Hillary Clinton: Supreme Court ‘will do to gay marriage what they did to abortion'
'American voters, and to some extent the American media, don't understand how many years the Republicans have been working in order to get us to this point,' Clinton told Fox News host Jessica Tarlov on Friday in a wide-ranging interview on 'Raging Moderates,' the podcast Tarlov co-hosts with Scott Galloway.
'It took 50 years to overturn Roe v. Wade,' Clinton said. 'The Supreme Court will hear a case about gay marriage; my prediction is they will do to gay marriage what they did to abortion — they will send it back to the states.'
'Anybody in a committed relationship out there in the LGBTQ community, you ought to consider getting married because I don't think they'll undo existing marriages, but I fear they will undo the national right,' she said.
In July, Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who was briefly jailed in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, formally asked the Supreme Court to revisit its Obergefell decision, which celebrated its 10th anniversary in June. The justices have not yet said whether they will take up the case.
If Obergefell were overturned, same-sex marriage rights would still be protected by the Respect for Marriage Act, a bipartisan measure signed by former President Biden in 2022 that requires all states and the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where they are legal. 'Zombie laws' against marriage equality in more than half the nation are unenforceable because of the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell.
The Respect for Marriage Act, introduced after Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said the court 'should reconsider' decisions including Obergefell after overturning the federal right to abortion, prevents state statutes and constitutional amendments banning gay marriage from being enforced on already married couples, but it does not render them entirely obsolete.
In addition to Thomas, Justice Samuel Alito has also voiced opposition to the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell, to which he and Thomas dissented in 2015. Last winter, in a five-page statement explaining the court's decision not to involve itself in a dispute between the Missouri Department of Corrections and jurors dismissed for disapproving of same-sex marriage on religious grounds, Alito wrote that the conflict 'exemplifies the danger' he had long anticipated would come from the ruling.
'Namely, that Americans who do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homosexual conduct will be 'labeled as bigots and treated as such' by the government,' he wrote.
Public support for marriage equality remains at historic highs, though a May Gallup poll showed support among Republicans slipping to 41 percent, the lowest in a decade. In a separate survey conducted by a trio of polling firms in June, 56 percent of Republican respondents said they support same-sex marriage rights.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Exclusive-Judge in US crosshairs warns Brazil banks not to apply sanctions locally
By Ricardo Brito and Brad Haynes BRASILIA (Reuters) -Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who recently had sanctions imposed on him by the U.S. government, told Reuters that courts could punish Brazilian financial institutions for seizing or blocking domestic assets in response to U.S. orders. Those remarks raise the stakes in a standoff that has hammered shares of Brazilian banks caught between U.S. sanctions and the orders of Brazil's highest court. In a late Tuesday interview from his office in Brasilia, Moraes granted that U.S. law enforcement regarding Brazilian banks that operate in the United States "falls under U.S. jurisdiction." "However, if those banks choose to apply that law domestically, they cannot do so — and may be penalized under Brazilian law," he added. His remarks underscore the potential consequences of a Monday ruling by fellow Supreme Court Justice Flavio Dino, who warned that foreign laws cannot be automatically applied in Brazil. That ruling was followed by a sharp rebuke from the U.S. State Department's Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, which warned on social media hours later that Moraes was "toxic" and that "non-U.S. persons must tread carefully: those providing material support to human rights abusers face sanctions risk themselves." The U.S. Treasury Department slapped the sanctions on Moraes last month under the Global Magnitsky Act, a law designed to impose economic penalties on foreigners deemed to have a record of corruption or human rights abuse. The order accused him of suppressing freedom of expression and leading politicized prosecutions, including against former President Jair Bolsonaro, a staunch Trump ally on trial before Brazil's Supreme Court on charges of plotting a coup to reverse his loss in the 2022 election. Bolsonaro has denied any wrongdoing and denounced the case as politically motivated. In his interview, Moraes said decisions by foreign courts and governments can only take effect in Brazil after validation through a domestic process. He said it is therefore not possible to seize assets, freeze funds or block the property of Brazilian citizens without following those legal steps. The global reach of the U.S. financial system means foreign banks often restrict a wider range of transactions to avoid secondary sanctions. Moraes said he was confident that the sanctions against him would be reversed via diplomatic channels or an eventual challenge in U.S. courts. But he acknowledged that for now they had put financial institutions in a bind. "This misuse of legal enforcement places financial institutions in a difficult position — not only Brazilian banks, but also their American partners," he said. "That is precisely why, I repeat, the diplomatic channel is important so this can be resolved quickly - to prevent misuse of a law that is important to fight terrorism, criminal organizations, international drug trafficking and human trafficking," he added. The U.S. State Department did not immediately respond to request for comment. Moraes had "engaged in serious human rights abuse," said a Treasury Department spokesperson. "Rather than concocting a fantasy fiction, de Moraes should stop carrying out arbitrary detentions and politicized prosecutions." NO CHOICE The clash could have serious consequences for Brazilian financial institutions, said two bankers in Brazil, who requested anonymity to discuss the matter candidly. Most large banks are supervised by the U.S. government in some way due to their international presence or exposure, either through a foreign branch or issuance of foreign securities, said the former director of an international bank in Brazil. The choice for these banks, under pressure from the U.S., may be to invite sanctioned clients to seek a different institution to keep their assets, the banker added. The director of a major Brazilian bank said that, in practice, Monday's court ruling means any action taken by Brazilian banks based on rules involving the U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, which oversees U.S. sanctions, will need approval from Brazil's Supreme Court. At the same time, he added, failing to comply with an OFAC decision could cut a bank off from the international financial system. "Brazil doesn't really have a choice," said the banker. "Given how interconnected everything is, and the disparity in economic power between the U.S. and Brazil, we're left in a position of subordination. There's not much we can do." He stressed that the court would need to come up with a solution "that doesn't put the financial system at risk." Shares of state-run lender Banco do Brasil, where most federal officials including judges receive salaries, fell 6% on Tuesday, the largest drop among Brazil's three biggest banks. The bank said in a Tuesday statement it was prepared to deal with "complex, sensitive" issues involving global regulations. Sign in to access your portfolio
New York Post
23 minutes ago
- New York Post
Democrats facing crisis as more than 2M voters leave party in four years: analysis
The Democratic Party is bleeding registered voters, suffering a 4.5 million swing against it that could take years to recover from, according to a new report. Between the 2020 and 2024 presidential elections, Democrats lost about 2.1 million voters across the 30 states that track registration by political party, according to a New York Times analysis of data gathered by the L2 tracking firm. Over the same period, the Republican Party gained 2.4 million registered voters. Officially, there are still more registered Democrats than Republicans nationwide, but that number is incomplete because blue states like California and New York allow voters to register by party — as does the District of Columbia — while reliably red states like Texas, Missouri and Ohio do not. Most alarmingly for Democrats, the decline is nationwide, with the US seeing more new voters registering with the GOP in 2024 for the first time in six years. Democrats also saw their registered voter advantage dwindle in four 2024 battleground states — Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina and Pennsylvania — all of which President Trump carried this past Nov. 5. Democrats lost about 2.1 million registered voters in the 30 states that track registration by political party. AP Michael Pruser, who tracks voter registration closely as the director of data science for Decision Desk HQ, warned that the numbers not only help explain Trump's victory last year — in which he became the first Republican presidential candidate to win the popular vote in 20 years — but also forecast significant headwinds for Democrats in next year's midterm elections as well as the 2028 presidential vote. 'I don't want to say, 'The death cycle of the Democratic Party,'' Pruser told the Times, 'but there seems to be no end to this.' 'There is no silver lining or cavalry coming across the hill. This is month after month, year after year,' he added. In North Carolina, Democrats lost 115,523 voters between the 2020 and 2024 election, with Republicans gaining more than 140,000 members and erasing the Dems' registration advantage, according to the L2 data. More new voters registered to be Republican than Democrat last year, the first time since 2018. Michael Nagle Democrats suffered similar losses in Arizona and Pennsylvania, while in Nevada — a state whose politics were long dominated by the Las Vegas-based Culinary Workers Union — the share of registered Democrats suffered the second-steepest plunge of those states measured between 2020 and 2024. (Only deep-red West Virginia saw more precipitous losses.). Even Democratic bastions like New York and California were not safe from voter erosion, with Dems losing 305,922 registered voters in the Empire State in between the two elections. In California, Democrats lost 680,556 voters between 2020 and 2024. All in all, Democrats went from enjoying an advantage of nearly 11 percentage points over Republicans in registered voter numbers in 2020 to just over six percentage points across the 30 states and DC in 2024, the Times found. Experts believe that the fall of new Democratic registrations can be linked to the growing number of voters choosing to be independents or unaffiliated, a trend that is sapping both parties' rolls. In 2018, more than one-third (34%) of new voter registrations nationwide were Democrats, while registered Republicans made up just 20% of new voters. As of last year, however, Republicans had erased that gap, with party supporters making up 29% of new voters, while Democrats made up 26% of new voters.
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
Stephen Miller blasts ‘stupid white hippies' protesting DC crackdown
Deputy White House chief of staff Stephen Miller on Wednesday railed against what he called 'stupid white hippies' who were protesting the federal crackdown on crime in the nation's capital and argued they did not represent the citizens of Washington, D.C. Miller, Vice President Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth visited Union Station on Wednesday, where National Guard troops have been stationed outside for days in a show of force near the transportation hub. 'We are not going to let the communists destroy a great American city, let alone the nation's capital,' Miller told the crowd near Shake Shack inside Union Station. 'And let's just also address another thing. All these demonstrators you've seen out here in recent days, all these elderly white hippies, they're not part of the city and never have been. And by the way, most of the citizens who live in Washington, D.C., are Black.' 'So we're going to ignore these stupid white hippies that all need to go home and take a nap because they're all over 90 years old,' he added. 'And we're going to get back to the business of protecting the American people and the citizens of Washington, D.C.' The Trump administration earlier this month began surging federal law enforcement across parts of the district to crack down on what the White House said was an unacceptable level of crime, despite statistics showing violent crime has declined in the city. Last week, Trump took federal control of the Metropolitan Police Department and deployed hundreds of National Guard troops across the city to further the crack down on crime. The White House has said officers across the district have made more than 550 arrests since the surge in federal resources began on Aug. 7. But local residents have largely expressed disapproval with the aggressive moves from the federal government. A Washington Post-Schar School poll of 604 D.C. residents published Wednesday found 65 percent do not think Trump's actions will make the city safer. Roughly 80 percent of residents said they opposed Trump's executive order to federalize the city's police department.
