National

Supreme Court Extends Gay Marriage Nationwide

Published

9 years ago

June 26, 2015

The crowd reacts as the ruling on same-sex marriage was announced outside of the Supreme Court in Washington, Friday June 26, 2015. The Supreme Court declared Friday that same-sex couples have a right to marry anywhere in the US. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court declared Friday that same-sex couples have a right to marry anywhere in the United States, a historic culmination of decades of litigation over gay marriage and gay rights generally.

Gay and lesbian couples already could marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia. The court’s 5-4 ruling means the remaining 14 states, in the South and Midwest, will have to stop enforcing their bans on same-sex marriage.

A court in Atlanta issued marriage licenses to three same-sex couples Friday morning, soon after the decision.

Gay rights supporters cheered, danced and wept outside the court after the decision, which put an exclamation point on breathtaking changes in the nation’s social norms.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, just as he did in the court’s previous three major gay rights cases dating back to 1996. It came on the anniversary of two of those earlier decisions.

“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 after 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, and said the ruling establishes that “our love is equal.” He added, “This is for you, John.”

President Barack 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 “justice that arrives like a thunderbolt.” He said it was an affirmation of the principle that “all Americans are created equal.”

The four dissenting justices each filed a separate opinion explaining his views, but they all agreed that states and their voters should have been left with the power to decide who can marry.

“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.

“If you are among the many Americans — of whatever sexual orientation — who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision,” Roberts said. “But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”

Justice Antonin Scalia said he was not concerned so much about same-sex marriage but about “this court’s threat to American democracy.” Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas also dissented.

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.

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 decide 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.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor formed the majority with Kennedy on Friday, the same lineup as two years ago.

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.

The number of states allowing same-sex marriage has grown rapidly. As recently as last October, just over one-third of the states permitted it.

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.

___

Associated Press writers Jessica Gresko, Sam Hananel and Glynn Hill contributed to this report.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Confederate Heritage Group Loses its US Southern Influence

Don't Miss

The Robert E. Lee Problem

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of October 30 – November 5, 2024

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of October 30 – November 5, 2024

Published

1 day ago

November 1, 2024

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Community

New Filing: Trump’s Attempts to Overturn 2020 Election Were Part of Private Scheme, Not Official Acts

NNPA NEWSWIRE — The filing reveals the extent of Trump’s interactions with figures such as attorney Rudy Giuliani and other senior officials, some of whose names were withheld. Trump persisted with a plan to undercut Joe Biden’s victory despite numerous warnings from people in his circle that his claims of a stolen election were untrue.

Published

4 days ago

October 29, 2024

Oakland Post

Jack Smith during a statement regarding the indictment of Donald J. Trump. (Wikimedia Commons)

By Stacy M. Brown, NNPA Newswire Senior National Correspondent
@StacyBrownMedia

Special Counsel Jack Smith has delivered a powerful legal blow to former President Donald Trump, unveiling new evidence that the twice-impeached Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results were part of a private scheme rather than actions taken in his official capacity as president.

In a 165-page legal brief unsealed Wednesday, Smith provided new details about Trump’s behind-the-scenes maneuvers to subvert the election, including pressure campaigns targeting key officials, attempts to create false electors, and private discussions with his vice president, Mike Pence.

The filing reveals the extent of Trump’s interactions with figures such as attorney Rudy Giuliani and other senior officials, some of whose names were withheld. Trump persisted with a plan to undercut Joe Biden’s victory despite numerous warnings from people in his circle that his claims of a stolen election were untrue.

Smith’s brief is part of a broader strategy to prove that Trump can face trial for his actions, even after a Supreme Court ruling granted him immunity for official acts as president. The special counsel argues that Trump’s efforts to enlist Pence in blocking Congress’s certification of the election results were part of a private, illegal campaign to retain power, not part of his official duties.

“At its core, the defendant’s scheme was a private criminal effort,” Smith wrote in the filing. “In his capacity as a candidate, he used deceit to target every stage of the electoral process.”

The document provides new evidence of Trump’s attempts to sway election officials in critical swing states to alter the results in his favor. The brief quotes a lawyer advising Trump, who gave an “honest assessment” that his claims of widespread fraud would not withstand scrutiny in court. Yet, Trump dismissed the warning. “The details don’t matter,” Trump said, according to the filing.

Further, the brief recounts private conversations between Trump and Pence, in which Pence urged Trump to accept defeat and consider another run in 2024. Trump, however, expressed reluctance, saying, “2024 is so far off.”

Smith’s filing depicts Trump’s actions as part of a desperate and illegal campaign to remain in power after losing the 2020 election. The brief also points to Trump’s reliance on Giuliani and other private allies in his election subversion attempts, asserting that none of these efforts fell under the scope of presidential duties.

“The defendant asserts that he is immune from prosecution for his criminal scheme to overturn the 2020 presidential election because, he claims, it entailed official conduct,” the filing reads. “Not so. Although the defendant was the incumbent president during the charged conspiracies, his scheme was fundamentally a private one.”

A sealed appendix to the legal brief contains FBI interviews, search warrant affidavits, and grand jury testimony that might soon become public. Smith’s filing builds on the indictment released last year, expanding the evidence and reinforcing the argument that Trump’s conduct was criminal and not shielded by presidential immunity.

Smith concluded the brief with an explicit request to the court: “The government respectfully submits that the defendant’s conduct described in this motion is not subject to presidential immunity and that he should face trial for his private acts of subversion.”

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Business

Special Interview: Rep. Barbara Lee Discusses Kamala Harris’ Plan for Black Men

On Oct. 16, California Black Media (CBM) spoke with Harris-Walz campaign surrogate, Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA-12), who shared more insights on Harris’ agenda and the importance of securing the Black Male vote. “She has said very clearly that she wants to earn the vote of everyone. And that means earning the vote of Black men,” said Lee of Harris. “She understands the systemic and historic challenges that Black men have. You haven’ t heard of a presidential candidate coming up with a concrete actual plan and policy agenda.” The agenda includes five focus areas based on insights she gleaned from hosting discussions with Black men during her Economic Opportunity Tour.

Published

5 days ago

October 28, 2024

Oakland Post

(File Photo) U.S. Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-13-Oakland) chides Justices on the Supreme Court of the United States for voting to strike down Affirmative Action. She is shown here speaking in front of the California Reparations Task Force in Oakland on May 6, 2023. CBM photo by Antonio Ray Harvey. By Edward Henderson, California Black Media

By Edward Henderson, California Black Media

Last week, the Kamala Harris campaign released its Opportunity Agenda for Black Men.

“She has said very clearly that she wants to earn the vote of everyone. And that means earning the vote of Black men,” said Lee of Harris. “She understands the systemic and historic challenges that Black men have. You haven’ t heard of a presidential candidate coming up with a concrete actual plan and policy agenda.”

The agenda includes five focus areas based on insights she gleaned from hosting discussions with Black men during her Economic Opportunity Tour:

Provide 1 million loans that are fully forgivable to Black entrepreneurs and others disadvantaged groups to start businesses.
Champion education, training, and mentorship programs that help Black men get good-paying jobs in high-demand industries It will also develop more accessible pathways for Black men to become teachers.
Support a regulatory framework for cryptocurrency and other digital assets so Black men who invest in and own these assets are protected.
Launch a National Health Equity Initiative focused on Black men that addresses sickle cell disease, diabetes, mental health, prostate cancer, and other health challenges that disproportionately impact them.
Legalize recreational marijuana and creating opportunities for Black Americans to succeed in this new industry.

“[Vice President Harris] knows that Black men have long felt that too often their voice in our political process has gone unheard and that there is so much untapped ambition and leadership within the Black male community,” the language in the agenda states. “Black men and boys deserve a president who will provide the opportunity to unleash this talent and potential by removing historic barriers to wealth creation, education, employment, earnings, health, and improving the criminal justice system.”

Diving into Harris’ agenda, Lee says, reminded her of her own record of supporting Black men over the years as an elected official. In the 90’s, she established the first California Commission on African American Males through which she pressured the state to address urgent economic, health and social challenges specific to Black men.

“No group of people are a monolithic group of people,” said Lee She’ s not taking any vote for granted. I’ve known her over three decades and I believe she is being herself. She’ s authentic,” Lee added.

Each of the 5 key points addressed in the Harris Campaign’s agenda, Lee says, has additional clauses that can potentially help Black men and their families thrive. This includes lowering rent; up to $25,000 in downpayment help for first time homebuyers; and cutting taxes for Black men in lower-wage jobs by increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit maximum to $1,500.

“I think the messages is one of empowerment for Black men — regardless of whether they’ re a blue-collar worker, if they’ re not working, if they’ re in business, if they’ re an entrepreneur, whatever background or whatever they’re doing or experiencing life. I think the authenticity of their experience can only be articulated through them,” said Lee.