Clarence Thomas says Supreme Court should rensir ntraceptn, gay marriage lgs | Fox News

Contents:

• TEXAS JUDGE WHO DON'T WANT TO PERFORM GAY MARRIAGE CEREMONI HOP WEB SIGNER'S SUPREME COURT SE HELPS HER FIGHT
• JUDGE US SUPREME COURT’S GAY WEDDG WEBSE RULG FOR HER OWN ANTI-LGBTQ LAWSU
• CLARENCE THOMAS SAYS SUPREME COURT SHOULD RENSIR NTRACEPTN, GAY MARRIAGE LGS
• GAY MARRIAGE: POLICIANS, NOT JTIC, SHOULD DECIAFTER GETTG A LIFT OM A FERAL JUDGE, GAY MARRIAGE HEADS TO THE SUPREME COURT. BUT PL CAMPOS SAYS 'S A POLIL, NOT JUDICIAL, ISSUE.PL CAMPOSUPDATED JUL. 14, 2017 5:31PM EDT / PUBLISHED AUG. 07, 2010 2:36PM EDT GAY MARRIAGE SUPPORTERS LISTEN AT A PUBLIC RALLY ON WEDNDAY, AUG. 4, 2010 WT HOLLYWOOD, CALIF. (ADAM L / AP PHOTO) ONE OF THE ACRONYMS SPAWNED BY THE INTER IS IANAL, WHICH STANDS FOR “I AM NOT A LAWYER.” THIS ABBREVIATN IS ED BY NON-LAWYERS WHO PARTICIPATE CYBER-BAT ABOUT WHAT ARE SUPPOSEDLY QUTNS OF LEGAL TERPRETATN, SUCH AS, FOR EXAMPLE: DO THE 14TH AMENDMENT PROHIB STAT OM REFG TO REGNIZE THE LEGALY OF SAME-SEX MARRIAG? PEOPLE WHO EMPLOY ARE UALLY APOLOGIZG FOR THEIR LACK OF LEGAL EXPERTISE, WHILE STILL HOPG TO NTRIBUTE SOMETHG EFUL TO THE BAT.SUCH APOLOGI ARE UNNECSARY. THE QUTN OF WHETHER THE 14TH AMENDMENT PROHIBS STAT OM BANNG SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS INTIL TO THE QUTN OF WHETHER JTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY THKS THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD REQUIRE STAT TO REGNIZE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. THIS IS BEE, WHEN THE SUPREME COURT EVENTUALLY CIS THE OUTE OF PERRY VS. SCHWARZENEGGER, THE SE WHICH A FERAL JUDGE THIS WEEK STCK DOWN A BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE AS UNNSTUTNAL, WE N BE ALMOST CERTA THAT JTIC ALO, ROBERTS, SLIA, AND THOMAS WILL VOTE TO REVERSE THE OUTE OF THE DISTRICT URT’S LG, WHILE JTIC BREYER, GSBURG, KAGAN, AND SOTOMAYOR WILL VOTE TO UPHOLD .THE QUTN OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS A PURELY POLIL QUTN, WHICH HAS NO MEANGFUL LEGAL PONENT WHATSOEVER. THAT MEANS THAT KENNEDY, A ONCE-OBSCURE CALIFORNIA LAWYER WHO WAS PUT ON THE SUPREME COURT BY RONALD REAGAN, GETS TO CI IF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BE LEGAL THE 45 STAT THAT CURRENTLY DO NOT REGNIZE . IN OTHER WORDS, ANSWERG THE QUTN OF WHETHER LAWS PROHIBG SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ARE UNNSTUTNAL DON’T REQUIRE ONE TO TERPRET THE CONSTUTN— MERELY REQUIR THAT ONE TERPRET THE LIKELY BEHAVR OF ANTHONY KENNEDY. NOW ’S A STANDARD FEATURE OF AMERIN POLICS TO BEWAIL THIS SUATN, WHILE PLAG ABOUT “JUDICIAL ACTIVISM.” ACRDG TO THIS VIEW, JUDG SHOULD NOT CI NTROVERSIAL QUTNS OF PUBLIC POLICY BY VOKG VAGUE PIEC OF NSTUTNAL LANGUAGE, SUCH AS THE DUE-PROCS AND EQUAL-PROTECTN CLS. (BOTH WERE EMPLOYED PERRY BY JUDGE VGHN WALKER, WHO FOUND THERE WAS NO “RATNAL BASIS” FOR PROHIBG SAME-SEX MARRIAG.)THE PLATS ARE THEMSELV VULNERABLE TO A UPLE OF CRICISMS. FIRST, THE PLAG TENDS TO BE QUE SELECTIVE AN OBVLY PARTISAN WAY. FOR EXAMPLE, ’S VERY DIFFICULT TO FD NSERVATIVE FO OF “LIBERAL ACTIVIST JUDG” WHO ARE ALSO WILLG TO CRICIZE THE NSERVATIVE WG OF THE SUPREME COURT WHEN VOK VAGUE NSTUTNAL LANGUAGE TO STRIKE DOWN MPAIGN-FANCE LAWS, OR UNRME AFFIRMATIVE-ACTN PROGRAMS, OR TERME THE OUTE OF A PRINTIAL ELECTN.THIS, HOWEVER, IS A RELATIVELY MOR QUIBBLE. TO POT OUT THAT PEOPLE ARE NSISTENT THEIR WILLGNS TO CRICIZE JUDICIAL ACTIVISM MIGHT REVEAL THEIR HYPOCRISY, OR STUPIDY, OR BOTH. BUT IS NOT NECSARILY A CRICISM OF THE ARGUMENT THAT JUDG SHOULD AVOID MAKG ACTIVIST CISNS.A MUCH EPER CRICISM IS THAT THE ARGUMENT THAT JUDG SHOULD NOT CI NTROVERSIAL POLIL ISSU BY VOKG VAGUE NSTUTNAL LANGUAGE EXPANSIVE WAYS IS SELF EVERY B AS MUCH A POLIL ARGUMENT AS THE POSN ATTACKS. TO SEE WHY THIS IS SO, NSIR TWO NTROVERSIAL QUTNS: SHOULD EVERY STATE BE REPRENTED THE SENATE BY TWO SENATORS, REGARDLS OF POPULATN? AND SHOULD FERAL TAX RAT BE RAISED?ANY LAWYER N TELL YOU THAT THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUTN IS ALMOST PLETELY NSTRAED BY THE LAW, WHILE THE SEND IS ALMOST PLETELY UNNSTRAED. EVERY JUDGE AMERI MIGHT BELIEVE, AS I DO, THAT THE NON-REPRENTATNAL STCTURE OF THE SENATE HAS BEE VERY BAD FOR AMERIN POLICS, BUT EVERY JUDGE WILL TELL YOU THAT THE LAW REQUIR EVERY STATE TO HAVE EXACTLY TWO SENATORS, AND THAT NOTHG N BE DONE ABOUT THIS WHOUT FIRST MAKG A FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE TO OUR LAW (BY AMENDG THE CONSTUTN).THE QUTN OF WHETHER FERAL TAX RAT SHOULD BE RAISED PRENTS THE REVERSE SUATN: ANY JUDGE WILL TELL YOU THAT THE LAW HAS NOTHG TO SAY ABOUT THE ANSWER TO THAT QUTN. THE FIRST QUTN IS A QUTN OF LAW, WHILE THE SEND QUTN IS A QUTN OF POLICS—OR, TO PUT ANOTHER WAY, THE FIRST QUTN N BEE A QUTN OF POLICS ONLY IF WE ARE WILLG TO NSIR CHANGG THE LAW A WAY THAT WOULD MAKE ONE.THE VOTN OF VAGUE NSTUTNAL LANGUAGE TO CI NTROVERSIAL POLIL ISSU—THAT IS, JUDICIAL ACTIVISM—NSISTS PRECISELY TREATG POLIL QUTNS AS IF THEY WERE QUTNS ANSWERED BY THE CONSTUTN. NOW OPPONENTS OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM N OFFER ALL SORTS OF ARGUMENTS WHY THIS IS SUPPOSEDLY A BAD THG. BUT NOTE THAT NONE OF THE ARGUMENTS WILL BE LEGAL ARGUMENTS, THE SENSE THAT ’S A LEGAL ARGUMENT TO POT OUT THAT THE CONSTUTN REQUIR EACH STATE TO HAVE TWO SENATORS.GIVEN THAT JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IS A CENTRAL FEATURE OF OUR LEGAL CULTURE, ALL ARGUMENTS AGAST (OR FOR THAT MATTER FAVOR OF ) ARE POLIL ARGUMENTS, AND ED ARE NO DIFFERENT, THIS RPECT, THAN ARGUMENTS ABOUT WHAT TAX RAT SHOULD BE.THAT SAID, PRENTS SOMETHG OF A CHALLENGE TO NSTCT AN ARGUMENT FAVOR OF A SYSTEM THAT GIV A SGLE UNELECTED LAWYER THE POWER TO TERME THE OUTE OF A GREAT NATNAL NTROVERSY. OR, TO PUT THE QUTN MORE DIRECTLY: IS THERE A RATNAL BASIS FOR THE KD OF JUDICIAL REVIEW THAT LEADS TO NCLNS SUCH AS THAT THERE IS NO RATNAL BASIS FOR THE LAW STCK DOWN PERRY?THIS IS ANOTHER WAY OF ASKG WHY ANTHONY KENNEDY’S VIEWS ON WHETHER SAME-SEX MARRIAGE SHOULD BE LEGALIZED OUGHT TO UNT MORE THAN THOSE OF ALL HIS 310 LN FELLOW CIZENS BED. THE QUTN OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS A PURELY POLIL QUTN, WHICH HAS NO MEANGFUL LEGAL PONENT WHATSOEVER. (IN OTHER WORDS, BEG A LAWYER GIV YOU NO ADVANTAGE OVER ANYONE ELSE GETTG THE ANSWER TO THIS QUTN RIGHT.) INED, PERHAPS THE MOST PLSIBLE FENSE FOR THIS TYPE OF SOCIAL ENGEERG BY JUDICIAL FIAT IS TRADN—I.E., THAT’S JT HOW WE’VE ALWAYS DONE THGS AMERI. WHICH IS RATHER IRONIC, GIVEN THAT THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME ARGUMENT EMPLOYED BY THE OPPONENTS OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE.PL CAMPOS IS A PROFSOR OF LAW AT THE UNIVERSY OF COLORADO AT BOULR. PL CAMPOS
• NORTHERN IRELAND GAY MARRIAGE BAN FAC JUDICIAL REVIEW
• GAY MARRIAGE IS NOW A CONSTUTNAL RIGHT THE UNED STAT OF AMERI
• HOW THE SUPREME COURT’S CISN FOR GAY MARRIAGE ULD AFFECT RELIG STUTNS

TEXAS JUDGE WHO DON'T WANT TO PERFORM GAY MARRIAGE CEREMONI HOP WEB SIGNER'S SUPREME COURT SE HELPS HER FIGHT

Acrdg to the Texas judicial missn's 2019 warng, Hensley referred gay upl who wanted her to pri over their marriage ceremony to other people who would officiate.

JUDGE US SUPREME COURT’S GAY WEDDG WEBSE RULG FOR HER OWN ANTI-LGBTQ LAWSU

Unsurprisgly, Mchell oppos gay rights and said a Supreme Court brief that Obergefell v. Texas 2003 alt wh homosexual sex between nsentg parti, and Obergefell v. Hodg tread the same terrory 2015 to le gay marriage as a nstutnally protected right to speculated that the overturng of Roe would provi a blueprt for revisg years' worth of cisns that he says are "monstrably erroneo.

Blow claimed the right was forcg LGBTQ folks to "cultural gay ghettos. "Both lumns exprsed alarm at the nservative movement’s recent efforts to challenge aspects of the LGBTQ agenda, mentng the backlash agast a new Disney/Pixar movie, Florida's "Don’t’ Say Gay" Bill and nservative opposn to drag queen story hour events for children. Schwarzenegger, the se which a feral judge this week stck down a ban on gay marriage as unnstutnal, we n be almost certa that Jtic Alo, Roberts, Slia, and Thomas will vote to reverse the oute of the district urt’s lg, while Jtic Breyer, Gsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor will vote to uphold qutn of same-sex marriage is a purely polil qutn, which has no meangful legal ponent whatsoever.

Both upl’ civil partnership ceremoni were held at Belfast cy hall, jt a short distance om the high urt, 10 years review is likely to be held November, alongsi several other legal challeng taken by gay upl the regn, and who are backed by the Rabow Project, an LGBT rights anisatn. ”Close said she and her US partner had been spired by Ireland’s overwhelmg vote favour of gay marriage last month and the joyo scen that greeted the rult of the referendum at Dubl Rabow Project’s director, John O’Doherty, weled Treacy’s lg.

CLARENCE THOMAS SAYS SUPREME COURT SHOULD RENSIR NTRACEPTN, GAY MARRIAGE LGS

Earlier this month, 20, 000 tra unnists staged a rally Belfast cy centre to support gay marriage Northern Ireland, the only part of the UK where LGBT upl nnot be married.

GAY MARRIAGE: POLICIANS, NOT JTIC, SHOULD DECIAFTER GETTG A LIFT OM A FERAL JUDGE, GAY MARRIAGE HEADS TO THE SUPREME COURT. BUT PL CAMPOS SAYS 'S A POLIL, NOT JUDICIAL, ISSUE.PL CAMPOSUPDATED JUL. 14, 2017 5:31PM EDT / PUBLISHED AUG. 07, 2010 2:36PM EDT GAY MARRIAGE SUPPORTERS LISTEN AT A PUBLIC RALLY ON WEDNDAY, AUG. 4, 2010 WT HOLLYWOOD, CALIF. (ADAM L / AP PHOTO) ONE OF THE ACRONYMS SPAWNED BY THE INTER IS IANAL, WHICH STANDS FOR “I AM NOT A LAWYER.” THIS ABBREVIATN IS ED BY NON-LAWYERS WHO PARTICIPATE CYBER-BAT ABOUT WHAT ARE SUPPOSEDLY QUTNS OF LEGAL TERPRETATN, SUCH AS, FOR EXAMPLE: DO THE 14TH AMENDMENT PROHIB STAT OM REFG TO REGNIZE THE LEGALY OF SAME-SEX MARRIAG? PEOPLE WHO EMPLOY ARE UALLY APOLOGIZG FOR THEIR LACK OF LEGAL EXPERTISE, WHILE STILL HOPG TO NTRIBUTE SOMETHG EFUL TO THE BAT.SUCH APOLOGI ARE UNNECSARY. THE QUTN OF WHETHER THE 14TH AMENDMENT PROHIBS STAT OM BANNG SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS INTIL TO THE QUTN OF WHETHER JTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY THKS THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD REQUIRE STAT TO REGNIZE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. THIS IS BEE, WHEN THE SUPREME COURT EVENTUALLY CIS THE OUTE OF PERRY VS. SCHWARZENEGGER, THE SE WHICH A FERAL JUDGE THIS WEEK STCK DOWN A BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE AS UNNSTUTNAL, WE N BE ALMOST CERTA THAT JTIC ALO, ROBERTS, SLIA, AND THOMAS WILL VOTE TO REVERSE THE OUTE OF THE DISTRICT URT’S LG, WHILE JTIC BREYER, GSBURG, KAGAN, AND SOTOMAYOR WILL VOTE TO UPHOLD .THE QUTN OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS A PURELY POLIL QUTN, WHICH HAS NO MEANGFUL LEGAL PONENT WHATSOEVER. THAT MEANS THAT KENNEDY, A ONCE-OBSCURE CALIFORNIA LAWYER WHO WAS PUT ON THE SUPREME COURT BY RONALD REAGAN, GETS TO CI IF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BE LEGAL THE 45 STAT THAT CURRENTLY DO NOT REGNIZE . IN OTHER WORDS, ANSWERG THE QUTN OF WHETHER LAWS PROHIBG SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ARE UNNSTUTNAL DON’T REQUIRE ONE TO TERPRET THE CONSTUTN— MERELY REQUIR THAT ONE TERPRET THE LIKELY BEHAVR OF ANTHONY KENNEDY. NOW ’S A STANDARD FEATURE OF AMERIN POLICS TO BEWAIL THIS SUATN, WHILE PLAG ABOUT “JUDICIAL ACTIVISM.” ACRDG TO THIS VIEW, JUDG SHOULD NOT CI NTROVERSIAL QUTNS OF PUBLIC POLICY BY VOKG VAGUE PIEC OF NSTUTNAL LANGUAGE, SUCH AS THE DUE-PROCS AND EQUAL-PROTECTN CLS. (BOTH WERE EMPLOYED PERRY BY JUDGE VGHN WALKER, WHO FOUND THERE WAS NO “RATNAL BASIS” FOR PROHIBG SAME-SEX MARRIAG.)THE PLATS ARE THEMSELV VULNERABLE TO A UPLE OF CRICISMS. FIRST, THE PLAG TENDS TO BE QUE SELECTIVE AN OBVLY PARTISAN WAY. FOR EXAMPLE, ’S VERY DIFFICULT TO FD NSERVATIVE FO OF “LIBERAL ACTIVIST JUDG” WHO ARE ALSO WILLG TO CRICIZE THE NSERVATIVE WG OF THE SUPREME COURT WHEN VOK VAGUE NSTUTNAL LANGUAGE TO STRIKE DOWN MPAIGN-FANCE LAWS, OR UNRME AFFIRMATIVE-ACTN PROGRAMS, OR TERME THE OUTE OF A PRINTIAL ELECTN.THIS, HOWEVER, IS A RELATIVELY MOR QUIBBLE. TO POT OUT THAT PEOPLE ARE NSISTENT THEIR WILLGNS TO CRICIZE JUDICIAL ACTIVISM MIGHT REVEAL THEIR HYPOCRISY, OR STUPIDY, OR BOTH. BUT IS NOT NECSARILY A CRICISM OF THE ARGUMENT THAT JUDG SHOULD AVOID MAKG ACTIVIST CISNS.A MUCH EPER CRICISM IS THAT THE ARGUMENT THAT JUDG SHOULD NOT CI NTROVERSIAL POLIL ISSU BY VOKG VAGUE NSTUTNAL LANGUAGE EXPANSIVE WAYS IS SELF EVERY B AS MUCH A POLIL ARGUMENT AS THE POSN ATTACKS. TO SEE WHY THIS IS SO, NSIR TWO NTROVERSIAL QUTNS: SHOULD EVERY STATE BE REPRENTED THE SENATE BY TWO SENATORS, REGARDLS OF POPULATN? AND SHOULD FERAL TAX RAT BE RAISED?ANY LAWYER N TELL YOU THAT THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUTN IS ALMOST PLETELY NSTRAED BY THE LAW, WHILE THE SEND IS ALMOST PLETELY UNNSTRAED. EVERY JUDGE AMERI MIGHT BELIEVE, AS I DO, THAT THE NON-REPRENTATNAL STCTURE OF THE SENATE HAS BEE VERY BAD FOR AMERIN POLICS, BUT EVERY JUDGE WILL TELL YOU THAT THE LAW REQUIR EVERY STATE TO HAVE EXACTLY TWO SENATORS, AND THAT NOTHG N BE DONE ABOUT THIS WHOUT FIRST MAKG A FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE TO OUR LAW (BY AMENDG THE CONSTUTN).THE QUTN OF WHETHER FERAL TAX RAT SHOULD BE RAISED PRENTS THE REVERSE SUATN: ANY JUDGE WILL TELL YOU THAT THE LAW HAS NOTHG TO SAY ABOUT THE ANSWER TO THAT QUTN. THE FIRST QUTN IS A QUTN OF LAW, WHILE THE SEND QUTN IS A QUTN OF POLICS—OR, TO PUT ANOTHER WAY, THE FIRST QUTN N BEE A QUTN OF POLICS ONLY IF WE ARE WILLG TO NSIR CHANGG THE LAW A WAY THAT WOULD MAKE ONE.THE VOTN OF VAGUE NSTUTNAL LANGUAGE TO CI NTROVERSIAL POLIL ISSU—THAT IS, JUDICIAL ACTIVISM—NSISTS PRECISELY TREATG POLIL QUTNS AS IF THEY WERE QUTNS ANSWERED BY THE CONSTUTN. NOW OPPONENTS OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM N OFFER ALL SORTS OF ARGUMENTS WHY THIS IS SUPPOSEDLY A BAD THG. BUT NOTE THAT NONE OF THE ARGUMENTS WILL BE LEGAL ARGUMENTS, THE SENSE THAT ’S A LEGAL ARGUMENT TO POT OUT THAT THE CONSTUTN REQUIR EACH STATE TO HAVE TWO SENATORS.GIVEN THAT JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IS A CENTRAL FEATURE OF OUR LEGAL CULTURE, ALL ARGUMENTS AGAST (OR FOR THAT MATTER FAVOR OF ) ARE POLIL ARGUMENTS, AND ED ARE NO DIFFERENT, THIS RPECT, THAN ARGUMENTS ABOUT WHAT TAX RAT SHOULD BE.THAT SAID, PRENTS SOMETHG OF A CHALLENGE TO NSTCT AN ARGUMENT FAVOR OF A SYSTEM THAT GIV A SGLE UNELECTED LAWYER THE POWER TO TERME THE OUTE OF A GREAT NATNAL NTROVERSY. OR, TO PUT THE QUTN MORE DIRECTLY: IS THERE A RATNAL BASIS FOR THE KD OF JUDICIAL REVIEW THAT LEADS TO NCLNS SUCH AS THAT THERE IS NO RATNAL BASIS FOR THE LAW STCK DOWN PERRY?THIS IS ANOTHER WAY OF ASKG WHY ANTHONY KENNEDY’S VIEWS ON WHETHER SAME-SEX MARRIAGE SHOULD BE LEGALIZED OUGHT TO UNT MORE THAN THOSE OF ALL HIS 310 LN FELLOW CIZENS BED. THE QUTN OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS A PURELY POLIL QUTN, WHICH HAS NO MEANGFUL LEGAL PONENT WHATSOEVER. (IN OTHER WORDS, BEG A LAWYER GIV YOU NO ADVANTAGE OVER ANYONE ELSE GETTG THE ANSWER TO THIS QUTN RIGHT.) INED, PERHAPS THE MOST PLSIBLE FENSE FOR THIS TYPE OF SOCIAL ENGEERG BY JUDICIAL FIAT IS TRADN—I.E., THAT’S JT HOW WE’VE ALWAYS DONE THGS AMERI. WHICH IS RATHER IRONIC, GIVEN THAT THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME ARGUMENT EMPLOYED BY THE OPPONENTS OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE.PL CAMPOS IS A PROFSOR OF LAW AT THE UNIVERSY OF COLORADO AT BOULR. PL CAMPOS

Amnty Internatnal said the ban has turned Northern Ireland to a “discrimatory backwater for the gay and lbian muny”. Hodg, on the legaly of same-sex marriage the Uned Stat, is as breathtakg as is Fourteenth Amendment requir a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to regnize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed is, the lg that gay-marriage advot and opponents have been wag for sce April when the Court took up the se—but really, for years long before that.

NORTHERN IRELAND GAY MARRIAGE BAN FAC JUDICIAL REVIEW

Remend ReadgThe Court’s opn—thored by Jtice Anthony Kennedy, a Catholic who has long been seen as the possible swg vote on gay marriage, joed by Jtic Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bar Gsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor, and wh four separate dissents thored and joed by batns of Samuel Alo, John Roberts, Anton Slia, and Clarence Thomas—lists four major reasons for s cisn. ”But then, the cisn tak an tertg turn: The Court seems to flip the oft-ed reasong of same-sex marriage opponents, who claim that gay marriage is harmful to children and fai, and disptive to the longstandg orr of Amerin society. Not all straight married upl have children, and they’re certaly not required to do so by law, he reasons; the same le should apply to gay married upl.

GAY MARRIAGE IS NOW A CONSTUTNAL RIGHT THE UNED STAT OF AMERI

But more importantly, for those gay upl that do want to have kids—cludg the many upl who adopt or have children g the geic material of one parent—that their unns are ls than marriage unr the law creat a “more difficult and uncerta fay life. ” Like his lleagu the majory, he lv to the history of marriage, even givg a nod to one of the favore arguments of gay-marriage opponents: that legalizg gay marriage is sentially a slippery slope.

In each of their dissents, Thomas and Alo addrs the qutn of relig liberty, argug that this cisn will make much more difficult for those who oppose gay marriage on the basis of fah to exercise their beliefs.

Opponents of same-sex marriage have long argued that the stutn of marriage is sacred, and that gay unns would change s very nature. If the urt led favor of gay marriage, “would the same apply to a universy or llege if opposed same-sex marriage? ” Alo had asked Solicor General Donald Verrilli, who was argug on behalf of the ernment favor of gay marriage.

HOW THE SUPREME COURT’S CISN FOR GAY MARRIAGE ULD AFFECT RELIG STUTNS

For example, most (even among gay rights advot) believe the Constutn protects clergy om beg required to officiate at marriag for same-sex upl and church om beg forced to allow gay and lbian upl to marry their sanctuari. And what about a religly affiliated stutn, like a universy, that offers married heterosexual stunts hog but ref such acmodatn for married gay and lbian stunts?

And many, cludg some evangelil Prottant nomatns, the Catholic Church, the Mormon church and Orthodox Jewish groups, oppose gay marriage on relig grounds. Some scholars believe that the lg favor of gay marriage will not lead to wispread acrimony and legal battl. But Universy of Illois law profsor Rob Fretwell Wilson says ’s possible that stutns will be prsured to give ground on gay marriage by feral thori (such as the Internal Revenue Service, which uld take away an stutn’s tax-exempt stat), state civil rights missns or private lawsus.