For Now, There's No Constitutional Right to Marriage

What does terrorism in Afghanistan have to do with gay marriage? Nothing, you’d probably say (unless you’re a member of the Westboro Baptist Church).

But Monday at the U.S. Supreme Court the connection was visible, at least in a plurality opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia. In a fractured decision, the court held that Fauzia Din, an American citizen, couldn’t get a hearing in court after the State Department refused a visa to her husband, an Afghan national, citing terrorism as the reason. According to Scalia, there’s no constitutional “liberty interest in marriage” sufficient to give Din a hearing over her husband’s denial -- a position that foreshadows what Scalia will certainly say when the court rules on same-sex marriage in the next couple of weeks.

Din’s case was factually simple -- at least the part we know about. A U.S. citizen, she exercised her right to petition for her husband, Kanishka Berashk, an Afghan citizen, to be designated as an immediate relative and given priority immigration status. The State Department granted the request. But a consular officer rejected Berashk’s application, stating that he couldn't be granted a visa because of the law that excludes applicants who have engaged in “terrorist activities.”

The officer said nothing more than that. But the record in the case reflects that Berashk was a civil servant in Afghanistan under the Taliban, which the U.S. designates as a terrorist organization.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-15/for-now-there-s-no-constitutional-right-to-marriage?cmpid=yhoo