ReportWire

Tag: Obergefell

  • Supreme Court dismisses long-shot challenge to right to marry for same-sex couples

    [ad_1]

    The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed without comment a long-shot challenge to the constitutional right to marry for same-sex couples.

    The justices turned away an appeal petition from Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who defied the court’s landmark decision in 2015 and repeatedly refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

    She appealed after one couple sued and won $100,000 in damages plus attorneys fees for her deliberate violation of their constitutional rights.

    She argued the court should hear her case to decide whether the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the 1st Amendment should have protected her from being sued.

    Her appeal also posed a separate question she had not raised before in her long legal fight. She said the court should decide “whether Obergefell v. Hodges,” which established the right to same-sex marriage, “should be overturned.”

    That belated question drew wide attention to her appeal, even though there was little or no chance it would be seriously considered by the high court.

    Some LGBTQ+ advocates were concerned, however, because the conservative court had overturned Roe vs. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion in the Dobbs case of 2022.

    Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for himself alone, said then “we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” referring to cases on the rights to contraception, private sexual conduct and same-sex marriages.

    But other conservative justices had disagreed and said abortion was unique. “Rights regarding contraception and same-sex relationships are inherently different from the right to abortion because the latter (as we have stressed) uniquely involves what Roe … termed ‘potential life,’ ” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote in his opinion for the court.

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett in her new book “Listening to the Law” described the right to marry as a “fundamental right” that is protected by the Constitution.

    “The complicated moral debate about abortion stands in dramatic contrast to widespread American support for liberties like the rights to marry, have sex, procreate, use contraception, and direct the upbringing of children,” she wrote.

    In July, the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law estimated there are 823,000 married same-sex couples in the United States and nearly 300,000 children being raised by them.

    Davis had suffered a series of defeats in the federal courts.

    A federal judge in Kentucky and the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati rejected her claims based on the free exercise of religion.

    Former Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis speaks to reporters in Kentucky in 2015. The Supreme Court on Monday rejected her appeal to overturn the right to same-sex marriage.

    (Timothy D. Easley / Associated Press)

    Those judges said government officials do not have free speech or religious right to refuse to carry out their public duties.

    “That is not how the Constitution works. In their private lives, government officials are of course free to express their views and live according to their faith. But when an official wields state power against private citizens, her conscience must yield to the Constitution,” Judge Helene White wrote for the 6th Circuit Court in March.

    Ten years ago, shortly after the court’s ruling in Obergefell vs. Hodges, Kentucky’s governor, the county’s attorney and a federal judge all told Davis that she was legally required to give a marriage license to same-sex couples who applied for one.

    She refused and said the county would issue no marriage licenses until she had been given a special exemption.

    David Moore and David Ermold had been a couple for 19 years, and they filed suit after they were turned away from obtaining a marriage license on three occasions. Davis said she was acting “under God’s authority.”

    A federal judge held her in contempt for refusing to comply with the law. While she was in jail, the couple finally obtained a marriage license from one of her deputies, but their lawsuit continued.

    The Kentucky Legislature revised the law to say that county clerks need not put their name on the licenses issued by her office. Davis said that accommodation was sufficient, and she tried to have the lawsuit dismissed as moot.

    The 6th Circuit refused because the claim for damages was still valid and pending. The Supreme Court turned away one of her appeals in 2019.

    A federal judge later ruled she had violated the rights of Moore and Ermold, and a jury awarded each of them $50,000 in damages.

    Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel in Orlando, which advocates for religious freedom, appealed on her behalf.

    His petition to the Supreme Court said the court should hear her case to decide whether the 1st Amendment’s protection for the free exercise of religion should shield a public official from being sued “in her individual capacity.”

    The 6th Circuit Court rejected that claim in a 3-0 ruling.

    “The Bill of Rights would serve little purpose if it could be freely ignored whenever an official’s conscience so dictates,” Judge White said.

    “Indeed, it is not difficult to imagine the dire possibilities that might follow if Davis’s argument were accepted. A county clerk who finds interracial marriage sinful could refuse to issue licenses to interracial couples. An election official who believes women should not vote could refuse to count ballots cast by females. A zoning official personally opposed to Christianity could refuse to permit the construction of a church,” she said.

    Judge Chad Readler, a Trump appointee, said even if public employees have some rights based on their religious views, “her conduct here exceeded the scope of any personal right. … Rather than attempting to invoke a religious exemption for herself, Davis instead exercised the full authority of the Rowan County Clerk’s office to enact an official policy of denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples, one every office employee had to follow.”

    [ad_2]

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • Supreme Court rejects call to overturn its decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a call to overturn its landmark decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

    The justices turned away an appeal from Kim Davis, the former Kentucky court clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the high court’s 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.

    Davis had been trying to get the court to overturn a lower-court order for her to pay $360,000 in damages and attorney’s fees to a couple denied a marriage license.

    Her lawyers repeatedly invoked the words of Justice Clarence Thomas, who alone among the nine justices has called for erasing the same-sex marriage ruling.

    Thomas was among four dissenting justices in 2015. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito are the other dissenters who are on the court today.

    Roberts has been silent on the subject since he wrote a dissenting opinion in the case. Alito has continued to criticize the decision, but he said recently he was not advocating that it be overturned.

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was not on the court in 2015, has said that there are times when the court should correct mistakes and overturn decisions, as it did in the 2022 case that ended a constitutional right to abortion.

    But Barrett has suggested recently that same-sex marriage might be in a different category than abortion because people have relied on the decision when they married and had children.

    Davis drew national attention to eastern Kentucky’s Rowan County when she turned away same-sex couples, saying her faith prevented her from complying with the high court ruling. She defied court orders to issue the licenses until a federal judge jailed her for contempt of court in September 2015.

    She was released after her staff issued the licenses on her behalf but removed her name from the form. The Kentucky legislature later enacted a law removing the names of all county clerks from state marriage licenses.

    Davis lost a reelection bid in 2018.

    [ad_2]

    Mark Sherman

    Source link

  • Supreme Court takes aim at gay marriage ruling. Good | Opinion

    [ad_1]

    The decision written by former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy should be reversed.

    The decision written by former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy should be reversed.

    Getty Images file photo

    You might have missed the news blip this week that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to its 2015 gay marriage decision, Obergefell v. Hodges. The decision of an overwhelmingly conservative court next year could very well be one of the year’s biggest stories, dividing Americans like nothing since the Trump court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

    I’ve been a backer of gay marriage since the 1990s, when Andrew Sullivan made the case that marriage would push gay life more into the traditionalist mold of heterosexual life shaped by the responsibilities of the modern marriage covenant. The committed love of an older lesbian colleague and a gay teacher had something to do with my thinking, as well.

    The best thing about Obergefell is that in the decade since it legalized gay marriage in all 50 states, all the religious right’s scary arguments about the moral and social breakdown married gays would unleash upon society have been shown to be bunk. The worst thing I’ve seen is that the LGBTQ community is just as bad at marriage as the rest of us. I’m no paragon. Just ask my wives.

    But even then, I am all for the Supreme Court overturning the decision that was Anthony Kennedy’s last big foray into philosophizing. His ruling, joined by the court’s liberals, is farrago of falsehoods and flapdoodle with a complete disregard for the Constitution, which much to the annoyance of the left simply doesn’t have anything to say about the debate at hand other than to require that we resolve things as a democratic republic should — by voting.

    One way you can tell whether your spouse in a marital argument or your swing-vote Supreme Court justice has gone off the rails is when they start using words like “all” and “always.” Kennedy takes all the way to the second sentence of the decision to get sideways with reality: “The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life.”

    “Always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons,” huh? Guess he’s never heard of marriages that can be undone with a brief incantation and the wife cast aside. Guess he’s never heard of the places where wife beating and marital rape were standard. That’s a lot of nobility, right there.

    The next paragraph gets even better. “Since the dawn of history, marriage has transformed strangers into relatives, binding families and societies together. Confucius taught that marriage lies at the foundation of government. This wisdom …”

    Confucius had a lot of wisdom about how marriage should be conducted. Wife chattel? Check. Wife can’t own property? Check. Wife to obey husband in all things? Check. Corporal punishment for bad wives? Check.

    That’s some wisdom from Confucius about the “dignity” of wives. Let me go out on a limb to say if your opinion on gay marriage starts off by citing Confucian wisdom, you might be a little confused about history.

    Scalia: Let public debate continue

    Kennedy is no less confused about his job interpreting the Constitution. He opines that his “method respects our history and learns from it without allowing the past alone to rule the present.”

    But the thing about Constitution is that the whole point is for the past to rule the present, unless legislators take up the arduous task of amending it. The First Amendment from the distant past gives us the right to free speech. The past absolutely rules that you cannot throw irritating columnists in jail for what they write, no matter how much you want to, without changing the Constitution.

    Justice Antonin Scalia, who knew what his job was, had it exactly right when he wrote in dissent, “When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision — such as ‘due process of law’ or ‘equal protection of the laws’ — it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification. We have no basis for striking down a practice. … Since there is no doubt whatever that the People never decided to prohibit the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the public debate over same-sex marriage must be allowed to continue.”

    In short, the men who reshaped our country’s Constitution in the wake of the Civil War did not accidentally legalize gay marriage, no matter how much Justice Kennedy might twist logic and history to make it seem so.

    I want gay marriage to be legal. I will vote 100 times to make it so if that is what it takes. But just because I like the outcome of a Supreme Court case does not make it good law. The Supreme Court should strike this monstrosity down, and Congress should go about making it law the right way.

    David Mastio is a national columnist for McClatchy and The Kansas City Star.

    Related Stories from Raleigh News & Observer

    David Mastio, a former deputy editorial page editor for the liberal USA TODAY and the conservative Washington Times, has worked in opinion journalism as a commentary editor, editorial writer and columnist for 30 years. He was also a speechwriter for the George W. Bush administration.
    Support my work with a digital subscription

    [ad_2]

    David Mastio

    Source link

  • Supreme Court takes aim at gay marriage ruling. Good | Opinion

    [ad_1]

    The decision written by former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy should be reversed.

    The decision written by former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy should be reversed.

    Getty Images file photo

    You might have missed the news blip this week that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to its 2015 gay marriage decision, Obergefell v. Hodges. The decision of an overwhelmingly conservative court next year could very well be one of the year’s biggest stories, dividing Americans like nothing since the Trump court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

    I’ve been a backer of gay marriage since the 1990s, when Andrew Sullivan made the case that marriage would push gay life more into the traditionalist mold of heterosexual life shaped by the responsibilities of the modern marriage covenant. The committed love of an older lesbian colleague and a gay teacher had something to do with my thinking, as well.

    The best thing about Obergefell is that in the decade since it legalized gay marriage in all 50 states, all the religious right’s scary arguments about the moral and social breakdown married gays would unleash upon society have been shown to be bunk. The worst thing I’ve seen is that the LGBTQ community is just as bad at marriage as the rest of us. I’m no paragon. Just ask my wives.

    But even then, I am all for the Supreme Court overturning the decision that was Anthony Kennedy’s last big foray into philosophizing. His ruling, joined by the court’s liberals, is farrago of falsehoods and flapdoodle with a complete disregard for the Constitution, which much to the annoyance of the left simply doesn’t have anything to say about the debate at hand other than to require that we resolve things as a democratic republic should — by voting.

    One way you can tell whether your spouse in a marital argument or your swing-vote Supreme Court justice has gone off the rails is when they start using words like “all” and “always.” Kennedy takes all the way to the second sentence of the decision to get sideways with reality: “The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life.”

    “Always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons,” huh? Guess he’s never heard of marriages that can be undone with a brief incantation and the wife cast aside. Guess he’s never heard of the places where wife beating and marital rape were standard. That’s a lot of nobility, right there.

    The next paragraph gets even better. “Since the dawn of history, marriage has transformed strangers into relatives, binding families and societies together. Confucius taught that marriage lies at the foundation of government. This wisdom …”

    Confucius had a lot of wisdom about how marriage should be conducted. Wife chattel? Check. Wife can’t own property? Check. Wife to obey husband in all things? Check. Corporal punishment for bad wives? Check.

    That’s some wisdom from Confucius about the “dignity” of wives. Let me go out on a limb to say if your opinion on gay marriage starts off by citing Confucian wisdom, you might be a little confused about history.

    Scalia: Let public debate continue

    Kennedy is no less confused about his job interpreting the Constitution. He opines that his “method respects our history and learns from it without allowing the past alone to rule the present.”

    But the thing about Constitution is that the whole point is for the past to rule the present, unless legislators take up the arduous task of amending it. The First Amendment from the distant past gives us the right to free speech. The past absolutely rules that you cannot throw irritating columnists in jail for what they write, no matter how much you want to, without changing the Constitution.

    Justice Antonin Scalia, who knew what his job was, had it exactly right when he wrote in dissent, “When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision — such as ‘due process of law’ or ‘equal protection of the laws’ — it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification. We have no basis for striking down a practice. … Since there is no doubt whatever that the People never decided to prohibit the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the public debate over same-sex marriage must be allowed to continue.”

    In short, the men who reshaped our country’s Constitution in the wake of the Civil War did not accidentally legalize gay marriage, no matter how much Justice Kennedy might twist logic and history to make it seem so.

    I want gay marriage to be legal. I will vote 100 times to make it so if that is what it takes. But just because I like the outcome of a Supreme Court case does not make it good law. The Supreme Court should strike this monstrosity down, and Congress should go about making it law the right way.

    David Mastio is a national columnist for McClatchy and The Kansas City Star.

    Related Stories from Fort Worth Star-Telegram

    David Mastio, a former deputy editorial page editor for the liberal USA TODAY and the conservative Washington Times, has worked in opinion journalism as a commentary editor, editorial writer and columnist for 30 years. He was also a speechwriter for the George W. Bush administration.
    Support my work with a digital subscription

    [ad_2]

    David Mastio

    Source link