On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear an oral debate in the case of obelfield, Ohio, against Obama.
And three related cases in Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee.
It is then expected that the court will decide whether the Constitution requires states to grant the same marriage rights to gay and straight persons.
Most court observers believe that the judges will rule in favor of equality in marriage.
But just a few years ago, the result now widely expected seemed completely out of reach.
In my career, I have two opportunities to debate the constitutional rights of gay couples to get married.
This is the first session of the Supreme Court in New York in 2006. We lost.
The second was in the Federal Court of Mississippi on 2014. We won.
I have a debate in the United States and the United States.
Windsor won in the Supreme Court in 2013, but this is slightly different because it concerns whether the federal government must recognize the marriage of gay couples who have been married under the laws of their home state.
So, what changes have taken place in the nine years from 2006 to now?
In fact, it is much easier to identify things that have not changed.
Of course, the legal arguments we put forward have not changed.
There is no difference between now and 2006 (
Even 2003, when Mary bang motor won the first marriage equality case in Massachusetts)
In terms of the constitutional principles invoked.
In 2006, we think, like pro
Gay, bisexual and transgender rights lawyers argue today that the basic principles of equal protection and due process in the United States require gay couples and families to be treated the same way as others.
After all, we believe that it is not controversial for gay couples to have children and raise families, and that they should enjoy the same benefits and protection as those led by heterosexual parents.
But the New York court is not convinced.
Instead, it ruled that "the legislature can rationally decide that it is more important to promote stability and avoid the opposite instability for the benefit of children --
Sex ratio
Sexual relations.
"When we repeated these same arguments in 2014, we received a completely different reception.
Here, for example, how did our judge in the Mississippi case elaborate on these questions: "Can gay citizens love it ? "?
Gay citizens can long
A lasting and loyal relationship?
Can gay citizens love and care for their children?
Can gay citizens provide the best for their children?
Can gay citizens help their children become a good, productive citizen?
Would gay citizens be humiliated and insulted without the right to get married?
Without the right to get married, will gay citizens be restricted by the state
Prejudice?
Answering yes to these questions leads to an inevitable conclusion:
Sexual partners should be allowed to share the benefits and burdens of marriage, whether good or bad.
"From 2006 to today, there has been no change in legal arguments or principles;
What really changed was that the judge could really hear what we were talking about.
In the Windsor case, because of the Marriage Protection Act, my client, Idi Windsor, was forced to pay more than $350,000 in estate tax upon the death of her spouse, Thea Spicer, even if Idi married Theo instead of Thea, she wouldn't have to pay a penny.
We are there to think that if the government chooses to give people a range of benefits and obligations when they get married, then all Americans --
Gay or straight
It must be treated equally in this position.
Judge Anthony M.
In his opinion on the Supreme Court, Kennedy agreed.
"DOMA writes inequality into the code of the United States as a whole," he explains, because it "involves many aspects of marriage and family life, from secular to profound ".
Kennedy suggested "interfering with the equal dignity of the same person --
Sexual marriage is not just a side effect of DOMA.
This is the essence of it.
Thus, "DOMA is invalid and does not have any legitimate purpose to overcome the purpose and effect of the demeaning and harm of the personality and dignity of the person who the state seeks protection under its marriage law.
As for the children of gay parents, Kennedy concluded that DOMA "humiliated thousands of children raised by gay parents --sex couples.
Relevant laws make it more difficult for children to understand the integrity and intimacy of their own family, as well as the harmony with other families in their community and daily life.
"In my oral debate at the Supreme Court of Windsor, Judge Antonin Scalia described the dramatic shift in our society's understanding of homosexuality as a" great change ".
"While I don't often agree with Scalia in cases involving LGBT rights, this description is absolutely correct.
There is no doubt that the reason for the ocean change is that most Americans now have a friend, neighbor, family or colleague who happens to be gay.
Once you know and respect a gay person, it's hard to accept the fact that they will be discriminated against just because they are.
In other words, as Evan Wolfson said recently, once you accept it, as the Supreme Court did in Windsor, the equal dignity of homosexuality, then it is clear, there is no good reason against marriage equality.
"Marriage may be as important in life as death, as the story of Idi Windsor and Ohio case plaintiff Jim obergfield makes clear.
Obergfield and his long term terminal mate John Arthur wanted to get married very much, so they rented a medical plane from Ohio where they lived and marriage between gay people was not allowed, they can get married in Maryland.
When Arthur died, Ohio refused to correct his death certificate to accurately state the fact that he had married obergfield.
Stubbornly insisting that there must be a space on Arthur's death certificate, and that the name of obergfield should be there, Ohio not only denies that these people are protected equally by law in their lives, even in death, they are trying to take their dignity away.
After my quarrel with Windsor in March 2013, I knew in my heart that we had won.
I am equally confident in the current case of the Supreme Court.
Most Americans (
Including most judges in the Supreme Court)
It is now agreed that homosexuality should be treated equally under the law, whether in life or death.
Roberta Kaplan, partner of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, is "then married: US v.
The failure of Windsor and DOMA will be published in October.