Voices
ing now and into the future. The
change in the language of gay rights
in the Court, therefore, was a major
step forward regardless of how the
Court decides these two cases.
When the Court announced in
December that it was going to hear
these cases, many were nervous
because they feared that the Court
would rule against gay marriage.
But there was also plenty of reason
to fear that the discussion before
the Court would feature the polarizing language of morality that had
featured in past Court cases surrounding gay marriage. This fear
was amplified when, only three
days after the Court decided to
hear these cases in December, Justice Antonin Scalia responded to a
student question at Princeton University by remarking that society
might have legitimate “moral feelings” against homosexuality.
The last two times that the
Court decided cases about gay
rights, the discussions at the
Court featured this kind of moral
language — and moral condemnations. In 1996, in Romer v. Evans,
the Supreme Court invalidated
Colorado’s Amendment 2, which
had prohibited Colorado state law
from creating any civil rights protections for gay citizens. But even
DAVID
FONTANA
HUFFINGTON
04.07.13
a win for gay rights in Romer was
full of public language skeptical of
the morality of homosexuality.
In its brief before the Court,
the State of Colorado justified
Amendment 2 as reflecting a
judgment that gays are “less deserving” of the limited resources
available under state law than
other groups. C-SPAN recently
The language that the
Court used to talk about
gay marriage this past
week lacked the polarizing
moral denunciations of
homosexuality of the past.”
broadcast the oral arguments in
that case, and the oral argument
is full of counsel on both sides
having trouble even speaking the
word “homosex Յ