Beginning at the end of March, the Supreme Court has been reviewing two cases that revolve around the constitutionality of same-sex marriage: one regarding Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative passed in 2008, and the other regarding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was passed by the Clinton Administration in 1996. If the Supreme Court, which has historically voted almost exclusively along party lines, manages to look beyond partisanship and recognize the logic behind the findings of these federal courts as well as our current administration, then gay marriage will be legalized and equal rights restored to those of all sexual orientations.
In 1996, DOMA passed in the Senate and House by an overwhelming majority (85 to 14 votes and 342 to 67 votes, respectively.) The controversial clause of DOMA is section three, where ‘marriage’ is limited to the legal union of a man and a woman, and same-sex couples cannot enjoy the federal benefits provided to heterosexual marriages. Since the passing of this strongly worded act, however, public support for legalizing gay marriage and allowing homosexual couples the same rights afforded to heterosexual couples has risen dramatically. Proposition 8, which overturned California’s 2005 legislative decision to legalize same-sex marriage, did pass in 2008, but only by a margin of about half a million votes. And while gay marriage was ultimately outlawed in November of 2008, Proposition 8 was met with several lawsuits in the days following its enactment. In addition, DOMA, which restricts federal marriage benefits for homosexual couples, has been found unconstitutional by both the Obama administration and eight federal courts.
While some progress in restoring rights to homosexuals has been made, only about half of US-based companies that employ more than 500 people provide health benefits to same-sex couples, according to a health benefits survey conducted by Mercer in 2012. And section three of DOMA has been a continuing burden on homosexuals, as is evidenced in the United States v. Windsor case currently being heard by the Supreme Court, in which a widowed New York woman’s inheritance was subject to a federal tax simply because it was bequeathed to her by her wife. Other complaints involving DOMA have been heard in state supreme courts across the country, ranging from a lack of access to healthcare to unjust taxation. In those courts in which section 3 of DOMA was declared unconstitutional, the basis was that the Act violates the equal protection rights granted to each citizen under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
And if the Supreme Court, which has met its cases skeptically, manages to put aside party biases for the sake of human rights, they will come to the same conclusion as our current President’s administration: section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional. The basic rights of citizens should not be denied to them simply because of their sexual orientation. Those whose discomfort with homosexuality stems from their religious backgrounds ought to have no influence in Court, if we wish to uphold a true separation of Church and State.
Partisanship has proved increasingly destructive to our country’s legislative and judicial system over the past decade. To move towards equality, one of the goals of our Constitution, the Supreme Court must be able to also move beyond the expectations placed upon it by each judge’s respective party. If the Court can strip away the politics of the two cases regarding same-sex marriage and view Proposition 8 and DOMA as what they are – violations of human rights and inhibitors of genuine equality – then they will certainly be overturned.