The Washington Post

Highlights from Supreme Court hearing on DOMA

Voices in the courtroom

Highlights from the arguments.

SOLICITOR GENERAL DONALD B. VERRILLI JR.: “This is discrimination in its most very basic aspect.”

ATTORNEY PAUL CLEMENT: “And what Congress says is: Wait a minute. Let’s take a timeout here. This is a redefinition of an age-old institution. Let’s take a more cautious approach where every sovereign [government] gets to do this for themselves.”

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN G. ROBERTS JR. TO ATTORNEY ROBERTA KAPLAN: “As far as I can tell, political figures are falling over themselves to endorse your side of the case.”

ATTORNEY ROBERTA KAPLAN: “Mr. Chief Justice, I think it comes from a moral understanding today that gay people are no different, and that gay married couples’ relationships are not significantly different from the relationships of straight married people.”

JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR: “So they [Congress] can create a class they don’t like — here, homosexuals — or a class that they consider is suspect in the marriage category, and they can create that class and decide benefits on that basis when they themselves have no interest in the actual institution of marriage?”

JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: “And I’m wondering if we’re living in this new world where the attorney general can simply decide, yeah, it’s unconstitutional, but it’s not so unconstitutional that I’m not willing to enforce it. If we’re in this new world, I — I don’t want these cases like this to come before this court all the time. And I think they will come all the time if that’s — if that’s — if that’s the new regime in the Justice Department that we’re dealing with.”

JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: “Mr. Clement, the problem is, if we are totally for the states’ decision that there is a marriage between two people, for the federal government then to come in to say no joint return, no marital deduction, no Social Security benefits, your spouse is very sick, but you can’t get leave — one might well ask, ‘What kind of marriage is this?’ ”

JUSTICE ANTHONY M. KENNEDY: “But when it has 1,100 laws, which, in our society, means that the federal government is intertwined with the citizens’ day-to-day life, you are . . . at real risk of running in conflict with what has always been thought to be the essence of the state police power, which is to regulate marriage, divorce, custody.”

JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN: “Well, is what happened in 1996 — and I’m going to quote from the House report here — is that ‘Congress decided to reflect an honor of collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality’? Is that what happened in 1996?”

Juliet Eilperin

Discuss this topic and other political issues in the politics discussion forums.

Juliet Eilperin is The Washington Post's White House bureau chief, covering domestic and foreign policy as well as the culture of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. She is the author of two books—one on sharks, and another on Congress, not to be confused with each other—and has worked for the Post since 1998.


Success! Check your inbox for details. You might also like:

Please enter a valid email address

See all newsletters

Show Comments
Most Read


Success! Check your inbox for details.

See all newsletters

Your Three. Video curated for you.

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.