Newspaper article International Herald Tribune

Landmark Abortion Ruling Looms in Marriage Cases before U.S. Justices

Newspaper article International Herald Tribune

Landmark Abortion Ruling Looms in Marriage Cases before U.S. Justices

Article excerpt

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear two cases on gay marriage, opponents say the 1973 Roe v. Wade case should be a warning about establishing a broad constitutional right on a delicate issue.

When the U.S. Supreme Court hears a pair of cases on same-sex marriage on Tuesday and Wednesday, the justices will be working in the shadow of a 40-year-old decision on an entirely different subject: Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that established a constitutional right to abortion.

Judges, lawyers and scholars have drawn varying lessons from that decision, with some saying that it was needlessly rash and created a culture war.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal and a champion of women's rights, has long harbored doubts about the ruling.

"It's not that the judgment was wrong, but it moved too far, too fast," she said last year at Columbia Law School in New York.

Briefs from opponents of same-sex marriage, including one from 17 states, are studded with references to the aftermath of the abortion decision and to Justice Ginsburg's critiques of it. They say the lesson from the Roe decision is that states should be allowed to work out delicate matters like abortion and same-sex marriage for themselves.

"They thought they were resolving a contentious issue by taking it out of the political process but ended up perpetuating it," John C. Eastman, the chairman of the National Organization for Marriage and a law professor at Chapman University in California, said of the justices who decided the abortion case. "The lesson they should draw is that when you are moving beyond the clear command of the Constitution, you should be very hesitant about shutting down a political debate."

Justice Ginsburg has suggested that the Supreme Court in 1973 should have struck down only the restrictive Texas abortion law before it and left broader questions for another day. The analogous approach four decades later would be to strike down California's ban on same-sex marriage, in one of the cases before the justices, but leave in place prohibitions in about 40 other states.

The second case, from New York, challenges a federal law that requires the government to deny benefits to gay and lesbian couples married in states that allow such unions.

Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., a lawyer for the two couples challenging California's ban, said the Roe ruling was a different case on a different subject and arose in a different political and social context. The decision was "a bolt out of the blue," he said, and it had not been "subject to exhaustive public discussion, debate and support, including by the president and other high-ranking government officials from both parties."

"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," Mr. 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."

The author of the majority opinions in those two cases, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, seemed to address the current cases in wary terms in remarks this month in Sacramento, California.

"A democracy should not be dependent for its major decisions on what nine unelected people from a narrow legal background have to say," he said.

In Justice Ginsburg's account, set out in public remarks and law review articles, the broad ruling in the abortion case froze activity in state legislatures, created venomous polarization and damaged the authority of the court.

"The legislatures all over the United States were moving on this question," Justice Ginsburg said at Princeton in 2008. "The law was in a state of flux."

"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 added. …

Author Advanced search

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.