Supreme Court gives big boost to gay marriage

12:06 PM, Jun 26, 2013   |    comments
  • Share
  • Print
  • - A A A +
Win McNamee/Getty Images
 PDF Document: UnitedStates v Windsor

WASHINGTON -- A sharply divided Supreme Court gave a double-barreled boost to gay and lesbian rights Wednesday, upholding a California ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the nation's largest state and striking down a federal law that denied benefits to those already married in 12 states.

The dual decisions, rendered by a coalition of liberal and some conservative justices, give the high court's mixed blessing to a gay-marriage movement that has gained momentum in the past decade and now stands on the threshold of full equality.

The court lifted a 5-year-old ban on same-sex marriage in California by declaring that the ban's backers lacked standing to challenge lower court rulings against it. As a result, gays and lesbians almost certainly will be able to marry again in California.

That decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, was 5-4 with Justices Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan in the majority. Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

And the justices declared unconstitutional the 17-year-old Defense of Marriage Act, a law that denied federal benefits to gays and lesbians legally married in a dozen states, from Maine to Washington, and the District of Columbia.

That ruling was pure Kennedy, the court's swing vote, joined by the four liberal justices. The four other conservatives dissented -- Scalia in angry fashion from the bench.

"The avowed purpose" of DOMA, Kennedy said, was "to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma" on gays and lesbians seeking to wed.

Scalia accused the majority of sending this message: "'Hate your neighbor, or come along with us''"

"We might have let the people decide," he said.

Taken together, the rulings represent a major step forward for marriage equality and a huge setback for defenders of traditional marriage between only men and women. But 36 states still ban same-sex marriage, and the high court's ruling in the California case doesn't extend marriage rights to gays and lesbians elsewhere.

Several of the court's most conservative justices dissented from the rulings, arguing that backers of California's Proposition 8 ban deserved their day in court and that the federal government can refuse to recognize gay marriage -- something they noted was newer than cell phones and the Internet.

The court's majority stopped far short of a more dramatic ruling -- that the Constitution gives gay and lesbian couples nationwide the right to marry.

The two decisions were greeted with celebration among gay rights advocates and dread by religious and social conservatives.




Since then, after a string of state bans on gay marriage, a half dozen states have legalized the practice: Maine, Maryland, Washington, Delaware, Rhode Island and Minnesota. Illinois could be next, possibly followed in the future by New Jersey, Oregon and Hawaii.



Arguing in support of Proposition 8 was Charles Cooper, the attorney representing the original proponents of the referendum who contend that marriage is based upon producing and raising children by a mother and father. They say forcing opponents to recognize same-sex marriages would infringe on their religious beliefs. And they say states and voters should be left alone to make their own decisions.






Gays and lesbians can't file joint federal tax returns, as heterosexual married couples can, which often saves families thousands of dollars. If gays or lesbians divorce, any alimony is subject to taxation, while for opposite-sex couples, it's tax-free. And when a spouse dies, the widow or widower is liable for inheritance taxes; heterosexual couples enjoy a marital deduction.

That estate tax problem is what prompted Edie Windsor, 83, to file her lawsuit. She stands to win back the $363,000 she paid in 2009 on the estate of her deceased spouse, Thea Spyer - a tax she would not have owed if their marriage was recognized by the federal government.



Richard Wolf and Brad Heath, USA TODAY

Gannett/USA Today

Most Watched Videos