DOMA | Gay Marriage | News | Ruth Bader Ginsburg | Supreme Court

Pivotal Supreme Court Order Used To Defend Gay Marriage Bans Losing Support

McConnell_(l)_and_Baker_(r)_apply_for_marriage_license_19700518

A growing number of lower-court judges tasked with reviewing the Constitutionality of states’ bans on same sex marriage are reconsidering a pivotal order issued in Baker v. Nelson, a 1972 Supreme Court case. Baker, a case challenging a state’s ability to legally limit marriage to opposite sex couples, was initially heard by the Minnesota Supreme Court before being rejected and appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Warren E. Burger-led Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, citing a “want of a substantial federal question,” effectively giving legal merit to Baker’s ruling.

Baker has been used widely by opponents of same sex marriage as a legal precedent reflecting the then-Court’s views on gay marriage. Speaking to the lawyers defending California’s gay marriage ban, Ruth Bader Ginsberg expressed her doubts about Baker, citing the ways in which society and the court have changed,

“The Supreme Court hadn’t even decided that gender-based classifications get any kind of heightened scrutiny," she said at the time. “And the same-sex intimate conduct was considered criminal in many states in 1971, so I don’t think we can extract much in Baker v. Nelson.”

When taken in account, Baker automatically guides courts to decisions affirming bans because the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear Baker’s appeal acts as an affirmation of the original Minnesotan Supreme Court’s ruling. More and more, however, the Supreme Court’s move to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act is being read as a broad consensus that Baker is a chunk of legal history that needs to be dealt with.

“These cases demonstrate that, since Baker, the Court has meaningfully altered the way it views both sex and sexual orientation through the equal protection lens,” Circuit Judge Henry Ford wrote to the Washington Post. “The Supreme Court’s willingness to decide Windsor without mentioning Baker speaks volumes regarding whether Baker remains good law.”

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. I see how one could argue that Windsor didn't negate Baker—DOMA was a federal law, which made it a federal question, whereas Baker dealt with state law. However, I don't see how Baker still stands after the Prop 8 decision. SCOTUS vacated the Prop 8 appeal—and left the district court ruling intact—on the grounds that the Prop 8 sponsors had no standing to appeal. If Baker were in effect, then SCOTUS would have vacated the district court ruling "for want of a substantial federal question," and the issue of standing to appeal would have been moot.

    Could a lawyer please explain this?

    Posted by: JJ | Aug 20, 2014 11:23:31 AM


  2. jj:
    A lawyer can argue from both sides of the same issue. Better to consult the Bible if you are looking for "eternal" truth.

    Posted by: simon | Aug 20, 2014 11:53:18 AM


  3. SIMON:

    1. I have consulted my bible and also my recognized scholarly authorities on the subject, the Central Conference of American Rabbis. You're free to draw your own conclusions. I've drawn mine.

    2. Whatever you believe to be truth, the fact is that the United States of America is a secular nation not governed at all by your bible.

    3. This is an article regarding a facet of American law. Your comment is off topic. Go proselytize somewhere else.

    Posted by: Inis Magrath | Aug 20, 2014 12:48:31 PM


  4. Hollingsworth was granted, heard, and decided. If there was no substantial federal question, I fail to see how Hollingworth doesn't overturn Baker in deed if not in word.

    Posted by: JDH | Aug 20, 2014 2:10:04 PM


  5. The Supreme Court is acting like Baker never happened. They don't want to say it out loud and make it clear, because that would bolster our side.

    Posted by: BobN | Aug 20, 2014 2:26:03 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Lambda Legal Sues For Unconstitutional Deprivation Of Veterans Benefits To Same-Sex Spouses« «