• Comment (12)

Courts, Not Obama's Pronouncement, Will Determine Fate of Gay Marriage

President is following public opinion, not leading it

May 11, 2012 RSS Feed Print

Despite President Obama's vocal support for gay marriage this week, supporters and opponents know the real battle is likely to come in the court system where a pair of cases are widely expected to end up at the U.S. Supreme Court.

One case concerns California's passage of a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage while the other challenges the federal law, known as the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as only between one man and one woman. The Obama administration made news earlier this year when it announced it would no longer offer a legal defense for DOMA.

But legal observers say the president's surprise public declaration of support for gay marriage may tangentially affect how the highest court ultimately rules.

"With his switch from ambivalence to advocacy, Obama is sending a signal to the courts that the country is ready for gay marriage, giving them more cover to uphold it," wrote Jonathan Rauch, a gay marriage supporter and guest scholar of Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, in a statement following Obama's announcement. "Courts may not go by poll results, but they do like to stay within the mainstream. And Obama has just moved it."

[Read: Obama: I support gay marriage.]

Rustin Silverstein, managing director of legal crisis communications at Hamilton Place Strategies, says the president's words have no impact on the legal arguments before the courts or direct influence on justices, but agrees they still matter.

"For the Supreme Court in particular, I think the president's endorsement kind of legitimizes this and brings it into the mainstream more than anything else that's happened so far," he says. "As far as the court goes, although they try to be independent of public opinion, I think it's always something in the back of their minds particularly if they are going to make a change that's seen as a major shift in social policy."

Silverstein notes that Obama's remarks are also part of a larger context paving the way for a ruling in support of same-sex marriage.

"The combination of the poll numbers and Obama's support as well as, truthfully, prominent Republicans – Dick Cheney, Ted Olson arguing the case – shows that this is not a fringe position put forward by gay rights activists exclusively," he says.

Cheney, the vice president under Republican George W. Bush and father of a gay daughter, publicly endorsed gay marriage in 2009. Olson, who served as solicitor general under Bush and successfully argued the Bush v. Gore case before the Supreme Court, is one of the lead attorneys seeking to overturn California's ban on same-sex marriage.

[Check out U.S. News Weekly: an insider's guide to politics and policy.]

James Essex, director of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues at the American Civil Liberties Union, calls the president's public statement a reflection of society at large.

"I don't think the president's decision to speak his mind on the issue of marriage for same-sex couples by itself changes court results that we'll see in the future but I think as part of a larger indicator it's a reflection of that public opinion has shifted so quickly and so substantially on this issue," he says. A recent Pew Research Center poll shows 47 percent of voters support gay marriage, up from 35 percent in 2001.

Both Essex and Silverstein say public opinion has likely influenced case outcomes in the past, thanks in part to the reaction to the court's 1973 decision that legalized abortion.

"A lot of legal observers think Roe vs. Wade was decided somewhat prematurely, that a lot of the states and public opinion was moving more and more in support of finding there to be a right to an abortion, but the court because they got there before public opinion did kind of led to a hardening of positions and then decades of social division over that issue," Silverstein says.

Tags:
LGBT rights,
marriage,
Barack Obama,
Supreme Court

Reader Comments Read all comments (12)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

What this article leaves out in its reasoning is pretty significant. The activists who support same-sex marriage are essentially asking federal courts to overturn the express will of voters in thirty-odd states.

The comparison to Roe v. Wade is flawed at best. Abortion had never been an issue that went before voters in referenda and been turned down in even the most liberal states. Abortion was legal for any reason in some. Legal only in the case of exceptions dealing with the health of the mother, rape and incest in others. Wholly illegal in most of the states.

Yes, Roe, in my opinion as a conservative, was flawed and premature jurisprudence, but the issue of gay marriage is another altogether. In Roe, it could be argued that the Court was just speeding along uncooperative state legislatures in order to protect women. What is being proposed in the matter of SSM is for the justices not to overturn state lawmakers, but to invalidate the will of tens of millions of voters from every corner of the nation. A majority of the American population has had this question put before them at the ballot box. Som 60% of the states have voted on the matter. All have ended in the traditional definition of marriage being upheld. Mostly by strong to overwhelming margins.

In some ways this seems like trying to close the barn door after the horse has already gotten out. Had activists stopped these questions from ever appearing on state ballots, on grounds that such innate rights should not be up for a public vote and would constitute a violation of basic liberty, then this issue might have been kept out of the political arena. That didn't happen. Instead the issue went to the voters, sometimes with hopeful gay activists in support of putting the questions on the ballot.

Now we have the only answer that should matter in a society that is supposed to value ordered liberty. The best course would be to work at the state level to repeal these bans. It may well take voters in some states years to repeal the ban. The advantage in that approach is that it will reflect the actual evolution of voter opinion on the matter. So far the only proof I have seen of the American people's supposedly changed views on this matter is in opinion polling. The polling that counts, in ballot questions, has not demonstrated that alteration in viewpoint on SSM.

steve b of VA 10:46AM May 13, 2012

just be hapy we are not a muslim countrty being gay is a death sentence with poublic beheadings, Obama has violated the tenents of Islam by supporting this and homosexuality is not allowed in the bible either, no main stream religion supports it in thier great books.

jim q of NV 4:40AM May 13, 2012

Those protesting gay marriage r the same religious radicals who do/say nothing about divorce/remar-riage & vehemently support the death penalty: both expressly forbidden by Jesus. Many're divorced & remarried which, per the Bible & Jesus is adultery [punishable by death ] & hell.

They quote bits of Bible verses, ignoring Luke 17:31 which's been redacted/changed a # of times since the gay movement started [despite Revelation's caveat NOT to change a word]. In EVERY Bible b4 1963 Jesus says 'There were two men sleeping together in one bed: one was taken, one was left...." He left no doubt the men were homo-sexuals: a grave sin in those days but Jesus was making the point each person'd be judged based on their own merits. That verse's changed from 'Two men were sleeping & one was taken...' to 'There were two asleep in one bed..' now reduced to 'Jesus said "Two were asleep. One was taken & one left..." Gone completely are the men & the bed.

These radicals protest outside women's clinics [yet fight WIC/Medicaid once baby's here & believe it's OK w/G-d to murder abortion providers & bomb clinics. NONE know in the Bible G-D set the punishment 4 killing an unborn child: a FINE (!) set by a judge & paid to the FATHER for loss of property.

Many things the Bible demands r no longer allowed. We do not sell our daughters, most evangelicals like their BBQ'd pork even though Kosher laws actually have seriously good health benefits: like shellfish which spoil fast & carry huge amts of bacteria d/t their diet is the fecal/rotting materials of the seas same as scaleless fish. Pigs? They need just 4 hrs from snout to the other end: toxins, worm eggs etc are sucked into the muscle & fat as opposed to 'clean' animals which 'chew the cud' whose diets r mostly vegetable. Their diets are cleaner & their digestive systems filter out nasties.

We no longer force brothers to marry & beget children on widows to ensure the brother's name & inheritance'll pass on [this's the passage those claiming 'birth control's forbidden by the Bible' use. They get it wrong d/t they take the passage out of context. The man committed coitus interruptus i.e. spilling his seed onto the ground & was punished NOT for 'the sin' of birth control [which is NOT mentioned anywhere in the Bible], but for wilfully disobeying the rule of creating the brother's heir.

If those opposed to gay marriage'd simply admit they hate gays per se at least it'd be honest. These CINOs- Christian In Name Only help us understand why so many young people today reject religion. They see 'Christians' radicals waving Bibles in 1 hand, a hate sign in the other packing a handgun screaming epithets. The Bible says "You'll know they are Christians by their love". What love? Disrupting funerals? Screaming racial slurs against our Pres? Torture's ok as long as it's Muslims? Even demanding life w/o parole or even death sentences for kids as young as 12?

Jesus warned us false preachers would arise.

They're heeerrrrree!!

Rev. Maralee Koval of OH 5:26PM May 12, 2012

Photo Galleries

History of U.S. Bombings, Failed Attempts

A look at some of the worst bombings in the U.S. and infamous failed attempts.

advertisement

Latest Videos