(CBS NEWS) -- This week, as the Supreme Court prepares to hear two landmark cases
concerning same-sex marriage, momentum appears to be on the side of gay
rights: A recent poll
shows support for gay marriage at an all-time high; voters in Maine and
Maryland approved same-sex marriage at the ballot box last November;
and in the past few weeks, a slew of high-profile politicians --
including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sens. Claire
McCaskill, D-Mo., Mark Warner, D-Va., and notably, Rob Portman, R-Ohio
-- have announced their own support.
But as the court
prepares to hear arguments on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and
Proposition 8, two critical cases governing the laws surrounding
same-sex marriage, its opponents, however diminishing in numbers, remain
defiant in their beliefs -- and committed as ever to making them heard.
"We will never go away. We will never stop fighting for
the truth about marriage," said Brian Brown, president of the National
Organization for Marriage (NOM), in an interview with CBSNews.com. "If
the court recognizes same-sex marriage, it will launch another culture
The legal arguments against same-sex marriage --
as expressed in a number of briefs filed by its opponents in the DOMA
and Prop. 8 cases -- range from concerns about religious freedom; to
originalist claims about the intent of the founding fathers; to the less
that heterosexuals, unlike same-sex couples who are unable to procreate
with each other, pose a "very real threat" to society when not bound by
marriage, and thus the institution should be unique to couples with
But for many, the argument is as much or more about upholding a
certain idea of "morality" -- often inspired by the Christian faith --
as it is about the nuances of constitutional law. And for some, those
things are one and the same.
"We believe the basis of
morality on which this nation was founded was the Judeo-Christian
morality expressed in the Bible," said John Eidsmoe, a lawyer for the
Christian group Foundation for Moral Law. The Bible expresses objections
to homosexuality, he argues, and thus there's no reason to believe the
framers would have approved of giving same-sex couples the right to
marry. "We see nothing in the Constitution that would remotely guarantee
the right of same-sex marriage."
Not to mention the
fact that the group, which describes itself as "committed to protecting
our unalienable right to publicly acknowledge God," isn't exactly on
board with so-called "homosexual conduct."
argue that there's plenty of evidence that homosexual conduct is
unhealthy," he said. "When we're talking about same-sex marriage it
involves the state. It's not just saying we're going to recognize your
right to [get married], but we're going to give it our official stamp of
approval. We think that's going way too far."
rights advocates argue that denying same-sex couples -- historically a
politically disadvantaged group -- the same rights as heterosexual
couples -- historically a politically advantaged group -- is
discrimination grounded in bigotry. For that reason, they say, it
shouldn't be left to a popular vote.
America, we don't put everything up to a vote," said Evan Wolfson,
executive director of the Freedom to Marry group, on CBS' "Face the
Nation" this week. "My marriage is my marriage, and it means I'm able to
share in the same aspirations of commitment and love and support and
dedication and connectedness, and that my parents are able to dance at
our wedding and that our family and friends are able to support and
celebrate and hold us accountable for the commitment we've made to one
another. That takes nothing away from anyone else. The gay people are
not going to use up all the marriage licenses when we enter marriage."
of the National Organization for Marriage, rejects the premise that
denying gay couples the right to marry amounts to discrimination.
Discrimination, he argues, is the act of treating two equals as
non-equals. He doesn't see straight and gay couples as equals when it
comes to this particular institution.
"There is no civil
right to put into law an untruth that somehow unions of two men or two
women are the same thing as a union of a man and a woman," he said.
"They are not the same. And it is not discrimination to say that they
are not the same."
Plus, contrary to what most polls
posit, he and other opponents of same-sex marriage argue that popular
opinion is on their side after all.
marriage is] inevitable, as the media would like us to believe, there's
no reason for the court to interject itself in this," said Tony Perkins,
of the conservative Family Research Council, on "Face the Nation" this
week. "The reality is it's not inevitable and the American people, when
they've had the opportunity to speak on this, have spoken
overwhelmingly. Thirty states, eight additional states, have the
definition of natural marriage into their statutes. So we're far from
being at a point where America has embraced same-sex marriage."
Bossie, the president of Citizens United, whose National Committee for
Family, Faith and Prayer filed a brief in the DOMA case, had a different
take: "Morality should not be swayed by public opinion polls," he said
in an email to CBSNews.com. "The United States Supreme Court does not
speak for God. Marriage has been around for over a millennium and The
National Committee for Family, Faith and Prayer will continue to fight
for pro- family values through old and new media outlets."
the time being, groups that oppose marriage equality seem immediately
focused on touting their messages in advance of the Supreme Court's
ruling -- rather than what they'll do pending a loss. Certainly, though,
Brown says the issue won't be settled even if the court rules in favor
of same-sex marriage.
"If the court did this, it would
launch another culture war like Roe v. Wade," he said. "Before Roe, many
of those that were supposed to be in the know claimed that once the
Supreme Court ruled, the issue would be settled. Has that happened?"
people who agree with gay rights advocates that history is moving
toward support for same-sex marriage are inclined to agree that one
Supreme Court ruling will hardly retire the issue for good.
about everybody thinks that this debate is heading in one direction.
There is a note of caution though," said Adam Winkler, a professor of
constitutional law at UCLA. "If we had been talking about the state of
women's access to abortion in 1973 after Roe v. Wade had been decided,
we would be convinced that society was moving inexorably towards
expanding the rights of women to control their bodies. And here we are,
40 years later, and Roe is a weaker precedent than it ever was before.
There's laws being adopted every day it seems in America restricting
women's access to abortion."
"Progress is not inevitable," Winkler added. "We can never take it for granted."