
DOWNLOAD ISSUE
Donate

Sponsor
Sponsor
Sponsor

  WINDY CITY TIMES

VIEWPOINTS Will the Supreme Court Be Left Behind on Gay Marriage?
by Nan Hunter for TheNation.com
2013-03-05

This article shared 2499 times since Tue Mar 5, 2013
facebook twitter google +1 reddit email


This article was originally published at thenation.com and is re-posted here with permission. See www.thenation.com/blog/173182/will-supreme-court-be-left-behind-gay-marriage .

In case you haven't noticed, the biggest question facing the Supreme Court when it decides the gay marriage cases this spring has become whether it can rise to the level of LGBT rights ferocity already achieved by American business leaders, moderate Republicans and the Obama administration. By the end of last week, when all the amicus briefs in support of striking down California's Prop 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) had been filed, support for marriage equality seemed to have been transformed into the new normal—at least outside the confines of the Court.

In fact, judging from the press coverage of the briefs, if the justices don't rule in favor of gay marriage, it is the Court that will look bad. This perception is an incredible achievement, a brilliant exercise in political framing by the lawyers and legal organizations behind the two cases, who mobilized the amicus show of force. The business brief and the Republican brief, especially, are clearly designed to provide political cover for the Court's five conservative Justices.

While nothing is certain, there is virtually unanimous agreement among lawyers and law professors that the tougher case for gay rights groups is the challenge to Prop 8 rather than the one to DOMA. The Prop 8 case raises the question of whether all of the forty other state laws banning gay marriage are constitutional, while DOMA implicates only a federal recognition policy that leaves variance in state laws intact.

The best hope for winning Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Prop 8 case, remains either securing a narrow ruling that invalidates only the California law, or persuading the Court that it need not reach the merits at all, relying on the argument that those defending Prop 8 lack the necessary standing because they are private parties that have no authority to enforce it. (The governor and attorney general of California declined to defend the law.) From the beginning, though, the Ted Olson-David Boies strange bedfellows team that brought the case has argued that every law banning gay marriage should be struck down. Even six months ago, that position seemed too radical to attract much support outside the circle of true believers.

Now, however, a ruling of national scope is precisely the outcome endorsed in the brief filed by 100 corporations and in the Republican brief signed by luminaries including former White House officials Ken Duberstein (Reagan Chief of Staff) and Stephen Hadley (Bush National Security Advisor); Iraq War hawk Paul Wolfowitz; two Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers under Bush; the former Director of the Congressional Budget Office; a Justice Department official from the Nixon Administration; the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission, who is also Colin Powell's son; and four former Republican governors. And, oh yes, Clint Eastwood.

What happened to make possible this conservative blessing of what had seemed to many like such a radical outcome? Fundamentally, the only change is that the political gestalt has shifted so that what was always a conservative claim—to gain access to the core institution for privatizing a broad range of social functions—is increasingly being endorsed by conservatives. Sooner or later, it had to happen.

Nonetheless, it is unquestionably true that the conventional understanding of where the center of American politics stands on this issue has dramatically moved. The reasons are many. A cumulative process, especially since 2009, has driven support for legalizing gay marriage ever higher in public opinion polls. The shock of the 2008 defeat in California catalyzed a younger generation of gay men and lesbians, with ardent support from straight allies, to insist on marriage as the premier gay rights issue. Since that election, gay groups have won a series of state-level battles, as several legislatures legalized equal marriage, including New York (with one chamber controlled by Republicans). At the national level, Congress repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell.

The icing on the wedding cake came with last November's election. Voters in three states affirmatively chose to adopt gay marriage, and Minnesota voters rejected the attempt to pass a Prop 8-like measure. Moreover, the first President ever to endorse marriage equality was handily re-elected, without his position ever surfacing as a controversial issue in the campaign. Indeed, support for gay marriage, along with immigration reform, has become the litmus test most frequently identified in the press for assessing whether the Republican Party can rebrand itself as moderate and escape terminal fuddy-duddyism.

Of course, the outcome in the Supreme Court will be decided not by polls or pundits but by nine individuals; actually by six, since there is no question as to which result Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito will endorse. But Justice Kennedy, who wrote the two strongest opinions supporting gay equality in past cases, and even Chief Justice Roberts, who has no real track record in this area, are likely to take seriously the libertarian and business arguments for allowing gay couples to marry. Not doing so would continue the house-divided status quo, in which one's marital status and even the possibility of divorce depends on an increasingly irrational mélange of different state laws. And, as the firepower across the political spectrum in support of gay marriage so dramatically demonstrates, the ultimate resolution is inevitable. Best just to bite the bullet and do it now.

If this all sounds a bit too good to be true, maybe it is. Justice Kennedy is also a strong believer in state sovereignty, and a decision forcing legal change in forty-one states may be too much for him to join. The great bulk of the US population lives in a jurisdiction where gay marriage is not legal. The defenders of Prop 8 will to try assuage the justices that if the political process is left to work, more and more states will re-amend their constitutions and change their statutes to gradually adopt gay marriage laws on their own, without judicial "interference." In addition, the liberal justices who support gay marriage may worry that a sweeping Roe v. Wade-like decision will trigger a massive backlash. These considerations combine to make that standing argument sure seem like a nice way to kick a vexatious can down the road.

This is the new political environment in which the legal arguments about marriage equality will succeed or fail. But that might not be enough to put gay marriage supporters over the top. Supreme Court justices breathe the same cultural air that the rest of us do, but they don't have the luxury that politicians have to just say—hey, guess what, I've changed my mind on that one. The substantive legal arguments have to be both persuasive and consistent with other applications of the same body of doctrine. Even if a judge wants to see a certain result, the opinion "has to write"—the analytic structure has to support that result.

The substantive questions in the DOMA case (which also has a jurisdiction/standing question, though it is probably less likely to prove decisive than the one in Perry) all arise from the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In previous civil rights cases, the Court has developed a set of increasingly stringent levels for reviewing legislative classifications, with racial classifications receiving the highest level, or strict scrutiny; and gender classifications requiring heightened scrutiny, which is somewhat less rigorous. The baseline and point of comparison for both is called rational basis review, a lenient standard under which courts defer to legislative judgment if the distinction drawn has a rational relationship to any legitimate government interest.

So far, the Court has not explicitly applied either heightened or strict scrutiny to sexual orientation discrimination, but it did nonetheless strike down an anti-gay state law by applying what seemed to be a heightened version of rational basis review. As a result of the Supreme Court not being more transparent in its approach in gay cases, the lower federal courts are all over the board in terms of whether they apply heightened scrutiny, rational basis review with bite, or deferential rational basis review.

The selection of the standard is critically important because it usually determines the outcome as to whether a law is ruled unconstitutional. For example, the Justice Department argues in its brief that DOMA is unconstitutional if heightened scrutiny is applied, but valid if rational basis review is used, unless the Court uses heightened rational basis, in which case DOMA is unconstitutional after all. (Are you still with me?) The most important outcome of the DOMA case for the future of gay rights law is that the Court is likely to declare itself on which standard should be applied to any law that discriminates based on sexual orientation.

It is also true in Perry, the Prop 8 case, that the Court could determine the law's constitutionality by using an Equal Protection analysis. However, in that case there is another doctrinal option. Under the Due Process Clause (i.e., no state can deprive an individual of liberty without due process of law), the Court has held repeatedly that the right to marry is a fundamental right. When a law deprives persons of a fundamental liberty right, the denial must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest.

Until just a few years ago, the majority of courts deciding gay marriage cases ruled that although there was a right to marry, there was not a right to same-sex marriage. Those two examples, judge after judge said, were just different, essentially and tautologically so. But U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker, who conducted the trial in the Prop 8 case, ruled that one basis for the law's unconstitutionality is its violation of the due process liberty right to marry.

The Olson-Boies brief in the Supreme Court opens with this liberty claim; the equal protection argument comes second. Usually litigators begin a brief with what they believe is their strongest argument, suggesting that Olson may push the Court for a victory based on recognition that the marriage-childbearing link being pressed by Prop 8's defenders doesn't justify denial of a right as important as marriage. Indeed, the first sentence in the brief quotes from a 1978 Supreme Court decision stating that marriage is "the most important relation in life," a quotation repeated twice more in the first four pages of the brief.

If Perry is decided on liberty grounds, its scope will be limited to marriage rather than applying to all sexual orientation classifications. But for many people, that would be like saying that a truce applies only to ending a war, rather than preventing all future battles. If gay couples can't be excluded from marriage, what forms of government discrimination could possibly be constitutional?

The next stage in this saga is that the Court will hear oral arguments in Perry on March 26 and in Windsor v. United States, the DOMA case, on March 27, in what will be a feast for constitutional law buffs. Based on the questions asked by the justices, the betting is certain to be fast and furious on how the cases will come out. That enterprise, however, is notoriously prone to mistakes, given how often the questions reflect a Justice playing devil's advocate rather than tipping her hand.

Because these cases will be among the last argued during the current term, they will likely be among the last in which the opinions are issued. There is no deadline for when the Court must decide cases, but it will announce all of the term's opinions before leaving for the summer. For gay marriage, that almost certainly portends nuptials—or not—in June.

Nan Hunter is Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center and Associate Dean for Graduate Programs. She also consults with the Williams Institute at UCLA as its Legal Scholarship Director. She co-authored the law school casebook Sexuality, Gender and the Law, now in its third edition, and has published dozens of law review articles in both sexuality and gender law and health law. During the Clinton Administration, she served as Deputy General Counsel at the US Department of Health and Human Services. Her awards include the Pioneer of Courage award from the American Foundation for AIDS Research and the first Dan Bradley award from the National LGBT Bar Association. She blogs at www.hunterofjustice.com and www.thenation.com .


This article shared 2499 times since Tue Mar 5, 2013
facebook twitter google +1 reddit email

Out and Aging
Presented By

  ARTICLES YOU MIGHT LIKE

Gay News

VIEWS Mike Johnson: The smiling face of Christian tyranny 2024-02-14
- Mike Johnson wants to rewrite the constitution to make the United States a Christian nation. James Michael Johnson, Republican from Louisiana's Fourth District, is the 56th speaker of the United States House of Representatives. He was ...


Gay News

VIEWS Parents, not legislators, should be making decisions about medical options for children 2024-02-06
By Jeffery M. Leving - No matter the medical issue, when it comes to kids, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine said something last December that every lawmaker in the country should realize when it comes to medical decisions for children. "Were House ...


Gay News

SHOWBIZ Sundance items, Green Day, 'Wednesday,' Queerties, 'The Wiz' 2024-01-26
- At the Sundance Film Festival, Jodie Foster told Variety that the $1.4-billion success of Barbie helps confirm that Hollywood no longer views women directors as too much of a risk. She said, "With a big success ...


Gay News

VIEWS Is the Pope Catholic? Francis faces opposition in steps toward LGBTQ+ inclusivity 2024-01-02
- The recent change in Vatican policy allowing priests to bless same-gender couples has provoked an unprecedented backlash against Pope Francis and his openness to LGBTQ+ people—a backlash that some fear might devolve into a schism in ...


Gay News

Bring Chicago Home: Guess who's saying no again 2023-12-04
Commentary by Bob Palmer and Mark Swartz - Chicago is ushering in an era of change with a new progressive mayor with a vision to invest in communities long ignored and a significant increase in like-minded city council members. We are excited to see ...


Gay News

Pope Francis's community of transwomen 2023-11-28
- It's a rare opportunity to meet the pope. It's even rarer if you're a transgender Catholic. However, on Nov. 19, in Torvaianica, Italy, a community of transwomen, many of them sex workers, were welcomed and seated ...


Gay News

Banning the Banning of Books: Illinois and California lead the way 2023-10-26
- In June, at the Harold Washington Library in Chicago, Governor JB Pritzker signed legislation banning book bans in Illinois public libraries. This legislation, initiated by Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias, passed the Illinois House and ...


Gay News

OPINION Renewing state's Invest in Kids program is investing in anti-LGBTQ+ hate 2023-10-23
- In February 2020, Bishop Thomas Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield warned transgender students in the Diocese's educational system that they "may be expelled from the school" if they live their lives authentically. Lansing Christian School ...


Gay News

Gilbert Baker Foundation reacts to death of shop owner who flew the rainbow flag 2023-08-29
--From a press release - In response to the murder of Laura Ann Carleton over flying the Rainbow flag in her shop in California, the Gilbert Baker Foundation released the statement below. Facebook refused to post the statement as it did not "...meet their standards." ...


Gay News

VIEWPOINT U.S. higher education under siege; freedom of inquiry and speech at risk 2023-07-03
- The Covid pandemic threw a harsh spotlight on higher education in America, exposing forces eating away at the foundations of college and university learning, calling into question the traditional purposes of such education in our post-modern, ...


Gay News

Guest essay by Florida mom Nicole Pejovich: What's Happening to Florida's Public Schools? 2023-06-19
Related video below - A queer Florida parent answers questions about recent laws, how Floridians are coping, and how you can help Books pulled from school library shelves by the dozens. All evidence of inclusivity stripped from classrooms. The politically ...


Gay News

VIEWPOINT For divorced parents, transgender children's health can present tricky dilemmas 2023-06-12
- Over the last few months, issues impacting individuals who identify as transgender and non-binary are getting a lot of attention in the media and among some politicians. Sadly, because it's become a political issue; a lot ...


Gay News

VIEWPOINT War in the 21st Century: mercenaries, private military companies, private armies 2023-05-20
- In 2022, $407 billion of the Pentagon budget—representing half of that year's funding —were obligated to private contractors, of which a significant number were Private Military Companies (PMCs) involved in ...


Gay News

VIEWPOINT Telling the world about my mental health disorders 2023-05-04
- Over the years, coming out as a lesbian hasn't been that hard for me—because I was always too busy hiding something else. Confessing queerness can be a breeze compared to revealing mental illness. But I decline ...


Gay News

VIEWPOINT German bishops endorse blessings of same-sex couples: Ancient rituals retturn 2023-03-31
- This March, at a national meeting of leaders of the German Catholic Church (referred to as a synod), a document titled Blessing Ceremonies for Couples who Love Each Other" received overwhelming support: 176 votes in favor, ...


 


Copyright © 2024 Windy City Media Group. All rights reserved.
Reprint by permission only. PDFs for back issues are downloadable from
our online archives.

Return postage must accompany all manuscripts, drawings, and
photographs submitted if they are to be returned, and no
responsibility may be assumed for unsolicited materials.

All rights to letters, art and photos sent to Nightspots
(Chicago GLBT Nightlife News) and Windy City Times (a Chicago
Gay and Lesbian News and Feature Publication) will be treated
as unconditionally assigned for publication purposes and as such,
subject to editing and comment. The opinions expressed by the
columnists, cartoonists, letter writers, and commentators are
their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of Nightspots
(Chicago GLBT Nightlife News) and Windy City Times (a Chicago Gay,
Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender News and Feature Publication).

The appearance of a name, image or photo of a person or group in
Nightspots (Chicago GLBT Nightlife News) and Windy City Times
(a Chicago Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender News and Feature
Publication) does not indicate the sexual orientation of such
individuals or groups. While we encourage readers to support the
advertisers who make this newspaper possible, Nightspots (Chicago
GLBT Nightlife News) and Windy City Times (a Chicago Gay, Lesbian
News and Feature Publication) cannot accept responsibility for
any advertising claims or promotions.

 
 

TRENDINGBREAKINGPHOTOS







Sponsor


 



Donate


About WCMG      Contact Us      Online Front  Page      Windy City  Times      Nightspots
Identity      BLACKlines      En La Vida      Archives      Advanced Search     
Windy City Queercast      Queercast Archives     
Press  Releases      Join WCMG  Email List      Email Blast      Blogs     
Upcoming Events      Todays Events      Ongoing Events      Bar Guide      Community Groups      In Memoriam     
Privacy Policy     

Windy City Media Group publishes Windy City Times,
The Bi-Weekly Voice of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Trans Community.
5315 N. Clark St. #192, Chicago, IL 60640-2113 • PH (773) 871-7610 • FAX (773) 871-7609.