Latest news with #RespectforMarriageAct
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Hillary Clinton: Supreme Court ‘will do to gay marriage what they did to abortion'
2016 Democratic presidential nominee and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says she believes the Supreme Court is poised to overturn its landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which effectively legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, and that unmarried same-sex couples 'ought to consider' tying the knot. '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. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
7 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Hillary Clinton: Supreme Court ‘will do to gay marriage what they did to abortion'
2016 Democratic presidential nominee and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says she believes the Supreme Court is poised to overturn its landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which effectively legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, and that unmarried same-sex couples 'ought to consider' tying the knot. '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.
USA Today
16 hours ago
- Politics
- USA Today
Same-sex marriage has overwhelming support. Supreme Court should let ruling stand.
We have two decades of evidence that marriage equality has helped millions of people across America. LGBTQ+ people want what everyone else wants, including to live in marriage with those they love. As national news outlets recently picked up the story about a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider the future of equal marriage for same-sex couples, both of us received a barrage of messages from worried friends and colleagues. We understand people are concerned about their families and children, or about whether they'll be able to legally marry in the future. In the tumult of these times, nearly everyone is anxious about how to protect themselves and their loved ones. Let's set the foundation about where we are. Marriage equality is the law of the land and overwhelmingly supported by the American people. The landmark Obergefell v. Hodges ruling from 2015 affirmed the protections in our U.S. Constitution saying that people, not the government, should be able to decide whom they marry, and that equal protection requires access to legal marriage for same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as others. It was rightly decided under our constitutional due process and equal protection principles. The 2022 Respect for Marriage Act, approved by bipartisan majorities in Congress, enshrines respect for those marriages under federal and state law. Over 823,000 married same-sex couples live in the US A recent report from The Williams Institute found that there are more than 823,000 married same-sex couples in the United States as of June, and they are raising nearly 300,000 children. These couples have married because they love each other, they want legal formalization of their mutual commitment and responsibility, and they want to provide stable, protective homes for their children. While we should take seriously any petition to the Supreme Court, the one submitted recently is especially weak. It comes from the lawyers for Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples 10 years ago and instructed her office to do the same. Eventually, a court granted damages to a couple who were repeatedly denied a license. Davis has been to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals three times about the couples' suit and lost each time, and the entire 6th Circuit ‒ including six judges appointed by President Donald Trump ‒ has unanimously denied her a rehearing. Opinion: What happens if gay marriage is overturned? The question alone is horrifying. Davis' team has requested review from the Supreme Court, of those damages and of the Obergefell ruling, which is her right. However, given that the issues that Davis claims need resolution are narrow and already well settled, it would be highly unusual for the Supreme Court to grant review. The freedom to marry for same-sex couples remains extremely popular. People from all walks of life, across faith groups and across the political spectrum continue to express strong support. A majority of people in every single state are supportive, according to the Public Religion Research Institute. Recent Gallup polling found that 68% of Americans support marriage for same-sex couples, and a survey conducted by three right-of-center polling firms tracked support at 72%, including 56% of Republicans. Former opponents now support same-sex marriage Individuals and entities that were some of the strongest opponents of marriage equality have evolved. Two decades ago, the two of us worked together in Massachusetts to win and protect marriage in the very first state. Then-Gov. Mitt Romney fought hard to ensure the ruling never took effect. And yet in 2022, Romney voted for the Respect for Marriage Act, stating that "Congress − and I − esteem and love all of our fellow Americans equally.' In 2008, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints played a lead role in undoing marriage equality in California via Proposition 8. Fourteen years later, the church also backed the Respect for Marriage Act. For so many Americans, this isn't about politics. It's about letting people live their lives. Same-sex couples build families and contribute to their communities just like anyone else. That's the reality, and it's working. Opinion: Supreme Court isn't poised to end gay marriage, despite the media's fearmongering We now have two decades of evidence that marriage equality has helped millions of people across the country. In 2024, the nonpartisan RAND released a study about marriage for same-sex couples. The think tank found many positive outcomes, including for children, health, financial well-being and relationship stability. The researchers pressure-tested opponents' claims of harms to society, like rising divorce rates or lower marriage rates, and found 'no empirical basis for concerns that allowing same-sex couples to marry has negatively affected different-sex couples and families.' We've never taken our eye off this ball, and we never will. We will learn as early as this fall what the U.S. Supreme Court will do with the request from Davis' lawyers. Should the high court grant review, LGBTQ+ legal and advocacy groups and millions of Americans from all walks of life will engage to protect what we all long fought for and the overwhelming majority of people support. For decades, we've seen how finding common ground on why marriage matters for families and communities − and why it is good for everyone, regardless of who they are or whom they love − moves our community forward. Together, we can remind the country that LGBTQ+ people want what everyone else wants, including to live in marriage with the people they love, to care for their families, and to raise their kids in safety and dignity. Mary Bonauto, a senior director at GLAD Law, argued the first marriage win in Massachusetts in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health and Obergefell v. Hodges before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015. Marc Solomon, a partner at Civitas Public Affairs Group, was national campaign director of Freedom to Marry. He is the author of "Winning Marriage: The Inside Story of How Same-Sex Couples Took On the Politicians and Pundits – and Won."
Boston Globe
3 days ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Same-sex marriage is no threat to religious liberty
This is the ridiculous accusation being made by Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk. In 2015, she was briefly jailed for contempt of court after she refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples as required by law. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up She is asking the Supreme Court, with a more staunchly conservative bench than the one that codified same-sex marriage, to rule that federally recognized unions between two men or two women threaten 'her sincerely held religious beliefs on marriage,' according to her lawyers. Advertisement Davis's challenge to Obergefell stems from her appeal of a $100,000 jury verdict plus $260,000 for attorney fees that she was ordered to pay to the gay couple to whom she denied a marriage license. The nine justices have not yet decided whether to review Davis's appeal. Davis is being represented by the Liberty Counsel, a conservative legal group that specializes in religious liberty cases. In 2018, the group won a 7-2 Supreme Court decision that ruled in favor of a Advertisement In a statement, Mat Staver, the Liberty Counsel's founder and chairman, said the Davis case 'underscores why the U.S. Supreme Court should overturn the wrongly decided Obergefell v. Hodges opinion because it threatens the religious liberty of Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman.' Davis herself has entered that sacred union four times with three men. For last year's 20th anniversary of the Goodridge decision that legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, Justice Clarence Thomas ticked off a list of other After Roe was outlawed, 'I remember thinking 'Oh my God, is it possible that all of the rights and privileges that we've won as a community, whether it's women's or LGBTQ rights, will be washed away in the same lifetime in which we won them?'' Julie Goodridge, one of the plaintiffs in the Massachusetts case, told me. There's Advertisement But we're also witnessing the most tumultuous era in modern politics, when things we once believed impossible have now become as commonplace as they are alarming. The end of Roe proved that our civil rights are not sacrosanct. Opponents of reproductive rights chipped away at abortion access for decades until the political climate was primed to erase what had been considered settled law for nearly 50 years. So far, Trump hasn't mentioned Davis's appeal. That could change if the Supreme Court adds her case to its upcoming docket, but perhaps this White House may already be quietly tipping its hand. In 2022, Joe Biden signed into law the Respect for Marriage Act, which requires all states to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. But on the official White House website, instead of remarks from Biden officials about protecting same-sex marriage, there's now only a Here's hoping that a year from now, my friends, and every LGBTQ couple, will still have weddings and anniversaries to celebrate. Renée Graham is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at
USA Today
4 days ago
- Politics
- USA Today
Supreme Court isn't poised to end gay marriage, despite the media's fearmongering
This case is not likely to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, nor is it anywhere close to ending the constitutional protections for gay marriage. A former county clerk in Kentucky has officially filed a petition to the Supreme Court, asking it to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the ruling that founda constitutional right to same-sex marriage. People should temper their reactions to this petition. There is no guarantee that this case will be heard, and there is no indication that the nation's highest court is likely to overturn the previous ruling. The general public has a poor understanding of how the Supreme Court, and the judicial branch in general, actually works. The court is not a partisan machine that takes cases based on the whims of the Republican Party, but rather a process-oriented institution that is very restrained. While I understand the fears that members of the LGBTQ+ community hold at the prospect of losing their right to marry, particularly in the context of the hostile cultural swing within the GOP against it, fearmongering coverage only stokes overreactions. This case is not likely to be heard by the court, nor is it anywhere close to ending the constitutional protections for gay marriage. Petitions for review are many, but Supreme Court decides few cases The Supreme Court has discretion over what cases it takes, so a petition for review does not necessarily mean that the panel will consider the issue. It takes the votes of four justices to eventually grant review in a case, which advances it to the court's docket. All of this is to say that just because a petition is filed with the Supreme Court, that doesn't mean it will eventually be heard. The vast majority are never heard. Of the more than 7,000 cases filed each year, the Supreme Court grants review in only 100-150 of them. In 2024, for example, the court ultimately ruled on just 59 cases. While legislation is by no means a complete replacement for a constitutional amendment, the constitutional right to gay marriage is rendered somewhat obsolete by the Respect for Marriage Act, the 2022 piece of bipartisan legislation that requires states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The odds of that legislation being overturned are extremely low, given gay marriage's popularity, even among conservatives. Thus, if the constitutional protections for gay marriage were to disappear, the practice still would most likely remain protected. The fearmongering began almost immediately But none of that stopped people from panicking at the prospect of the court considering such a case. Obviously, the partisan hacks of X immediately latched onto this story to fearmonger, but even larger news sources like ABC couldn't help themselves from dedicating feature-length articles to the topic. 'Ten years after the Supreme Court extended marriage rights to same-sex couples nationwide, the justices this fall will consider for the first time whether to take up a case that explicitly asks them to overturn that decision,' said ABC News in an X post. Despite acknowledging the fact that the case is a 'long shot' in its own article on the matter, ABC News chose to frame this piece in this manner because it sensationalizes the potential for Obergefell to be overturned, with little indication that this is not an impending event. Other news sources were far more honest in their framing, but ABC News' post is irresponsible because it capitalizes on a massive problem in American civic education. Others, including USA TODAY, have tied it to President Donald Trump's position, while highlighting that the case is unlikely to succeed. Supreme Court literacy is important, but it's currently lacking At the moment, gay marriage is extremely safe going into the future. So, what is all the worry about? As it stands, very few Americans understand the judicial processes that lead to a case being considered by the Supreme Court. Even many who are otherwise rather politically intelligent understand very little about how the Supreme Court operates. The typical American comically knows little about the Supreme Court, from basic facts like the number of justices to the branch of government the court is housed within. Americans who have a limited understanding of this information naturally have little business understanding the meaning of a petition for certiorari or how precedent is overturned. Partisan sources are aware of this and capitalize on it. Democratic groups have already begun to incorporate the mere fact that someone has petitioned the court to review such a decision. I've written previously about how people's views of the court are far too simplistic, and that is an interconnected problem with this one. People do not understand the dynamic of the court well enough to actually make judgments beyond the partisan talking points. People naturally assume that the conservative majority Supreme Court will always rule in favor of conservative social outcomes, but the justices have proved that's not the case. Sources like the ABC News article may not be malicious, but their potential for harm is still great. America has a problem with civic education when it comes to the Supreme Court, but an honest news media has a responsibility to be conscious of framing court stories in relation to the public's knowledge. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
