Gay Marriage Supporters Win Supreme Court Victory
By ADAM LIPTAK
JUNE 26, 2015 - The New York Times
WASHINGTON — In a long-sought
victory for the gay rights movement, the Supreme
Court ruled by a
5-to-4 vote on Friday that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex
marriage.
gNo longer may this liberty be
denied,h Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority in the historic
decision. gNo union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest
ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family. In forming a marital
union, two people become something greater than once they were.h
The decision, which was the
culmination of decades of litigation and activism, set
off jubilation and tearful embraces across the country, the first same-sex
marriages in several states, and signs of resistance — or at least stalling
— in others. It came against the backdrop of fast-moving changes in public
opinion, with polls indicating that most Americans now approve of the
unions.
The courtfs four more liberal
justices joined Justice Kennedyfs majority opinion. Each member of the courtfs
conservative wing filed a separate dissent, in tones ranging from resigned
dismay to bitter scorn.
In dissent, Chief Justice John G.
Roberts Jr. said the Constitution had nothing to say on the subject of same-sex
marriage.
gIf you are among the many
Americans — of whatever sexual orientation — who favor expanding same-sex
marriage, by all means celebrate todayfs decision,h Chief Justice Roberts wrote.
gCelebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a
new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new
benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with
it.h
In a second dissent, Justice
Antonin Scalia mocked the soaring language of Justice Kennedy, who has become
the nationfs most important judicial champion of gay rights.
gThe opinion is couched in a style
that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic,h Justice Scalia wrote of his
colleaguefs work. gOf course the opinionfs showy profundities are often
profoundly incoherent.h
As Justice Kennedy finished
announcing his opinion from the bench on Friday, several lawyers seated in the
bar section of the courtfs gallery wiped away tears, while others grinned and
exchanged embraces.
Justice John Paul Stevens, who
retired in 2010, was on hand for the decision, and many of the justicesf clerks
took seats in the chamber, which was nearly full as the ruling was announced.
The decision made same-sex marriage a reality in the 13 states that had
continued to ban it.
Outside the Supreme
Court, the police allowed hundreds of people waving rainbow flags and
holding signs to advance onto the court plaza as those present for the decision
streamed down the steps. gLove has won,h the crowd chanted as courtroom
witnesses threw up their arms in victory.
gToday,h he said, gwe can say, in
no uncertain terms, that we have made our union a little more perfect.h
Justice Kennedy was the author of
all three of the Supreme Courtfs previous gay rights landmarks. The latest
decision came exactly two years after his majority opinion in United
States v. Windsor, which struck down a federal law denying benefits to
married same-sex couples, and exactly 12 years after his majority opinion in Lawrence v.
Texas, which struck down laws making gay sex a crime.
In all of those decisions, Justice
Kennedy embraced a vision of a living Constitution, one that evolves with
societal changes.
gThe nature of injustice is that
we may not always see it in our own times,h he wrote on Friday. gThe generations
that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not
presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they
entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to
enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.h
This drew a withering response
from Justice Scalia, a proponent of reading the Constitution according to the
original understanding of those who adopted it. His dissent was joined by
Justice Clarence Thomas.
gThey have discovered in the
Fourteenth Amendment,h Justice Scalia wrote of the majority, ga efundamental
rightf overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost
everyone else in the time since.h
gThese justices know,h Justice
Scalia said, gthat limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to
reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted
by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by
anything other than ignorance or bigotry.h
Justice Kennedy rooted the ruling
in a fundamental right to marriage. Marriage is a gkeystone of our social
order,h he said, and of special importance to couples raising children.
gWithout the recognition,
stability, and predictability marriage offers,h he wrote, gtheir children suffer
the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the
significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated
through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The
marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex
couples.h
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Justice Kennedyfs
majority opinion.
In dissent, Chief Justice Roberts
said the majority opinion was gan act of will, not legal judgment.h
gThe court invalidates the
marriage laws of more than half the states and orders the transformation of a
social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for
the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs,h he
wrote. gJust who do we think we are?h
The majority and dissenting
opinions took differing views about whether the decision would harm religious
liberty. Justice Kennedy said the First Amendment gensures that religious
organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the
principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.h He
said both sides should engage in gan open and searching debate.h
Chief Justice Roberts responded
that gpeople of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the
majority today.h
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., in
his dissent, saw a broader threat from the majority opinion. gIt will be used to
vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy,h Justice
Alito wrote. gIn the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional
marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and
women. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are
determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.h
Gay rights advocates had
constructed a careful litigation and public relations strategy to build momentum
and bring the issue to the Supreme Court when it appeared ready to rule in their
favor. As in earlier civil rights cases, the court had responded cautiously and
methodically, laying judicial groundwork for a transformative decision.
It waited for scores of lower
courts to strike down bans on same-sex marriages before addressing the issue,
and Justice Kennedy took the unusual step of listing those decisions in an
appendix to his opinion.
Chief Justice Roberts said that
only 11 states and the District of Columbia had embraced the right to same-sex
marriage democratically, at voting booths and in state legislatures. The rest of
the 37 states that allow such unions did so because of court rulings. Gay rights
advocates, the chief justice wrote, would have been better off with a victory
achieved through the political process, particularly gwhen the winds of change
were freshening at their backs.h
In his own dissent, Justice Scalia
took a similar view, saying that the majorityfs assertiveness represented a
gthreat to American democracy.h
But Justice Kennedy rejected that
idea.
gIt is of no moment whether
advocates of same-sex marriage now enjoy or lack momentum in the democratic
process,h he wrote. gThe issue before the court here is the legal question
whether the Constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to marry.h
Later in the opinion, Justice
Kennedy answered the question. gThe Constitution,h he wrote, ggrants them that
right.h