History is Made As the Supreme Court Recognizes Marriage Equality

supreme-court-gay-marriage for favorible ruling

The Supreme Court made a historic ruling recognizing that same-sex couples have a right to marry under the 14th Amendment on the anniversary of the Windsor case.

Justice Kennedy wrote the ruling and was joined the liberal wing of the court.   Each of the conservative judges wrote their own dissents and joining each other in those dissents.   Obviously, they did not take being on the wrong side of the constitution well.

The questions before the court were:

To get more stories like this, subscribe to our newsletter The Daily.

  1. Does the 14th Amendment require states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
  2. Does the 14th Amendment require states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states?

This ruling is monumental and will go down in history as the Loving v. Virginia of the 21st century because it recognizes that the Court has, in fact, held that the right to marry is a constitutional right.

Applying these established tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution. In Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12 (1967), which invalidated bans on interracial unions, a unanimous Court held marriage is “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” The Court reaffirmed that holding in Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374, 384 (1978), which held the right to marry was burdened by a law prohibiting fathers who were behind on child support from marrying. The Court again applied this principle in Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 95 (1987), which held the right to marry was abridged by regulations limiting the privilege of prison inmates to marry. Over time and in other contexts, the Court has reiterated that the right to marry is fundamental under the Due Process Clause.

Equally important is the fact that marriage is a matter of dignity and stability for a same-sex couple and for their children.

Excluding same-sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a central premise of the right to marry. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

After months of anticipation and increasing nervousness, the plaintiff, Jim Obergefell’s name will appear on his late husband’s death certificate.  He can have a glass a champagne as he and his late spouse  had done to celebrate joyous occasions.  From this day on, Obergefell and other same-sex couples will have the dignity and all that rights that come with marriage.  The days of having to “find a way” to be a family are over.  Obergefell also hopes the day will come when the term “gay marriage” is a thing of the past.

In this historic ruling, Justice Kennedy emphasized that this is a matter of equality and of dignity.  He completely rejected conservative claims that somehow the sky will come down or that marriage will be sullied.   He rejected the real premise behind opposition to marriage equality – a desire to render people as lesser citizens based on who they love.

As is the case in the weeks and days before this ruling, court watchers speculated on everything from the Justices’ comments, questions, and facial expressions during argument, to their moods at social events.

The strongest indicator this day was coming was the absence of any serious legal argument by opponents of marriage equality.

John Bursch, the attorney for the four states desperately seeking to uphold their bans on same-sex marriage was left with arguing: ”If you de-link marriage from creating children, you would expect to have more children created outside the bonds of marriage.”

Even if conservatives viewed this case as “controversial” or fear that people might discover that the creation of children is a biological process, regardless of the state of the law, there were numerous signs this day was coming.  In fact, one of the dissenters in this ruling, Justice Scalia, predicted this day while dissenting in the Windsor case.

Following that ruling, the dominos of opposition came tumbling down in state after state. A ruling to the contrary would have meant chaos, as noted by David S. Cohen and Leonore Carpenter at Slate:

This is a historic day, comparable to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Loving v. Virginia.  From this day on  same-sex couples will celebrate, plan their lives and know that they are equal to heterosexual married couples under the law.  No doubt, they will continue to meet with resistance from die-hard homophobes.  However, the full citizenship and dignity of same-sex couples and their families will no longer depend on the whims of the less enlightened.  This is something to celebrate by gay or straight people who believe in the constitution.

No doubt, opponents will still continue to cling to their views and some will continue to believe that marriage is between one man and one woman.  However, they will not be able to act on those views to violate the rights of same sex couples.  Love wins.

Image Source: Tagg Magazine 


Copyright PoliticusUSA LLC 2008-2023