Supreme Court Rulg Means Gay Marriage Is Vulnerable | Time

Contents:

• WHAT'S AT STAKE AS THE SUPREME COURT RETURNS TO GAY MARRIAGE
• GAY RIGHTS VS. FREE SPEECHSUPREME COURT BACKS WEB DIGNER OPPOSED TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
• WHAT EACH SUPREME COURT JTICE HAS SAID ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE
• I WAS PART OF 303 CREATIVE'S CASE. I BACK GAY MARRIAGE—BUT SCOTUS IS RIGHT

WHAT'S AT STAKE AS THE SUPREME COURT RETURNS TO GAY MARRIAGE

When the urt heard arguments on two s March of 2013, gay marriage was still a live issue.

Today, 37 stat regnize gay marriage, many of which did so after feral judg took the logic of the Supreme Court’s prev lgs further. The jtic themselv have personally mirrored this trend, wh liberal Jtic Ruth Bar Gsburg and Elena Kagan officiatg at gay weddgs sce the last cisn.

Court watchers predict that a slim majory of jtic — led by swg vote Anthony Kennedy — will fish what they started two years ago, fdg a way to get all 50 stat to regnize gay marriage. Hodg, is named for Jam Obergefell, who married his now-ceased partner Maryland, where gay marriage is legal, but nnot have his marriage regnized Oh, where is not. Or they uld more broadly ci that marriage is a nstutnal right that no state may ny to gays and lbians, forcg even reluctant stat to issue same-sex marriage licens of their own.

GAY RIGHTS VS. FREE SPEECHSUPREME COURT BACKS WEB DIGNER OPPOSED TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

But the unrlyg qutn will rema whether laws sglg out gays and lbians for different treatment—say, by barrg them om marryg—serve extra scty the same way that laws sglg out ethnic or relig mori do. On that qutn, the Supreme Court has managed so far to avoid an answer, peggg opns that expand the equaly of gays and lbians on different arguments. It may do so aga, or the jtic may take the first step toward broar regnn of gay rights.

Eher way, the fight over gay marriage may be nearg an end, but the bate over gay rights ntu.

WHAT EACH SUPREME COURT JTICE HAS SAID ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE

Lyle Denniston, the Natnal Constutn Center nstutnal leracy adviser, explas why the Supreme Court will be drawn to the post-Obergefell ntroversy over claims of relig eedom and ntug claims of discrimatn agast gays, lbians and bisexual and transgenr people. Of symbolic importance is the se of a Kentucky unty clerk, Kim Davis, who gaed natnal promence for refg – as a matter of fah – to put her name on marriage licens for gay and lbian upl. It is next to a certaty that, at some pot before long, the Supreme Court will be drawn to the post-Obergefell ntroversy over claims of relig eedom and ntug claims of discrimatn agast gays, lbians and bisexual and transgenr people.

Kennedy, then the center of the High Court, rejected the optns before him, cidg agast sidg wh a same-sex uple who had been nied a ke for their Colorado weddg receptn and agast sidg wh the baker who said his oven was off-lims to gay upl. Jt a few weeks ago, when Transportatn Secretary Pete Buttigieg, the natn’s hight-rankg Senate-nfirmed gay member of the Bin Admistratn, joed TIME’s Washgton Bure for a wi-rangg nversatn, he was blunt: “I mean, Roe fell and that was the law of the land for longer than I’ve been alive.

ImageLorie Smh said her Christian fah requir her to turn away ctomers seekg servic to celebrate same-sex Woolf for The New York TimThe Supreme Court sid on Friday wh a web signer Colorado who said she had a First Amendment right to refe to sign weddg webs for same-sex upl spe a state law that forbids discrimatn agast gay people.

I WAS PART OF 303 CREATIVE'S CASE. I BACK GAY MARRIAGE—BUT SCOTUS IS RIGHT

’”The se, though amed as a clash between ee speech and gay rights, was the latt a seri of cisns favor of relig people and groups, notably nservative cisn also appeared to suggt that the rights of L. The liberal jtic viewed as somethg else entirely — a dispute that threatened societal protectns for gay rights and rolled back some recent an impassned dissent, Jtice Sonia Sotomayor warned that the oute signaled a return to a time when people of lor and other mory groups faced open discrimatn. ”A Colorado law forbids discrimatn agast gay people by bs open to the public as well as statements announcg such discrimatn.