DOMA and Prop 8 are Dead, But Same-Sex Marriage Bans Remain

by Kate Paine

Today, the United States Supreme Court issued two marriage-equality opinions that—though awaited by many—were surprising to few. In a 5-4 vote, the Court declared the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional, because it treats one category of legally-married couples (same-sex couples) differently than another category of legally-married couples (opposite-sex couples), for the  principal purpose of demeaning those in a lawful same-sex marriage.  Such absence of a legitimate purpose behind the discrimination violates the Equal Protection Clause to the United States Constitution.

 In another 5-4 vote, the Court found that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lacked standing (i.e. power) to hear the appeal of the Prop 8 case in the first place, and so the Court made no decision regarding the constitutionality of Proposition 8, or similar state laws that prohibit same-sex marriage. The result of this decision is that same-sex marriage will likely once again be permitted in California, but states that do not yet permit same-sex marriage will not be required to do so.

 For more information, see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/supreme-court-prop-8_n_3434854.html?1372257363&utm_hp_ref=politics  (DOMA) and  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/supreme-court-prop-8_n_3434854.html?1372257363&utm_hp_ref=politics (Prop 8)

 

Oregon Ninth Circuit’s Standing Committee Finds DOMA Unconstitutional

A single Ninth Circuit judge, in his capacity as chair of the Circuit’s Standing Committee on Federal Public Defenders, recently ruled In the Matter of Alison Clark that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) and Oregon’s Measure 36 violate the United States and Oregon Constitutions by unlawfully discriminating against same-sex couples.

To read the full Lexology story, click on the link below:

http://www.lexology.com/r.ashx?l=7JDH5GY

Pittsburgh Pride Event – Legal and Financial Planning for Gay and Lesbian Couples

PITTSBURGH PRIDE EVENT

Legal and Financial Planning
for Gay and Lesbian Couples

Tuesday, June 11, 2013
6:00 – 7:30 p.m.

Reception and Discussion
by below-named speakers:

                   Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
                         Maureen B. Cohon, Esquire
                         Kate R. Paine, Esquire
                                  Nontraditional Couples & Families Practice Group

                     Fifth Third Bank
                            Robert Lepre, Senior Vice President
                                  Private Bank Manager
                                  Life Partner Services

Please RSVP by Thursday, June 6, 2013, to
Maureen B. Cohon – 412-562-1835 or maureen.cohon@bipc.com

Space limits us to 50 attendees

Program will be held at:

WQED Multimedia
4802 Fifth Avenue
PittsburghPA15213

Parking Available

Prop8 + DOMA: Making Sense of Laws that Don’t Make Sense

by Kate R. Paine

Equal Magazine’s May/June 2013 issue featured Kate Paine’s article, “Prop8 + DOMA: Making Sense of Laws that Don’t Make Sense.” In the article, Kate describes the several likely ways in which the Supreme Court could decide on the fate of Proposition 8 and DOMA, both cases dealing with the controversial same-sex marriage debates.

Read the full article at the link below (begins on page 82).
See our ad on page 22.

http://issuu.com/pittsburghpride/docs/equal_mayjune_2013

 

Delaware Makes It 11

On Tuesday, May 7, 2013,  Delaware’s state senate passed a marriage equality bill, which had already been passed in the house.  Almost immediately thereafter, Delaware Governor Jack Markell signed the bill into law, making Delaware the eleventh state to recognize same-sex marriage.  The decision to pass the bill is especially significant, because it repeals the ban on same-sex marriage that Delaware has had in place since 1996—the same year DOMA was passed.

 http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2013/05/07/marriage-equality-passes-delaware

What We Learned from the Proposition 8 Oral Arguments

By Kate Paine, Esq.

Last week, the Supreme Court of the United States heard argument in two cases involving same-sex marriage. This post will discuss the most important take-aways from the first of those two cases: that involving a challenge to the constitutionality of California’s constitutional amendment declaring that only marriages between one man and one woman are valid and recognized in California (often referred to as “Prop 8″). 

First, it is important to understand that, although the Supreme Court could determine that all laws refusing to recognize same-sex marriages as valid are unlawful (just as it may, sadly, decide that such laws are not prohibited by the Constitution), there is also the possibility that the Court’s decision will not affect any, or many, states other than California.  To comprehend why, it is essential to understand how the Prop 8 case arrived in the Supreme Court. 

Originally, the defenders of Prop 8 lost at the trial Court level, when a federal Judge in California determined that Prop 8 violates a fundamental right to marry and constitutes unlawful discrimination. The case was then appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Although that court agreed Prop 8 is unconstitutional, it did so on much narrower grounds than the trial court, finding Prop 8 unconstitutional because it stripped the right to marry from one group only: same-sex couples.  Because no other state in this country has first allowed same-sex couples to marry, and then stripped them of that right, if the Supreme Court agrees with the Ninth Circuit, then its decision will likely affect only California—a victory, but a small one.

There is also the possibility that the Court could reach a middle ground and adopt what commentators call the “nine-state solution.”  Under this approach, the Court would find that states like California which, through civil unions or domestic partnerships, already give same-sex couples all of the rights of married couples, cannot withhold from those couples the actual label of “marriage.”  This would lead to the legalization of same-sex marriage in California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, and Rhode Island—a bigger victory.

Of course, the Supreme Court could also agree with the federal trial judge and decide that laws refusing to recognize same-sex marriages violate the Constitution—the biggest victory of all.  The Court would base this decision on one of two grounds (or on both grounds): 1) it could decide that marriage is a fundamental right for everyone, whether between opposite-sex couples or same-sex couples; or 2) it could decide that laws that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying discriminate unlawfully

Based on Wednesday’s oral arguments, at which some Justices described the institution of same-sex marriage as “uncharted waters,” newer than cell-phones and the internet, it is unlikely that at least five of the nine Justices will decide that the fundamental right to marry includes same-sex couples.  The Justices also discussed their concerns over the unstudied effects of same-sex parenting on children and of same-sex marriage on society, generally.  Importantly, however, Justice Anthony Kennedy (who many believe will be the Judge to swing the vote to one side or the other) did emphasize his internal conflict, caused by the 40,000 children of same-sex couples in California, who want their same-sex parents to marry, and who are clearly faring well.  

It is more likely that the Court will find that the law unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex couples.  You’ll remember from my previous posts about DOMA that a government must have one or more legitimate reasons for enacting a law that discriminates against a particular group of people.  Yet, during oral arguments, the lawyer defending Prop 8 had trouble articulating any such reasons, other than to allow more time for studies to emerge regarding the “real world consequences” of same-sex marriage, and to encourage “natural” (i.e. mother-and-father) procreation.  Although some of the Justices appeared to agree with these points, others disagreed with viewing marriage as an institution whose primary purpose is to produce children, especially because many people, including those past child-bearing age, are permitted to marry.  Even more importantly, these Justices questioned the notion that a law that prohibits same-sex marriage will encourage those in opposite-sex marriages to procreate.

The main takeaways from the Prop 8 arguments, then, are that: 1) the Court may again legalize same-sex marriage in California, and may even require legalization of same-sex marriage in those states that give same-sex couples all of the same rights as married couples, but there is a good change it will not legalize same-sex marriage nationwide; and 2) the question of whether same-sex marriage should be legalized nationwide will likely come down to what the majority believes to be the best situation for children.  Hopefully, the Justices will realize that, what is best for children, is to have two parents devoted to loving and caring for the child.