海角大神

A sharply divided US Supreme Court on Tuesday engaged in an intense and wide-ranging debate in a potential landmark case examining whether the Constitution requires states to allow same-sex marriages.

From the opening minutes of the 2-1/2 hours of argument, all eyes were on Justice Anthony Kennedy, the perceived swing vote in a case most analysts expect will be decided by a 5-to-4 vote.

Based on his questions from the bench, it appears that Justice Kennedy may be reluctant to join his liberal colleagues in issuing a sweeping constitutional holding recognizing a fundamental right that would require every state to embrace marriages by gays and lesbians.

But that doesn鈥檛 necessarily mean that Kennedy is prepared to fully embrace the position advocated by the states in the case 鈥� adopting a go-slow approach and allowing the states to continue to define marriage.

The court has until late June to write and deliver its decision.

鈥淭he word that keeps coming back to me in this case is millennia,鈥� Kennedy said, referring to the length of time marriage has been defined in the traditional way as a union of one man and one woman.

鈥淭his definition has been with us for millennia,鈥� he said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 very difficult for the court to say, oh, well, we know better.鈥�

Mary Bonauto, a Boston civil rights lawyer arguing on behalf of same-sex couples challenging state marriage laws, responded that the place of gay people in American civic life has been contested for more than a century. The marriage issue has been in the courts since the 1970s, she added.

鈥淚t鈥檚 not about the court versus the states,鈥� she told the justices. Instead, the case is about individuals making the choice to marry and with whom to marry versus the government making a choice to exclude them.

As she concluded her remarks, a protester in the spectator gallery rose to his feet and shouted out a string of denunciations of homosexual conduct. 鈥淚t is an abomination to God,鈥� he yelled.

Security officers carried the man quickly from the courtroom. His shouts continued to echo through the high court鈥檚 marbled halls as he was dragged away.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli used the opening of his argument to try to draw in Kennedy, in part by citing some of the language Kennedy used in his 2013 decision that struck down a key part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

He said for the court to leave the marriage issue to the political process in the states would impose enormous costs on same-sex couples.

鈥淭housands and thousands of people are going to live out their lives and go to their deaths without their states ever recognizing the equal dignity of their relationships,鈥� Mr. Verrilli said.

Kennedy responded: 鈥淵ou could have said the same thing 10 years or so ago鈥� when the high court handed down its landmark gay rights ruling in Lawrence v. Texas. The decision extended constitutional protections to homosexual relationships.

鈥淗aven鈥檛 we learned a tremendous amount since Lawrence ... just in the last 10 years?鈥� asked Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence.

Although he didn鈥檛 explain his comment, he seemed to be suggesting that the nation had become significantly more accepting of the LGBT community. A recent poll showed that 62 percent of Americans now favor same-sex marriage.

The solicitor general agreed that Kennedy鈥檚 Lawrence decision was 鈥渁n important catalyst that has brought us to where we are today.鈥�

Later in the argument, Kennedy asked Verrilli why the solicitor general鈥檚 office presented a more restrained equal-protection argument in support of same-sex couples rather than arguing that the couples enjoy a fundamental right to marry regardless of sexual orientation.

The government鈥檚 argument, Verrilli said, was based on same-sex couples seeking equal participation in a state-conferred status and institution.

What the same-sex couples are doing, Verrilli said, is laying claim to the 14th Amendment鈥檚 protection of equal treatment. 鈥淎nd it is emphatically the duty of this court, in this case, as it was in Lawrence, to decide what the 14th Amendment requires,鈥� he said.

鈥淕ay and lesbian people are equal. They deserve equal protection of the laws, and they deserve it now,鈥� Verrilli said.

In arguing for the states, John Bursch, special assistant attorney general of Michigan, told the justices that the case wasn鈥檛 about how to define marriage.

鈥淚t鈥檚 about who gets to decide that question. Is it the people acting through the democratic process, or is it the federal courts?鈥�

Mr. Bursch said that marriage wasn鈥檛 developed to deny dignity or give second-class status to anyone. Instead, it arose from biology.

鈥淚magine a world today where we had no marriage at all,鈥� he said. 鈥淢en and women would still be getting together and creating children, but they wouldn鈥檛 be attached to each other in any social institution.鈥�

That鈥檚 a social problem that the state seeks to remedy by encouraging men and women to marry and care for any children the relationship might produce, he said.

Bursch said that if marriage was just about an emotional commitment between two adults, it wouldn鈥檛 directly address the social issue of children.

He further argued that any change to the long-held concept of marriage might bring about unforeseen consequences.

Several justices, including Elena Kagan and Kennedy, questioned how having same-sex marriage would harm the state鈥檚 interest in encouraging opposite-sex couples to raise their own children.

Changing a state鈥檚 definition of marriage to include same-sex marriages might reduce the marriage rate among opposite-sex couples, Bursch said.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor cited a friend-of-the-court brief from Massachusetts that reported that marriage rates had remained constant since that state changed its law.

The brief submitted by Massachusetts and 15 other states says states have not experienced a reduction in their marriage rates since they embraced same-sex marriage. But a competing friend-of-the-court brief filed by 100 scholars of marriage says the marriage rate statistics cited by Massachusetts are deceptive because the totals are inflated by counting same-sex marriages.

The brief says that a different picture emerges when measuring the marriage rates of opposite-sex couples over time. In the four states that continue to collect that data, opposite-sex marriage rates have fallen and are now at the lowest levels recorded in each state鈥檚 history, according to that brief. Those states are Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, and Iowa. 聽

Bursch responded to Justice Sotomayor鈥檚 comment by suggesting that the states鈥� experience was taking place in a very short time frame.

鈥淏ut you鈥檙e the one that brought the statistic up,鈥� Kennedy said. 鈥淎nd under your view, it would be very difficult for same-sex couples to adopt some of these children. I think the argument cuts quite against you.鈥�

Kennedy went on to tell Bursch he was operating under a 鈥渨rong premise,鈥� that only opposite-sex couples can bond with the child.

鈥淭hat鈥檚 not my premise,鈥� Bursch replied. 鈥淭he premise is that we want to encourage children to be bonded to their biological mother and father. We don鈥檛 disagree at all that same-sex couples can be bonded to their children,鈥� he said.

鈥淲e hope that鈥檚 the case.鈥�

But how does same-sex marriage discourage people from bonding with their biological children?, Justice Kagan asked.

Bursch said it comes in changing the foundation of marriage from a biological bond as the basis of traditional marriage to an emotional commitment under a more expansive definition of marriage.

Over decades, as laws and societal views change, there will be consequences, he said.

鈥淲hat they are asking you to do is to take an institution, which was never intended to be dignitary-bestowing, and make it dignitary-bestowing,鈥� Bursch said.

This is a line that should be drawn through the democratic process at the state level, he said.

Bursch鈥檚 argument was a jab at Kennedy, who has frequently used the concept of dignity as an important feature in gay rights cases 鈥� and even in federalism cases.

Not surprisingly, Kennedy pushed back. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 understand,鈥� the justice said. 鈥淚 thought [bestowing dignity] was the whole purpose of marriage. It bestows dignity on both man and woman in a traditional marriage,鈥� he said.

鈥淚t鈥檚 dignity-bestowing, and these [same-sex] parties say they want to have that same ennoblement,鈥� the justice said. 聽

鈥淚 think you are missing my point,鈥� Bursch responded. He said the 鈥済lue鈥� that the state uses to try to link biological mothers and fathers with their children are the benefits and burdens of marriage. Dignity is not necessarily among those benefits, he said.

鈥淚t鈥檚 not the state鈥檚 intent to take dignity away from same-sex couples or from anyone based on sexual orientation,鈥� he said.

鈥淚 think many states would be surprised, with reference to traditional marriages, they are not enhancing the dignity of both the parties,鈥� Kennedy said. 鈥淚鈥檓 puzzled by that.鈥�

A decision in the case is expected by late June.