Supreme Court declares US-wide right to same-sex marriage

[Lite Beer]

Supreme Court declares US-wide right to same-sex marriage
MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Gay and lesbian Americans have the same right to marry as any other couples, the U.S. Supreme Court declared Friday in a historic ruling deciding one of America's most contentious and emotional legal questions. Celebrations and joyful weddings quickly followed states where they had been forbidden.

The vote was narrow — 5-4 — but the ruling will put an end to same-sex marriage bans in the 14 states that still maintain them, and provide an exclamation point for breathtaking changes in America's social norms in recent years. As recently as last October, just over one-third of the states permitted gay marriages.

Public acceptance has also shot up in recent years, in stark contrast to the widespread outcry against a 2004 ruling by the high court in Massachusetts legalizing same-sex marriage there, prompting several states to ban it and galvanizing conservative voter turnout during George W. Bush's re-election campaign.

Just over a decade later, Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion was clear and firm: "The court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them."

Kennedy's reading of the ruling elicited tears in the courtroom, euphoria outside and the immediate issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in county offices in Georgia and Texas. In Dallas, Kenneth Denson said he and Gabriel Mendez had been legally married in 2013 in California but "we're Texans; we want to get married in Texas."

In praise of the decision, President Barack Obama called it "justice that arrives like a thunderbolt."

Four of the court's justices weren't cheering. The dissenters accused their colleagues of usurping power that belongs to the states and to voters, and short-circuiting a national debate about same-sex marriage.

"This court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in dissent. Roberts read a summary of his dissent from the bench, the first time he has done so in nearly 10 years as chief justice.

Justice Antonin Scalia said he was not concerned so much about same-sex marriage as "this court's threat to American democracy." He termed the decision a "judicial putsch."

Several religious organizations criticized the decision and a group of pastors in Texas vowed to defy it.

Kennedy said nothing in the court's ruling would force religions to condone, much less perform, weddings to which they object. And he said the couples seeking the right to marry should not have to wait for the political branches of government to act.

"The dynamic of our constitutional system is that individuals need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. The nation's courts are open to injured individuals who come to them to vindicate their own direct, personal stake in our basic charter," Kennedy wrote.

"No union is more profound than marriage," Kennedy wrote, joined by the court's four more liberal justices.

The stories of the people asking for the right to marry "reveal that they seek not to denigrate marriage but rather to live their lives, or honor their spouses' memory, joined by its bond," Kennedy said.

As he read his opinion, spectators in the courtroom wiped away tears when the import of the decision became clear. One of those in the audience was James Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court fight.

Outside, Obergefell held up a photo of his late spouse, John Arthur, and said the ruling establishes that "our love is equal." He added, "This is for you, John."

Obama placed a congratulatory phone call to Obergefell, which he took amid a throng of reporters outside the courthouse.

Speaking a few minutes later at the White House, Obama praised the decision as an affirmation of the principle that "all Americans are created equal."

The crowd in front of the courthouse at the top of Capitol Hill grew in the minutes following the ruling. The Gay Men's Chorus of Washington, D.C., sang the "Star-Spangled Banner." Motorists honked their horns in support as they passed by the crowd, which included a smattering of same-sex marriage opponents.

The ruling will not take effect immediately because the court gives the losing side roughly three weeks to ask for reconsideration. But some state officials and county clerks might follow the lead of the Fulton County, Georgia, probate court and officials in several Texas cities in deciding there is little risk in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The cases before the court involved laws from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Those states have not allowed same-sex couples to marry within their borders, and they also have refused to recognize valid marriages from elsewhere.

Just two years ago, the Supreme Court struck down part of the federal anti-gay marriage law that denied a range of government benefits to legally married same-sex couples.

The earlier decision in United States v. Windsor did not address the validity of state marriage bans, but courts across the country, with few exceptions, said its logic compelled them to invalidate state laws that prohibited gay and lesbian couples from marrying.

There are an estimated 390,000 married same-sex couples in the United States, according to UCLA's Williams Institute, which tracks the demographics of gay and lesbian Americans. Another 70,000 couples living in states that do not currently permit them to wed would get married in the next three years, the institute says. Roughly 1 million same-sex couples, married and unmarried, live together in the United States, the institute says.

The Obama administration backed the right of same-sex couples to marry. The Justice Department's decision to stop defending the federal anti-marriage law in 2011 was an important moment for gay rights, and Obama declared his support for same-sex marriage in 2012.

The states affected by Friday's ruling are Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, most of Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas.

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-06-27

[F430murci]

Very good.

[Publicus]

The legacy of the Obama presidency has begun to take a definitive shape and it is looking good.

The right has lost big time in this and on a number of its important fronts.

Big time.

[Scott]

No, I think it is the fringe element that has lost. I know quite a few very conservative people and most of them long ago quit caring much about this issue.

[ezzra]

Signs of the times..... I had to go there, warts and all, and time will tell whether it was a wise idea give the it was to close a vote....

[sdanielmcev]

No, I think it is the fringe element that has lost. I know quite a few very conservative people and most of them long ago quit caring much about this issue.

What he said. This has nothing to do with Obama. These people fought hard for this right.

[boomerangutang]

I've gone from being a hippie, to a bit to the right (of hard left) in past decades. I was a bit uncomfortable with same-sex marriage, but am now ok with it. It's just as much as money-issue (s.security, inheritance, maternity-leave-from jobs, custody issues) as anything else. The man who sued, and got his case tried in the S.Court, was suing about having his name on the death certificate of his male marriage partner.

[Seastallion]

No, I think it is the fringe element that has lost. I know quite a few very conservative people and most of them long ago quit caring much about this issue.

Well, there were the 4 dissenting judges, which included Justice Scalia....remember, the guy who stated that he believes in the devil (not a symbolic evil, but (in his own words) "I believe in the devil...he's a real person.").

I'm not so sure it's just a fringe, but I get your point that it's certainly not the entire conservative cadre.

[Stradavarius37]

[Lite Beer]

Gay couples wed on historic day as conservatives resist
By CLAIRE GALOFARO and KIM CHANDLER

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — Benjamin Moore and Tadd Roberts wore matching tuxedos to the county clerk's office in Louisville to get married Friday, and the mayor greeted them with a bottle of champagne.

They were among a rush of gay couples across the South and Midwest who celebrated the Supreme Court's ruling legalizing same-sex marriage with spontaneous weddings. They were young and old, they wore gowns and suits or T-shirts and jeans, they kissed and waved flags that read "love wins."

"It's just been incredible and historic and amazing to live this moment," Moore said. The mayor took commemorative photos of him and Roberts getting their license.

But the reaction wasn't as welcoming in some of the 14 states that had been the last holdouts against same-sex marriage, creating confusion as some officials embraced the ruling and others rebuffed it.

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who has long fought against same-sex marriage, said states can fight the ruling, as they have decisions allowing slavery or abortion, and predicted that it would spark a national backlash from Christian conservatives.

"They've just disregarded everything that precedent holds, and they've destroyed the foundation of our country which is family," Moore said.

In rural Alabama, Pike County Probate Judge Wes Allen said he would stop issuing all marriage licenses to avoid having to give them to gay couples. Allen said Alabama law gives judges the option of granting licenses, and "I have chosen not to perform that function."

Governors in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas also railed against the ruling. And clerks in some of the affected states refused to issue licenses, citing a three-week grace period allowed by the Supreme Court or forms now out of date that specify "bride" and "groom."

But by Friday afternoon, couples had received licenses in all but one of the 14 states, according to the Human Rights Campaign. In Louisiana, where Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal is running for the White House as a conservative Christian, same-sex couples were turned away.

"It was kind of bittersweet," said Earl Benjamin, who waited with his partner for hours for a license and was finally told that the state's ban on same-sex marriage remained intact — for now.

In Texas, many counties held off on issuing same-sex marriage licenses until receiving guidance from Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton, who scolded the Supreme Court but left counties in limbo for hours.

Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood said Friday that same-sex marriages cannot take place immediately. But amid the confusion over when weddings should legally begin, three couples received their marriage licenses in Hattiesburg, and took their vows on the courthouse steps.

Other clerks scrambled to issue licenses as gay couples rushed to their offices.

In Arkansas, Pulaski County Clerk Larry Crane held a hand to his heart after the Supreme Court's ruling.

"It is a special day," he said, choking up. "I'm honored to be a part of it."

Jessica Dent and Carolee Taylor got married a few blocks from the courthouse in Montgomery, Alabama.

"Never thought it would happen in our lifetime," said Taylor.

After their ceremony, they returned to the courthouse to file their license, making them officially married in the conservative state that had fought back against efforts to legalize gay marriage. After a federal judge ruled earlier this year that the state's gay marriage ban was unconstitutional, about 500 same-sex couples were married before the Alabama Supreme Court directly ordered probate judges to stop issuing the licenses.

"We waited so long. When it came through, I can't think of a better way to celebrate, the decision and our love," said Dent, walking out of the courthouse holding a sign that said "All love is equal."

Some Southern politicians said they were concerned about the "religious freedom" of ministers, cake bakers and others who might be asked to participate in ceremonies.

In Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott issued a memo saying the government should not pressure people to violate their "sincerely held religious beliefs." He later clarified that he does not condone discrimination or authorize state agencies to deny benefits to same-sex couples.

Jindal also issued a statement vowing to never stop fighting for "religious liberty."

"Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that," he wrote.

The Supreme Court allows for a 25-day delay while it considers a rehearing. The Louisiana Clerks Association advised clerks to wait until then before issuing licenses.

In other states, governors, even those who disagree with the ruling, made decisive statements, calling gay marriage the law of the land and instructing their clerks to issue licenses right away.

Mass marriages were planned in Michigan, Kentucky and Georgia. Minister Danielle Goeckel stood on the steps of the Fulton County courthouse in Atlanta on Friday morning holding a sign reading: "Yes I will gladly marry you!"

The fee for her services? Two hugs.

In Arkansas, Pulaski County Judge Chris Piazza, who struck down the state's gay-marriage ban last year, presided over one of the state's first same-sex weddings.

"I looked at their faces and realized how much this meant to them," Piazza said after marrying two men in his courtroom.

Luke Barlowe, one of the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case, said he's pleased that their fight will save younger generations of gay people the pain he endured.

But still he resents it took nine strangers on the Supreme Court to decide he has the right to love Jimmy Meade, his partner of 47 years. They married in Iowa in 2009, and sued to have their marriage recognized in Kentucky.

For decades, they hid their relationship, pretending to be roommates and avoiding public affection.

On Friday, they walked down the sidewalk in downtown Louisville, holding hands.

___

Associated Press Writer Kim Chandler reported from Montgomery, Alabama. AP Writer Bruce Schreiner contributed from Louisville, Kentucky, Claudia Lauer from Little Rock, Arkansas, Paul Weber from Austin, Texas, Kevin McGill from New Orleans and Emily Wagster Pettus from Jackson, Mississippi.

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-06-27

[khwaibah]

Still waving the Confederate Flag.

[Berkshire]

No, I think it is the fringe element that has lost. I know quite a few very conservative people and most of them long ago quit caring much about this issue.

On CNN last night, the latest nationwide polls indicated that 60%+ of Republicans are still against same-sex marriage. Yet, 63% of ALL Americans are for same-sex marriage. True that these numbers are changing fast, but there are still a large number of conservative folks who are against gay marriage. Did you see what the governor of Alabama said after the ruling?

[Scott]

Thanks for the statistics. I know a lot of very conservative people who are against gay marriage, but more and more of them simply can't be bothered to do much about it. That was my point.

[lifeincnx]

Meanwhile, in typical lockstep, every single GOP presidential hopeful has denounced the decision. As one spot-on columnist said, the [Republican] party had better "adapt or die."

[stoli]

The gay community has now lost their most powerful statement. "I wish I could marry you, but the law states that I cannot." It is no secret that marriage is set up to be a failure from day 1. Why, if you are in a wonderful, desirable relationship, would you want the courts to enter into your marriage?" Possible divorce? I wish there was a law stating that heterosexuals cannot marry, because I would be much richer. The divorce rate is over 50%. Again, would you fly on a airline where 50% of the planes crashed?

I could care less if someone is heterosexual, or homosexual. But why give up what few rights, i.e., "not to be married", provide you? The partner with the least money, will now demand marriage. Who calls this love?

Be careful of what you ask for......

[NeverSure]

The same people who call for their rights to fly a flag in those same states would deny someone else his freedom, all the while preaching freedom. The hypocrisy from both sides blows me away sometimes. Some people, on both sides, just seem to want to control people and somehow both sides believe they are pushing for morality.

I guess it just depends on whose ox is gored.

[Somtamnication]

As abhorrent as I find gay anything, I would defend their rights to be equal to me. So kudos to the Supremes. Well done.

Now, if I can only watch the clowns on Fox News!

[BigBadGeordie]

I am neither pro marriage, nor anti marriage. But I strongly believe that everyone, regardless of race, colour, creed, ethinicity, nationality or sexuality should have the right to choose for themselves.

[JakeSully]

The legacy of the Obama presidency has begun to take a definitive shape and it is looking good.

The right has lost big time in this and on a number of its important fronts.

Big time.

I agree and this is important for removing 2nd class citizenship. People don't have to hide.

The US v. Windsor on DOMA opened the door and this one left it open full time.

Thank you Justices. Finally!

[Thakkar]

Lordy, if this opens the door to people marrying farm animals, I'm moving to New Zealand. No, wait...

T

[MaxYakov]

The UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares/defines the right of "marriage" in Article 16:

• (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
• (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
• (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Notice how the definition of "marriage" with regard to "gender" is avoided.

Actually, the definition of "marriage" is totally avoided, isn't it? An "undefined" right? *

Just for starters, I think the term "same-sex" should be deprecated and replaced with "same-gender".

I can guarantee that the "sex acts" these "same-gender" couples are having is not the same as mine.

* = Many, if not all, so-called rights are not well-defined and neither are they not unabridged by society.

Edited June 27, 2015 by MaxYakov

[razer]

Same sex marriage is a religious and personal value issue, NOT a constitutional issue since the USA is blessed with separation of church and state.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

It just shows you how close things are politically on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Just one more conservative justice appointed by a future Republican president, and the ruling would have gone the opposite direction -- no right to gay marriage in the U.S.

It's a worthwhile reminder of how important it becomes who the U.S. elects as its next president.

[sanuk711]

I fully support Gay Marriages.
They have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us..........................

[quandow]

[Jingthing]

It's a great day to be an American!

We now join the growing list of nations making this civilized choice advancing equal civil rights for LGBT citizens.

It's not gay marriage anymore.

Just marriage.

In a time when ISIS terrorists are throwing gay people off buildings to be greeted by murderous mobs if they survive, this is especially sweet.

For LGBT Americans this is about A LOT more than marriage equality. The freedom to marry is of course very important to those who wish that. But the bigger legal impact of this decision is actually much more MOMENTOUS.

LGBT Americans have been legally SECOND CLASS CITIZENS in the U.S. Not only in marriage equality. There are scads of specifically anti-gay laws in many states and more currently being proposed. In many U.S. places gay Americans can be legally fired from their job ONLY because of what they are, for one example.

The LANGUAGE in this supreme court is so strong though, that there is now very strong legal ammunition to fight any current and future such discriminatory laws. The SUPREME court isn't called SUPREME for nothing.

Because of so many existing discriminatory laws, I still wouldn't call LGBT Americans full first class legally EQUAL citizens quite yet ... but I would say the groundwork has been set and the fat lady can start to warm up her voice. (But she will likely be doing a lot of warming for a very long time ... there are LOT of those discriminatory laws out there.)

Edited June 27, 2015 by Jingthing

[Chicog]

[bangon04]

Same sex marriage is a religious and personal value issue, NOT a constitutional issue since the USA is blessed with separation of church and state.

Marriage is a legal and financial contract between 2 persons. Therefore it should be completely independent of / separate from any religious rituals. As you say, the USA insists that it has achieved Separation of Church and State. So why should a marriage contract be subject to religious dogma any more than an employment contract, or a hire purchase contract..?

[Jingthing]

Marriage is done differently in different countries.

In the USA there is never any requirement to involve any religious institution.

The couple can go to city hall and just get married there.

This supreme court ruling MANDATES (pun intended?) that such CIVIL places of marriage not discriminate against same sex couples.

It does nothing about how religious institutions deal with this.

I know right wingers are trying to inflame the public and suggest that religious institutions will now be forced to marry gays.

But that's a lie.

They are indeed separate things.

Some religious institutions will participate in these marriages and some will won't.

If a same sex couple wants to involve religion, they can find one that will, at least in most populated places.

If an anti-gay equality religious person doesn't want to go to a religious institution that involves in such unions, they can surely find another one.

There will be civil rights advocates WITHIN religious groups working to reform some religious institutions, but that is purely an INTERNAL matter for those religious institutions among their coreligionists. That again is separate from the U.S. LEGAL system. They still have and will still have full freedom to discriminate against same sex couples if that is their choice.

To add, about those city hall clerks who might be religious and oppose marrying some people based on religious beliefs.

They are fully FREE to keep those beliefs but they are NOT free to refuse to perform those marriages.

That is because they have a GOVERNMENT job. Not a religious job.

So if they refuse to perform their job, they should properly be FIRED.

If anyone thinks that is unfair discrimination ... tough cookies.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Jingthing

[pitrevie]

Since I have no intention of marrying someone the same sex as myself it doesn't affect me and if someone does want to marry someone of the same sex then it still doesn't affect me so where is the problem?