WASHINGTON, Dec 7 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court seized
center stage in a historic social policy debate over same-sex
marriage on Friday by agreeing to review the validity under the
U.S. Constitution of a federal law defining marriage as a union
between a man and a woman.
In an order, the court also announced that it would consider
a challenge to California’s ban on gay marriage, known as
Proposition 8, which voters narrowly approved in 2008.
Same-sex marriage is a hot-button issue in a country where
31 of the 50 states have passed constitutional amendments
banning it while Washington, D.C., and nine states have
legalized it, three of them on Election Day last month.
Yet even where it is legal, married same-sex couples do not
qualify for a host of federal benefits because the 1996 Defense
of Marriage Act, or DOMA, passed by Congress, only recognizes
marriages between a man and a woman.
Gays and lesbians married under state laws have filed suits
challenging their denial of such benefits as Social Security
survivor payments and the right to file joint federal tax
returns. They argue the provision, known as Section 3, violates
equal protection provisions of the U.S. Constitution.
Meeting in private on Friday at their last weekly conference
before the court’s holiday recess, the justices considered
requests to review seven cases dealing with same-sex
relationships. Five of them were challenges to the federal
marriage law, one to California’s gay marriage ban and another
to an Arizona law against domestic partner benefits.
The court granted the appeal of Edith Windsor, an
83-year-old lesbian who challenged her denial of federal tax
benefits under the Defense of Marriage Act.
The justices were widely expected to review at least one of
the challenges to the federal marriage law, as two federal
appeals courts had found the law unconstitutional.
Less expected was the court’s decision to review
California’s ban on same-sex marriage. The California case,
Hollingsworth v. Perry, had sought marriage equality for gays
and lesbians under the U.S. Constitution.
The 9th Circuit in February found the gay marriage ban
unconstitutional, but it ruled narrowly in a way that only
affected California and not the rest of the country, finding
that the state could not take away the right to same-sex
marriage after previously allowing it. No other state that
allowed gay marriage has later banned it.
The court could follow the 9th Circuit’s decision and also
rule narrowly, allowing same-sex marriage only in California but
not the rest of the country. Or it could recognize a right to
marriage equality.
