Supreme Court Extends Gay-Marriage Rights Wh Two Rulgs : NPR

Contents:

• SUPREME COURT BOLSTERS GAY MARRIAGE WH TWO MAJOR RULGS
• GAY MARRIAGE THE US SUPREME COURT, 2013
• COURT OVERTURNS DOMA, SISTEPS BROAD GAY MARRIAGE RULG
• SUPREME COURT EXTENDS GAY-MARRIAGE RIGHTS WH TWO RULGS
• JTIC SAY TIME MAY BE WRONG FOR GAY MARRIAGE CASE
• THE LGHABLE ARGUMENT AGAST GAY MARRIAGE
• I WAS PART OF 303 CREATIVE'S CASE. I BACK GAY MARRIAGE—BUT SCOTUS IS RIGHT

SUPREME COURT BOLSTERS GAY MARRIAGE WH TWO MAJOR RULGS

AdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENTVioThe Tim’s Adam Liptak tak a look at how the Supreme Court’s cisn to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act Jabsohn/RtersJune 26, 2013WASHINGTON — In a pair of major victori for the gay rights movement, the Supreme Court on Wednday led that married same-sex upl were entled to feral benefs and, by clg to ci a se om California, effectively allowed same-sex marriag lgs leave place laws banng same-sex marriage around the natn, and the urt cled to say whether there was a nstutnal right to such unns.

Christopher Gregory/The New York TimHe said the law was motivated by a sire to harm gay and lbian upl and their fai, meang the “moral and sexual choic” of such upl and huiatg “tens of thoands of children now beg raised by same-sex upl. ” He add that the lg applied only to marriag om stat that allowed gay and lbian upl to wed.

Texas, which stck down laws makg gay sex a crime. A versn of this article appears prt on, Sectn A, Page 1 of the New York edn wh the headle: Jtic Extend Benefs To Gay Coupl; Allow Same-Sex Marriag In California.

GAY MARRIAGE THE US SUPREME COURT, 2013

In 1981, the San Francis Board of Supervisors passed an ordance that allowed homosexual upl and unmarried heterosexual upl to register for domtic partnership, which also granted hospal visatn rights and other benefs.

Bh that would outlaw same-sex marriag the whole untry, ten typilly nservative tat along wh Oregon enacted state-level bans on gay marriag. In 2010, Massachetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, found Sectn 3 of DOMA that fed marriage as a unn between one man and one woman to be unnstutnal, 2013, Uned Stat v.

By 2015 (the year Obergefell was cid) thirty-six stat already issued marriage licens to same-sex upl and more than 20 unti around the world had already legalized gay marriage, startg wh the Netherlands 2000. Judge Heyburn held that “homosexual persons nstute a quasi-spect class,” and clared that Kentucky’s law banng same-sex marriag vlat the Equal Protectn Clse of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Uned Stat Constutn. Wdsor cisn, gay marriage bans were overturned by urt lgs several stat, but those lgs were put on hold pendg appeals to the US Supreme Court.

COURT OVERTURNS DOMA, SISTEPS BROAD GAY MARRIAGE RULG

6, 2014, the Supreme Court cled to hear appeals om five of those stat, and the cisn immediately cleared the way for legal gay marriage Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virgia, and Wisns. Six other stat which gay marriage bans had been overturned, Colorado, Kansas, North Carola, South Carola, Wt Virgia, and Wyomg, were also affected by the Supreme Court lg bee they were the jurisdictns of the lower urts that had overturned the gay marriage bans.

SUPREME COURT EXTENDS GAY-MARRIAGE RIGHTS WH TWO RULGS

In a 4-3 lg on May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court overturned state laws banng gay marriage. On May 26, 2009, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposn 8’s gay marriage ban, but on Aug.

JTIC SAY TIME MAY BE WRONG FOR GAY MARRIAGE CASE

Sce the lower urt had already clared Proposn 8 to be unnstutnal, the cisn was nsired to have cleared the way for gay marriag to rume the state. “Outsi of the marriage ntext, n you thk of any other ratnal basis, reason, for a State g sexual orientatn as a factor nyg homosexuals benefs or imposg burns on them? “I thk there’s substance to the pot that soclogil rmatn [about allowg gay upl to marry] is new.

THE LGHABLE ARGUMENT AGAST GAY MARRIAGE

PRO GAY MARRIAGE. CON GAY MARRIAGE. “[T]he evince prented at trial shows that gays and lbians are the type of mory strict scty was signed to protect.

That fdg follows exorably om this Court’s equal protectn jurispnce, the extensive trial rerd, and Proponents’ repeated ncsns that gay men and lbians have faced a history of discrimatn based on a tra that has no bearg on their abily to ntribute to society… [T]here is no group Amerin society who has been targeted by ballot iativ more than gays and lbians, and they have sentially lost a hundred percent of the ntts over same-sex marriage. Ined, the undisputed fact that gay men and lbians have been subjected to a history of discrimatn based on a tra that bears no relatnship to their abily to ntribute to society is sufficient, and of self, to renr classifitns based on sexual orientatn ‘spect’ and to give rise to heightened scty.

“The Defense of Marriage Act do not discrimate between heterosexuals and homosexuals, but between oppose-sex married upl and same-sex married upl.

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

Although DOMA admtedly has a greater impact on homosexuals than heterosexuals, that impact, unr this Court’s precents, is not nstutnally relevant unls n be traced back to an tent or purpose on behalf of Congrs to discrimate agast homosexuals, as opposed to the mere knowledge that would have a disparate impact on them.