Gay supreme court case
Same-sex marriage, which the U.S. Supreme Court in legalized nationwide in the case known as Obergefell v. Hodges, is facing resurgent hostility.
In the decade since the court’s verdict, public support for gay marriage has increased. Currently, about 70% ofAmericans accept of legally recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples, a percentage-point bump from
Obergefell led to an increase in marriages among same-sex partners, with more than , same-sex couples currently married.
Despite this, Republican lawmakers in five states have recently introduced symbolic bills calling on the Supreme Court to overturn its ruling in Obergefell.
And Republican lawmakers in two states have proposed legislation that creates a new category of marriage, called “covenant marriage,” that is reserved for one man and one gal.
As a professor of legal studies, I think such attacks on queer marriage represent a stern threat to the institution.
And others share my concern.
A poll of married lgbtq+ couples found that 54% of respondents are worried that the Supreme Court might ove
A decade after the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision, marriage equality endures risky terrain
Milestones — especially in decades — usually call for celebration. The 10th anniversary of Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that made same-sex marriage legal nationwide, is alternative. There’s a sense of unease as state and federal lawmakers, as successfully as several judges, seize steps that could convey the issue back to the Supreme Court, which could undermine or overturn existing and future queer marriages and weaken additional anti-discrimination protections.
In its nearly quarter century of being alive, the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Commandment has been on the front lines of LGBTQ rights. Its amicus short in the Obergefell case was instrumental, with Justice Anthony Kennedy citing statistics from the institute on the number of gay couples raising children as a deciding factor in the landmark decision.
“There were claims that allowing gay couples to marry would somehow devalue or diminish marriage for everyone, including different-sex couples,&r
Once opponents in the Supreme Court case that legalized lgbtq+ marriage, now they're friends
COLUMBUS, Ohio — The case behind the U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide a decade ago is known as Obergefell v. Hodges, but the two Ohio men whose names became that title weren't so at odds as it would look, and are now friends.
One year after the Supreme Court's June 26, , decision, lead plaintiff Jim Obergefell was at an event for an LGBTQ advocacy organization when its former director asked if he wanted to encounter Rick Hodges, who'd been the title defendant in his capacity as declare health director in Ohio, one of the states challenged for not allowing same-sex couples to marry.
"I don't recognize, you tell me. Do I wish to meet Rick Hodges?" Obergefell recalls responding.
The two met for coffee in a hotel and hit it off.
Hodges said he wanted to meet Obergefell because he's an "icon." He said he remembers telling Obergefell something along the lines of: "I don't understand if congratulations are in order because this began with you losing your husband, but I'm gla
Some Republican lawmakers increase calls against gay marriage SCOTUS ruling
Conservative legislators are increasingly speaking out against the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment 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 own 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 power and are not binding regulation, but instead allow legislati