{ "id": "R43886", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R43886", "active": false, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 440043, "date": "2015-04-06", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T22:46:18.924546", "title": "Same-Sex Marriage: A Legal Overview", "summary": "Same-sex marriage has engendered heated debate throughout the country. There is no federal same-sex marriage prohibition after the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in United States v. Windsor, which struck down the portion of the Defense of Marriage Act that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. However, many states have passed statutes or constitutional amendments that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying, and that deny recognition of same-sex marriages that were legally formed in other states. These state same-sex marriage bans may impact gay individuals\u2019 rights and claims to state and federal benefits. For example, such restrictions may affect tax liabilities and entitlements to Social Security.\nUntil recently, state same-sex marriage bans were seemingly insulated from Fourteenth Amendment challenges in federal courts because of a 1972 Supreme Court decision, Baker v. Nelson, wherein the Court summarily dismissed such a challenge for lack of a substantial federal question. However, in recent years, some courts have held that Supreme Court decisions subsequent to Baker\u2014namely, Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, and Windsor\u2014have rendered Baker non-binding. These courts have thus considered whether state same-sex marriage bans violate the Fourteenth Amendment.\nUnder the Fourteenth Amendment\u2019s Equal Protection Clause, state action that classifies groups of individuals may be subject to heightened levels of judicial scrutiny, depending on the type of classification involved. State same-sex marriage bans have faced equal protection challenges because they classify individuals based on sexual orientation. Additionally, under the Fourteenth Amendment\u2019s substantive due process guarantees, state action that infringes upon a fundamental right\u2014such as the right to marry\u2014is subject to a high level of judicial scrutiny. State same-sex marriage bans have been challenged on the basis that they infringe upon the fundamental right to marry, which, it has been argued, incorporates the right to same-sex marriage.\nCircuit courts are currently split regarding whether Baker precludes them from considering the constitutionality of state same-sex marriage bans, and whether such bans violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits have struck down state same-sex marriage bans after finding that Supreme Court decisions subsequent to Baker render that decision non-binding. In doing so, they have generally, though not uniformly, subjected state same-sex marriage bans to heightened levels of judicial scrutiny after finding that governmental classifications based on sexual orientation warrant increased scrutiny or finding that the fundamental right to marry includes the right to same-sex marriage. \nThe Sixth Circuit, on the other hand, held that Baker remains binding precedent that precluded its review of Fourteenth Amendment challenges to state same-sex marriage bans. The Sixth Circuit then went on to find that even if it could consider the constitutionality of such bans, it would subject them to the lowest level of judicial scrutiny and uphold them as constitutional. On January 16, 2015, the Supreme Court granted review of cases from the Sixth Circuit involving Fourteenth Amendment challenges to state same-sex marriage bans, with oral arguments scheduled for April 28, 2015. The Court seems poised not only to resolve the existing circuit split, but also to settle key questions about rights for gay people.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43886", "sha1": "8f8330862cc3d11cf646b051860845eb990ee911", "filename": "files/20150406_R43886_8f8330862cc3d11cf646b051860845eb990ee911.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43886", "sha1": "c132a663559dcf76c8eefae6a9aa6c394f414320", "filename": "files/20150406_R43886_c132a663559dcf76c8eefae6a9aa6c394f414320.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc503436/", "id": "R43886_2015Jan30", "date": "2015-01-30", "retrieved": "2015-04-30T17:37:21", "title": "Same-Sex Marriage: A Legal Overview", "summary": "This report provides background on, and analysis of, significant legal issues surrounding the same-sex marriage debate. It begins by providing background on the constitutional principles that are often invoked in attempting to invalidate same-sex marriage bans--namely, equal protection and due process guarantees. Then, it discusses key cases that led to the existing circuit split on the constitutionality of state same-sex marriage bans. Finally, this report explains the central issues in the circuit split and analyzes how the Supreme Court might resolve them on appeal.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150130_R43886_87f742b51e3d674df3cb8704e182b1458fcc5afc.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150130_R43886_87f742b51e3d674df3cb8704e182b1458fcc5afc.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Same-sex marriage", "name": "Same-sex marriage" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Gays", "name": "Gays" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Marriage", "name": "Marriage" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Law", "name": "Law" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Supreme Court", "name": "Supreme Court" } ] } ], "topics": [ "American Law", "Constitutional Questions" ] }