Gay Marriage - DOMA, 14th Amendment & Supreme Court | HISTORY

Contents:

• ‘IT IS SO ORRED.’ SUPREME COURT JTIC ON GAY MARRIAGE CISN
• SUPREME COURT RUL GAY MARRIAGE IS A NATNWI RIGHT
• THE SUPREME COURT AND GAY MARRIAGE
• GAY MARRIAGE
• GAY RIGHTS VS. FREE SPEECHSUPREME COURT BACKS WEB DIGNER OPPOSED TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
• GAY MARRIAGE MAY BE LEGAL ACROSS U.S. AFTER SUPREME COURT REVIEW

‘IT IS SO ORRED.’ SUPREME COURT JTIC ON GAY MARRIAGE CISN

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. 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.

SUPREME COURT RUL GAY MARRIAGE IS A NATNWI RIGHT

AdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENTPooja Mandagere, left, and Natalie Thompson outsi the Supreme Court on Friday after led favor of same-sex Mills/The New York TimSli 1 of 14 Pooja Mandagere, left, and Natalie Thompson outsi the Supreme Court on Friday after led favor of same-sex Mills/The New York TimJune 26, 2015WASHINGTON — In a long-sought victory for the gay rights movement, the Supreme Court led by a 5-to-4 vote on Friday that the Constutn guarante a right to same-sex marriage. ”Gay rights advot had nstcted a reful ligatn and public relatns strategy to build momentum and brg the issue to the Supreme Court when appeared ready to le their favor. Gay rights advot, the chief jtice wrote, would have been better off wh a victory achieved through the polil procs, particularly “when the wds of change were heng at their backs.

THE SUPREME COURT AND GAY MARRIAGE

The send se also volv a feral appeals urt cisn – this one strikg down Proposn 8, a ballot iative approved by California voters 2008 that amends the state nstutn to ban gay marriage. ) The most signifint state urt cisn me 2003, when the Massachetts Supreme Judicial Court (the state’s hight urt) led that the state’s nstutn granted gays and lbians the right to marry.

The Wdsor se primarily volv a dispute over discrimatn agast a mory group – gays and lbians – and do not directly addrs the qutn of whether the Constutn requir stat to allow same-sex marriage.

GAY MARRIAGE

The Proposn 8 se, ntrast, volv a cisn by a state ( this se, California) to prohib gays and lbians om marryg and so might, theory, provi the urt wh a better vehicle for lg on whether the nstutn requir the stat to regnize same-sex marriage. However, even Perry, the high urt uld end up si-steppg the most important nstutnal qutns and le more narrowly to uphold or strike down California’s ban on gay marriage.

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

The law ntas two major provisns: The first (Sectn 2 of the law) giv stat that do not allow gay marriage the thory to refe to regnize same-sex marriag that have been legally performed other stat. Specifilly, the urt Wdsor led that a statute that discrimat agast homosexuals is unnstutnal unls the ernment n show that fact advanc an important public policy purpose – a judicial benchmark known as a “standard of review. Instead, the panel termed that would e a tougher standard of review – known as “termediate scty” – bee, argued, gays and lbians had long been the objects of signifint discrimatn and prejudice.

Even though termediate scty is a tougher standard of review than had prevly been employed gay rights s, do not offer the hight level of nstutnal protectn for groups that have tradnally suffered om discrimatn. The send se the Supreme Court will nsir volv a challenge to Proposn 8, the ballot measure approved by California voters November 2008 that amend the state nstutn to ban gay marriage.

GAY MARRIAGE MAY BE LEGAL ACROSS U.S. AFTER SUPREME COURT REVIEW

Although a voter-approved referendum (such as Proposn 8) serv great ference, Walker wrote, the ban on same-sex marriage blatantly discrimat agast a certa group of cizens – gays and lbians – and vlat their fundamental right to marry and their equal protectn rights, both of which are guaranteed unr the U. In Walker’s view, Proposn 8 had been prompted by people’s moral disapproval of homosexualy, and that alone, he nclud, was not enough to jtify the enactment of a blatantly discrimatory law.

In addn, Wdsor giv the urt an opportuny – one may ci not to exercise – to addrs the qutn of what is the appropriate standard of review s volvg discrimatn agast gays and lbians. An unfavorable oute for gay-marriage supporters on the broad qutn of whether the Constutn guarante same-sex upl the right to marry would be difficult to overturn the future.

By ntrast, a lg that clar a nstutnal right to gay marriage would immediately require all stat to perm same-sex marriage on precisely the same terms as they perm oppose-sex marriage. Evans, the Supreme Court stck down an amendment to the Colorado Constutn (approved by the state’s voters 1992) that nullified state and lol anti-discrimatn protectns for gays and lbians and prohibed passage of any such anti-discrimatn laws the future.