Outside the Supreme Court, April 28, 2015 – Photography by Todd Franson
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, a collection of four different cases from Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan and Kentucky challenging the constitutional bans on same-sex marriage in those states. Same-sex marriage advocates hope the case will resolve the issue permanently by nationally granting same-gender couples the ability to legally wed and have their marriages recognized by the state in which they live.
Meanwhile, outside the courtroom, the fight over marriage equality continued to rage on as proponents and opponents of same-sex nuptials held dueling rallies on the steps of the court, featuring multiple speakers and activists, all passionate in defense of their respective opinions. While marriage equality advocates outnumbered opponents 10-to-1 on Tuesday as the Supreme Court justices questioned the lawyers in the marriage cases, many opponents had already previously made their disapproval known on Saturday, when the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) sponsored the annual “March for Marriage.” Thousands of people from out-of-state, mostly members of conservative religious congregations from the Greater New York area, were bussed into Washington to march in support of one-man, one-woman marriages, in keeping with their religious beliefs. Opponents numbered about 6,000 compared to fewer than 60 people standing in favor of marriage equality, or a 100-to-1 ratio in favor of the opponents.
Inside the courtroom, the justices grappled with two major questions: whether the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex, and whether it requires a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage has been lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state. Ninety minutes was dedicated to the first question, and 60 minutes to the second.
In broaching the first question, Mary Bonauto, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs, or the pro-marriage equality advocates, stated the thesis of the argument that LBGT advocates hope the court embraces: that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to license and recognize same-sex nuptials.
“The intimate and committed relationships of same-sex couples, just like those of heterosexual couples, provide mutual support and are the foundation of family life in our society,” Bonauto said. “If a legal commitment, responsibility and protection that is marriage is off limits to gay people as a class, the stain of unworthiness that follows on individuals and families contravenes the basic constitutional commitment to equal dignity. Indeed, the abiding purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment is to preclude relegating classes of persons to second-tier status.”
In response to a question from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg about the government’s historic deference to states when it comes to defining and licensing marriages, Bonauto argued, “States do have primacy over domestic relations except that their laws must respect the constitutional rights of persons, and Windsor couldn’t have been clearer about that. And here we have a whole class of people who are denied the equal right to be able to join in this very extensive government institution that provides protection for families.”
Meanwhile, in his opening statement, John J. Bursch, the lawyer for the respondents stated the premise echoed by many of its opponents — that debate over the issue of same-sex marriage needs to continue, and that states are best positioned to determine how to define marriage.
“This case isn’t about how to define marriage. It’s about who gets to decide that question,” Bursch said. “Is it the people acting through the democratic process, or is it the Federal courts. And we’re asking you to affirm every individual’s fundamental liberty interest in deciding the meaning of marriage.”
Be sure to check back for more coverage of this historic event.
GOP delegates adopted a convention platform ahead of the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The new platform, at the behest of former President Donald Trump, walks back some of the previous platform's harsher language on issues like reproductive rights and same-sex marriage.
Trump advisers said they wanted the platform to more closely reflect the former president's stances on various issues.
"This is something hopefully you will pass," Trump reportedly told delegates when he called into a meeting of delegates last week, as reported by The Washington Post. "You will pass it quickly, and we will show unity in our party as opposed to the disaster that is going on with the Democrats.
The Supreme Court of the Netherlands ruled that Aruba and Curaçao must allow same-sex couples to marry, overturning an existing prohibition on the practice in those constituent countries.
Same-sex couples have been able to wed in the Netherlands since 2001, and since 2012 in Bonaire, St. Eustatius, and Saba, three Caribbean municipalities under Dutch control.
But the practice was prohibited in Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten -- three constituent countries of the Netherlands -- although they were required to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages performed in the other jurisdictions. Aruba also approved a registered partnership law for same-sex couples in 2021.
Former President Donald Trump has tapped U.S. Senator J.D. Vance as his vice presidential running mate.
A self-acclaimed populist best known for espousing natalist domestic policies, the Ohio Republican echoes his party's lurch toward right-wing populism and a more nationalist, isolationist approach to foreign policy.
On social issues, Vance is nearly indistinguishable from Mike Pence, although he is more outspoken and confrontational about his conservative beliefs and values than the former vice president.
A Yale Law school graduate and the author of HillbillyElegy, a memoir detailing his upbringing in Appalachia, was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2022.
These are challenging times for news organizations. And yet it’s crucial we stay active and provide vital resources and information to both our local readers and the world. So won’t you please take a moment and consider supporting Metro Weekly with a membership? For as little as $5 a month, you can help ensure Metro Weekly magazine and MetroWeekly.com remain free, viable resources as we provide the best, most diverse, culturally-resonant LGBTQ coverage in both the D.C. region and around the world. Memberships come with exclusive perks and discounts, your own personal digital delivery of each week’s magazine (and an archive), access to our Member's Lounge when it launches this fall, and exclusive members-only items like Metro Weekly Membership Mugs and Tote Bags! Check out all our membership levels here and please join us today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.