Gay marriage cases may reach Supreme Court
Though President Obama endorsed gay marriage last week, he maintained that the definition of marriage is an individual state issue. But if several recent court cases are any indication, the decision on gay marriage may ultimately fall to the U.S. Supreme Court.
May 14, 2012 at 08:59 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Though President Obama endorsed gay marriage last week, he maintained that the definition of marriage is an individual state issue. But if several recent court cases are any indication, the decision on gay marriage may ultimately fall to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The first of these cases involves Proposition 8, a 2008 California ballot initiative overturning a California Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage. Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker struck down Proposition 8 in August 2010, a decision that the 9th Circuit upheld in a 2-1 vote this February. Supporters of the measure have asked a full 9th Circuit panel to review the case. If the court declines, the case will likely head to the Supreme Court.
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a 1996 law denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages, has also been the subject of recent legal battles. In Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, a federal district court judge ruled in favor of seven couples and three individuals suing for federal marriage benefits. Judge Joseph Tauro said in his ruling that DOMA violates the constitutional right to equal protection under the law. An appeals court is currently deciding whether to uphold that 2010 ruling.
The question of federal benefits could have implications for employers. The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), for instance, does not currently cover employees who take time off to care for their same-sex partners (though it does cover leave to care for the children of same sex-partners). Additionally, same-sex partners of federal employees do not receive the health insurance that would be granted to heterosexual married couples.
Gay marriage supporters say that bans on same-sex unions violate the 14th Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses. The Supreme Court has adopted this argument in other marriage-related cases, notably ruling in Loving v. Virginia that state laws barring interracial unions were unconstitutional.
Opponents of gay marriage, however, argue that the states have banned other types of marriages—such as bigamy, incest and child marriage—without violating constitutional rights. Judge N. Randy Smith, for instance, dissented from the 9th Circuit's ruling on Proposition 8, saying that governments have an interest in “a responsible procreation theory, justifying the inducement of marital recognition only for opposite-sex couples.”
Read more about the legal issues surrounding gay marriage in The Wall Street Journal.
Though President Obama endorsed gay marriage last week, he maintained that the definition of marriage is an individual state issue. But if several recent court cases are any indication, the decision on gay marriage may ultimately fall to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The first of these cases involves Proposition 8, a 2008 California ballot initiative overturning a California Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage. Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker struck down Proposition 8 in August 2010, a decision that the 9th Circuit upheld in a 2-1 vote this February. Supporters of the measure have asked a full 9th Circuit panel to review the case. If the court declines, the case will likely head to the Supreme Court.
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a 1996 law denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages, has also been the subject of recent legal battles. In
The question of federal benefits could have implications for employers. The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), for instance, does not currently cover employees who take time off to care for their same-sex partners (though it does cover leave to care for the children of same sex-partners). Additionally, same-sex partners of federal employees do not receive the health insurance that would be granted to heterosexual married couples.
Gay marriage supporters say that bans on same-sex unions violate the 14th Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses. The Supreme Court has adopted this argument in other marriage-related cases, notably ruling in Loving v.
Opponents of gay marriage, however, argue that the states have banned other types of marriages—such as bigamy, incest and child marriage—without violating constitutional rights. Judge
Read more about the legal issues surrounding gay marriage in The Wall Street Journal.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
5 minute readIn-House Lawyers Are Focused on Employment and Cybersecurity Disputes, But Looking Out for Conflict Over AI
Trending Stories
- 1US DOJ Threatens to Prosecute Local Officials Who Don't Aid Immigration Enforcement
- 2Kirkland Is Entering a New Market. Will Its Rates Get a Warm Welcome?
- 3African Law Firm Investigated Over ‘AI-Generated’ Case References
- 4Gen AI and Associate Legal Writing: Davis Wright Tremaine's New Training Model
- 5Departing Attorneys Sue Their Former Law Firm
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250