WASHINGTON, D.C., Dec. 7, 2012: —
Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron issued the following statement
concerning the Supreme Court’s decision Friday to hear cases on the so-called
Defense of Marriage Act and on California’s Proposition 8.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court has
decided to hear a group of cases in which the stakes could not be higher.
If the Court strikes down Section 3 of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act
(DOMA), it will make millions of legally-married same-sex couples truly equal
in the eyes of the federal government. It will do the same for same-sex
couples who want to marry in the future.
A ruling against Section 3 would send an
important message: The nation’s highest court refuses to countenance
discrimination. But it also would have immediate, concrete benefits.
A ruling against Section 3 will ensure married same-sex couples enjoy equal
access to a huge range of benefits that the rest of us take for granted.
DOMA denies Social Security death benefits, spousal disability benefits and survivor
benefits to same-sex spouses. DOMA prevents same-sex spouses from taking
family medical leave. DOMA even can separate spouses of different
nationalities.
The stakes are every bit as high in the
case involving California’s Proposition 8. If the Supreme Court upholds
the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Proposition 8 is
unconstitutional, it will restore the right to marry for same-sex couples in
California and, perhaps, send an important signal to the rest of the
nation. It would be a decision for family values in the truest sense of
the term.
The last time the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on who can get married, it bent the
arc of history toward justice, ruling that banning interracial marriage is
unconstitutional. Now the Court has the opportunity to bend the arc of
history toward justice again, by ruling Section 3 of DOMA
unconstitutional.
In 1835 Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that, “scarcely any political question
arises in the United States that is not resolved, sooner or later, into a
judicial question.” In a nation in which not just political, but the most
fundamental human questions can become judicial questions, today’s actions
highlight once again the critical importance to American life of who sits on
the United States Supreme Court.
1 comment:
While I appreciate the sentiments of this post, "[t]he last time the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on who can get married," it did not "rul[e] that banning interracial marriage is unconstitutional." That was Loving v. Virginia in 1967. 20 years later, the Court ruled in Turner v. Safley that prisoners can get married, striking down a prison policy barring inmate marriages without permission of the superintendent of prisons (to be granted only if there were "compelling" reasons).
Post a Comment