The decisions made by the Supreme Court in two cases it heard this week have the potential to redefine the institution of marriage in the United States.
On Tuesday and Wednesday, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments from the cases Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor, both of which deal with the issue of gay marriage. The Hollingsworth case deals with the legality of California’s Proposition 8 while the issues in Windsor relate to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
Tuesday’s arguments for the Hollingsworth case questioned the constitutionality of Prop 8 — a state referendum passed in 2008 that eliminated the state’s recognition of same-sex marriage.
Charles Cooper, the attorney representing Hollingsworth and advocating for Prop 8, argued that “same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are not similarly situated” in terms of procreation — which he claims is the reason the state regulates marriage. He said that allowing for same-sex marriages would “refocus the purpose of marriage … away from the raising of children,” according to court records.
Cooper further argued that “redefining marriage as a genderless institution could well lead over time to harms to [the state].”
Theodore Olson, who represents Perry and opposes Prop 8, argued that the proposition creates inequality, stating that Prop 8 “stigmatiz[es] a class of Californians based upon their status.”
Law School professor Kermit Roosevelt said in an email that he expects the court “will avoid deciding the issue in [Hollingsworth v. Perry] to allow for a few more years of experience with gay marriage.” He noted that Cooper’s argument for the uncertainty of the effects of gay marriage “seemed persuasive to Justice [Anthony] Kennedy,” who has been the swing vote in numerous Supreme Court cases.
In the Windsor case, the plaintiff was forced to pay over $300,000 in federal estate taxes after the death of her spouse, because the Internal Revenue Service did not recognize Windsor’s marriage because of DOMA.
Two federal courts have previously ruled DOMA unconstitutional. It is now up to the Supreme Court to either affirm or reject those rulings.
In oral arguments on Wednesday, Vicki Jackson, who is representing Windsor, and Paul Clement, who represents the House of Representatives in the proceedings since the Office of the Solicitor General, refused to defend the law — debated whether there is standing for the House Republicans to appeal.
Roosevelt, though, thinks that DOMA will ultimately be struck down.
“Since striking down DOMA wouldn’t force any states to recognize same-sex marriages — it would actually enhance state authority relative to the federal government — there aren’t the usual concerns about federal judges making policy on important issues,” he added.
College sophomore and Lambda Alliance Chair Dawn Androphy hopes that the court decides in favor of Windsor and Perry, describing these cases as potential “game changers” for the LGBTQ community.
Other Penn groups have also hosted events in support of gay marriage this year, including a right to marriage event on Valentine’s Day.
However, Androphy noted that even though “marriage equality is very important” and “something we still need to support,” a positive decision in these cases would not solve all of the problems facing the LGBTQ community, such as stigmatisms against the community.
She still thinks, though, that a good ruling will be a “step in the right direction.”
The Daily Pennsylvanian is an independent, student-run newspaper. Please consider making a donation to support the coverage that shapes the University. Your generosity ensures a future of strong journalism at Penn.
DonatePlease note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.