Quantcast


Twitter icon


Facebook icon

About this site
About us
Our beliefs
Is this your first visit?
Contact us
External links

Recommended books

Visitors' essays
Our forum
New essays
Other features
Buy a CD of this site
Vital notes

World religions
BUDDHISM
CHRISTIANITY
Christian def'n
 Shared beliefs
 Handling change
 Bible topics
 Bible inerrancy
 Bible harmony
 Interpret the Bible
 Persons
 Beliefs & creeds
 Da Vinci code
 Revelation 666
 Denominations
HINDUISM
ISLAM
JUDAISM
WICCA / WITCHCRAFT
Other religions
Cults and NRMs
Comparing Religions

Non-theistic beliefs
Atheism
Agnosticism
Humanism
Other

About all religions
Main topics
Basic information
Gods & Goddesses
Handling change
Doubt & security
Quotes
Movies
Confusing terms
Glossary
End of the World?
True religion?
Seasonal events
Science vs. Religion
More information

Spiritual/ethics
Spirituality
Morality & ethics
Absolute truth

Peace/conflict
Attaining peace
Religious tolerance
Religious freedom
Religious hatred
Religious conflict
Religious violence

"Hot" topics
Very hot topics
Ten Commandments
Abortion access
Assisted suicide
Cloning
Death penalty
Environment

Same-sex marriage

Homosexuality
Human rights
Gays in the military
Nudism
Origins
Sex & gender
Sin
Spanking
Stem cells
Transexuality
Women-rights
Other topics

Laws and news
Religious laws
Religious news

Sponsored links

!!!!!!!! Search error!  If the URL ends something like .htm/  or .htm# delete the character(s) after .htm and hit return.


Hollingsworth v. Perry (formerly Perry v. Schwarzenegger):
California lawsuit challenging constitutionality of Prop. 8

Part 2: 2013-MAR-26: The U.S. Supreme Court heard
oral arguments on the constitutionality of Proposition 8

Horizontal line

Sponsored link.

Horizontal line

Continued from a previous essay

Horizontal line

In this web site, "SSM" is an acronym for "same-sex marriage."

"LGBT" is an acronym for "Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and Transsexuals."

Horizontal line

2013-MAR-26: Response by political/judicial commentators:

Political commentators frequently try to guess the probable outcome of the case by observing questions asked by the Supreme Court Justices during the oral arguments. This process didn't work well for this case. The only consensus among observers in this case is that the Justices are conflicted.

A major cause of their anxiety is the pace of social change in the U.S. over SSM:

  • In 1997-MAR, only sixteen years before this hearing, a Gallup Poll showed that 68% of the American population opposed SSM while only 27% approved.

  • In 2010-AUG: Since the 1997 poll, support for SSM has risen close to 2 percentage points per year, while opposition dropped about 1.7 percentage points annually. The national Fox News/Opinion Dynamics  poll of 2010 was the first major poll to definitely show that most American adults support SSM: 52% in favor, and 46% opposed. Many subsequent polls confirmed majority national support for SSM.

  • In the most recent poll, a week before the Supreme Court oral arguments, the Washington Post/ABC national poll showed that 58% were in favor, 36% opposed. The results results even showed that most (52%) Republicans under the age of 50 supported SSM! That is a major milestone. The major groups that are still opposed to SSM have shrunk to three:
    • older Republicans,

    • fundamentalist and other evangelical Christians,

    • and the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church.

  • The Republican party's stance of SSM has become a millstone around their neck. They are now scrambling to find a policy that will retain their politically conservative and evangelical Christian bases, without alienating their young adult and middle-aged members.

Dan Balz of the Washington Post wrote:

"If justices on the Supreme Court sounded cautious and tentative as they addressed the issue of same-sex marriage Tuesday, it’s little wonder. Like everyone else in public life, they are operating in the middle of a political whirlwind.

The political and legal systems are caught between past and future. Public opinion has shifted rapidly, and a majority of Americans now back legalizing same-sex marriage. Among those younger than 40, support is overwhelming. The question is when and in what form the future arrives." 1

horizontal rule

Reactions by the Justices of the U.S. Supreme court:

During the 80 minute session:

  • Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has conservative leanings, is often the swing vote in 5:4 decisions. He wondered whether the Court should have accepted the case at all. He said that the court was entering into "uncharted waters." However, the Justices have the famous 1967 case "Loving v. Virginia" to follow. This was the lawsuit that legalized marriages among interracial couples across the country. It has strong parallels to "Hollingsworth v. Perry" today.

  • Justice Kennedy also asked pointed questions about whether the advocacy group that sponsored Prop. 8 and later defended it in court had standing before the Supreme Court. The Governor and Attorney General of California had refused to defend Prop. 8 before the federal District Court and U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Thus, Protect Marriage Coalition, the sponsors of Prop. 8 had to took over its defense. He noted that the group was composed of "not just any citizens," but questioned whether they had suffered actual harm as the result of same-sex couples marrying in the state. Being distressed at the possibility of having to live in a state that has marriage equality may not be enough of an involvement to justify giving them standing. After all, most of the Coalition are probably already married to members of the opposite sex. Unmarried Coalition members are probably all heterosexuals and are able to marry persons of the opposite sex at any time.

  • Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that it was the State of California's responsibility to defend Prop. 8 in court as well as laws passed by its legislature. She suggests that private individuals could not establish "... how their injury was separate from everyone else."

  • Lawyer Charles Cooper, who defended the constitutionality of Prop. 8 on behalf of the Protect Marriage Coalition, said before the court:

    "The concern is that redefining marriage as a genderless institution will sever its abiding connection to its historic traditional procreative purposes, and it will ... refocus the purpose of marriage and the definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires ... of adult couples."

    Webmaster's note: In other words, when a man and a woman marry and decide to raise children, their motivation is focused on the children. When two men or two women marry and decide to raise children, their motivation is focused on their own selfish needs. We have never been able to understand this argument. It makes no sense to us; it seems to disagrees with the evidence that we have seen among married same-sex spouses.

    In response to Cooper's statement, Justice Elena Kagak asked:

    "Mr. Cooper, suppose a state said that, because 'we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55.' Would that be constitutional?

    Cooper replied:

    "No, your honor, it would not be constitutional." 2

  • Justice Antonin Scalia, who has voted against the extenson of equal rights for gays and lesbians in previous cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, argued on the basis of children's well being. He said:

    "If you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, you must permit adoption by same-sex couples, and there's considerable disagreement among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not." 3

    Actually, there is little diasgreement among sociologists. All or essentially all major national associations of sociologists, psychiatrists, psychologists, etc. advocate marriage equality.

    However, another way of looking at the child question is to study families with children that are led by same-sex parents. Would the children be better off if their parents were able to marry, and thereby obtain the status of a married couple, feel the stability of marriage, and obtain many state and federal benefits and protections. Or would they be better off if their parents were regarded as legal strangers -- as mere roommates who happen to live in the same accomodation? The answer seems obvious.

horizontal rule

2013-APR-08: A graphic on the Prop. 8 and DOMA cases:

The Human Rights Campaign -- a pro-LGBT advocacy group, has prepared the following graphic outlining what they consider to be the four most likely outcomes of the current two court cases:

"Perry" involves the constitutionality of the Proposition 8 citizen initiative that terminated, at least temporarily, SSM for California in 2008-NOV.

"DOMA" involved the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act which prohibits the federal government from granting the same benefits and protectons to loving, committed same-sex couple that they already provide for opposite-sex couples:

Graphic by HRC 4

Not included are the possibilities of the court:

  • Scenario 5: Striking down both the Prop. 8 and Windsor case.

  • Scenario 6: Deciding that the court does not have jurisdiction, and dropping one or both cases.

These are considered unlikely.

horizontal rule

This topic continues in the next essay.

Horizontal line

References used:

The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above essay. The hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today.

  1. Dan Balz, "Parties scramble to come to terms with opinion shift on same-sex marriage," Washington Post, 2013-MAR-26, at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
  2. Bill Mears & Michael Pearson, "Justices appear hesitant as they hear arguments over same-sex marriage." CNN Politics, 2013-MAR-26, at: http://www.cnn.com/
  3. "U.S. Supreme Court could dismiss ruling on California gay marriage hearings," Associated Press, 2013-MAR-26, at: http://newyork.newsday.com/
  4. Brian Moulton, "So, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments – what's next?," Human Rights Campaign, 2013-APR-08, at: http://action.hrc.org/

Horizontal line

Site navigation:

Home page > "Hot" topics > Homosexuality > Couples > California > Prop 8 > here

Copyright © 2013 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Original posting: 2013-MAR-26
Latest update: 2013-JUN-29
Author: B.A. Robinson

line.gif (538 bytes)
Sponsored link

Go to the previous page, or to the "Overturning Prop. 8" menu, or choose:

Google
Web ReligiousTolerance.org

Go to home page  We would really appreciate your help

E-mail us about errors, etc.  Purchase a CD of this web site

FreeFind search, lists of new essays...  Having problems printing our essays?

Twitter link

Facebook icon

Google Page Translator:

This page translator works on Firefox,
Opera, Chrome, and Safari browsers only

After translating, click on the "show
original" button at the top of this
page to restore page to English.

 
Sponsored links: