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
© 2024 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 AllLululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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