GAY MARRIAGE

Dana Milbank: Gays celebrate at Supreme Court

 

danamilbank@washpost.com

The moment Justice Anthony Kennedy said the words — “Section 3 of DOMA is in violation of the Fifth Amendment” — a muffled cheer pierced the quiet in the Supreme Court chamber.

Heads turned to the audience and security officers looked for the offender, but the celebration was just beginning.

A few minutes later, as the dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia was accusing the majority of making opponents of same-sex marriage look like “enemies of the human race” and “unhinged members of a wild-eyed lynch mob,” those seated near the chamber’s windows heard vibrations that sounded at first like a helicopter.

But this was no aircraft: Word that the court had just dismantled the Defense of Marriage Act and thereby removed federal obstacles to same-sex marriage had made its way from the courtroom to news broadcasts and finally to the hundreds of gay-rights supporters massing in front of the court. Their cheers echoed over the marble facade, across the cloistered courtyards and into the hallowed chamber itself.

Twenty minutes later, after the justices announced a second opinion that killed off a California ban on gay marriage, the same-sex couples who had brought the case against the California law emerged from the courthouse with one of their lawyers, David Boies, and raised their linked hands in triumph at the top of the steps.

The crowd chanted, “Thank you! Thank you!” and then, “USA! USA!”

“Today is a great day for American children and families,” lead plaintiff Kristin Perry said into the microphones as her partner, Sandra Stier, stood at her side. “Sandy and I want to say how happy we are not only to be able to return to California and finally get married, but to be able to say to the children in California . . . ‘No matter what family you’re in, you are equal.’ ”

Gay-rights advocates could not reasonably have hoped for a better result than the one the Supreme Court gave them on its final day in session: Kennedy joining with the court’s liberal justices to condemn the federal law discriminating against same-sex marriage, and Chief Justice John Roberts leading an ideologically mixed majority in refusing to reinstate California’s Proposition 8 because the law’s defenders lacked legal standing. The combined effect was to make clear that the court would not stand in the way of the inexorable march toward marriage equality.

Kennedy spoke conversationally but delivered a moral denunciation of DOMA for stigmatizing same-sex couples and humiliating their children. “No legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the state, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” he argued.

Roberts, who surprised many with his ruling in favor of Obamacare last year, did so again on this session’s final day. He didn’t address the legality of same-sex marriage but, by refusing to prop up Prop 8, his opinion had the same result. Roberts merely said that those citizens trying to defend the California ban had only “a generalized grievance,” which “no matter how sincere is insufficient to confer standing.”

Scalia agreed with Roberts on that, giving the chief justice conservative cover. But Scalia’s criticism of Kennedy’s ruling in the DOMA case went on for nearly 12 minutes — longer than Kennedy took to announce it. While Kennedy sat, chin on fist, Scalia ridiculed the majority’s “self-aggrandizement” and “clumsy” intervention, and he accused his colleagues of “real cheek” for their “lengthy lecture on how superior the majority’s moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is.”

Seconds after Roberts adjourned for the summer, a woman’s exultant cry echoed through the court’s central foyer and was quickly met with shushing. But there was no quieting the hundreds who had gathered on the sidewalk, many waving rainbow flags or signs thanking the plaintiffs. A gay men’s chorus assembled. More people joined the celebration.

Some wept for joy, some cheered or took photos, and all perspired in the brutal heat. The few opponents of same-sex marriage were mostly on the edges of the carnival. Police tried to hold back the crowd as the plaintiffs reached the cameras.

“Today the court said that I am more equal, that we are more equal,” plaintiff Jeff Zarrillo told the tangle of journalists and celebrants. “I look forward to growing old with the man I love.”

That man, Paul Katami, stepped to the microphones. “Today,” he said, “I finally get to look at the man that I love and finally say, ‘Will you please marry me?’ ”

The two men then sealed it with a kiss.

© 2013, Washington PostWriters Group

Read more Other Views stories from the Miami Herald

  •  
DE LA O

    A JUDGE’S VIEW

    Judge has faith in the law, and in human potential

    I am a circuit judge in Miami-Dade County serving in the criminal division. Every day, I make decisions about whether to release defendants who are awaiting trial and whose families rely on them for basic needs; whether to grant requests by victims of domestic violence to remove stay-away orders that keep their families apart; and whether to sentence convicted defendants to prison, house arrest or probation.

  •  
MCT

    JUDICIAL ELECTIONS

    There’s got to be a better way to seat judges

    When I think of the traits that are essential for someone to be a good judge, I immediately identify characteristics such as legal ability and understanding of legal principles, courtroom experience, record and reputation, temperament and community involvement. As a Miami-Dade County voter, and as someone who has served on several endorsement panels for various organizations, I have serious concerns about the quality of the candidates that are running for this very important post. I also have reservations about the election process through which we are selecting the members of our lower courts.

  •  
Jack Orr cast the only vote in the Florida Legislature in support of school integration.

    JOHN B. ORR

    A man of vision, principle — and flaws

    It was 1956, and the Florida Legislature was considering a bill to get around the U.S. Supreme Court ruling barring racial segregation in schools. Only one of the 90 House members voted against the bill — a young lawyer from Miami named Jack Orr.

Miami Herald

Join the
Discussion

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

The Miami Herald uses Facebook's commenting system. You need to log in with a Facebook account in order to comment. If you have questions about commenting with your Facebook account, click here.

Have a news tip? You can send it anonymously. Click here to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Miami Herald and el Nuevo Herald.

Hide Comments

This affects comments on all stories.

Cancel OK

  • Marketplace

Today's Circulars

  • Quick Job Search

Enter Keyword(s) Enter City Select a State Select a Category