Support the Café

Search our Site

Supreme Court to weigh marriage equality

Supreme Court to weigh marriage equality

One of the great civil rights questions of the day will be weighed by the Supreme Court: must all 50 states allow gay and lesbian couples to marry?

The New York Times:

Largely as a consequence of the Supreme Court’s failure to act in October, the number of states allowing same-sex marriage has since grown to 36, and more than 70 percent of Americans live in places where gay couples can marry.

The pace of change on same-sex marriage, in both popular opinion and in the courts, has no parallel in the nation’s history.

Based on the court’s failure to act in October and its last three major gay rights rulings, most observers expect the court to establish a nationwide constitutional right to same-sex marriage. But the court also has a history of caution in this area.

In 2013, the Supreme Court avoided the question in Hollingsworth v. Perry, concerning California’s Proposition 8,  but on the the same day, in United States v. Windsor, the court struck down struck down the part of the Defense of Marriage Act that barred federal benefits for same-sex couples married in states that allowed such unions.

The Windsor decision was based partly on federalism grounds, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s majority opinion stressing that state decisions on how to treat marriages deserved respect. But lower courts focused on other parts of his opinion, ones that emphasized the dignity of gay relationships and the harm that families of gay couples suffered from bans on same-sex marriage.

In a remarkable and largely unbroken line of more than 40 decisions, state and federal courts relied on the Windsor decision to rule in favor of same-sex marriage.

SCOTUS blog:

Taking on a historic constitutional challenge with wide cultural impact, the Supreme Court on Friday afternoon agreed to hear four new cases on same-sex marriage.   The Court said it would rule on state power to ban gay and lesbian marriage and state power to refuse to recognize such marriages performed out of state.  A total of one hour and ninety minutes was set for the hearings, likely in the April sitting.

The Court fashioned the specific questions it is prepared to answer, but they closely tracked the two core constitutional issues that have led to a lengthy string of lower-court rulings striking down state bans.  As of now, same-sex marriages are allowed in thirty-six states, with bans remaining in the other fourteen but under court challenge.

Susan Russell writes in the Huffington Post:

Today’s announcement that the Supreme Court will at long last rule on state power to discriminate against the marriages of same-sex couples is good news not just for gay and lesbian couples but for anyone who believes that liberty and justice for all really means “all.” And it is long past time to recognize that equal protection is not equal protection unless it protects all Americans equally.

As an American citizen, I believe in the promise we make every time we pledge allegiance to our flag: the promise of liberty and justice for all. And as a priest and pastor, I believe in the biblical promise that “the truth will set us free.”

And the truth is that continuing to discriminate against the marriages of some Americans undermines the liberty of all Americans. The truth is — in the words that are one of Martin Luther King’s greatest legacies — “We know that none of us are free until all of us are free.” The truth is that the arc of history we are promised bends toward justice is bending a little closer every time we take another step forward in the struggle to end discrimination against LGBT people in our nation. And the truth is that today the Supreme Court took a big step toward taking a giant step.

It has been a long journey — and it is far from over — but it is never the wrong time to do the right thing. And today the Supreme Court did the right thing. So let us rejoice and be glad in it. And then let’s get back to work.

Can I get an Amen?

Posted by Andrew Gerns


Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Chaz Brooks

Prediction: The Supreme Court will rule that it’s up to the states. You heard it here first.

I dunno, sometimes I think the government should get out of the marriage business. It makes enough sense to have a civil union system for tax and inheritance purposes, but I don’t much see the importance of having the government affirm people’s relationships.

Chaz Brooks

I’m rather cynical on the prospects, but it does seem that we want the same thing on this particular issue.

David Allen

Which is not how the US Supreme Court ruled with regard to inter-racial marriage in the middle of the last century.

David Allen

We agree on something or am I misunderstanding? 🙂

English is not my first language.

Chaz Brooks

I hope you’re right.

David Allen

However, this court places great import to precedence and is want to over turn it.

This court has also had ample opportunities in the last year to rule in that direction and hasn’t. When numerous states asked the US Supreme Court to step in and stay the rulings against states rights in making determinations regarding same gender marriages by the various courts of appeal it hasn’t. Now 70% of the population live in 36 states with legal same gender marriage. Thousands of same gender marriages have occurred in those states. More states continue to have their bans struck down under the rulings of federal and the occasional state courts, South Dakota being the most recent. The South Dakota ruling will now go to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which hasn’t weighed in on same gender marriage yet.

Chaz Brooks

Progress, alas, is not inevitable.

Nick Porter

This will be very interesting. It’ll be 5-4 for sure, but which direction?

Tom Hudson

BTW: the 1892 version of the Pledge of Allegiance almost said, “liberty, justice, and equality for all.” Edward Bellamy left out equality (and fraternity) for fear that the pledge would be prohibited by school superintendents (acc. to Wikipedia).

Support the Café
Past Posts

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café