Activists crowded the front steps of the Supreme Court on Tuesday as the nine justices prepared to hear a landmark case that could result in the legalization of same-sex marriage across the country.
The colorful scene pitted opponents of same-sex marriage, who express opposition on grounds of freedom of religion, against proponents of expanding marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples, who compare their position to support for civil rights for ethnic minorities. The demand for seats in the courtroom is so great that activists were lining up for a three-minute walk-through of the chambers just so they could say they were present for what could be monumental arguments that redefine the definition of marriage in the United States from one man and one woman.
Janet Peck and Carol Conklin, a married lesbian couple from Colchester, Conn., said they traveled to Washington to show their support for the idea that the federal government should recognize same-sex marriage. Their marriage is recognized by their home state. The two have been married for six years but together as a couple for 40 years. They were among the original plaintiffs in a state case that led to legalization of same-sex marriage in Connecticut.
Conklin said they were here “just to support everybody and hope that it gets in the right direction.”
“We want everybody throughout this country to have that ability to get married,” Peck added.
The Supreme Court is to hear oral arguments in a case that will determine whether states have the right to ban gay marriage. But the heavily watched arguments, in which justices will listen to lawyers present their respective sides for two hours, could lead to nationwide same-sex marriage rights. The court is expected to render a decision in June.
The Supreme Court will examine the legality of cases in four states: Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee, where same-sex marriage bans have been challenged in the courts. The justices will consider whether states are constitutionally required to permit same-sex marriage and whether they are legally mandated to recognize gay marriages sanctioned in other states.
In the case of Michigan, justices will consider only the question of whether the state must recognize gay marriage. In a brief filed by Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette, the state makes the case against overturning the existing law against gay marriage by arguing the current law is not discriminatory. Rather, Michigan argues, the law is aimed at reinforcing the traditional family unit, which it says is the optimal environment for raising children.
“It is impossible to deny the long history of unfair treatment against same-sex conduct,” Schuette argues in the brief. “But that is not what this case is about. The marriage institution developed not out of any attempt to harm gays and lesbians or their children, but to encourage individuals with the inherent capacity to bear children to enter a union that supports raising children, and to remain in that union.”
Susan Ferrechio contributed to this report.
