<tt id="6hsgl"><pre id="6hsgl"><pre id="6hsgl"></pre></pre></tt>
          <nav id="6hsgl"><th id="6hsgl"></th></nav>
          国产免费网站看v片元遮挡,一亚洲一区二区中文字幕,波多野结衣一区二区免费视频,天天色综网,久久综合给合久久狠狠狠,男人的天堂av一二三区,午夜福利看片在线观看,亚洲中文字幕在线无码一区二区
          left corner left corner
          China Daily Website

          Gay marriage votes could sway US Supreme Court

          Updated: 2012-11-09 10:48
          ( Agencies)

          NEW YORK - After victories for same-sex marriage initiatives in Maryland, Maine and Washington state this week, the two sides in the national debate over gay marriage are positioning for advantage as the issue moves toward the US Supreme Court.

          Gay marriage votes could sway US Supreme Court

          A same-sex wedding cake topper is seen outside the East Los Angeles County Recorder's Office on Valentine's Day during a news event for National Freedom to Marry Week in Los Angeles, California in this Feb 14, 2012, file photo. Supporters of the right to marry for same-sex couples say the ballots show public opinion moving further in their favor. Where public opinion leads, the Supreme Court will follow, they say. [Photo/Agencies]

          The votes came two weeks before the Supreme Court justices are to meet, on Nov 20, to decide whether to review six g ay rights cases that have been brought before the court.

          Four of the cases test the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which bars the federal government from recognizing s a me-sex marriages performed in states or foreign countries where they are allowed. Another seeks approval for Proposition 8, a 2008 measure that outlawed same-sex marriage in California. The sixth case concerns gay rights in Arizona.

          A critical question for the Supreme Court is how much political clout gays and lesbians have - and that's where Tuesday's votes could come into play.

          Under the legal analysis that applies to equal protection challenges, laws that discriminate against politically powerless groups receive greater scrutiny from the court. Some of the lower courts in the current cases found that gays and lesbians are a disadvantaged group that qualifies for more rigorous protection.

          Opponents of same-sex marriage are now arguing that Tuesday's voting results, which brought to nine the number of states that allow same-sex couples to wed, show that gays and lesbians have plenty of political power.

          Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, said this argument may appeal to Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the swing vote between the court's liberal and conservative camps.

          "Kennedy will look at this and think, why create a new culture war and bypass the democratic process to impose gay marriage on the country when this is being worked out on a state-by-state basis?" Brown said.

          Finding either the Defense of Marriage Act or California's Proposition 8 unconstitutional would be the equivalent of imposing gay marriage on the populace, Brown said.

          But lawyers who have challenged DOMA say Tuesday's ballots could have the opposite effect, helping to convince the justices that gay marriage's time has come.

          Historically, the Supreme Court has provided a single national framework on social issues like same-sex marriage, said James Essex, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union. But it generally does so only after much of the country has reached a consensus, said Essex, who helped bring one of the challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act.

          In 1967 the court ruled that Virginia could no longer ban interracial marriage, reversing a ruling that had stood since 1883, after several states repealed their anti-miscegenation laws. And in 2003 the court found that Texas could not ban sodomy, noting that the number of states with laws banning homosexual conduct had dropped from 25 to 13 since it had made the opposite finding in 1986.

          "Every time it becomes clear marriage equality is more accepted and popular, that helps us in the Supreme Court in some hard-to-quantify way," said Paul Smith, another lawyer who represents people who are challenging the Defense of Marriage Act.

          Supporters of gay rights and some academics also note that more than 30 states have passed laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, which they say shows that gays and lesbians still need special protection from the courts.

          "The test for whether the court applies extra careful review does not hinge on whether a few ballot measures pass in favor of gay people's equality," said Suzanne Goldberg, a professor at Columbia Law School. Rather, it's a much more far-reaching inquiry into systemic discrimination and underrepresentation, she said.

          One thing everyone seems to agree on is that the Supreme Court is almost certain to take up at least one of the Defense of Marriage Act cases before it.

          Federal appeals courts in New York and Massachusetts have already found the 1996 federal law unconstitutional, putting pressure on the Supreme Court to create a national standard.

          "The court can't live in a world where the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional in the Northeast and constitutional everywhere else," the ACLU's Essex said.

          This is especially true after Tuesday's votes, because with more states allowing same-sex marriage, more people are potentially adversely affected by the Defense of Marriage Act, said Arthur Leonard, a professor at New York Law School.

          "It becomes much more urgent to get an answer whether the federal government can continue to refuse to recognize same-sex marriage," he said.

          Legal experts said Tuesday's ballot results were unlikely to influence the Supreme Court's actions as it deliberates on whether to review Proposition 8, California's ban on gay marriage. While voters in the three states on Tuesday voted to approve gay marriage, California voters took the exact opposite action when they approved Proposition 8 just four years ago.

          A sixth case before the Supreme Court challenges an Arizona law that limits healthcare benefits to state employees' spouses and dependents, excluding their domestic partners.

          Previous Page 1 2 3 Next Page

           
          ...
          ...
          ...
          主站蜘蛛池模板: 国产老妇伦国产熟女老妇高清| 91精品少妇一区二区三区蜜桃臀 | 波多野结衣亚洲一区 | 国产资源精品中文字幕| 人人爱天天做夜夜爽| 国产一区二区三区在线观| 亚洲av色香蕉一区二区三区精品| 大地资源免费视频观看| 性一交一乱一伦| 亚洲一区二区三区久久蜜桃| 亚洲成av人片色午夜乱码| 一级做a爰片在线播放| 亚洲欧美一区二区成人片| 强奷漂亮少妇高潮伦理| 亚洲精品av中文字幕在线| 亚洲成人av综合一区| 精品国产成人国产在线视| 日韩精品国内国产一区二| 国产18禁一区二区三区| 女人香蕉久久毛毛片精品| 亚洲一区二区经典在线播放| 人与禽交av在线播放| 亚洲AV无码国产在丝袜APP| 亚洲日产无码av| 国产老熟女国语免费视频| 免费午夜无码片在线观看影院| 亚洲精品无码永久在线观看| 人妻蜜臀久久av不卡| 婷婷综合缴情亚洲狠狠| 亚洲精品一区二区三区色| 亚洲人成图片小说网站| 激情综合网激情激情五月天| 精品乱人伦一区二区三区| 国产精品天干天干综合网| 精品无人区卡一卡二卡三乱码| 妇女自拍偷自拍亚洲精品| 中文字幕无线码中文字幕免费| 五月激情综合网| 怡红院一区二区三区在线| 国产无遮挡无码视频免费软件| 国产成人午夜精品福利|