Quote:
Hot tempers and dance parties outside US Supreme Court
Quote:
A US law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman only has been sharply criticised by Supreme Court justices at a landmark hearing.
A judge considered the court's swing vote joined four liberal colleagues in questioning the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (Doma).
Legal analysts speculated that the law, which denies various federal benefits to gay couples, may be struck down.
A ruling on the case is expected by the end of June.
At the same time, America's highest court is expected to issue a decision about California's gay marriage ban, which it debated a day earlier.
For nearly two hours on Wednesday, the nine justices in Washington DC grilled lawyers on the constitutionality of Doma, with five of them making sceptical remarks about the 1996 law.
'Skim-milk marriage'
Quote:
Doma denies married gay and lesbian couples the same federal rights, such as tax breaks and welfare benefits, granted to heterosexual couples.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, seen as the swing vote between liberal and conservative justices, said
he was "troubled" by how the law appeared to intrude on states' authority to define marriage as they saw fit.
"The question is whether or not the federal government under a federalism system has the authority to regulate marriage," he said.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal, suggested the law created a two-tiered system of wedlock.
"There are two kinds of marriage: full marriage and the skim-milk marriage," she said.
Her colleague, Elena Kagan, said Doma was
"infected by animus, fear and dislike".
Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked:
"What gives the federal government the right to be concerned at all about what the definition of marriage is?"
The Obama administration refused to defend Doma in court, having deemed it unconstitutional. Instead, a group of House Republicans hired a lawyer to argue in favour of the law.
Chief Justice John Roberts questioned why President Obama did not have "the courage of his convictions" to stop enforcing the law.
Signed by President Bill Clinton, Doma has already been ruled unconstitutional by several lower courts.
Quote:
In her brief, Edith Windsor, left, said for much of her life she could not live openly as a gay woman
The case against Doma was originally brought by New Yorker Edith Windsor, 83, who was required to pay more than $350,000 (£220,000) of federal inheritance taxes after the 2009 death of her wife, Thea Spyer.
Outside the court on Wednesday, Ms Windsor said: "The justices were gentle, I didn't feel any hostility. I think it's going to be good."
On Tuesday the Supreme Court heard arguments in another gay marriage case, on the legality of a California constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions.
Proposition 8 was approved by California voters in a referendum in 2008.
Supporters of gay marriage are hoping the court could erase bans on same-sex marriages nationwide.
But legal analysts say the justices' comments on Tuesday did not seem to promise such a sweeping ruling.
Currently, nine US states and Washington DC permit same-sex marriage. Twelve other states allow civil unions or domestic partnerships that provide varying degrees of state marriage benefits.
Recent opinion polls have shown a steady rise in support for same-sex marriage in the US, together with declarations in favour of it by political figures such as Hillary Clinton.
Quote:
The BBC's Jane Little meets crowds who have queued for days for a seat at the hearings
Apakah pernikahan sejenis dibolehkan di AS?
- Di beberapa negara bagian pernikahan sejenis dilegalkan, seperti di Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington state dan Washington DC. Namun di beberapa negara bagian lain walaupun tidak ada sanksi hukum bagi pernikahan sejenis, namun para pelaku pernikahan sejenis tersebut tidak mendapat hak - hak penuh seperti pasangan pernikahan hetero
Mengapa isu ini menjadi perhatian Makamah Agung AS?
- Survei terbaru banyak warga AS yang mendukung pernikahan sejenis, mereka beranggapan bahwa pernikahan adalah hak setiap orang, baik itu sejenis maupun beda jenis dan hak untuk menikah tersebut dilindungi oleh konstitusi AS.
Merka menginginkan Makamah Agung memberikan definisi yang jelas mengenai arti pernikahan dan membolehkan pernikahan sejenis, yang beralku secara nasional.
Pihak lain menganggap masalah pernikahan tidak perlu ikut campur Mahkamah Agung, mereka beranggapan mengenai peraturan pernikahan cukup masing - masing negara bagian yang menentukan.
Di lain sisi, pihak yang kontra terhadap pernikahan sejenis beranggapan pemerintah tidak perlu mendefinisikan ulang arti pernikahan. Karena pernikahan itu adalah antara seorang pria dan seorang wanita. Tidak bisa diganggu gugat.
Kasus apa yang sedang ditinjau oleh Makamah Agung?
- Kasus pertama, Hollingsworth v Perry
Theodore Olson dan David Boies yang merupakan merupakan kuasa hukum Kristin Perry dan Sandra Stier dan pasangan lain, Jeffrey Zarrillo dan Paul Katami. Menginginkan Makamah Agung menguatkan Proposition 8, yang merupakan referendum untuk pelarangan pernikahan sejenis di California
Kasus kedua, AS v Windsor,
yang merupakan banding bagi DOMA(Defense of Mariage Act),
di mana dalam peraturan ini pernikahan sejenis dilegalkan oleh negara, namun pasangan sejenis tersebut tidak mendapatkan hak yang sama dengan pasangan berbeda jenis dalam hukum federal.
Misalnya, tidak mendapatkan tunjangan sosial setelah pasangan mereka meninggal dunia.
Dalam kasus Edith Windsor (aktivis LGBT) yang merupakan pasangan lesbian, dia diharuskan membayar pajak tambahan sebesar $ 363.000 setelah pasangannya meninggal
Kapan putusan Makamah Agung akan diumumkan?
- Para hakim Makamah Agung diharapkan dalam mengambil keputusan dalam kedua kasus di atas pada bulan Juni.