U.S.

Gay Marriage Arguments Divide Supreme Court Justices

By 
Supporters of same-sex marriage gathered in front of the Supreme Court on Tuesday as the justices prepared to hear arguments on the issue. Stephen Crowley/The New York Times 
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed deeply divided about one of the great civil rights issues of the age: whether the Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry.
The questions from the justices suggested that they were divided along the usual lines — conservative and liberal — with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy holding the controlling vote. On the evidence of his words, he seemed torn about what to do. But Justice Kennedy’s tone was more emotional and emphatic when he made the case for same-sex marriage. That, coupled with his earlier judicial opinions, gave gay rights advocates reason for optimism by the end of the arguments, which lasted two and a half hours.
The justices appeared to clash over not only what is the right answer in the case but also over how to reach it. The questioning illuminated their conflicting views on history, tradition, biology, constitutional interpretation, the democratic process and the role of the courts in prodding social change.

Highlights 

The Times provided analysis and updates — with some delay, due to court restrictions — from the same-sex marriage arguments at the Supreme Court, as well as some of the best reporting from elsewhere. 
Justice Kennedy said he was concerned about changing a conception of marriage that has persisted for so many years. Later, though, he expressed qualms about excluding gay families from what he called a noble and sacred institution. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. worried about shutting down a fast-moving societal debate.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked whether groups of four people must be allowed to marry, while Justice Antonin Scalia said a ruling for same-sex marriage might require some members of the clergy to perform ceremonies that violate their religious teaching.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer described marriage as a fundamental liberty. And Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan said that allowing same-sex marriage would do no harm to the marriages of opposite-sex couples.
Until recently, the court has been cautious and halting in addressing same-sex marriage, signaling that it did not want to outpace public support and developments in the states. Now, though, a definitive decision will probably be handed down in about two months.
At the start of Tuesday’s arguments, Chief Justice Roberts said he had looked up definitions of marriage and had been unable to find one written before a dozen years ago that did not define it as between a man and a woman. “If you succeed, that definition will not be operable,” the Chief Justice said. “You are not seeking to join the institution. You are seeking to change the institution.”
Justice Kennedy weighed in with skepticism as the advocates for gay marriage made their case. He said the definition of marriage “has been with us for millennia.”

INTERACTIVE GRAPHIC 

Excerpts From the Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage Arguments 

The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday on two questions about states allowing same-sex couples to marry. 
 OPEN INTERACTIVE GRAPHIC 
“It’s very difficult for the court to say, ‘Oh, we know better,’ ” he said.
Justice Scalia echoed Justice Kennedy’s concerns about the weight of history and the relative recentness of gay marriage. About halfway through Mary L. Bonauto’s argument for the recognition of a right to same-sex marriage, Justice Scalia asked whether she knew of “any society prior to the Netherlands in 2001 that permitted same sex marriages?” He repeated Justice Kennedy’s observation that the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman has been in effect “for millennia.”
Later, when the lawyer for the opponents of gay marriage began arguing, Justice Breyer forcefully questioned why states should be able to exclude gay people from marriage. “Marriage is open to vast numbers of people,” he said. Many same-sex couples, he noted, “have no possibility to participate in that fundamental liberty — and so we ask why.”
Several of the more liberal justices pressed the opponents of gay marriage to say how, exactly, extending marriage to same-sex couples could harm heterosexual couples who want to marry.
Justice Ginsburg was particularly blunt on that point. “You are not taking away anything from heterosexual couples” if the state allows gay couples to marry, she said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed equally unpersuaded, asking how denying marriage to same-sex couples strengthens marriage for heterosexual couples.
PLAY VIDEO

The Scene Outside the Supreme Court

April 28, 2015. Photo by Stephen Crowley/The New York Times.
John J. Bursch, the lawyer for the opponents of same-sex marriage, argued in response that if people no longer believe that “marriage and creating children have anything to do with each other,” there will be more children born out of wedlock, which he said was a problem for society.
In 2013, the justices ducked the question that they are now considering. At the time, however, just 12 states and the District of Columbia allowed gay and lesbian couples to marry. Similarly, the court in October refused to hear appeals from rulings allowing same-sex marriage in five states.
That decision immediately expanded the number of states with same-sex marriage to 24, up from 19. The number has since grown to at least 36, and more than 70 percent of the nation lives in states that allow same-sex marriage.
The justices might have been content to remain on the sidelines. But a decision in November from a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, forced their hand. The Sixth Circuit upheld same-sex marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, saying that voters and legislators, not judges, should decide the issue.
The Sixth Circuit’s decision created a split among the federal appeals courts, a criterion that the Supreme Court often looks to in deciding whether to hear a case. That factor had been missing in October.
The couples challenging the bans promptly appealed to the Supreme Court. In January, the justices agreed to step in.

Graphic: Gay Marriage State by State: A Trickle Became a Torrent 

The last time the court agreed to hear a constitutional challenge to a same-sex marriage ban was in 2012. The case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, concerned California’s Proposition 8, a measure that made same-sex marriage illegal in the state. At the time, nine states and the District of Columbia allowed same-sex couples to marry.
When the court ruled in June 2013, it did not answer the central question in the case. A majority of the justices said the case was not properly before them, and none of them expressed a view about whether the Constitution requires states to allow same-sex marriage.
But a second decision the same day, in United States v. Windsor, provided the movement for same-sex marriage with what turned out to be a powerful tailwind. The decision struck down the part of the Defense of Marriage Act that banned federal benefits for same-sex couples who are married in states that allowed such unions.
The Windsor decision was based partly on federalism grounds, with Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion stressing that state decisions on how to treat marriages deserved respect. But lower courts focused on other parts of his opinion, which emphasized the dignity of gay relationships and the harm that families of gay couples suffer from bans on same-sex marriage.
In Tuesday’s cases, the court scheduled two separate arguments. The first, 90 minutes long, concerned whether the Constitution requires states to issue marriage licenses to “two people of the same sex.” The second, which lasted an hour, was about whether states must recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.
The court consolidated the four cases before it, not all of which had addressed both questions. It will almost certainly issue a single decision covering all four, and it will be known by the name of the one from Ohio, Obergefell v. Hodges, No.14-556.
That case, like the one from Tennessee, Tanco v. Haslam, No.14-562, challenged state laws banning the recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.
The Michigan case, DeBoer v. Snyder, No.14-571, was brought by April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, two nurses. They sued to challenge the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.
The Kentucky case, Bourke v. Beshear, No.14-574, was brought by two sets of plaintiffs. The first group comprised four same-sex couples who had married in other states and who sought recognition of their unions. The second group, two couples, sought the right to marry in Kentucky.
Correction: April 28, 2015 
Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this article had the wrong middle initial for the chief justice. He is John G. Roberts Jr., not John C. Roberts Jr. 
Michael D. Shear contributed reporting.