Same-sex marriage: Waiting now for the Supreme Court to act

As reflected in polls and recent ballot measures, public opinion is moving in favor of same-sex marriage. Now that the US Supreme Court has agreed to take up the issue, both sides in the debate look for clear legal resolution.

Jesse Tinsley/The Spokesman-Review/AP
Former Army Major Margaret Witt, right, and Lori Johnson at home in Spokane, Wash. They are planning to marry in a few weeks after receiving one of the first marriage licenses for same sex couples. Witt fought the Army over "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and was with President Obama when he signed the repeal.

The US Supreme Court’s announcement this week that it will take up two key same-sex marriage cases sets the scene now for several months of legal speculation and deeply-felt advocacy.

The speculation has to do with how the high court will act once it begins considering the issue, likely next spring. Who will it hear arguments from? Will it come down strongly and clearly for or against gay marriage? Or will it rule narrowly, sending the cases back to lower courts for further deliberation or perhaps simply letting those courts’ rulings stand?

In other words, same-sex marriage may be the "defining civil rights issue of our time,” as high-profile attorneys Theodore Olson and David Boies argue in their case against California’s Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage. But it will not necessarily be settled broadly for all Americans and for all time as a constitutional issue.

If it’s true that the Supreme Court pays at least some attention to political, cultural, and social trends in the United States, as some legal scholars and historians contend, then momentum seems to be in the direction of approval of same-sex marriage.

How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.

Polls show a clear shift in public acceptance, especially among under-30 Americans – 63-35 percent approve, according to a Quinnipiac University poll this past week. For all age groups, Gallup puts the number at 53-46 approval.

One hint at changing attitudes, even among those who continue to believe strongly that marriage must be exclusively between one man and one woman: The Mormon Church (which provided much if not most of the financing and grass-roots support for Prop. 8 in California) just launched a new website “aimed at providing ‘greater sensitivity and better understanding’ among Latter-day Saints with regards to same-sex attraction,” reports the church-owned Deseret News in Salt Lake City.

“The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people,” the church’s position reads. “The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.”

While rejecting the notion that homosexual relations are a sin, Valerie Larabee, executive director of the Utah Pride Center, says this move by the church gives gay Mormons hope “through knowing that their families and church leaders are committed to reducing judgment, rejection, and isolation.”

The 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, bars federal recognition of gay unions. Several pending cases challenge the provision of DOMA which effectively bars same-sex spouses from receiving federal benefits such as Social Security survivor payments.

A separate appeal asks the justices to decide whether federal courts were correct in striking down California's Proposition 8, the amendment that outlawed gay marriage after it had been approved by state courts.

While nine states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage – most recently Maine, Maryland, and Washington in ballot measures last month – 37 states have upheld the traditional definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman, either through constitutional amendments or state statutes.

Both sides in the debate are alert to the importance of this next legal step involving the US Supreme Court.

"The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to hear these cases is a significant moment for our nation," Roman Catholic Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco said in a statement. "I pray the Court will affirm the fact that the institution of marriage, which is as old as humanity and written in our very nature, is the union of one man and one woman.”

Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, says, “We've come too far to give up now.”

“Justice is on our side and we won’t stop until equality reaches every corner of our vast country,” Mr. Griffin said in a statement.

Meanwhile, following a three-day waiting period after county officials began issuing marriage licenses in Washington State Thursday, members of the clergy and other authorized officials will begin conducting same-sex weddings there on Sunday.

In Olympia, Washington, Tina Roose and Teresa Guajardo have reserved the state Capitol rotunda for a pre-Christmas wedding ceremony Dec. 15.

As for those who voted against same-sex marriage in her state, Ms. Roose told Reuters she hoped they would be won over "with love."

"You can only change people's attitudes one heart at a time," she said.

How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.