How the Supreme Court Should Rule on Gay Marriage<\/a> by Emily Bazelon in Slate.<\/p>\nThe Text:<\/strong> The court challenge to California\u2019s ban on gay marriage has made me nervous since it began. The case, which the Supreme Court will hear at the end of this month, makes the argument that banning gay marriage violates the Constitution\u2019s guarantee of equal protection under the law, full stop. Amen to that. But in a world in which 41 states still ban gay marriage, it was asking a lot of the courts\u2014and especially of Justice Anthony Kennedy, the oh-so-sought-after swing justice\u2014to award gay couples the right to marry across the country. With polls quickly shifting in the direction of gay rights, why turn to the least democratic method of social change? And it bothered me that this challenge came not from seasoned gay-rights lawyers, but from two superstars of the bar, David Boies and Ted Olson, who swooped in on their own.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
But a funny thing happened on the way to the Supreme Court: The case against gay marriage fell apart. The first holes appeared during the trial in 2010, which featured experts called in to testify in support of Prop 8 fleeing or recanting. And now this legal position is in such tatters that a group of more than 100 conservatives filed a friend-of-the-court brief that baldly states that there is no \u201clegitimate, fact-based justification for excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage.\u201d The conservatives, who include past and present Republican officials, say that \u201cover the past two decades,\u201d they \u201chave seen each argument against same-sex marriage discredited by social science, rejected by courts, and undermined by their own experiences with committed same-sex couples.\u201d<\/p>\n
This is so true. And it should stiffen Kennedy\u2019s spine. So should the argument conservatives put forward in their brief, which after stating their fealty to judicial restraint\u2014let the legislators and the voters decide\u2014carves out a worthy exception to the rule. \u201cIt is precisely at moments like this\u2014when discriminatory laws appear to reflect unexamined, unfounded, or unwarranted assumptions rather than facts and evidence, and the rights of one group of citizens hang in the balance\u2014that this court\u2019s intervention is most needed.\u201d<\/p>\n
I finished reading and felt a lot more optimistic about the outcome of Hollingsworth v. Perry, as the case is called. I don\u2019t think the court will take the giant step of ordering up gay marriage for the entire country. In fact, I think it shouldn\u2019t. This one is a winner in the polls: Let\u2019s let it move through the country gradually, because that\u2019s the most enduring, least divisive way to make change. But there are a couple of good medium-sized steps the court can easily choose. Either way, ever since the court agreed to hear this case, there\u2019s less reason to fear there\u2019s a majority for doing damage to gay rights.<\/p>\n
About those medium-sized steps: The Department of Justice laid them out in its own brief last week, which was historic because the Obama administration didn\u2019t have to take a position in the case but opted to make a strong stand for gay rights. One possibility is for the court to treat California differently from every other state because it legalized gay marriage in May 2008, granted licenses to 18,000 gay couples, and then took it all away when Proposition 8 passed that November. That is the logic the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit adopted in upholding the trial court\u2019s ruling against Prop 8. It\u2019s the safest political ground to stand on: As David Savage points out in the Los Angeles Times, \u201cCalifornia voters, by a nearly 2-1 margin, now approve of allowing same-sex couples to marry.\u201d Yes, this case is supposed to be about constitutional law, not public opinion, but when the Supreme Court faces contested social questions like this one, the rest of us matter.<\/p>\n
A ruling that simply struck down Prop 8 would be a real victory: It would be the beginning of the end of state bans on gay marriage, and would eventually topple the entire sorry edifice of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (which faces an incremental challenge that the court will also hear at the end of the month). And if the Supreme Court adopts the Justice Department\u2019s approach to applying the standard of heightened scrutiny, the ruling could have implications for other important gay-rights efforts, for example the fight against discrimination in the workplace and in schools. Heightened scrutiny is the test that courts apply in sex discrimination cases: It means that the government must have a very good reason to enact and enforce a law that treats one group differently, not just a plausible one. The Supreme Court has never held a law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation to that standard, and it would be a big deal all across the country, in suits brought by people who were fired or mistreated for being gay, if it did so in Perry.<\/p>\n
There\u2019s another possibility for a medium-sized happy ending, which New York University law professor Kenji Yoshino laid out in December and which the Justice Department has now embraced. This one is called the \u201ceight-state solution.\u201d The idea here is that California isn\u2019t entirely on its own: It\u2019s like the eight other states that have granted full domestic partnership rights to gay couples, denying them the benefit of marriage in name only. And that\u2019s not OK, constitutionally speaking, because there\u2019s no reason for it\u2014once you\u2019ve approved everything but marriage, you must grant the whole shebang.<\/p>\n
There\u2019s something strange about this argument: It dings the states that have actually done a fair amount for gay couples while leaving the ones that have done nothing alone. But politically speaking, it\u2019s another potential winner. Four of the states in this category\u2014Delaware, Illinois, and Oregon, along with California itself, in the hands of a Democratic governor\u2014have actually asked the court to strike down Prop 8, \u201cmaking an argument that would, if accepted, appear to seal the fate of their own laws as well,\u201d as Marty Lederman points out. That would leave just Hawaii, Nevada, New Jersey, and Rhode Island to take this medicine without asking for it, and those aren\u2019t places where the backlash looks bad.<\/p>\n
Whatever option Justice Kennedy chooses for the court\u2014and I really have no doubt he\u2019ll be the one deciding\u2014I hope he harks back to his own 2001 opinion in a case about disability rights, which the Justice Department cites. Here are Kennedy\u2019s opening lines: \u201cPrejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves.\u201d As the country shifts toward accepting gay people as full and equal citizens in every way, it\u2019s both kind and wise to give the stragglers, who often are abiding by religious traditions, the benefit of the doubt. We can hope they lose in court without hoping they lose themselves.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Article: How the Supreme Court Should Rule on Gay Marriage by Emily Bazelon in Slate. The Text: The court challenge to California\u2019s ban on gay marriage has made me nervous since it began. The case, which the Supreme Court will hear at the end of this month, makes the argument that banning gay marriage […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":49,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[259],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n
How The Supreme Court Needs To Rule On Gay Marriage<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"SCOTUS is taking up a gay marriage case this year. Here's what they should rule and why.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/03\/10\/how-the-supreme-court-needs-to-rule-on-gay-marriage\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"How The Supreme Court Needs To Rule On Gay Marriage\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"SCOTUS is taking up a gay marriage case this year. Here's what they should rule and why.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/03\/10\/how-the-supreme-court-needs-to-rule-on-gay-marriage\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Prose Before Hos\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2013-03-10T14:00:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2013-12-09T16:28:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"http:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/03\/gay-marriage-kennedy.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Article of the Day\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@pbhnetwork\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@pbhnetwork\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Article of the Day\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/03\/10\/how-the-supreme-court-needs-to-rule-on-gay-marriage\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/03\/10\/how-the-supreme-court-needs-to-rule-on-gay-marriage\/\",\"name\":\"How The Supreme Court Needs To Rule On Gay Marriage\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2013-03-10T14:00:51+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2013-12-09T16:28:53+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/#\/schema\/person\/1e19d7cf2b1a9aea1805fd7b4b4b2b4e\"},\"description\":\"SCOTUS is taking up a gay marriage case this year. Here's what they should rule and why.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/03\/10\/how-the-supreme-court-needs-to-rule-on-gay-marriage\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/03\/10\/how-the-supreme-court-needs-to-rule-on-gay-marriage\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/03\/10\/how-the-supreme-court-needs-to-rule-on-gay-marriage\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"How The Supreme Court Needs To Rule On Gay Marriage\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/\",\"name\":\"Prose Before Hos\",\"description\":\"The Far Side Of Politics\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/#\/schema\/person\/1e19d7cf2b1a9aea1805fd7b4b4b2b4e\",\"name\":\"Article of the Day\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/pbhnetwork\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/author\/article-of-the-day\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"How The Supreme Court Needs To Rule On Gay Marriage","description":"SCOTUS is taking up a gay marriage case this year. Here's what they should rule and why.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/03\/10\/how-the-supreme-court-needs-to-rule-on-gay-marriage\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"How The Supreme Court Needs To Rule On Gay Marriage","og_description":"SCOTUS is taking up a gay marriage case this year. Here's what they should rule and why.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/03\/10\/how-the-supreme-court-needs-to-rule-on-gay-marriage\/","og_site_name":"Prose Before Hos","article_published_time":"2013-03-10T14:00:51+00:00","article_modified_time":"2013-12-09T16:28:53+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"http:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/03\/gay-marriage-kennedy.jpg"}],"author":"Article of the Day","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@pbhnetwork","twitter_site":"@pbhnetwork","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Article of the Day","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/03\/10\/how-the-supreme-court-needs-to-rule-on-gay-marriage\/","url":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/03\/10\/how-the-supreme-court-needs-to-rule-on-gay-marriage\/","name":"How The Supreme Court Needs To Rule On Gay Marriage","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/#website"},"datePublished":"2013-03-10T14:00:51+00:00","dateModified":"2013-12-09T16:28:53+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/#\/schema\/person\/1e19d7cf2b1a9aea1805fd7b4b4b2b4e"},"description":"SCOTUS is taking up a gay marriage case this year. Here's what they should rule and why.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/03\/10\/how-the-supreme-court-needs-to-rule-on-gay-marriage\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/03\/10\/how-the-supreme-court-needs-to-rule-on-gay-marriage\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/03\/10\/how-the-supreme-court-needs-to-rule-on-gay-marriage\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"How The Supreme Court Needs To Rule On Gay Marriage"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/","name":"Prose Before Hos","description":"The Far Side Of Politics","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/#\/schema\/person\/1e19d7cf2b1a9aea1805fd7b4b4b2b4e","name":"Article of the Day","sameAs":["https:\/\/twitter.com\/pbhnetwork"],"url":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/author\/article-of-the-day\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/137748"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/49"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=137748"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/137748\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":143221,"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/137748\/revisions\/143221"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=137748"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=137748"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=137748"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"Gay](\"http:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/03\/gay-marriage-kennedy.jpg\")
<\/p>\n