º£½Ç´óÉñ

For gay rights activists, partial victory more likely than sweeping

U.S. Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments in a case that could overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) for a second day on Wednesday. Potential swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy warned the law may infringe on states' rights to define marriage. 

Solicitor General Donald Virrilli (R) argues in front of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts (L) and Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy about the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Justices indicated interest in striking down the law denying federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples.

REUTERS/Art Lien/Handout

March 27, 2013

TheÌýU.S. Supreme CourtÌýseemed to be leaning on Wednesday toward striking down a law that denies federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples in a move that would reflect a shift in Americans' attitudes about gay marriage.

In a second day of oral arguments on same-sex marriage, a majority of the court raised serious concerns with the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, enacted in 1996 under President Bill Clinton.

Arguments over the last two days on the DOMAÌýcase and a separate one challengingÌýCalifornia's ban on gay marriage marked the high court's first foray into a delicate and divisive political, religious and social issue in theÌýUnited StatesÌýas polls indicate growing public support for same-sex marriage.

With DC crackdown, Trump reorients balance of power between city, feds

In theory, the cases have the potential for the court to take a significant step toward endorsing gay marriage as it gains support in some parts of the country. Based on the arguments, however, a partial victory for gay rights activists seems more likely than the sweeping declaration of same-sex marriage rights they had hoped for.

As demonstrators rallied outside theÌýSupreme Court buildingÌýfor a second day, JusticeÌýAnthony Kennedy, a potential swing vote, showed a willingness to invalidate DOMA, which denies married same-sex couples access to federal benefits by defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

He warned of a "real risk" that the law infringes on the traditional role of the states in defining marriage.

A conservative, Kennedy is viewed as a key vote on this issue in part because he has twice authored decisions in the past that were viewed as favorable to gay rights.

In contrast to the ambivalent approach they displayed on Tuesday in arguments aboutÌýCalifornia's Proposition 8 gay marriage ban, the nine justices seemed willing to address the substantive issue in the DOMAÌýcase, while also eyeing procedural questions.

Moscow sees broader Alaska summit goals than peace in Ukraine

The court is not expected to rule on the two cases until the end of June. If the justices were to strike down DOMA, legally married gay couples would be winners because they would have improved access to federal benefits, such as tax deductions.

Justices gave a strong indication they might resolve the Proposition 8 case on procedural grounds, but even that would be viewed as a win for gay rights activists as same-sex marriages inÌýCaliforniaÌýwould likely resume.

What appears highly unlikely is a sweeping declaration of a right for gay people to marry, a possible option only in theÌýCaliforniaÌýcase.

Overall, a majority of the justices made it clear that, while they might not impede the recent movement among some states toward gay marriage, they were not willing to pave the way either.

Nine states now recognize gay marriage, while 30 states have constitutional amendments banning it and others are in-between.

On several occasions over the two days, the justices' own remarks illustrated how quickly attitudes have changed in favor of gay marriage.

During Tuesday's arguments, JusticeÌýAntonin Scalia, a conservative, questioned whether there was sufficient data to show that children are not adversely affected if raised by same-sex couples. Likewise, JusticeÌýSamuel AlitoÌýnoted the concept of gay marriage is "newer than cellphones and the Internet."

Offering a liberal perspective, JusticeÌýElena KaganÌýprompted murmurs of surprise from onlookers on Wednesday when she quoted from aÌýU.S. House of RepresentativesÌýreport written less than two decades ago, at the time DOMAÌýwas enacted, that referenced "moral disapproval" of gay marriage.

'Skim milk marriage'

As attention turned to DOMAÌýon Wednesday, Kennedy made it clear where he stood, referring to DOMAÌýas "inconsistent" because it purports to give authority to the states to define marriage while limiting recognition of those determinations.

His states' rights concerns were echoed by two of the liberal members of the bench, Kagan and JusticeÌýSonia Sotomayor. "What gives theÌýfederal governmentÌýthe right to be concerned at all about what the definition of marriage is?" Sotomayor said.

JusticeÌýRuth Bader GinsburgÌýand JusticeÌýStephen BreyerÌýalso raised concerns about the law.

Ginsburg stressed how important federal recognition is to any person who is legally married.

"It affects every area of life," she said.

Comparing marriage status with types of milk, Ginsburg said that a gay marriage endorsed by a state, but not recognized by theÌýfederal government, creates two types of marriage, "full marriage, and then this sort of skim milk marriage."

If the court rules on the states' rights issue, the justices could strike down the law without deciding the bigger question of whether DOMAÌýviolates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law.

On that issue, Kagan spoke of a "red flag" that indicatesÌýCongressÌýpassed DOMAÌýwith the intent of targeting a group that is "not everyone's favorite group in the world."

Various groups are calling for DOMAÌýto be struck down, such as theÌýBusiness Coalition for DOMAÌýRepeal, whose members includeÌýMarriott InternationalÌýInc,ÌýAetnaÌýInc, eBay Inc , and Thomson Reuters Corp, the corporate parent of the Reuters news agency.

Separately, several conservative justices criticized Obama and his Justice Department for not defending the marriage law in court.

Chief JusticeÌýJohn RobertsÌýquestioned whether Obama had "the courage of his convictions" for continuing to enforce DOMAÌýwhile calling it invalid.

(Reporting byÌýLawrence Hurley, Joan Biskupic,ÌýDavid IngramÌýand Joseph Ax; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Eric Beech)