Now rumors about pending Supreme Court decisions should be taken with a whole shaker full of salt. The Court, known as the tightest ship in Washington, rarely leaks. The scuttlebutt focuses on the conservative justices. After oral argument, however, Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and the Chief may have seen the writing on the wall. There were four clear votes from the liberal wing of the Court to strike down DOMA and Justice Kennedy, the swing justice, appeared to be with them. The federal government, he suggested, had no business defining marriage, which is traditionally a matter left to the discretion of states.
If anything, the cases go the other way: The federal government generally has broad discretion over how to spend its money. Property rights? Contractual rights? Who counts as an employee? As a sovereign, the federal government defines things like this for purposes of federal law all the time. Ceding that power to the states—other sovereigns—would be bizarre. It is hardly clear, moreover, that DOMA interferes with the rights of states to define marriage.
Since DOMA was adopted in , 32 states have defined marriage to be one man and one woman and twelve states have defined marriage to include same-sex couples. Alito also stated the root of marriage is procreation rather than the happiness of couples. Alito concluded his opinion by expressing concern about judicial overreach. Following the Court's decision in Obergefell v. In doing so, they have reaffirmed that all Americans are entitled to the equal protection of the law; that all people should be treated equally, regardless of who they are or who they love.
Acknowledging opponents of same-sex marriage, President Obama added, "I know that Americans of good will continue to hold a wide range of views on this issue.
Opposition, in some cases, has been based on sincere and deeply held beliefs. But today should also give us hope that on the many issues with which we grapple, often painfully, real change is possible. Shift in hearts and minds is possible. And those who have come so far on their journey to equality have a responsibility to reach back and help others join them, because for all of our differences, we are one people, stronger together than we could ever be alone.
Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner was less supportive of the decision, saying, "All human beings are created equal by God and thus deserve to be treated with love, dignity and respect.
I am, however, disappointed that the Supreme Court disregarded the democratically-enacted will of millions of Americans by forcing states to redefine the institution of marriage. My views are based on my upbringing and my faith. I believe that marriage is a sacred vow between one man and one woman, and I believe Americans should be able to live and work according to their beliefs. According to USA Today , "There have been tidal changes in public opinion toward same-sex marriage — more than a third say they have changed their views on gays and lesbians during their lifetimes — but there also is a huge generation gap.
Six in 10 of those 18 to 34 support the idea, compared with fewer than four in 10 of those 65 and older. The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Obergefell v. Hodges same-sex marriage. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
Obergefell v. Hodges - Google News. Johnson, Jr. Ballotpedia features , encyclopedic articles written and curated by our professional staff of editors, writers, and researchers. Click here to contact our editorial staff, and click here to report an error. Click here to contact us for media inquiries, and please donate here to support our continued expansion. Share this page Follow Ballotpedia. What's on your ballot? Jump to: navigation , search.
The Supreme Court limited the arguments to the following questions: "Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? Hodges, No. Voter information What's on my ballot? Where do I vote? In famous Footnote 4 to U. Rather than just requiring that DOMA be rational, the court should require some sort of more important reason for a law singling out a class of people subject to historic discrimination.
You persuade them you are right. One thing that could stand in the way of a decision voiding DOMA would be if the court decided that there were procedural problems with the case because the Obama administration agreed with Windsor that DOMA is unconstitutional.
That could mean that there was no case and could prevent the court from addressing the substantive issue. Send questions and comments about this story to feedback stlpublicradio. Search Query Show Search.
News Stories. Ways to Connect. Ways to Give. Show Search Search Query. Play Live Radio. All Sections. About Us. B2B Publishing. Business Visionaries. Hot Property. Times Events.
0コメント