- Rev. Al Sharpton’s Easter message: Politically ‘crucified’ Obama has risen again
- Supreme Court to weigh challenge to ban on campaign lies
- UNICEF launches ‘Mr. Poo’ mascot in India to curb public defecation
- Teen taking selfie by train: ‘Wow, that guy just kicked me in the head’
- Goodbye, Afghanistan — hello, Africa: Air Force to shift as U.S. exits Middle East
- Iran mulls ban on vasectomies, decrease on abortions to bolster population
- CNN op-ed claims right-wingers ‘more deadly than jihadists’
- Classes resume at high school rocked by stabbings
- ABC News accuses Center for Public Integrity of stealing Pulitzer-winning work
- Law firm that cleared N.J. Gov. Christie in ‘Bridgegate’ gave 10K to RGA, which he heads
Gay-marriage questions offer few clues to Supreme Court’s direction
But then he was asked pointedly if California gay couples — who already have all the rights and responsibilities in marriage in domestic partnerships — are just after the “label” of marriage.
Since they have every other right, “all you’re interested in is the label and you insist on changing the definition of the label. It’s just about the label,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said.
Mr. Olson countered by saying that “there are certain labels in this country that are very, very critical,” and marriage has “a status.”
Chief Justice Roberts agreed, but added that “maybe it is the procreative aspect that makes it a fundamental right.”
Even the brief history of gay marriage was delved into, with Associate Justice Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. noting that such nuptials are “newer than cellphones or the Internet,” while Associate Justice Antonin Scalia repeatedly asked Mr. Olson about exactly “when” it become unconstitutional to prohibit gays from marriage.
“We don’t prescribe law for the future. We decide what the law is,” said Justice Scalia. “I’m curious — when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the 14th Amendment was adopted?”
Mr. Olson tried to answer rhetorically, saying the same could be asked of school segregation and interracial-marriage bans. “Don’t give me a question to my question,” Justice Scalia replied, but even as the audience laughed, the justice pressed again on, asking again, “when” did the Constitution change on marriage?
“There’s no specific date in time,” Mr. Olson finally responded. “This is an evolutionary cycle.”
“Well, how am I supposed to know how to decide a case … if you can’t give me a date when the Constitution changes?” Justice Scalia said.
After the court session ended, many media pundits concluded that Proposition 8 has no chance of being upheld, and the only questions are how the court would strike it down.
If the court dismisses the case with no ruling at all, it is widely believed that an outcome would almost certainly allow gay marriages to resume in California.
The session, which ran about 80 minutes long, riveted the 400 people in the courtroom, which included actor-director Rob Reiner, who opposes Proposition 8; and leading gay-rights lawyers including Mary L. Bonauto of the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, and Evan Wolfson, leader of Freedom to Marry.
Andrew Pugno, general counsel of ProtectMarriage.com, which petitioned the court with Dennis Hollingsworth and others, to hear its case to uphold Proposition 8, said he thought the hearing went “very well” and that Mr. Cooper spoke clearly on their behalf.
“We have every confidence that the nine justices will resist the political pressure to prematurely end the national debate about the definition of marriage,” he said, adding that gay marriage is “a social experiment that needs no special protection by or recognition from the U.S. Supreme Court.”
President Obama, who personally supports same-sex marriage, received updates at the White House on Tuesday about the oral arguments, and senior adviser Valerie Jarrett and White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler were among the White House officials who attended the oral arguments.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Cheryl Wetzstein covers family and social issues as a national reporter for The Washington Times. She has been a reporter for three decades, working in New York City and Washington, D.C. Since joining The Washington Times in 1985, she has been a features writer, environmental and consumer affairs reporter, and assistant business editor.
Beginning in 1994, Mrs. Wetzstein worked exclusively ...
- Judge voids N. Dakota's 'heartbeat' abortion law
- Family, agency in custody battle over sick daughter
- Values group wins court round over use of gay marriage photo
- Gay-photo lawsuit partially dismissed
- Some gay activists fear same-sex supporters are becoming intolerant
Latest Blog Entries
- Gay therapy ban author seeks Calif. House seat
- Transgender 'bathroom law' gets 5,000 more signatures
- Pro-life, stem-cell bill signed into law by Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback
- N. Dakota lawmakers approve tough abortion bill
- Pope Benedict XVI's successor should allow priests to get a new title: Husband, poll finds
TWT Video Picks
By returning to Christian roots, the nation can achieve greatness once again
- 'Culture of intimidation' seen in Nevada ranch standoff
- GOP writes legislation to deny Attorney General Eric Holder his salary
- Nevada Bundy ranch standoff could leave dirt on Harry Reid reputation
- U.S. Navy to turn seawater into jet fuel
- CARSON: Recovering Tocqueville's vision of American exceptionalism
- U.S. military on high alert as Ukraine troops trade gunfire with pro-Russian militants
- Fuel-filled wings, ability to swarm: Pentagon offers glimpse at future of drone fleet
- Secret U.S. assessments show Afghanistan not ready to govern on own
- CNN op-ed claims right-wingers 'more deadly than jihadists'
- Josh Romney swipes Harry Reid with photo tweet of dad paying taxes 'your paycheck'
Celebrity deaths in 2014
Top 10 handguns in the U.S.