|
| Gay marriage supporters rally on Fountain Square, Wednesday, Aug. 6, 2014, in Cincinnati. Three judges of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati are set to hear arguments Wednesday in six gay marriage fights from four states, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. |
CINCINNATI
(AP) -- Three federal judges weighing arguments in a landmark gay
marriage hearing Wednesday peppered attorneys on both sides with tough
questions, with one judge expressing deep skepticism about whether
courts are the ideal setting for major social change and another saying
the democratic process can be too slow.
The
judges in the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals considered arguments in
six cases from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee, setting the stage
for historic rulings in each state that would put more pressure on the
U.S. Supreme Court to decide the issue once and for all. Wednesday's
hearing was the biggest so far on the issue.
The
cases pit states' rights and traditional, conservative values against
what plaintiffs' attorneys say is a fundamental right to marry under the
U.S. Constitution.
While questions and
comments from two of the judges all but gave away how they'll rule, one
in favor of gay marriage and one opposed, Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton
vigorously challenged some of each side's assertions.
Sutton
repeatedly questioned attorneys for the same-sex couples whether the
courts are the best place to legalize gay marriage, saying that the way
to win Americans' hearts and minds is to wait until they're ready to
vote for it.
"I would have thought the best
way to get respect and dignity is through the democratic process," said
Sutton, a George W. Bush nominee. "Nothing happens as quickly as we'd
like it."
Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey, a Bill
Clinton nominee, said that historically, courts have had to intervene
when individual constitutional rights are being violated, such as
overturning state laws against interracial marriage and giving women the
right to vote, pointing out that the latter took decades.
"Do
you have any knowledge of how many years I'm talking about, going into
every state, every city, every state board of elections, for 70 years?"
she said. "It didn't work. It took an amendment to the Constitution."
Besides,
gay marriage already is legal in more than a quarter of the states, and
"it doesn't look like the sky has fallen in," Daughtrey said.
Constitutional
law professors and court observers say that the 6th Circuit could be
the first to uphold statewide bans on gay marriage following an unbroken
string of more than 20 rulings in the past eight months that have gone
the other way.
They point to Sutton, the least
predictable judge on the panel. In 2011, he shocked Republicans and may
have derailed his own chances to advance to the U.S. Supreme Court when
he became the deciding vote in a ruling that upheld President Barack
Obama's health care law.
If the 6th Circuit
decides against gay marriage, it would create a divide among federal
appellate courts and put pressure on the U.S. Supreme Court to settle
the issue in its 2015 session. The panel did not indicate when it would
rule.
Attorneys for each state defended their
marriage bans, arguing that any change should come from voters and that
same-sex marriage is too new to be considered a deeply rooted,
fundamental right.
"The most basic right we
have as a people is to decide public policy questions on our own," said
Michigan's solicitor general, Aaron Lindstrom.
Leigh
Latherow, hired by Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, told the judges that
the state has an economic interest in encouraging heterosexual marriage,
which can lead to procreation. And Tennessee Associate Solicitor Joseph
Whalen said Tennessee's law barring recognition of out-of-state gay
marriages ensures children are born into a stable family environment.
Attorneys for the same-sex couples said marriage is fundamental for everyone and should not be decided by popular votes.
"These
rights are very, very profound," said Al Gerhardstein, a Cincinnati
civil rights attorney representing the Ohio plaintiffs. "A marriage is a
significant thing. It's solemn. It's precious. This can't be just
subjected to a vote."
Carole Stanyar, who
represents the same-sex Michigan plaintiffs, bemoaned the often slow
pace of the democratic process and said she doesn't see such a change
coming to her state any time soon.
"In my state, nothing is happening to help gay people," she said.
Outside
the courthouse, advocates held up banners and signs urging marriage
equality. Jon Bradford, 26, of Covington, Kentucky, wore a wedding
dress, and his partner, Matt Morris, wore a top hat and formal shirt.
"It's to make a statement, really," Bradford said. "We want to be married."
He said they were hopeful the court will rule in favor of same-sex marriage.
"One day, it's going to happen," he said. "You can't stop love."
About a dozen opponents prayed the rosary outside the courthouse.
"I'm just praying for God's will to be done," said Jeff Parker, 53, from the Cincinnati suburb of Madeira.
Gay marriage is legal in 19 states and the District of Columbia. Other states' bans are tied up in courts.
Two
federal appeals courts have ruled in favor of gay marriage - one in
Denver in June and another in Richmond, Virginia, last week. On Tuesday,
Utah appealed one of those rulings, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to
take up the case and uphold its ban. Oklahoma followed suit Wednesday.
The
6th Circuit is the first of three federal appeals courts to hear
arguments from multiple states in coming weeks. The 7th Circuit in
Chicago has similar arguments set for Aug. 26 for bans in Wisconsin and
Indiana. The 9th Circuit in San Francisco is to take up Idaho's and
Nevada's bans Sept. 8.
