-
- AIDS drugs show promise at preventing infection
- Two paths toward one goal: same-sex marriage
- Kentucky enacts law against protesters who target military
- Relatives of slain Minnesota man object to anti-gay group’s use of his name
- Prosecution of former mayor appears unlikely
- Complaint filed against Minn. justices over Johnson flap
- National News Briefs
- World News Briefs
national
Two paths toward one goal: same-sex marriage
Prominent gay rights groups think California gay men’s lawsuit is misguided
Published Thursday, 06-Apr-2006 in issue 954
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) – Two gay California men asked a federal appeals court April 4 to declare they have a right to marry under the U.S. Constitution, but heavyweights in the fight for same-sex marriage are sitting this one out because they think the legal tactic is misguided.
“We have been very active in trying to win the freedom to marry for same-sex couples,” said Jon Davidson, legal director for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. “We think there is a smart way to do that and a less smart way to do that.”
Lambda, the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups are waging their campaigns in the state courts of California, Iowa, Washington, New Jersey, New York and elsewhere, seeking rulings similar to the one that led to the country’s first legal same-sex marriages in Massachusetts.
The groups are withholding funding and other support for this case because a U.S. Supreme Court ruling at this juncture is a likely loser given the national consensus against same-sex marriage, and it’s likely to set bad precedent, they say.
The lawyer for a California couple whose case was heard by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals scoffs at the groups’ tactics.
“You fight for your rights when your rights are being denied,” Richard Gilbert said.
His clients, Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, are suing in federal court under the theory that the U.S. Constitution’s equal rights guarantee forbids laws against same-sex marriage. The two men, both in their 40s, declined comment.
The lawsuit is already one stop short of the Supreme Court – meaning the case could prompt a definitive ruling by the justices as early as next year on the constitutionality of laws in 49 states barring same-sex marriage.
The conventional wisdom among many same-sex marriage advocates is that same-sex couples must win the right to marry in several states before asking the Supreme Court to rule on whether the Constitution prohibits laws opposing it.
Even Gilbert suspects his case might lose at the Supreme Court or be dismissed on procedural grounds without a definitive ruling.
“Once there is a great stain like that on the courts, there will be a greater movement toward correcting the problem,” he said.
Matthew Coles, director of the ACLU’s Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, said there is no “magic number” of states that need to approve same-sex marriage before the issue should go before the Supreme Court.
“We think, strategically, bringing a federal claim for marriage now is not a wise idea,” Coles said. “The Supreme Court is the country’s institutional conscience, and if you lose there, I think that sets you back.”
Gilbert, however, likened his case to the 1857 Dred Scott decision, when the Supreme Court ruled that black men could be “treated as an ordinary article of merchandise.”
The nation eventually overcame that decision with the Civil War and banned slavery. The ACLU and Lambda, Gilbert said, “would have told Dred Scott, ‘Don’t bring your case.’”
Lambda’s Davidson said history is siding with his position.
In 1986, when many states had laws banning sodomy, the Supreme Court upheld a Georgia sodomy law. Then, in 2003, in what was then seen as the most important legal advance for gay rights, the justices struck down a Texas sodomy law in a decision that nullified the nation’s remaining 13 state sodomy laws. 
|
|
Copyright © 2003-2025 Uptown Publications
