The hight-profile Supreme Court w for gay and lbian rights, a cisn wrten for history, stopped short of what advot really wanted. Where do that leave the movement?
Contents:
- GAY MARRIAGE, OTHER RIGHTS AT RISK AFTER U.S. SUPREME COURT ABORTN MOVE
- ADVOT FEAR BARRETT WILL STRIP AWAY GAY RIGHTS. IT ULD BEG NEXT WEEK.
GAY MARRIAGE, OTHER RIGHTS AT RISK AFTER U.S. SUPREME COURT ABORTN MOVE
If the Supreme Court l agast same-sex marriage, lns of gay upl uld fd themselv legal limbo. * can gay marriage be taken away *
There are several reasons why gay marriage is never gog away, at least for the foreeable future.
As Walter Olson wrote for the CATO Instute, “gay marriage isn’t gog anywhere, ” even a nservative Court. Days after his electn, Print Tmp went on “60 Mut” said of the gay‐marriage legal s: “They’ve been settled, and I’m fe wh that. Gay marriage happened, life went on.
“We support the fn of marriage as a God-ordaed, legal, and moral venant only between one blogil man and one blogil woman, ” says the party’s official platform, which also characteriz homosexualy as “abnormal” and rejects Print Joe Bin’s 2020 printial w. ”Last week, Bin warned of the “ultra-MAGA agenda attackg fai and our eedoms, ” om schools troducg “Don’t Say Gay” legislatn or banng genr-nfirmg re for mors.
ADVOT FEAR BARRETT WILL STRIP AWAY GAY RIGHTS. IT ULD BEG NEXT WEEK.
* can gay marriage be taken away *
“If this were to happen, the urt would be movg opposn to a public opn trend that has shown creasg support, ” the report if were up to the Texas Republin Party, would not stop platform lls homosexualy an “abnormal liftyle choice, ” and oppos “any crimal or civil penalti agast those who oppose homosexualy out of fah, nvictn, or belief tradnal valu. A high urt lg agast same-sex marriage would plunge lns of gay upl to a chaotic patchwork of nflictg, uncerta state laws, leavg their marriage rights limbo—and igng a new polil firtorm too big for 2016 ntenrs to experts agree that the fallout om a lg agast same-sex marriage would amount to legal chaos. If the Supreme Court disagre wh that ncln, at least some of those stat would stop issug marriage licens to same-sex upl, jog the 14 that still don't perm gay upl to marry.
Whout a mandate om feral urts, the issue would be left up to the voters and elected officials each of the stat where feral urts legalized same-sex marriage are red stat wh Republin ernors, and many of them fought hard urt to fend their bans on gay marriage. When Print Barack Obama threw his admistratn’s support behd a challenge to Proposn 8, the gay-marriage ban enacted by California voters 2008, his Jtice Department troduced what amounted to a bizarre promise. Proposed that the Supreme Court le that stat like California, which had extend gay men’s and lbians’ “marriage le” alternativ like domtic partnership or civil unn, were vlatn of the nstutnal prohibn agast “separate but equal”—but was fe to offer no regnn at all.
The proposal was signed to ensure that no state would have to beg validatg gay or lbian fai unr the force of a urt orr.