Scotus ruling on gay marriage
A decade after the U.S. legalized gay marriage, Jim Obergefell says the clash isn't over
Over the past several months, Republican lawmakers in at least 10 states have introduced measures aimed at undermining lgbtq+ marriage rights. These measures, many of which were crafted with the facilitate of the anti-marriage equality group MassResistance, seek to ask the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell.
MassResistance told NBC News that while these proposals confront backlash and wouldn’t switch policy even if passed, keeping opposition to gay marriage in the universal eye is a prevail for them. The team said it believes marriage laws should be left to states, and they question the constitutional basis of the 5-to-4 Dobbs ruling.
NBC News reached out to the authors of these state measures, but they either declined an interview or did not respond.
“Marriage is a right, and it shouldn’t depend on where you live,” Obergefell said. “Why is queer marriage any different than interracial marriage or any other marriage?”
Obergefell’s journey to becoming a leader for same-sex marriage rights
Obergefell v. Hodges
Overview
Obergefell v. Hodges is a landmark case in which on June 26, , the Supreme Court of the United States held, in judgment, that state bans on same-sex marriage and on identifying same sex marriages duly performed in other jurisdictions are unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy asserted that the right to unite is a fundamental right “inherent in the liberty of the person” and is therefore protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits the states from depriving any person of “life, liberty or property without the due process of law.” The marriage right is also guaranteed by the equal protection clause, by virtue of the close connection between liberty and equality. In this decision Justice Kennedy also declared that “the reason marriage is fundamental…apply with equal force to same-sex couples”, so they may “exercise the fundamental right to marry.” The majority decision wa
Obergefell v. Hodges ()
Excerpt: Majority Perspective, 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 Articulate 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 independence in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a
Some Republican lawmakers increase calls against gay marriage SCOTUS ruling
Conservative legislators are increasingly speaking out against the Supreme Court’s landmark decision 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 judgment -- which the court cannot do unless presented with a case on the issue. Some Republican lawmakers in at least four other states prefer Michigan, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota possess followed suit with calls to the Supreme Court.
In North Dakota, the resolution passed the state Residence with a vote of and is headed to the Senate. In South Dakota, the state’s Property Judiciary Committee sent the proposal on the 41st Legislative Day –deferring the bill to the closing 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 rule and are not binding law, but instead grant legislati