Court favors same-sex benefits

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court struck down a portion of a federal law that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman but stopped short of declaring that state bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional in a pair of decisions handed down Wednesday.

In United States v. Windsor, the court overturned a section of the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law that then-President Bill Clinton signed. In its 5-4 decision, the court decided that federal benefits such as Social Security payments, favorable tax treatment and military housing vouchers cannot be withheld from same-sex couples if those benefits are given to heterosexual couples.

The case was filed by Edith Windsor, who married longtime partner Thea Spyer in Canada. Their marriage was subsequently recognized by New York. When Spyer died in 2009, Windsor was barred, under the Defense of Marriage Act, from claiming a federal estate-tax exemption for surviving spouses.

In doing so, the federal government violated the principles of due process and equal protection spelled out in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and infringed upon the rights of states to define marriage as they wish, wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority.

“The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status and so a stigma on all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the states,” Kennedy wrote.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor joined Kennedy in the majority.

In his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that “the Constitution does not forbid the government from enforcing traditional moral and sexual norms.”

Scalia used a hypothetical example of a pair of women who marry in Albany, N.Y., and move to Alabama, where same-sex unions are illegal, to illustrate the confusion he believes will follow the majority’s decision.

“When the couple files their next federal tax return, may it be a joint one,” he asked. “Which state law controls, for federal law purposes: their State of celebration (which recognizes the marriage) or their State of domicile (which does not)?”

In a separate case, the court ruled that it did not have standing to render a decision in Perry v. Hollingsworth, a case that sought to establish marriage as being only between a man and a woman in California. The court’s decision clears the way for same-sex marriage to resume in the nation’s most populous state.

President Barack Obama, who announced his support of gay marriage in May 2012, directed his Cabinet members to arrange for federal benefits to be extended to same-sex partners “swiftly and smoothly.”

Nothing about the Windsor decision, he said, would infringe on a religious institution to define marriage as it sees fit.

He called the Defense of Marriage Act “discrimination enshrined into law.”

“The Supreme Court has righted that wrong,” he said.

Each member of Arkansas’ congressional delegation said he continues to believe that only heterosexual marriages are legitimate. Seventy-five percent of Arkansas voters supported that viewpoint in a 2004 constitutional referendum.

“I don’t feel like we should discriminate against anyone, but I firmly believe in the traditional view that marriage is between a man and a woman,” said Sen. John Boozman, a Republican.

Boozman said the inability of same-sex partners to receive benefits under the Defense of Marriage Act didn’t amount to discrimination.

“It doesn’t discriminate,” he said. “They’re free to do as they choose. This has been the law of the land for centuries.”

Sen. Mark Pryor, a Democrat, said the Supreme Court affirmed states’ authority to define marriage.

“Arkansas has made the determination that marriage is between a man and a woman,” he said in a statement. “I support and respect our state’s decision, and my personal belief that marriage is between a man and a woman has not changed.”

Pryor’s position puts him at odds with his party. Clinton reversed his opinion on the matter, and after Obama endorsed same-sex marriage,Democrats voted to support it at their national convention in Charlotte in September.

Shortly after the Supreme Court announced its decisions in the two cases Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., reiterated his support for same-sex unions and pledged to take to the Senate floor the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, a bill that would prohibit workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

In a conference call after the decision was announced, Pryor said he had not taken a position on Reid’s legislation.

Camera crews and activists waving rainbow flags converged on the Supreme Court building Wednesday morning. Gay-marriage supporters cheered and some of them wept as the news spread.

Arkadelphia native Chad Griffin, president of Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay-rights advocacy group, received a congratulatory phone call from Obama as he stood outside the Supreme Court.

Griffin flew to the West Coast shortly after the ruling was announced to celebrate in West Hollywood, an area with a large gay population.

“Today’s historic decisions put two giant cracks in the dark wall of discrimination that separates committed gay and lesbian couples from full equality,” he said. “From the Rocky Mountains to the heart of the South, it’s time to push equality forward until every American can marry the person they love.”

News of the ruling spread quickly via social media.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who made an unsuccessful bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, made his displeasure with the rulings clear on his Twitter account.

“Jesus wept,” wrote Huckabee, a Southern Baptist minister, and a radio and television show host, quoting the shortest verse in the King James Bible.

Former state Rep. Kathy Webb wept, too.

Webb, the first openly gay member of the Arkansas General Assembly, found out about the court’s rulings when she was sitting alone in a room at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences awaiting a CAT scan.

Webb, who is being treated for breast cancer, said her phone started “blowing up” with texts announcing the decisions.

“For an hour or so, I fought back tears and read the texts,” she said. “My heart is so full. I don’t feel like a second-class citizen, and the court affirmed that.”

Rogers lawyer Blake Pennington had been awaiting the rulings “on pins and needles” for more than a month.

Each morning, he checked a website, www.scotusblog.com, that updates action in the Supreme Court. Finally, on Wednesday, the last day of the court’s term, the decisions were posted on the site.

Unable to legally marry in Arkansas, Pennington and his partner, Taylor, were wed in Iowa in 2011. A true victory, he said, would come when prohibitions on same-sex marriages in every state are deemed unconstitutional.

“I wish the Supreme Court had done more for us,” he said.

Rep. Rick Crawford, R-Ark., said the decision didn’t tell states that ban gay marriage how to treat out-of state marriages.

“I’m concerned states like Arkansas may have their voices overruled,” he said.

Rep Tim Griffin, R-Ark., said he disagrees with the ruling but noted that it only concerned federal benefits.

“The voice of Arkansas voters still stands,” he said.

Rep. Steve Womack, R-Ark., and Rep. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., turned down interview requests but said they are disappointed by the decision.

Some religious leaders in Arkansas also expressed disappointment with the rulings.

“The U. S. Supreme Court missed an opportunity today to reinforce the authentic definition of a marriage,” said Roman Catholic Bishop Anthony Taylor of Little Rock. “A marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman who are open to the gift of life through children.”

Same-sex marriage is an attempt to redefine God’s word as received through the Bible, said Ronnie Floyd, pastor of the Cross Church in Springdale, the state’s largest Southern Baptist congregation. He said there is some momentum growing in support of homosexual marriage as same-sex unions are increasingly viewed as a “normal” way of life.

“Regardless of what a politician feels, a group of justices feel or even the American public feels, God’s word says that marriage is between a man and a woman,” he said.

Federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Defense, are preparing to extend benefits to same-sex spouses as a result of Wednesday’s decision.

The Pentagon estimated that it will take six to 12 weeks to update its procedures for issuing military identification cards to same-sex spouses of members of the military. The department said it intends to issue benefit cards to all same-sex spouses of military and civilian employees simultaneously.

The Supreme Court’s ruling means all benefits will be extended to couples, regardless of their sex, including medical and dental insurance, interment at Arlington National Cemetery and housing payments.

Eventually, a “cleanup” of federal laws will be required to ensure that all benefits that go to traditional couples are extended to same-sex couples, said Dan Adcock, policy director at the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, a liberal Washington advocacy group. But in the meantime, he urged the Obama administration to act quickly to make regulatory changes at the agency level to ensure homosexual couples are given the same treatment.

The Windsor ruling will make it easier for surviving children of gay couples to get Social Security benefits when a parent dies, he said.

“Why should a child of a same-sex couple be treated any differently, especially under trying circumstances?” he asked. “That child can be out of luck, and the family can be sent into poverty.”

John DiPippa, dean emeritus at the William H. Bowen School of Law at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, said the strong language Kennedy used in defense of same-sex couples - Kennedy said the principle purpose of the Defense of Marriage Act was to “demean” people in a same-sex marriage - would make it difficult for opponents of same-sex marriage to “gain traction” if they argue against it on moral grounds at the state level.

More challenges at the high court are likely, DiPippa said, and if the makeup of the court stays the same, he expects Kennedy to be the hinge vote. He said Kennedy seemed conflicted between allowing states to decide marriage matters on their own and a belief that government shouldn’t get too involved in people’s most intimate choices.

“It’s a 50-50 bet as to which side he falls on,” said DiPippa, who spent a good part of his day Wednesday reading the court’s decisions.