Roe v. Wade looms over gay marriage cases before Supreme Court - Omaha.com
Published Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at 1:00 am / Updated at 1:36 am
Roe v. Wade looms over gay marriage cases before Supreme Court
Justices to hear two cases
>> California's same-sex marriage ban, which its voters passed as Proposition 8.
>> DOMA, or the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 federal law that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman and therefore prevents married gays from collecting federal benefits otherwise available to wedded people.

WASHINGTON — When the U.S. Supreme Court hears a pair of same-sex-marriage cases today and Wednesday, it will be in the shadow of a 40-year-old decision the court made on another subject entirely: Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that established a constitutional right to abortion.

Over the years judges, lawyers and scholars have drawn varying lessons from Roe. Those will be shaping the way the court thinks about its decision on same-sex marriage, expected by June.

One school of thought holds that Roe was needlessly rash, the opening shot of a long, bitter culture war that didn't have to happen.

“It's not that the judgment was wrong, but it moved too far, too fast,” said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal champion of women's rights and the best-known advocate of this line of thought.

Legal briefs from opponents of same-sex marriage, including one signed by 17 states, are studded with references to Ginsburg and abortion. The lesson of Roe, they say, is that states should be allowed to work out delicate, profoundly divisive matters — such as abortion and same-sex marriage — for themselves.

What the court should have done in 1973, according to this line of reasoning: Strike down just the Texas abortion law involved and leave broader questions for another day.

The analogous approach now: Strike down just California's ban on same-sex marriage but leave alone the similar bans in about 40 other states, to be thrashed out one by one.

On the other hand, some say the Roe experience carries no such lesson.

Roe was a different case on a different subject in a different political and social context, said Theodore Boutrous, a lawyer for the two couples challenging California's same-sex marriage ban.

Roe, he said, was “a bolt out of the blue,” unlike the “exhaustive public discussion, debate and support, including by the president and other high-ranking government officials from both parties” that has been lavished on the issue of marriage.

“Roe was written in a way that allowed its critics to argue that the court was creating out of whole cloth a brand new constitutional right,” Boutrous said. “But recognition of the fundamental constitutional right to marry dates back over a century, and the Supreme Court has already paved the way for marriage equality by deciding two landmark decisions protecting gay citizens from discrimination.”

Thus during this week's arguments, both sides will be looking in the rear-view mirror. And seeing different pictures.

The justices in 1973 “thought they were resolving a contentious issue by taking it out of the political process but ended up perpetuating it,” said John Eastman, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage and a law professor at Chapman University.

“The lesson they should draw,” he said, “is that when you are moving beyond the clear command of the Constitution, you should be very hesitant about shutting down a political debate.”

Ginsburg, in a series of public remarks and law review articles, has said the broadness of Roe froze activity in state legislatures, created a venomous polarization of American society and damaged the authority of the court.

“The legislatures all over the United States were moving on this question” of abortion, Ginsburg said in a 2008 Princeton speech. “The law was in a state of flux.”

So “the Supreme Court's decision was a perfect rallying point for people who disagreed with the notion that it should be a woman's choice,” she said. “They could, instead of fighting in the trenches legislature by legislature, go after this decision by unelected judges.”

Ginsburg's view is widely accepted across the political spectrum, and it might counsel court caution at a time when same-sex marriage has now been made legal in nine states and, judging from polls, seems likely to make further gains around the nation.

“Intervening at this stage of a social reform movement would be somewhat analogous to Roe v. Wade, where the court essentially took the laws deregulating abortion in four states and turned them into a constitutional command for the other 46,” as Michael Klarman, a Harvard law professor, put it in a recent book, “From the Closet to the Altar: Courts, Backlash and the Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage.”

Those making the counterargument see a different history.

“The Roe-centered-backlash narrative, it seems, is the trump card in many discussions of the marriage cases,” Linda Greenhouse, once a reporter covering the court and now a teacher at Yale Law School, writes in a new article with Reva Siegel, a Yale law professor.

“Before Roe,” they say in Discourse, an online legal journal, “despite broad popular support, liberalization of abortion law had all but come to a halt in the face of concerted opposition by a Catholic-led minority. It was, in other words, decidedly not the case that abortion reform was on an inevitable march forward if only the Supreme Court had stayed its hand.”

After Roe, they said, “political realignment better explains the timing and shape of political polarization around abortion than does a court-centered story of backlash.”

Siegel says recent lower-court decisions on same-sex marriage have played a valuable role.

“It is nearly two decades since courts in Hawaii, Massachusetts and other states began a national conversation about marriage,” she said in an interview. “There has been over the course of this long period a dramatic, revolutionary change in popular understanding of marriage equality. Courts can inspire resistance but also can teach.”

Klarman, the Harvard professor, said there is another big difference between then and now.

“For abortion opponents, abortion is murder, which means the intensity of their commitment to resisting Roe was considerable,” he said. “For the gay marriage opponent in, say, Mississippi, how will their lives change if the openly gay couple living down the street can now obtain a marriage license?”

8% of alcohol sellers checked in Omaha area last week sold booze to minors
OPS bus, SUV collide; no students onboard at the time
Waitress who served alcohol to teen before fatal crash gets jail time, probation
Lori Jenkins, charged as accessory in 4 murders, waives speedy trial
Iowa State servers hacked, nearly 30,000 SSNs at risk
New public employee pay data: Douglas, Lancaster, Sarpy Counties, plus utilities
2nd District House race: After 8 terms, Lee Terry knows how D.C. works — and doesn't
Bellevue man is killed at Minnesota dance hall after South Sudanese basketball tourney
Spring corn planting still sputters in Nebraska, Iowa, other key states
Nebraska banking and finance director to retire
19-year-old killed in one-vehicle crash at 72nd & Shirley
Gov. Heineman vetoes bill to ease restrictions on nurse practitioners
U.S. Senate race: State Auditor Mike Foley defends Shane Osborn against ad campaign
Public defender to represent Nikko Jenkins in sentencing
Mid-America Center on track for lower operating loss
Bluffs City Council approves dozens of new numbered street lights
National Law Enforcement Memorial Week set for May
Ted Cruz backs Pete Ricketts' campaign for governor
Omahan charged with 5th-offense DUI after street race causes rollover
2 blocks of Grover Street closed
Safety board report blames pilot error in 2013 crash that killed UNO student, passenger
Omaha man accused in shooting ordered held on $75,000 bail
2 men charged with conspiracy to distribute meth held on $1 million bail each
La Vista plans meeting on sales tax proposal, 84th Street redevelopment
6-mile stretch of Highway 75 is the road not taken
< >
COLUMNISTS »
Breaking Brad: Into the claw machine! Florida kid follows Lincoln kid's lead
In Fort Lauderdale, Fla., a child climbed inside a claw machine. Hey, Florida kid: Nobody likes a copycat.
Breaking Brad: Even Chuck Hassebrook's throwing mud!
The Nebraska campaigns have turned so ugly, Democrat Chuck Hassebrook lobbed unfounded accusations at an imaginary opponent.
Breaking Brad: Kraft wiener recall is business opportunity for TD Ameritrade Park
Instead of returning the wieners, TD Ameritrade Park is calling them "cheese dogs" and charging double.
Breaking Brad: Photos with the Easter Bunny are so 2010
In a sign of the times, most kids ran out of patience waiting for a photo with the Easter Bunny at the mall, just snapped a selfie and went home.
Kelly: 70 years after a deadly D-Day rehearsal, Omahan, WWII vet will return to Europe
A World War II veteran from Omaha will return this week to Europe to commemorate a tragedy in the run-up to D-Day.
Deadline Deal thumbnail
Tokyo Sushi
$5 for $10 or $10 for $20 toward All-You-Can-Eat Sushi Purchase
Buy Now
PHOTO GALLERIES »
< >
SPOTLIGHT »
Omaha World-Herald Contests
Enter for a chance to win great prizes.
OWH Store: Buy photos, books and articles
Buy photos, books and articles
Travel Snaps Photo
Going on Vacation? Take the Omaha World-Herald with you and you could the next Travel Snaps winner.
Click here to donate to Goodfellows
The 2011 Goodfellows fund drive provided holiday meals to nearly 5,000 families and their children, and raised more than $500,000 to help families in crisis year round.
WORLD-HERALD ALERTS »
Want to get World-Herald stories sent directly to your home or work computer? Sign up for Omaha.com's News Alerts and you will receive e-mails with the day's top stories.
Can't find what you need? Click here for site map »