A Supreme Court conundrum in marriage battle
Supreme Court litigation is a bit like bread-baking. If the dough goes in the oven too soon, before it's had enough time to rise, the end product is unpalatable. Yet at a certain point, the oven beckons. Baking is key to the process. This is the conundrum presented by the Supreme Court's decision to tackle the subject of same-sex marriage. For those who believe in marriage equality, the court's move is both exhilarating and scary. To understand why, remember that the court agreed to hear two very different cases. One involves the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, and the question of whether the federal government, in states that recognize same-sex marriage, can refuse to provide some married couples the federal benefits available to others. The court was widely expected to accept the DOMA case because the law was declared unconstitutional in the lower courts. It is possible to imagine a majority — the four liberal justices and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, most likely — agreeing. After all, the DOMA argument has overtones of federalism that ought to appeal to conservatives: the right of states to have their judgments about marriage respected by the federal government.Moreover, the DOMA issue does not call on the court to wade into the far more controversial matter of whether the Constitution affirmatively requires states to grant same-sex couples an equal right to marry. Striking down DOMA would be a much less consequential step — albeit an exhilarating one — than extending to same-sex couples a constitutional right to marry. This issue is implicated by the second case, involving California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage. The court doesn't have to reach the constitutional question in the California case, and my guess is it won't. There are various offramps for the justices to take. For example, the court raised the question of whether those arguing to reinstate Prop 8 had standing to do so. Even if it doesn't avail itself of a procedural out, the court could avoid declaring — or rejecting — a broad right to marriage equality because of the unusual facts of California, which recognized same-sex marriage before voters rejected it. The appeals court relied on that about-face in declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional. Still, the prospect that the justices could decide on the constitutional right to marry is unsettling, even scary, because it's far easier to count five votes for "no" than for "yes." The movement toward same-sex marriage — three states just approved marriage-equality measures, the first time such efforts had succeeded at the ballot box — is gratifying and instructive. Whether the Supreme Court follows election returns, the justices are exquisitely aware of the public mood. Yet leaving the issue solely to public whim won't work. Mississippi will never allow same-sex marriage, or, if it could choose, abortion. Its citizens deserve the same rights as those of Massachusetts. This is the fundamental meaning of a national Constitution and the role of federal courts. Constitutional protection for marriage equality may not be immediate, but it is, ultimately, both essential and inevitable.
Ruth Marcus' column is distributed by Washington Post Writers Group.
The Daystarter: Latest on Manchester explosion; tapping Florida springs for future development; PTC staff say they're now forgotten; Rays give up another late lead