Judges weigh four states’ same-sex marriage cases

6th Circuit could be first court to uphold statewide bans

Share with others:

Print Email Read Later

CINCINNATI — Three fed­eral judges weigh­ing ar­gu­ments in a land­mark gay mar­riage hear­ing Wed­nes­day pep­pered at­tor­neys on both sides with tough ques­tions, with one judge ex­press­ing deep skep­ti­cism about whether courts are the ideal set­ting for ma­jor so­cial change, and an­other say­ing the demo­cratic pro­cess can be too slow.

The 6th U.S. Cir­cuit Court of Ap­peals judges con­sid­ered ar­gu­ments in six cases from Mich­i­gan, Ohio, Ken­tucky and Ten­nes­see, set­ting the stage for his­toric rul­ings in each state that would put more pres­sure on the U.S. Supreme Court to de­cide the is­sue once and for all. Wed­nes­day’s hear­ing was the big­gest so far on the is­sue.

The cases pit states’ rights and tra­di­tional, con­ser­va­tive val­ues against what plain­tiffs’ at­tor­neys say is a fun­da­men­tal right to marry un­der the U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion.

While ques­tions and com­ments from two of the judges all but gave away how they’ll rule, one in fa­vor of gay mar­riage and one op­posed, Judge Jef­frey S. Sut­ton vig­or­ously chal­lenged some of each side’s as­ser­tions.

Judge Sut­ton re­peat­edly ques­tioned at­tor­neys for the same-sex cou­ples about whether the courts are the best place to le­gal­ize gay mar­riage, say­ing the way to win Amer­i­cans’ hearts and minds is to wait un­til they’re ready to vote for it. “I would have thought the best way to get re­spect and dig­nity is through the demo­cratic pro­cess,” said Judge Sut­ton, nom­i­nated by Re­pub­li­can for­mer Pres­i­dent George W. Bush. “Noth­ing hap­pens as quickly as we’d like it.”

Judge Martha Craig Daught­rey, a nom­i­nee of Demo­cratic for­mer Pres­i­dent Bill Clin­ton, said that his­tor­i­cally, courts have had to in­ter­vene when in­di­vid­ual con­sti­tu­tional rights are be­ing vi­o­lated, such as over­turn­ing state laws against in­ter­ra­cial mar­riage and giv­ing women the right to vote, point­ing out that the lat­ter took de­cades.“Do you have any knowl­edge of how many years I’m talk­ing about, go­ing into ev­ery state, ev­ery city, ev­ery state board of elec­tions, for 70 years?” she asked. “It didn’t work. It took an amend­ment to the Con­sti­tu­tion.” Be­sides, gay mar­riage al­ready is le­gal in more than a quar­ter of the states, and “it doesn’t look like the sky has fallen in,” Judge Daught­rey said.

Con­sti­tu­tional law pro­fes­sors and court ob­serv­ers say the 6th Cir­cuit could be the first to up­hold state­wide bans on gay mar­riage fol­low­ing an un­bro­ken string of more than 20 rul­ings in the past eight months that have gone the other way. They point to Judge Sut­ton, the least pre­dict­able judge on the panel. In 2011, he shocked Re­pub­li­cans when he be­came the de­cid­ing vote in a rul­ing that up­held Pres­i­dent Barack Obama’s health care law.

If the 6th Cir­cuit de­cides against gay mar­riage, it would cre­ate a di­vide among fed­eral ap­pel­late courts and put pres­sure on the U.S. Supreme Court to set­tle the is­sue in its 2015 ses­sion. The panel did not in­di­cate when it would rule.

At­tor­neys for each state de­fended their mar­riage bans, ar­gu­ing that any change should come from vot­ers, and that same-sex mar­riage is too new to be con­sid­ered a deeply rooted, fun­da­men­tal right. “The most ba­sic right we have as a peo­ple is to de­cide pub­lic pol­icy ques­tions on our own,” said Mich­i­gan’s so­lic­i­tor gen­eral, Aaron Lind­strom.

Leigh Lathe­row, hired by Ken­tucky Gov. Steve Bes­hear, told the judges that the state has an eco­nomic in­ter­est in en­cour­ag­ing het­ero­sex­ual mar­riage, which can lead to pro­cre­ation. And Ten­nes­see As­so­ci­ate So­lic­i­tor Joseph Whalen said Ten­nes­see’s law bar­ring rec­og­ni­tion of out-of-state gay mar­riages en­sures that chil­dren are born into a sta­ble fam­ily en­vi­ron­ment.

At­tor­neys for the same-sex cou­ples said mar­riage is fun­da­men­tal for ev­ery­one and should not be de­cided by pop­u­lar votes. “These rights are very, very pro­found,” said Al Ger­hard­stein, a Cin­cin­nati civil rights at­tor­ney rep­re­sent­ing the Ohio plain­tiffs.

Carole Stan­yar, who rep­resents the same-sex Mich­i­gan plain­tiffs, be­moaned the of­ten-slow pace of the demo­cratic pro­cess and said she doesn’t see such a change com­ing to her state any time soon. “In my state, noth­ing is hap­pen­ing to help gay peo­ple,” she said.

Out­side the court­house, ad­vo­cates held up ban­ners and signs urg­ing mar­riage equal­ity. Jon Brad­ford, 26, of Cov­ing­ton, Ky., wore a wed­ding dress, and his part­ner, Matt Mor­ris, wore a top hat and for­mal shirt.

He said they were hope­ful that the court will rule in fa­vor of same-sex mar­riage. “You can’t stop love,” he said.

About a dozen op­po­nents prayed the ro­sary out­side the court­house. “I’m just pray­ing for God’s will to be done,” said Jeff Parker, 53, from the Cin­cin­nati sub­urb of Ma­deira.

Gay mar­riage is le­gal in 19 states and the Dis­trict of Co­lum­bia. Other states’ bans are tied up in courts.

Two fed­eral ap­peals courts have ruled in fa­vor of gay mar­riage — one in Den­ver in June and an­other in Rich­mond, Va., last week. On Tues­day, Utah ap­pealed the Den­ver court’s rul­ing against its ban, ask­ing the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case and up­hold it in­stead. Okla­homa fol­lowed suit Wed­nes­day.

The 6th Cir­cuit is the first of three fed­eral ap­peals courts to hear ar­gu­ments from mul­ti­ple states in com­ing weeks. The 7th Cir­cuit in Chi­cago has sim­i­lar ar­gu­ments set for Aug. 26 for bans in Wis­con­sin and In­di­ana. The 9th Cir­cuit in San Fran­cisco is set to take up Idaho’s and Ne­vada’s bans Sept. 8.

michigan - United States - North America - United States government - Ohio - Barack Obama - Bill Clinton - George W. Bush - Kentucky - Supreme Court of the United States - Cincinnati - Steve Beshear


You have 2 remaining free articles this month

Try unlimited digital access

If you are an existing subscriber,
link your account for free access. Start here

You’ve reached the limit of free articles this month.

To continue unlimited reading

If you are an existing subscriber,
link your account for free access. Start here