Gay marriage scotus decision
A decade after the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision, marriage equality endures risky terrain
Milestones — especially in decades — usually call for celebration. The 10th anniversary of Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that made same-sex marriage legal nationwide, is other . There’s a sense of unease as state and federal lawmakers, as well as several judges, take steps that could take the issue back to the Supreme Court, which could undermine or overturn existing and future same-sex marriages and weaken additional anti-discrimination protections.
In its nearly quarter century of existence, the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law has been on the front lines of LGBTQ rights. Its amicus brief in the Obergefell case was instrumental, with Justice Anthony Kennedy citing data from the institute on the number of same-sex couples raising children as a deciding factor in the landmark decision.
“There were claims that allowing same-sex couples to marry would somehow devalue or diminish marriage for everyone, including different-sex couples,&r
explainer
Protesters hold LGBT rights rainbow (pride) flags as activists gather outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, U.S., December 5, REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
What’s the context?
A decade after the U.S. legalised gay marriage, conservatives want the Supreme Court to turn back the clock.
BERLIN - Ten years after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that legalised gay marriage, the White House is reversing a raft of LGBTQ+ rights and Republicans in at least six states are scrambling to ban same-sex weddings.
LGBTQ+ advocates utter the right to marry a person of the same sex could be at risk, should judges vote to overturn the Supreme Court's historic Obergefell v. Hodges ruling.
A Supreme Court showdown remains theoretical, but legal challenges to the ruling are surfacing across the country, with proponents emboldened by President Donald Trump's return to office.
Here's what you need to know.
What's happened since the U.S. legalised gay marriage?
On June 26, , the U.S. became the 17th country in the world to legalise same-sex marriages na
Some Republican lawmakers increase calls against gay marriage SCOTUS ruling
Conservative legislators are increasingly speaking out against the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on same-sex marriage equality.
Idaho legislators began the trend in January when the state House and Senate passed a resolution calling on the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision -- which the court cannot do unless presented with a case on the issue. Some Republican lawmakers in at least four other states like Michigan, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota verb followed suit with calls to the Supreme Court.
In North Dakota, the resolution passed the express House with a vote of and is headed to the Senate. In South Dakota, the state’s House Judiciary Committee sent the proposal on the 41st Legislative Day –deferring the bill to the final day of a legislative session, when it will no longer be considered, and effectively killing the bill.
In Montana and Michigan, the bills have yet to face legislative scrutiny.
Resolutions have no legal noun and are not binding law, but instead allow legislati
Obergefell v. Hodges ()
Excerpt: Majority View, Justice Anthony Kennedy
The identification and protection of fundamental rights is an enduring part of the judicial duty to interpret the Constitution. That responsibility, however, “has not been reduced to any formula.” Rather, it requires courts to exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the Express must accord them its respect. . . . That process is guided by many of the same considerations relevant to analysis of other constitutional provisions that set forth broad principles rather than specific requirements. History and tradition guide and discipline this inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. That method respects our history and learns from it without allowing the past alone to command the present.
The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of liberty in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a