U.S. Supreme Court to hear 2 cases on gay marriage

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider a challenge to California’s ban on gay marriage and a challenge to the law prohibiting the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.

After voters passed Proposition 8 in California to ban same-sex marriage, a federal judge and the 9th Circuit of Appeals struck down the initiative as unconstitutional. The justices will decide whether the Constitution guarantees same-sex marriage rights. California is the most populous U.S. state with more than 37 million people. However, until a decision is reached, a stay on same-sex marriages will not be lifted.

The justices also agreed to review the U.S. Defense of Marriage Act. The 1996 law that two federal appeals courts said illegally treats legally married gay couples differently from their straight counterparts, blocks gays from the same federal tax and other benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy.

The court’s decision comes during a rapid shift in public opinions about same-sex marriage and recent polls indicate that a majority of Americans support allowing the unions. There are now nine states and the District of Columbia that allow gay marriages.

The announcement opens the door for a major victory for gay rights, said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry.

“By agreeing to hear a case against the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, the Court can now move swiftly to affirm what 10 federal rulings have already said: DOMA’s ‘gay exception’ to how the federal government treats married couples violates the Constitution and must fall,” Wolfson said. “When it comes to the whole federal safety net that accompanies marriage – access to Social Security survivorship, health coverage, family leave, fair tax treatment, family immigration, and over 1000 other protections and responsibilities — couples who are legally married in the states should be treated by the federal government as what they are: married.”

Groups opposing marriage equality are also announcing possible victories and Protect Marriage, said it was expecting victory.

“Today we scored a major victory for traditional marriage in the Supreme Court of the United States! Just moments ago, the Supreme Court granted our petition seeking the Court’s review of the Ninth Circuit’s erroneous decision striking down California’s Proposition 8,” a Protect Marriage blog post read.

The new California case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, was filed in 2009 by Theodore B. Olson and David Boies. The two lawyers were on opposite sides during the Bush v. Gore case, which settled the 2000 presidential election. The suit argues that California voters violated the federal constitution by overriding a California Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriages. Federal Judge Vaughn Walker agreed with the suit and issued a ruling that said the state had to allow same-sex couples the right to marry.

However, the decision was stayed while the U.S. Court of Appeals considered the decision. Two of three judges on a panel finally ruled in agreement with Walker and the ruling was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court could take one of several routes with its decision. It could reverse the lower court rulings and leave California’s ban in place. It could also affirm on the narrow theory which would allow same-sex marriage only in California. Or it could address the broad question of whether the U.S. Constitution requires all states to allow such marriages.

The second case the court agreed to hear, United States v. Windsor, challenges a small portion of DOMA. Section 3 of the law says the federal government must deny more than 1,000 laws and programs to legally married gay couples. The law defines marriage for federal purposes as a union between one man and one woman.  Another part of the law that is not being considered by the court says states do not need to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

The case concerns Edith Windsor and Thea Clara Spyer who were married in 2007 in Canada. Spyer died in 2009 and Windsor inherited her belongings and property. DOMA didn’t allow the Internal Revenue Service to recognize Windsor as a surviving spouse and she was given a tax bill of $360,000. Had they been in an opposite-sex marriage, she would have not faced the tax bill.