Supreme court ruling on same marriage
A decade after the U.S. legalized gay marriage, Jim Obergefell says the fight isn't over
Over the past several months, Republican lawmakers in at least 10 states have introduced measures aimed at undermining same-sex marriage rights. These measures, many of which were crafted with the help of the anti-marriage equality group MassResistance, seek to ask the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell.
MassResistance told NBC News that while these proposals face backlash and wouldn’t change policy even if passed, keeping opposition to same-sex marriage in the public eye is a win for them. The group said it believes marriage laws should be left to states, and they ask 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 decision, that state bans on same-sex marriage and on recognizing 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 marry 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
Case Description
On November 14th, , two same-sex couples filed writ petitions in the Supreme Court seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriages in India. The petitions were centred around the constitutionality of the Special Marriage Act, (the Act). The first petition was filed by Supriyo Chakraborty and Abhay Dang. The second petition was by Parth Phiroze Merhotra and Uday Raj Anand.
The petitioners argue that Section 4(c) of the Act recognises marriage only between a ‘male’ and a ‘female’. This discriminates against same-sex couples by denying them matrimonial benefits such as adoption, surrogacy, employment and retirement benefits. The petitioners asked the Court to declare Section 4(c) of the Act unconstitutional. The plea has been tagged with a number of other petitions challenging other personal laws on similar grounds. The challenged enactments include the Hindu Marriage Act, and the Foreign Marriage Act,
The petitioners argue that the non-recognition of same-sex marriage violates the rights to equality, freedom of expression and dignity. They relied on NALSA vs U 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 contain followed suit with calls to the Supreme Court. In North Dakota, the resolution passed the articulate 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 rule and are not binding law, but instead allow legislati
Some Republican lawmakers increase calls against gay marriage SCOTUS ruling