America
Supreme Court Tries to Avoid Another Roe v. Wade
Abortion ruling was a cautionary tale to justices trying to decide gay marriage.
I BY DAVID A. PATTEN
t’s not often your next words could impact a pillar of Western Civilization. But that’s precise- ly the position Charles J. Coo-
per, attorney for pro-family activists, found himself in as he stood before the Supreme Court on March 26 to defend the constitutionality of Cali- fornia’s Proposition 8, which defi nes marriage as being between a man and a woman. Rather than argue gay
marriage could be bad for society, Cooper told the justices the nation was engaged in a great debate over whether the traditional defi nition of marriage should be pre- served. If the Supreme Court were to declare constitutional protec- tion for gay marriage by fi at, it would silence that debate prematurely. “It is an agonizingly diffi cult, [and]
the high court undertook what its critics saw as an adventure in social engineering: The 1973 Roe v. Wade case eff ectively legalized abortion in all 50 states by fi nd- ing a right to privacy in the 14th Amendment. The ruling has led to a half
States that have legalized same-sex marriage
Connecticut Iowa Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts New Hampshire New York Vermont Washington
District of Columbia
century of culture-war struggles raging at every level of society. “I think there’s
an argument to be made [for] looking at Roe v. Wade as a cautionary tale,” pollster Kellyanne Conway told Newsmax. She noted that even lib- eral Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has lamented the wisdom of “hav- ing the Supreme Court swoop in with a one-size fi ts all, almost moral judgment, changing the social morays and changing the defi nition
for many people [a] political question,” Cooper told the justices. “We would submit to you that that question is properly decided by the people them- selves.” Letting the people decide was an obvious reference to the last time
14 NEWSMAX | MAY 2013
of something so traditional.” Contrast that to the position of The New York Times, which urged the Supreme Court to “broadly declare that under the Constitution the right to marry applies equally to all cou- ples, period, and that this principle
applies to the federal government and every state.” The Supreme Court is not expected to hand down its deci- sion until June. But the questions the justices served up in March suggested they had little interest in touching off another Roe v. Wade donnybrook. “You want us to step in and render a
decision based on the eff ects of [same- sex marriage], which is newer than cell phones or the Internet?” Justice Samuel Alito asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., who represented the Obama administration’s push to expand the defi nition of marriage. “On a question like that, of such fun- damental importance, why should it not be left for the people, acting either through initiatives or referendums or their elected public offi cials?” While the ultimate outcome remains in doubt, social conservatives
COURTROOM RENDERING/ART LIEN/REUTERS
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92