Justice Scalia Is Vindicated, Fortunately
We begin with a legal chronology. In 1996, Congress adopted the Defense of Marriage Act. Section two of that law reads:
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
In November of 2004, Ohio adopted a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage which reads:
Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.
On June 26 of this year, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down section three of DOMA in the case of United States v. Windsor. The critical peroratory language from the majority opinion:
The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State [New York], by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.
That decision did not affect section two, which other than the section one giving the law its name, is the only operative language of DOMA left on the books after Windsor. In a shrill dissent, Antonin Scalia wrote of the future use of the Windsor opinion:
By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition. Henceforth those challengers will lead with this Court’s declaration that there is “no legitimate purpose” served by such a law, and will claim that the traditional definition has “the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure” the “personhood and dignity” of same-sex couples … .
On July 11, 2013, James Obergefell and John Arthur, both of Cincinnati, Ohio flew to Maryland and got married there. The trip was something of a rush — Mr. Windsor is apparently in very poor health resulting from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, with special medical equipment on the airplane. They did not exit the airport, their ceremony was performed and paperwork executed on the tarmac, whereupon they got back on the plane and flew home again. Perfectly legal under Maryland state law. Sadly, it appears that Mr. Windsor’s death is imminent.
On July 22, 2013, Mr. Obergefell and Mr. Arthur were granted a Federal restraining order barring enforcement of their own state’s ban against same-sex marriages. The U.S. District Court, by Judge Timothy S. Black, based its reasoning on the recent case of United States v. Windsor, and the judge’s assessment of Ohio state law: “Throughout Ohio’s history, Ohio law has been clear: a marriage solemnized outside of Ohio is valid in Ohio if it is valid where solemnized.” He cited cases going back to 1895, in which marriages not recognized by Ohio state law but recognized by other states (based on the ages of the spouses or their degree of consanguinity in the case of first cousins who marriage) were held to be valid marriages within Ohio because they were valid where the marriage was solemnized.
So that’s of interest, because Judge Black interwove state law about validity of marriages with the Federal Equal Protections analysis. Had Ohio law been to the contrary — first cousins might be married in Massachusetts but they aren’t married in Ohio — would the result in Obergefell v. Kasich have been different?
But Ohio law is as it is, not as it might otherwise have been. Calling it “not a complicated case,” the Federal judge in Cincinnati granted a temporary restraining order: “[T]he local Ohio Registrar of death certificates is hereby ORDERED not to accept for recording a death certificate for John Arthur that does not record Mr. Arthur’s status at death as ‘married’ and James Obergefell as his ‘surviving spouse.'”
Another thing that piques my interest is this language from the temporary restraining order:
[A]s the United States Supreme Court found in Windsor, there is no legitimate state purpose served by refusing to recognize same-sex marriages celebrated in states where they are legal. Instead, as in Windsor, and at least on this early record here, the very purpose of the Ohio provisions, enacted in 2004, is to “impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.”
Justice Scalia’s prediction comes true, at least most of the way. What Scalia wrote is basically the line of argument that Judge Black adopted. The only apparent motive behind the state constitutional amendment was animus towards same-sex couples (by way of legislatively stating that their relationships were not worthy of the same recognition as those of mixed-sex couples) and therefore there is no legitimate state purpose to the ban and an Equal Protections violation — or so Judge Black found.
This sounds about right to me. It seems perfectly congruent with Windsor to me. But then, I’m kind of a partisan on the issue, so naturally it would. What’s interesting is that this is a fantastic test case for challenging the rest of the Defense of Marriage Act. Again we have some rather sympathetic claimants — a dying man and his distraught husband. (Their picture makes them look pretty photogenic, too.) We have a strong legal precedent in their favor and political ground whose center has shifted — one of Ohio’s Senators, Rob Portman, who was widely touted as a possible running mate to Mitt Romney last year, has broken ranks with his fellow Republicans and advocated same-sex marriage. Impact litigation doesn’t get much more favorable circumstances than this.
And I can tell you from my own experience that when a District Court grants a temporary restraining order, normally the court sets a date about a month in the future for a re-hearing. Both sides get to gather more evidence and submit further and more detailed briefings on the law. If that hearing goes well for the applicant, the temporary restraining order converts into a preliminary injunction, which requires a finding by the court that the applicant has a “probability of success on the merits,” meaning it’s more likely than not that the plaintiff ultimately will win and get a permanent injunction. Since the burden of proof in most civil cases is already “preponderance of the evidence,” the preliminary injunction hearing basically amounts to a complete mini-trial, and cases usually resolve based on the judge’s ruling on the preliminary injunction.
I have never been counsel in a case in Federal court where a TRO got reversed by an order on a preliminary injunction. I’m sure it happens. But it’s never happened to me. (This has happened in cases I’ve worked on in state court, many times.) And this case seems particularly not susceptible to new facts or new legal arguments coming to light which are likely to change the judge’s mind.
So a third thing that interests me is the fact that nowhere in his opinion did Judge Black consider the companion case to Windsor, Hollingsworth v. Perry, the California Proposition 8 case. Not the Supreme Court case, but the District Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, which survived the Supreme Court’s standing analysis. California’s Proposition 8, also an amendment to the state’s constitution, had similar operative wording as Ohio’s. And the district court found no legitimate purpose to that law after taking in considerable evidence from all of the SSM-banning “experts,” who were utterly eviscerated at trial. But that decision was not mentioned at all in Obergefell v. Kasich. Perhaps the judge did not feel the need, in light of the sweeping language in Windsor.
Obviously, this case will be reviewed by the Sixth Circuit, and maybe by the Supreme Court. But I wonder if the decisive marquee case from this year’s term will be Windsor. It might be Shelby County v. Holder.
This is a federalism issue, after all, and federalism is at the heart of Shelby County: the Federal Voting Rights Act provided a mechanism by which the Federal government could override state law decisions based on a showing historic patterns of discriminatory animus. But Alabama overcame the effect of that by demonstrating that the historic conduct upon which Federal pre-emption of state law decisions was out of date, and therefore without a showing of current facts demonstrating current animus in the law, the Federal government lacks the power to pre-empt and override a state law.
Even if so, I suspect that current facts are that 2004 was not so long ago as the acts underlying the Voting Rights Act’s application in Alabama. The political center of gravity may well have shifted in Ohio, but it’s not the case that the law has shifted with it. And something that happened in 2004 is substantially more relevant to the current state of affairs than something that happened in 1954.
I’d argue that only a showing that Ohio was near to adopting a repeal of its constitutional ban on same-sex marriages would demonstrate that Federal intervention was not necessary to redress discriminatory animus writ into the law itself. An effort to repeal the constitutional ban on same-sex marriages for the 2013 ballot failed to gather enough signatures to qualify, although we should bear in mind that this is not decisive evidence of a lack of desire to repeal on the part of Ohio’s electorate. Of course, if Ohio’s voters had repealed the constitutional ban on same-sex marriages, then this case would have been moot because the couple’s marriage would have been valid under Ohio law.
But this is a great candidate for the case that pits federalism against equal protection. That Justice Scalia’s prediction — that opponents of same-sex marriage are taking a stand against what ought to be a no-brainer question of simple human dignity and equality — has come true in the form of plain, powerful legal argument bothers me not so very much, but that is because it has become a bit difficult for me to offer moral cover to those who would oppose same-sex marriage on even prudential grounds anymore, given the accumulation of experience that it is nothing but good for those people who want to get married and nothing but harmless for the people who don’t.
The only flaw in the case from an impact litigator’s point of view is that Ohio appears to have a century-long (or more) history of deferring to marriages solemnized by other jurisdictions even where those marriages would not have been solemnized in Ohio itself. The facts and legal circumstances are very close to perfect to finish the job so well begun in the Windsor case of rendering the entirety of the Defense of Marriage Act dead, dead, dead.
And good riddance when it does.
Section two is one of those things they wrote without really needing to write. There’s already centuries-old legal precedent for a state to fail to recognize a marriage made in another state. It still happens today, especially in cases of underage marriage. A woman can marry at 13 in New Hampshire with parental consent, but if she moves to Texas (age of consent is 18, period), Texas can refuse to honor the marriage. They don’t always do this (my mother drove to Oklahoma to marry at 16 and had no problems), but they always have the option. Other reasons to void a marriage can include being too closely related (some states allow 1st cousins to marry, others do not), or if one spouse is deemed mentally unfit to consent.
Of course, SCOTUS overturned the ability of states to nullify mixed-race marriages back in the 60s. The option is only on the table if the state feels there’s a pressing moral objection to the union. Being of the same sex, especially in if the state’s constitution forbids it, could be a strong reason to void. Either precedent could apply.
I wasn’t expecting a serious challenge until next year. The IRS has a long history of only recognizing marriages that are recognized in the state of residence, and it would be weird for them to change this rule for this one case. (But it wouldn’t surprise me all that much, given the current administration.) So, a same-sex couple in Texas would still be considered unmarried, even if they were lawfully married in New York. That would set up yet another taxation case like the one that nullified section three.Report
In the hypothetical “Texas doesn’t recognize a marriage from New Hampshire because the bride was 13” situation, would the refusal to recognize be a temporary thing? That is, once the bride and groom were both 18, would the marriage be recognized? Or is it tainted forever because of the bride’s age at the time the ceremony was performed? Just curious about what the legal arguments are either way.Report
You may then need a new ceremony.
It just gets worse with Common Law marriages, ya know?
Never had a ceremony to begin withReport
“Texas: calls it an “informal marriage,” rather than a common-law marriage. Under § 2.401 of the Texas Family Code, an informal marriage can be established either by declaration (registering at the county courthouse without having a ceremony), or by meeting a three-prong test showing evidence of (1) an agreement to be married; (2) cohabitation in Texas; and (3) representation to others that the parties are married. A 1995 update adds an evidentiary presumption that there was no marriage if no suit for proof of marriage is filed within two years of the date the parties separated and ceased living together.”
So, I have no blooming idea. ask a fucking lawyer.Report
Well in principle the potential outcome is laudable but I can’t help but be worried about backlash. We SSMer’s have come so far, so fast and I’m grateful for that but when I read about this kind of effort my natural paranoia kicks in, there is such potential for things to go wrong.
But then again, how does one balance that fear against the needs of real people. I’m not particularly old, time is something I have in good measure, so how can I counsel patience to my fellow travelers for whom it is scarce?
Sure fear of the SSM issue getting locked into a Roe vs Wade style deathclench is reasonable but ultimately I just hold my breath and try and believe that the rightness and sympathetic simplicity of SSM doesn’t lend itself to the same intensity of passions.Report
As someone for whom Roe v. Wade still matters, that which is taken by force must be held by force. The enemies of personal liberty are everywhere. They’ll always be there. It’s pointless to grumble about it: the assholes will always push back, the Confederacy of Dunces who oppose all the progress in the world.
People sometimes wonder why I’m so mean. I’ll tell you. I’ve found the only antidote to persistent stupidity is a vicious kick in the slats. Lather, rinse and repeat. I just don’t take it any more. Patience is not a virtue. It usually just postpones the inevitable.Report
“People sometimes wonder why I’m so mean. I’ll tell you. I’ve found the only antidote to persistent stupidity is a vicious kick in the slats. Lather, rinse and repeat. I just don’t take it any more. Patience is not a virtue. It usually just postpones the inevitable.”
A thousand times this. If there’s one thing we’ve learned over the course of this millenium 🙂
it’s that evil never dies. Ever. It might be forced down into the sewers, 99% of its believers might be converted, but there are always those who believe, and always those who might not believe but would profit.Report
I’m 100% in support of the outcome of Roe v. Wade, Blaise, if the moral theologians want to put their sweaty hands all over my sisters reproductive choices I’ll be right there on the barricades with you. One can, however, think that the European compromises are tolerably good law (abortion legal early on and zero prospect of it ceasing to be legal but with increasing restrictions later in the pregnancy with escape hatches for the Mothers health or enormous fetal abnormality) and in the Roe v. Wade world those compromises are simply not possible.*
I want SSM and homosexuality to become so normalized that it fades from the public mind and is as innocuous as red headedness. A Roe v. Wade of SSM would be disastrous in the long run to my mind if it resulted in NOM or some other such “pro marriage” group gaining the intransigent trench warfare might of the pro-life cause.
*primarily, it must be noted, because pro lifers simply will never cut that deal but it is what it is partially because of the way Roe v. Wade fell out.Report
There’s evidence out there the pro-life backlash started well before Roe, North (http://works.bepress.com/scott_lemieux/2/).Report
Thanks Jesse, that reads as plausible to me but I still think the winner take all nature of RvW contributed badly to the whole loaf attitude that both sides (pro-choicers for more tactical purposes and pro lifers for more principle/dogmatic reasons) hold to here in the US.Report
You? you’re merciful.
The only cure to stupidity is death.
Intelligence is far easier to fix.Report
“Well in principle the potential outcome is laudable but I can’t help but be worried about backlash. We SSMer’s have come so far, so fast and I’m grateful for that but when I read about this kind of effort my natural paranoia kicks in, there is such potential for things to go wrong.”
Why the heck do people worry about backlash? Of course there’ll be backlash. And if it gets really strong, it might *partially* remove *some* of the gains. BTW, the idea that Roe v. Wade caused a backlash because people didn’t like the legal ruling has been discredited by political scientists (and by historians)[1].
Ta-Nesi Coates once made a comment about the Civil War and Jim Crow, that after 1865, black people couldn’t be bought and sold. In 1860, they could. The situation was bad, but it was significantly less bad.
[1] You can verify this yourself – go to anybody you know who doesn’t like Roe v. Wade ‘because it’s bad law’, and see what they think about Bush v. Gore, or Shelby v. DoJ.Report
What’s missing from all such TNC happy talk about how black people were better off is belied by how Jim Crow operated and under what auspices. It is the same mechanism we now see in the Coathanger Crowd: they shut down abortion clinics by enacting state regulations against the physicians who perform them. And, of course, when all else fails, they can just detonate a bomb or murder an abortionist.
Not a bit of difference, really, with civil rights for gays and lesbians. DOMA might be on the ropes, as slavery was at a federal level. The battle has only moved down to the state level. There’s a difference between a retreat and a rout. The DOMA crowd has not gone away.
The Battle of Gettysburg, bad as it was, was ultimately a Union failure. Having repulsed Lee’s advance, the Union failed to capitalise on it. Meade and Reynolds allowed Lee to retreat in good order, a disastrous mistake. Their failure would prolong the Civil War for years.Report
Why do we worry abotu backlash? Well, because it’s a real concern. Public opinion is moving in our direction and that’s a huge deal. What if we could accelerate the legal removal of DADT at the cost of the backlash stopping the swing of public support in our direction? In the short run that would benefit gays but it would be at a devastating long run cost. I think people can be too sanguine about the liberal application of legal force, especially if it outruns the electorate.
But yes, I already pointed out that telling my fellow gays that legislative gains are more lasting and court fewer bad side effects ignores that it’s slower and for some people time isn’t something they have in surplus. So I just wring my hands.Report
The Roe “backlash” narrative is overstated according to a good amount of legal scholars.
There are some people (Ruth Bader Ginsburg most notably) who believe that abortion was seriously hurt by the Roe decision and they would have won in the legislatures sooner rather than later. Other legal scholars believe that this is false and that the people who opposed abortion always opposed abortion.
Gay Marriage will probably be the same. There will always be a sizeable percentage of the country opposed to the idea just like there are still people opposed to interracial or interreligious marriage.Report
I’m more optimistic than you are ND. SSM doesn’t have quite the same life/death aspect to it that abortion does, it doesn’t involve “babies” and gays have a funny sort of advantage over other minorities in that they can pop up anywhere, even within the families of their greatest enemies (and unlike women, who share this advantage, relatives of gays have a hard time actually persuading themselves that their preferred policies are good for gays) which makes demonization a lot more problematic.
I think that SSM could actually flat out win this arguement, in the most fundamental sense of wining, unless we somehow get ham handed and end up alienating the populace with misadventures in shriekiness or oversensitivity.Report
Of course, there are a lot of women who are opposed to abortion as well. This inadvertently sets off a million debates on its own.
I think you are right. There are probably still people who are opposed to interracial marriage but they (usually) know that it is best to keep quiet on the issue. The same will probably be true for SSM. Most people will just accept it in the future as why was this ever a big deal.Report
Mike DeWine, the current Ohio State’s Attorney General, used to be a US Senator and is famously bigoted against same-sex marriages. He will put up a fight, I feel sure.Report
Kane won’t, over in PA.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/0711/Gay-marriage-Pennsylvania-attorney-general-pulls-an-Obama-on-DOMA
We’ve pulled a GWB appointee. The one who did that Dover case. His opinion should be fun to read.
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/state/judge-named-to-handle-case-trying-to-legalize-gay-marriage-in-pa-694909/Report
Scalia’s comment was astonishing. He basically said: If we strike down DOMA on the basis of the fact it has absolutely no purpose whatsoever except to harm gay people, than states might have their laws challenged under the same logic.
And everyone waited and waited for him to actually finish that thought with ‘. however, that logic would be wrong’ or ‘, however, unlike DOMA, state laws do have some purpose’ or ‘, however, under some convoluted states right argument, states do have the right to randomly hurt people for no reason’ or _something_. We expected some explanation of why that logic would be _wrong_.
And he _didn’t_ give any. No reason at all.
In other words, a Supreme Court justice stood there, in front of everyone, and said ‘We shouldn’t grant civil rights in this case, to get rid of an unjust law, because it trivially would lead to people getting rid of _other_ unjust laws. Unjust laws that I don’t want us to get rid of.’
It’s akin to saying ‘If we give black people the ability to vote they supposedly have constitutionally, they’ll vote to undo segregation!’ Uh…okay? Good point?
How is this asshole on the Supreme Court?Report
Nice post Burt. I broadly agree, with one reservation: I still think that invoking the conclusion that TradMed-ers are motivated by animus towards gays is not an optimal argumentative strategy at either the legal or moral level. It seems to me that the argument being put forward by Black is that since a) there are demonstrable harms incurred on gays resulting from a SSM-ban, and b) there is no sound legal or practical justification for that ban, then c) animus towards gays in fact is or (even worse!) logically must be the motivation for the policy. I don’t see how c) follows from the premises, nor do I see how it’s relevant given the observable fact that SSM bans result in demonstrable harm to gays.
Eg., you wrote: I’d argue that only a showing that Ohio was near to adopting a repeal of its constitutional ban on same-sex marriages would demonstrate that Federal intervention was not necessary to redress discriminatory animus writ into the law itself.
Is the term “animus” necessary in that sentence? Wouldn’t the argument still stand (mutatis mutandis!) if you used “harm” instead? It seems to me it would, with the added bonus that using that language establishes and clarifies the exact burden imposed on TradMed advocates, namely: given that SSM bans are harmful to gays, can those bans (and harms) be justified by a legally compelling affirmative argument?
It seems to me that invoking animus as a relevant criterion here is dubious at best and question begging at worst, while being legally besides the point as well. The legally relevant issues in the SSM marriage debate (it seems to me, anyway) is whether SSM bans can be justified by a sound argument. It appears that they cannot be so justified. But that tentative conclusion – which is really not that tentative at all since, as you say upthread, all the relevant arguments are already well known and new arguments are very unlikely to be introduced – holds irrespective of any considerations of the role animus plays in evaluating those arguments.Report
“Animus” is different than “effect”: “motive” is different from “result.”
The argument is that denying the social label of “marriage” to a same-sex relationship is inherently a denigration of that relationship, the government singling those relationships out and saying, “These aren’t as good as mixed-sex relationships so they don’t deserve to be called ‘marriages’.” When I was new to the issue of SSM many years ago, I thought, “Hey, what’s in a name?” but now I agree that this really is an official disparagement and there is just nothing quite like the social importance of the word “marriage” in Western culture.
So at least in this case, “animus” is inescapable. It is impossible to ban SSM without simultaneoulsy and inherently disparaging same-sex relationships.Report
Thanks for the reply. I guess I remain steadfast in my disagreement. (Unless there are some subtle semantic differences that are escaping me.) I remain unconvinced about the argumentative utility or the legal merits of reducing the issue to one of animus. Harm, on the other hand – whether directly intended or as a consequence of some other intention – strikes me as a much clearer, more objective, sufficient – as well as more demonstrable! – criterion than malicious intent.Report
Good post. My take from this is that the states are now going to be punished for being lazy — they wished to bestow certain secular benefits for particular reasons, but rather than identifying the reason specifically, they just said, “The qualification for these benefits is that people be married.” Over the years, the benefits have included preferential tax rates, automatic transfers of assets in the case of death without a will, power to make medical decisions on someone’s behalf, etc. Or perhaps they were covering up for some cases of personal laziness — as in, let’s not clog the courts up dealing with allocation of assets when someone who was too lazy to prepare a will dies, or we’ll decide in advance who can make the medical decisions absent a properly prepared medical power of attorney.
You have to wonder a little about why such benefits are confined to just pairs of people. Why shouldn’t a larger group, a la Heinlein’s line marriage, be eligible?Report
That’ll be the next wave of marriage reform. Once we get it down to “any two people”, the logical argument would be, “why just two?” The answer: tradition! Or child-rearing! And, in this possible future, you could see how well those arguments wouldn’t work.
Long-view, I could imagine a scenario where corporations would opt to become gigantic marriages….Report
Or, “practical limits on disposal of economic benefits upon death or divorce,” although I’ll allow that in theory, a clever enough statutory or contractual construction could resolve those problems.Report
How many people was Lazarus Long married to?Report