Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Support Our Annual Fund Drive!
CounterPunch’s website is one of the last common spaces on the Internet. We are supported almost entirely by the subscribers to the print edition of our magazine and by one-out-of-every-1000 readers of the site.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Marriage Wars

by BINOY KAMPMARK

It is billed as one of the great battles of legal history. In truth, the battle over Proposition 8’s legality in the highest court in the United States might well be a fizzer, a side-step rather than a full trot.  When California’s electors voted for Proposition 8 in 2008, it went against the legal reasoning of the California Supreme Court which had proclaimed that the state’s constitution guaranteed the right to gay marriage.  18,000 same sex couples who had taken advantage of the legal reasoning of the court find themselves in legal limbo. The lawyers find themselves very busy indeed.

Proposition 8 itself came up against a now retired Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who was subsequently attacked by its sponsors.  His own sexual orientation was apparently a disentitling point for opponents, despite being a Republican appointee and firm libertarian.  In any case, his decision opened the legal route over a battle that has captivated activists on both sides of the marriage fence.

Certainly, the celebrity set were there to pronounce upon the legal deliberations of the Supreme Court, which are in full swing this week.  Actor-director Rob Reiner spoke of his anticipation at the ruling in June “and believe[s] that the Supreme Court will come down on the side of fairness, dignity and equality” (LA Times, Mar 26).  That all said, grand words do not necessarily produce grand results.

A more sober appraisal was offered by Politico’s Josh Gerstein (Mar 26).  “For all the toasting in Washington and excitement among gay rights groups about the historic oral arguments this week, there’s still a chance their set of cases could culminate in loss.”  This might well happen not merely on Prop 8 itself but the federal Defence of Marriage Act, which enshrines heterosexual union as the cornerstone of marriage.

The Supreme Court justices may well choose to veer away from a clear decision on whether the Constitution reveals any core right for gay marriage, whatever the vox populi might say about the matter.  This is understandable – US courts exercise enormous power, sometimes to the detriment of public views as expressed via ballot.  As the former California Chief Justice Ronald M. George explained, “the people have a right to amend their Constitution.”

In the meantime, there are only whisperings, clues and the occasional broadside about where the case will go.  Justice Anthony Kennedy, for one, sounded off about the “immediate legal injury” inflicted by Prop. 8 on the children of same-sex unions.  Having himself drafted the 2003 decision that prevented states from criminalising gay sex acts, he was all ears to the problems of prejudice.  “They want their parents to have full recognition and full status.  The voice of those children is important in this case, don’t you think?”

Notwithstanding the stance, the Justice reserved a few harsh words for his legal colleagues lower down the judicial chain.  “I just wonder if the case was properly granted.”  Bets are being hedged, even if punters are willing to splash out.  “There’s zero possibility [of a loss],” suggested University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone.  The tea leaves can be found not merely in the majority verdict against the sodomy laws in 2003, but Romer v Evans (1996), a decision which still reverberates in terms of what states can or can’t do in imposing disabilities on sections of the populace.  The amendment to the Colorado state constitution preventing any city, town or country in state recognising gay and lesbian individual individuals a protected class was struck down.  “Homosexuals,” reasoned Justice Kennedy in Romer, “are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint.”

The road to legal wisdom can still be a dull one.  The current case is interesting for the procedural wonks keen on seeing how laws of standing are decided.  “Have we ever granted standing to proponents of ballot initiatives?” queried Justice Ginsberg.  The answer that came from Charles J. Cooper on behalf of the petitioners was a clear no.  Instead, Cooper argued that, precisely because the state of California itself would have standing, its officials might empower a “very clear and identifiable group of citizens” with that legal basis.

Former Republican US Solicitor General Theodore Olson argued that Proposition 8 “was stigmatising a class of Californians based upon their status and labelling their most cherished relationships as second-rate, different, unequal and not OK.”  The ever rock-solid conservative Justice Antonin Scalia had little truck with that.  “When did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the 14th Amendment was adopted?”  The writing of his decision is already on the wall.

The vistas open by a strong majority decision of the court will be considerable.  But the intricacies of American constitutional law may allow the court to exit without a clear stance on whether US law allows for gay marriage.  The default position in many decisions in history has been to leave the matter to the states to decide.  California’s ban, in that case, might be reinstated.  A narrow right to gay marriage might also be “found” specific to some states with constitutions such as California’s, or the bench might go the whole hog and find a right across the country.  All of this, even as the popularity for gay marriage has reached unprecedented levels in the U.S.

Not to be deterred, the optimists will find, even in any loss, hope.  “Even if you lose the case, and I think that’s very unlikely, you would say that the case has been a success because it’s changed public opinion so dramatically,” intones former advisor to Bill Clinton, Richard Socarides.  That may well be – in time.  The law will simply have to limp and lag.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

September 26, 2016
Diana Johnstone
The Hillary Clinton Presidency has Already Begun as Lame Ducks Promote Her War
Gary Leupp
Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Against Russia
Robert Crawford
The Political Rhetoric of Perpetual War
Howard Lisnoff
The Case of One Homeless Person
Michael Howard
The New York Times Endorses Hillary, Scorns the World
Russell Mokhiber
Wells Fargo and the Library of Congress’ National Book Festival
Chad Nelson
The Crime of Going Vegan: the Latest Attack on Angela Davis
Colin Todhunter
A System of Food Production for Human Need, Not Corporate Greed
Brian Cloughley
The United States Wants to Put Russia in a Corner
Guillermo R. Gil
The Clevenger Effect: Exposing Racism in Pro Sports
David Swanson
Turn the Pentagon into a Hospital
Ralph Nader
Are You Ready for Democracy?
Chris Martenson
Hell to Pay
Frank X Murphy
Power & Struggle: the Detroit Literacy Case
Chris Knight
The Tom and Noam Show: a Review of Tom Wolfe’s “The Kingdom of Speech”
Weekend Edition
September 23, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Andrew Levine
The Meaning of the Trump Surge
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: More Pricks Than Kicks
Mike Whitney
Oh, Say Can You See the Carnage? Why Stand for a Country That Can Gun You Down in Cold Blood?
Chris Welzenbach
The Diminution of Chris Hayes
Vincent Emanuele
The Riots Will Continue
Rob Urie
A Scam Too Far
Pepe Escobar
Les Deplorables
Patrick Cockburn
Airstrikes, Obfuscation and Propaganda in Syria
Timothy Braatz
The Quarterback and the Propaganda
Sheldon Richman
Obama Rewards Israel’s Bad Behavior
Libby Lunstrum - Patrick Bond
Militarizing Game Parks and Marketing Wildlife are Unsustainable Strategies
Andy Thayer
More Cops Will Worsen, Not Help, Chicago’s Violence Problem
Louis Yako
Can Westerners Help Refugees from War-torn Countries?
David Rosen
Rudy Giuliani & Trump’s Possible Cabinet
Joyce Nelson
TISA and the Privatization of Public Services
Pete Dolack
Global Warming Will Accelerate as Oceans Reach Limits of Remediation
Franklin Lamb
34 Years After the Sabra-Shatila Massacre
Cesar Chelala
How One Man Held off Nuclear War
Norman Pollack
Sovereign Immunity, War Crimes, and Compensation to 9/11 Families
Lamont Lilly
Standing Rock Stakes Claim for Sovereignty: Eyewitness Report From North Dakota
Barbara G. Ellis
A Sandernista Priority: Push Bernie’s Planks!
Hiroyuki Hamada
How Do We Dream the Dream of Peace Together?
Russell Mokhiber
From Rags and Robes to Speedos and Thongs: Why Trump is Crushing Clinton in WV
Julian Vigo
Living La Vida Loca
Aidan O'Brien
Where is Europe’s Duterte? 
Abel Cohen
Russia’s Improbable Role in Everything
Ron Jacobs
A Change Has Gotta’ Come
Uri Avnery
Shimon Peres and the Saga of Sisyphus
Graham Peebles
Ethiopian’s Crying out for Freedom and Justice
Robert Koehler
Stop the Killing
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail