- Obama admin to blame for HealthCare.gov woes, $840M cost: GAO
- Al Gore’s climate-changers at EPA hearings foiled by cool temperatures
- Army’s 3-D printed bombs will create ‘a whole new universe’ of deadly capabilities
- Hamas calls on Hezbollah to join in fight against Israel
- Senators to FIFA, others: Don’t reward Putin with the World Cup in 2018
- U.S. condemns Israeli shelling of shelter in Gaza
- Obamacare shoots premiums up by 88 percent in California
- Chicken pox outbreak puts illegal immigrant facility on lockdown
- Obama to Republicans: ‘Stop just hatin’ all the time’
- U.S. chemical sites vulnerable despite millions spent on security: Congress
Supreme Court justices question DOMA’s range, consider effect act has in states
Question of the Day
But it appeared that at least five justices — Justice Kennedy and the court’s four more liberal members — had great difficulty accepting Mr. Clement’s line of reasoning, even as nine states and the District of Columbia have now legalized same-sex marriage.
“What gives the federal government the right to be concerned at all with what the definition of marriage is?” asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Another issue explored by justices was the “sea change” in the popular attitudes about gay marriage since 1996, and whether that was the result of the “political effectiveness” of gay-rights advocates.
Attorney Roberta Kaplan, representing Ms. Windsor, downplayed the influence of advocates. The nation’s sea change on gay marriage is due to a “societal understanding” that came from places beyond political power of gay people, she said.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was skeptical: “As far as I can tell, political figures are falling over themselves to endorse your side of the case.”
The political-power question is important because one of the tests to give sexual orientation a heightened level of scrutiny is that the group is politically powerless.
The impetus for DOMA — especially the extent of “moral disapproval” noted in a 1996 House report accompanying its debate on the measure — was also examined.
“Is that what happened in 1996?” Justice Elena Kagan pointedly asked Mr. Clement.
Such language appears in the House report, he replied, “and if that’s enough to invalidate the statute, then you should invalidate the statute. But that has never been your approach.”
Ms. Kaplan agreed that “moral disapproval” was a factor in the 1996 vote — DOMA “was enacted to defend against the marriages of gay people,” she said. But when asked by Chief Justice Roberts if she believed that 84 senators who voted for DOMA based their vote on moral disapproval of gay people, she softened her response. “I’m not saying it was animus or bigotry; I think it was based on a misunderstanding of gay people.”
Earlier in the session, the court queried Mr. Clement and two other attorneys on whether the Windsor case was properly before them, and whether the House of Representatives had legal “standing” to defend DOMA in light of the Obama administration’s refusal to do so.
Mr. Clement argued that the House has historically had the ability to defend its laws, especially when the executive branch declines to do so.
But court-invited amicus Harvard Law School professor Vicki C. Jackson said the House of Representatives had no “injury,” and the Obama administration wasn’t asking the court to redress any injuries either. “There is no justiciable case before this court,” said Ms. Jackson, adding that it should “await another case, another day to decide this question.”
Deputy Solicitor General Sri Srinivasan, arguing for the administration, said the high court should issue a ruling on DOMA, and that there is precedent for the executive branch to not defend a law even while it was enforcing it. But Chief Justice Roberts challenged that line of argument, saying the high court was being asked to do something “totally unprecedented.”
© 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 ...
- Mississippi abortion law can't be enforced
- Federal appeals court rules against Virginia's gay marriage ban
- Events honoring 20th National Parents' Day reaffirm family
- '50 Shades' movie trailer outrages anti-porn groups
- Tougher clinic rules lead to drop in Texas abortions
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
- Geraldo Rivera: Matt Drudge 'doing his best to stir up a civil war'
- Catholic League slams Obama: 'Do Christian lives mean so little to you?'
- Lois Lerner hated conservatives, new emails show
- HURT: Impeaching Obama is a losing strategy for the GOP
- MSNBC's Ronan Farrow questions lack of racial diversity in emoji characters
- Obama thanks Muslims for 'building the very fabric of our nation'
- Fla. mom arrested for allowing 7-year-old son to walk to park alone
- CARSON: Rudderless U.S. foreign policy
- Federal judge grants 90-day stay in D.C. gun case
- Patent workers paid to exercise, shop, do chores: report
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world