2013年4月5日金曜日

米国 結婚防衛法は異人種間結婚禁止法か

米国で、結婚防衛法の審議が始まった。
 米連邦最高裁で、同性婚を禁じた加州法の妥当性などを問う裁判の審理
が始まり、裁判所の周辺では同性婚の支持派と反対派がそれぞれの立場か
ら集会やデモを行った。

同性婚合法化
・9州+首都
 CT,DC,IA,MA,MD,ME,NH,NY,VT,WA

条件付同性婚合法化
 9州
 CA,DE,HI,IL,NV,NJ,OR,RI,WI,NM

同性婚禁止
・30州(29州説有)
 AR,GA,KY,MI,MS,MT,ND,OH,OR,UT

6月末に判決の予定。

最高裁判事
Samuel A. Alito:保守派
Stephen G. Breyer:リベラル派
Ruth Bader Ginsburg:リベラル派
Elena Kagan:リベラル派
Anthony Kennedy:中間
John G. Roberts(最高裁判所主席判事):保守派
Antonin Scalia:保守派
Sonia Sotomayor:リベラル派
Clarence Thomas:保守派

DOMA:The Defense of Marriage Act
1996年 535議員中81人のみの賛成にも関わらず、Bill Clintonが米連邦法
    とした。連邦法の下、同性婚禁止を明文化。
    その後、Bill Clintonoらが廃止を提唱。
2011年 Obamaらが、一部が憲法違反と認めた。

DOMAがすごいのは、同性婚者への配偶者控除や、税金還付金請求、入出国
管理等を禁止したこと。憲法違反と言うのは理解できる。

国民皆保険同様、最高裁判決は多数決。リベラル派が多いため、DOMAが廃止
される可能性が高い。州毎に判断が異なるため、憲法では曖昧にする可能性
もあるとのこと。

報道でしか見たことがない異人種間結婚禁止法だが、DOMAが似ているとの
説がある。しかし、大きな違いがあり、宗教の影響が大きいと言うこと。
信者が多いキリスト教では、同性婚に対して、同宗派であっても分裂して
いる。イスラム教は肯定的ではない。仏教は比較的宗教による束縛がゆるい
ため、国や宗派により異なり、分裂するまでの議論にはなっていないようだ。
性的嗜好の自由を憲法で決めるものかと思う。

米最高裁では、結婚の定義を審理。
判決の際、法律で、結婚の定義を決めるのだろうか。
マグナカルタから始まる国を束縛するための法律が憲法なのに、米国の憲法
は、大きく位置付けが異なると思う。
昔、米国は自由な国と言われたが、実際はとても束縛されているのを知ら
ないのかもしれない。

日本のカボチャは、国民投票の承認数を減らしたいようだ。
国民の権利を弱め、国家の権力を強めるように憲法改正を唱える。
国民の権利を奪い、いかさまで当選した国会議員の一人がカボチャ。

GOP IOWA党員集会
OBAMA Live Free or Die Campaign
オバマ 選挙手法
米連邦最高裁 医療保険改革法は合憲判決


US Supreme Court hears same-sex marriage cases


US Supreme Court debates California's gay marriage ban


---米世論を二分「同性婚」審理 メディアは「容認の可能性」---
2013.3.28 22:08
http://sankei.jp.msn.com/world/news/130328/amr13032822090003-n1.htm

 【ワシントン=犬塚陽介】米世論を二分している同性婚の適法性を判断する連邦最高裁の審理が佳境を迎えている。27日には婚姻を男女間に限定する連邦政府の「結婚防衛法」を審理したが、過半数の判事が合憲性を疑問視する見方を示したことから、同性間の婚姻が認められる可能性が高いとの観測が米メディアの間でささやかれ始めた。ただ最高裁には司法判断を回避する選択肢もあり、6月にも言い渡される判決の内容は予断を許さない状況となっている。
 最高裁で審理されているのは1996年に米議会が可決し、クリントン大統領(当時)の署名で成立した結婚防衛法と2008年の住民投票を根拠に同性婚を禁じたカリフォルニア州法の合法性をめぐる法解釈だ。
 9人の判事の見解が保守とリベラルと真っ二つに割れる中、判決を左右する唯一の“浮動票”とみられるアンソニー・ケネディ判事が「連邦政府に婚姻法制化の権限があるのか否かが問題だ」と結婚防衛法に疑問を示したことから、違憲判断が出る可能性も指摘され始めた。
 米国では首都ワシントンやニューヨークなど9州で同性婚が合法化されているが、連邦政府は同性婚を承認しておらず、相続や配偶者控除などの税制面での優遇はない。
 オバマ政権は11年に結婚防衛法を支持しないことを明言し、大統領自身も昨年5月、現職として初めて同性婚の支持を発表。政権側は最高裁の審理でも「過酷な差別の形態だ」と同性婚を否定する条文の撤廃を求めている。
 結婚防衛法への不支持を表明しながら、同性婚者から相続税を徴収する政権側の手法には、保守派とされるジョン・ロバーツ最高裁長官が「なぜ信念を貫く勇気がないのか、理解できない」とかみつくなど、行政と司法の“衝突”も生んでいる。
 また、カリフォルニア州法については同性婚の否定が憲法の保障する「法の下の平等」に反するかが審理されており、判決内容次第では他州にも同性婚容認を強いる可能性が出てくる。
 ただ思想信条にも関わり、米世論が分かれる価値観の是非を司法が判断することにもなりかねない状況には、保守派を中心に懸念を示す声も絶えない。このため最高裁は、訴訟手続きに関する不備などを理由に、同性婚の是非に踏み込まない可能性も指摘されている。


---同性婚認めない米連邦法、最高裁判事の過半数が疑問呈する---
更新日時: 2013/03/28 11:19 JST
http://www.bloomberg.co.jp/news/123-MKCK096KLVSJ01.html

 3月27日(ブルームバーグ):米連邦最高裁判所が初めて同性婚の是非を問う訴訟で、過半数の判事が結婚を男女間に限定する連邦法の合憲性について疑問を呈し、全米で同性婚を認める動きを後押しする判決が下される可能性が示唆された。
 最高裁は国内世論が最も大きく分かれる問題の一つである同性婚をめぐる訴訟の2日目の審理を終えた。判決を左右する可能性のあるアンソニー・ケネディ判事は、同性愛者のカップルに対する権利や給付を制限する法律について、連邦政府による越権行為だとの認識を示唆した。
 米国では政治家や国民の間で同性婚を支持する声がかつてないほど高まっている。現在は9つの州と首都ワシントンが同性婚を認めている。
 今回の訴訟の原告は同性の配偶者を亡くしたニューヨーク在住の女性。オバマ政権はこの女性と共に1996年制定の結婚保護法(DOMA)を無効にするよう最高裁に求めている。同法の下では、同性の配偶者はカップル共同で納税申告する権利や、遺族給付金を受け取る権利を認められておらず、異性婚の夫婦が利用できる連邦政府の給付を請求することができない。


---同性婚めぐり賛否両派数千人が集会 米最高裁が審理---
2013.3.27 09:34
http://sankei.jp.msn.com/world/news/130327/amr13032709450004-n1.htm

 ワシントンの米連邦最高裁で26日、同性婚を禁じたカリフォルニア州法の妥当性などを問う裁判の審理が始まり、裁判所周辺では支持派と反対派が集会やデモを行った。米メディアによると、集まった群衆は数千人に上るという。
 米国では同性婚を支持する人が次第に増えているものの、婚姻を認めるか、税制や社会保障制度を男女の結婚と同等に適用するかなどを含め世論を二分する大きな政治テーマとなっている。AP通信によると、これまで9州と首都ワシントンが同性婚を合法化し、29州が禁止している。
 両派は同日、「結婚は憲法上の権利」(支持派)、「すべての子どもにママとパパを」(反対派)といったプラカードを掲げ、互いの主張をぶつけ合った。
 最高裁で問題の鍵を握るとされるケネディ判事は、審理で裁判所が「海図なき水域」に立ち入ることに懸念を表明。同性婚の是非に最高裁が正面から判断を下すべきではないとの考えを示唆したと受け止められている。


---同性婚めぐり数千人が集会やデモ 米最高裁で審理始まる---
2013年3月27日 08時41分
http://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/s/article/2013032701000823.html

 【ワシントン共同】ワシントンの米連邦最高裁で26日、同性婚を禁じたカリフォルニア州法の妥当性などを問う裁判の審理が始まり、裁判所の周辺では同性婚の支持派と反対派がそれぞれの立場から集会やデモを行った。米メディアによると集まった群衆は数千人に上った。
 米国では同性婚を支持する人が次第に増えているものの、婚姻を認めるか、税制や社会保障制度を男女の結婚と同等に適用するかなどを含め世論を二分する大きな政治テーマとなっている。AP通信によると、これまで9州と首都ワシントンが同性婚を合法化、29州が禁止している。


---パリで「同性婚反対」大規模デモ30万人 シャンゼリゼ通りで衝突も---
2013.3.25 11:34
http://sankei.jp.msn.com/world/news/130325/erp13032511350004-n1.htm

 【ベルリン=宮下日出男】フランスのオランド大統領が目指す同性婚の合法化に反対する大規模デモが24日、パリで繰り広げられた。警察当局によると参加者は30万人だが、主催団体側は140万人が集まったとしている。シャンゼリゼ通りでは参加者の一部が警官隊と衝突するなど混乱した。
 同性婚合法化は昨年の大統領選でのオランド氏の公約。今年2月、同性カップルに婚姻と養子を認める法案が国民議会(下院)で可決され、4月には上院でも審議予定。
 法案には中道右派の野党やカトリック教会が強く反対している。高失業率などが問題化する中、デモでは「大統領は経済問題に対処すべきだ」との声が上がった。


---米国の「異人種間結婚禁止法」撤廃の立役者、ラビングさんが死去---
2008年05月08日 10:49 発信地:ワシントンD.C
http://www.afpbb.com/article/life-culture/life/2387844/2905185

 【5月8日 AFP】米国の「異人種間結婚禁止法」撤廃の立役者となったミルドレッド・ラビング(Mildred Jeter Loving)さんが2日、肺炎のためバージニア州(Virginia)ミルフォード(Milford)の自宅で死去した。68歳だった。
 1958年、17歳だったラビングさんは、6歳年上の建設作業員、リチャード・ラビング(Richard Loving)さんと結婚した。当時バージニア州では異人種間の結婚が禁止されていたため、2人はワシントンD.C.(Washington D.C.)で結婚し、その後州内で新婚生活を始めた。ところが数日後、保安官が突然訪ねてきて、「白人男性を夫にした」かどでラビングを逮捕した。
 2人は事実上の「州外退去命令」を受け、ワシントンD.C.(Washington D.C.)に居を移した。そして、複数の人権団体とともに、異人種間の結婚を禁止する州法は憲法に違反するとして州政府を訴える。
 このいわゆる「ラビング対バージニア」訴訟で、最高裁は1967年、同法を違憲とする歴史的な判決を下した。これにより、ほかの16州でも異人種間の結婚を禁止する法律が見直されることとなった。
■法律を変えようとしたのではなく、愛のために戦った
 この判決から40周年にあたる2007年6月、ラビングさんは「わたしたちは、法律を変えようとして戦っていたのではなく、愛のために戦った」と当時を振り返った。また、米公民権運動の先駆けとして知られる故ローザ・パークス(Rosa Parks)さんになぞらえられることについて、「歴史的な偉業を成し遂げたとは思っていない」と控えめな性格をのぞかせた。
 リチャードさんは1975年、交通事故で死亡。同乗していたラビングさんは、片目を失明した。
 38年前に黒人女性と結婚したアメリカン大学(American University)のゲリー・ウィーヴァー(Gary Weaver)教授は、「自宅には卵が投げつけられ、車にはライフルの弾が9発打ち込まれ、芝生には火をつけられたものです」と語った。「1970年代初め、白人と黒人との結婚は非常にまれでした」 
 米国勢調査局(US Census Bureau)によると、異人種間の夫婦は今や全米で430万組にのぼる。南部のアラバマ州(Alabama)では、2000年になってようやく異人種間結婚禁止法が撤廃された。


---Supreme Court, in next gay marriage case, eyes federal law---
By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON | Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:01am EDT
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/27/us-usa-court-gaymarriage-idUSBRE92P04820130327

(Reuters) - For the second day running, the Supreme Court on Wednesday will confront the issue of gay marriage, hearing arguments on a U.S. law that denies federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples.

Almost two hours of oral argument before the court will focus on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), just a day after the nine justices considered the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage.

Both cases come before the court as polls show growing support among Americans for gay marriage but division among the 50 states. Nine states recognize it; 30 states have constitutional amendments banning it and others are in-between.

Rulings in both cases are expected by the end of June.

DOMA limits the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. It permits benefits such as Social Security survivor payments and federal tax deductions only for married, opposite-sex couples, not for legally married same-sex couples.

President Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law in 1996 after it passed Congress with only 81 of 535 lawmakers opposing it. Clinton, a Democrat, earlier this month said that times have changed since then and called for the law to be overturned.

In the California case argued on Tuesday, the justices seemed wary of endorsing a broad right for gay and lesbian couples to marry, as gay rights advocates had wanted. As a result, the Proposition 8 case is less likely to influence how the court approaches DOMA, which presents a narrower question.

The slightly lower-profile case being argued Wednesday focuses on whether Edith Windsor, who was married to a woman, should get the federal estate tax deduction available to heterosexuals when their spouses pass away.

Windsor's marriage to Thea Spyer was recognized under New York law, but not under DOMA. When Spyer died in 2009, Windsor was forced to pay federal estate tax because the federal government would not recognize her marriage. She sued the government, seeking a $363,000 tax refund.

Windsor's lawyers say the federal government has no role in defining marriage, which is traditionally left to states.

"It's the states that marry people," said James Esseks, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who is part of Windsor's legal team. "The federal government doesn't do that."

The roughly 133,000 gay couples nationwide, married in one of the nine states where it is legal, are not recognized as married by the federal government, Windsor's supporters say.

Various groups are calling for DOMA to be struck down, such as the Business Coalition for DOMA Repeal, whose members include Marriott International Inc, Aetna Inc, eBay Inc, and Thomson Reuters Corp, the corporate parent of the Reuters news agency.

OBAMA TURNS BACK ON DOMA

The Obama administration has agreed with Windsor that the section of law that defines marriage violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law. The Justice Department has therefore declined to defend the statute, as it normally would when a federal statute is challenged.

That has left a legal group acting on behalf of the Republican-dominated U.S. House of Representatives, known as the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, or BLAG, as the party defending the federal law. Its lawyer, Paul Clement, will argue that there are several reasons to support Congress' decision to enact DOMA.

Noting the strong bipartisan support the law attracted when it was first enacted, Clement said in court papers that a move to strike it down as unconstitutional "would be wholly unprecedented."

Before the court reaches that bigger question, preliminary matters could prevent the court deciding the case. One is whether BLAG has legal standing.

If such a procedural issue prevents the court from deciding the case on the merits, Windsor would win her refund. Yet DOMA would remain on the books in parts of the country where courts have not ruled on it. Further litigation would likely ensue.


---Supreme Court seems willing to restore gay marriage in California---
By David G. Savage and Noam N. Levey, Washington Bureau
March 26, 2013, 7:25 p.m.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-gay-marriage-20130327,0,1101487.story
The sharply divided justices also appear uncomfortable with legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court, hearing arguments on the emotionally charged issue of gay marriage for the first time, appeared willing Tuesday to restore marital rights to gays and lesbians in California but uncomfortable with legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.

The justices sounded sharply divided as they considered Proposition 8, California's ban on gay marriage, and wary of going too far, too fast. None of them spoke up for a sweeping ruling that would require every state to change its marriage laws.

But Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who probably holds the deciding vote, said in the day's most poignant moment that he was troubled by the effect of Proposition 8 on the nearly 40,000 children in the state being raised by same-sex couples. The court should hear "the voice of these children," he said. "They want their parents to have full recognition and full status" that goes with marriage.

Kennedy, who has written two previous decisions in favor of gay rights, sounded anguished, admitting he was "wrestling" with whether to extend the same anti-discrimination protection to gays that the court gives to women but also expressed concern about taking the court "into unchartered waters" or over a "cliff."

The court's liberal justices more forcefully attacked the argument by Proposition 8 proponents that the purpose of marriage was for procreation, with Justice Elena Kagan asking at one point whether states could ban marriage between couples older than 55.

Charles J. Cooper, who argued for Proposition 8, said that would not be constitutional, adding that at least one member of an elderly couple would probably still be fertile, drawing laughter from the courtroom.

"Lots of people who get married can't have children," said Justice Stephen G. Breyer.

The arguments opened two days of hearings by the court on the controversial issue of same-sex marriage. On Wednesday, the justices will hear a constitutional challenge to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which bans federal benefits for 130,000 legally married gay couples, including 18,000 couples in California.

The Obama administration and gay rights advocates say the provision is discriminatory and denies the married couples the "equal protection of the laws." Appeals courts in Boston and New York have ruled it unconstitutional.

California's voters approved Proposition 8 in 2008 to limit marriage to a man and a woman. However, the referendum was challenged in federal court in San Francisco and struck down by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last year on the grounds it took away from gays and lesbians a right to marry that they had won in the state courts.

If the Supreme Court had turned down the appeal in the California case, it would have had the effect of restoring gay marriage in California. Such a move would not have set a legal precedent nor would it have forced a change in the states that forbid gay marriage.

Kennedy's comments, combined with those of the four liberal justices, suggest the five will combine to seek a narrow approach in the California case. They could reject the appeal from the sponsors of Proposition 8 on the grounds that they lack legal "standing" to speak for the state of California. They could dismiss the appeal and let stand the 9th Circuit's ruling. Or they could write a limited opinion that finds the California ballot measure unconstitutional. All three options would have the effect of allowing gay marriage in California.

Tuesday's arguments highlighted deep philosophical divisions between liberals and conservatives over the potential effects of extending the right to marry to same-sex couples.

On the court's right wing, Justice Antonin Scalia jumped most forcefully to defend Proposition 8. "There's considerable disagreement among sociologists as to what [are] the consequences of raising a child in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not," he said.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. questioned whether a court should change "this institution that's been around since time immemorial."

"When the institution of marriage developed historically," Roberts said, it "didn't include homosexual couples."

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., a third conservative member of the court, suggested it was too soon to make a decision, another point made by those backing the California ban.

"You want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution, which is newer than cellphones or the Internet," Alito told Theodore B. Olson, the attorney challenging California's ban. "I mean we … do not have the ability to see the future."

Joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, the most conservative justices appear to have four solid votes against any constitutional right for same-sex marriage.

But the court's liberal justices repeatedly pressed Cooper to explain why committed gay couples should be denied the right to marry.

"What harm (do) you see happening?" Kagan asked at one point, demanding examples of "when and how and what harm to the institution of marriage or to opposite-sex couples" could come.

Cooper demurred, explaining that the more pertinent question was what benefit a state like California could derive from allowing gays and lesbians to marry.

Cooper has argued that traditional marriage has the benefit of fostering child-bearing, a purpose he warned could be subverted by same-sex marriage. "It will refocus the purpose of marriage and the definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults, of adult couples," he said.

Despite the back and forth over the fundamental implications of gay marriage, much of the argument Tuesday focused on possible procedural flaws in the case.

Roberts and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg questioned whether the sponsors of Proposition 8 had legal standing to defend it in the Supreme Court.

"Have we ever granted standing to the proponents of a ballot measure?" Ginsburg asked.

But Kennedy, a California native, said California law on ballot measures gave a special responsibility to the sponsors of initiatives. He said they could represent the people of the state when its officials refused to defend a measure approved by the voters.

This exchange suggested Kennedy was not looking for a way for the court to duck a ruling on California's ban on gay marriage.

The justices meet behind closed doors later this week to vote on the two gay marriage cases. But what they decide is not likely to be known until late June.


---Justices Say Time May Be Wrong for Gay Marriage Case---
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: March 26, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-case.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

WASHINGTON - As the Supreme Court on Tuesday weighed the momentous question of whether gay and lesbian couples have a constitutional right to marry, six justices questioned whether the case, arising from a California ban on same-sex marriages, was properly before the court and indicated that they might vote to dismiss it.

 “I just wonder if the case was properly granted,” said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who probably holds the decisive vote, in a comment that showed a court torn over whether this was the right time and right case for a decision on a fast-moving social issue.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed to share that concern. “If the issue is letting the states experiment and letting the society have more time to figure out its direction,” she said, “why is taking a case now the answer?”

Those justices and others seemed driven to that conclusion by an argument in which no attractive middle ground emerged on the substance of the question before them: whether voters in California were entitled to enact Proposition 8, which overturned a State Supreme Court decision allowing same-sex marriage.

Justices who appeared sympathetic to same-sex marriage indicated that there was no principled way to issue a ruling that could apply only in California or only in the nine states that have robust civil union or domestic partnership laws but withhold the word “marriage.”

That appeared to leave the court with an all-or-nothing choice on the merits: either a ruling that would require same-sex marriage in all 50 states or one that would say that all states may do as they wish. Neither choice seemed attractive to a majority of the justices.

Five members of the court asked questions indicating that they might vote to dismiss the case on the threshold issue that supporters of Proposition 8 lacked standing to appeal a lower court’s decision. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., whose questions on the merits indicated discomfort with requiring states to allow same-sex marriage, seemed particularly interested in the standing issue.

Justice Kennedy seemed more open to the possibility that the proponents of Proposition 8 had standing, but he twice asked lawyers why the court should not dismiss the case outright. When the justices have second thoughts about agreeing to hear a case, they sometimes dismiss it as “improvidently granted.”

Questions from the justices do not always reliably forecast votes, of course, and many of the justices also indicated their views of the central issue presented in the case.

When Justice Kennedy turned to the merits of the case, he voiced sympathy for the children of gay couples. “There are some 40,000 children in California,” he said, who “live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case.”

But Justice Kennedy said he was uncertain about the consequences for society of allowing same-sex marriage. “We have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more,” he said, referring to the long history of traditional marriage and the brief experience of allowing gay men and lesbians to marry in some states.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. echoed the thought and said the court should not move too fast. “You want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution, which is newer than cellphones or the Internet?” he said.

Many of the questions directed to Charles J. Cooper, a lawyer for opponents of same-sex marriage, concerned whether there was any good reason to exclude same-sex couples from the institution.

Mr. Cooper counseled caution. “It is an agonizingly difficult, for many people, political question,” he said. “We would submit to you that that question is properly decided by the people themselves.”

Justice Elena Kagan asked him how letting gay couples marry harmed traditional marriages. “How does this cause and effect work?” she asked.

Mr. Cooper responded that “it will refocus the purpose of marriage and the definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults, of adult couples.” The key to marriage, he said, is procreation.

That did not seem to satisfy several of the justices.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer asked Mr. Cooper about sterile opposite-sex couples. “There are lots of people who get married who can’t have children,” he said.

Justice Kagan asked whether the government could ban a man and a woman who are over 55 from marrying because they would not be able to have children. Mr. Cooper said the court could not constitutionally ban such marriages, but he said that was no reason to alter traditional definitions.

Justice Antonin Scalia remarked, sarcastically, that the government could require people applying for a marriage license to fill out an intrusive questionnaire. When Justice Kagan noted that people were frequently asked about their age by the government, Justice Scalia joked about former Senator Strom Thurmond, who had a child in his 70s and served in the Senate until age 100.

Chief Justice Roberts said history was on the side of traditional marriage. “The institution developed,” he said, “to serve purposes that, by their nature, didn’t include homosexual couples.”

Theodore B. Olson, representing two couples challenging Proposition 8, said it was pernicious. “It walls off gays and lesbians from marriage, the most important relation in life,” he said, “thus stigmatizing a class of Californians based upon their status and labeling their most cherished relationships as second-rate, different, unequal and not O.K.”

Justice Scalia asked when it became unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the ability to marry. His suggestion was that the constitutional text at the time of its adoption could not have been understood to allow such a thing. He and Mr. Olson went back and forth on the question, sometimes talking over each other, but Mr. Olson did not answer.

When Mr. Olson said “the label ‘marriage’ means something,” Chief Justice Roberts agreed - to a point.

“If you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say, ‘This is my friend.’ But it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend.”

The case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-144, was filed in 2009 by Mr. Olson and David Boies, two lawyers who were on opposite sides in the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore, which settled the 2000 presidential election. Mr. Boies looked on attentively as Mr. Olson presented his argument.

The Supreme Court will hear a second same-sex marriage case on Wednesday, United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307, concerning the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The court is quite likely to reach the merits of that case, which concerns a part of the law that bans the federal government from providing benefits to gay couples married in states that allow such unions.

Almost half of Tuesday’s argument, which lasted almost 90 minutes, concerned the issue of whether proponents of Proposition 8 have standing. California officials lost in the trial court, and they did not appeal the judgment against them. Proponents of the initiative did appeal, but several justices said they had neither suffered a direct injury nor were authorized to represent the interests of the state.

In affirming the trial court’s decision striking down Proposition 8, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, relied on a narrow ground, saying that the state’s voters were not permitted to withdraw the right to marry once it had been established by the state Supreme Court. The logic of the ruling was thus confined to California.

That one-state solution did not seem to appeal to the justices. Justice Kennedy said the appeals courts had relied on “a very odd rationale.”

Justice Sotomayor asked, “Is there any way to decide this case in a principled manner that is limited to California only?”

Nor was the court taken with the position of Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., who argued that the court should require same-sex marriage in states that provide all of the burdens and benefits of marriage but withhold the name. Eight states in addition to California will soon be in that situation.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the distinction made no sense. “A state that has made considerable progress has to go all the way,” she said. But, she added, if “the state has done absolutely nothing at all, then it can do as it will.”

Having indicated their discomfort with one-state and nine-state middle grounds, the justices found themselves facing an uncomfortable all-or-nothing choice. Some seemed prepared to blink.

When Mr. Cooper rose to give his rebuttal at the end of the session, Justice Kennedy asked the first question. “You might address,” the justice said, “why you think we should take and decide this case.”

0 コメント: