Unlike the first day of arguments on gay marriage, the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday seemed to be heading in the direction of making a decision on the Defense of Marriage Act, as one could count five votes on the bench to strike down the law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.
"The question is, whether or not the federal government, under our federalism scheme, has the authority to regulate marriage," said Justice Anthony Kennedy, who seemed to align himself with the four more liberal justices in opposition to DOMA.
"You're treating the married couples differently," said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who made the case of inequality by looking at how traditionally married couples could take advantage of certain provisions in tax law, but same sex couples could not.
But while this may have sounded more like a regular argument, there was a lengthy conversation again about procedure and whether this case should be before the Supreme Court, since the Obama Administration refused to defend this law in court, even as the federal government kept enforcing it.
"It's only when the President thinks it's unconstitutional, that you can decline to defend it?" Justice Antonin Scalia said in the tone of a aggravated boss to the government's lawyer.
So, instead of the feds defending DOMA, that was left to former Solicitor General Paul Clement, who had been hired by the House of Representatives to argue the merits of the case.
Clement acknowledged that the states and the federal government may have different descriptions of marriage, but he said that's not the fault of Uncle Sam.
"The only way they (same sex married couples) are different is the way that state law treats them," said Clement.
By the time Clement was finished with his arguments, there seemed to be much more agreement among experts as to which way the Supreme Court would go on this case, as opposed to the first day of arguments, which left open the possibility of a very limited ruling or none at all.
Outside the Supreme Court, Edith Windsor, the woman who brought the lawsuit against the Defense of Marriage Act enjoyed her moment in the sun, saying she thought the chances were "good" that the Justices would agree with her.
Windsor brought this case after her spouse died - they had been married in Canada - and then gave her inheritance to Windsor.
Federal law would treat that without any tax in most circumsntances for traditional male-female married couples - but because the federal law does not recognize same-sex marriages, Windsor got a bill for over $360,000.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said it's about tax law and all sorts of federal benefits for spouses.
"I mean, they touch every aspect of life. Your partner is sick. Social Security. I mean, it's pervasive. It's not as though, well, there's this little Federal sphere and it's only a tax question," Ginsburg said.
As for Edith Windsor, she acknowledged the irony of her situation - in the past, refusing to publicly acknowledge her same sex marriage, and now the lead plaintiff before the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I'm talking to you freely," she said to reporters outside the Supreme Court.
"I'd have been hiding in the closet ten years ago," a smiling Windsor said to laughter from her legal team.
About the Author
