Supreme court rulings on gay marriage

A decade after the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision, marriage equality endures risky terrain

Milestones — especially in decades — usually call for celebration. The 10th anniversary of Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that made same-sex marriage legal nationwide, is different. There’s a sense of unease as state and federal lawmakers, as well as several judges, take steps that could convey the issue endorse to the Supreme Court, which could undermine or overturn existing and future same-sex marriages and weaken additional anti-discrimination protections.

In its nearly quarter century of existence, the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Regulation has been on the front lines of LGBTQ rights. Its amicus short in the Obergefell case was instrumental, with Justice Anthony Kennedy citing facts from the institute on the number of same-sex couples raising children as a deciding factor in the landmark decision.

“There were claims that allowing queer couples to partner would somehow devalue or diminish marriage for everyone, including different-sex couples,” said Brad Sears, a distinguished senior scholar of law and policy at the Williams Institute. &

The Journey to Marriage Equality in the United States

The road to nationwide marriage equality was a long one, spanning decades of United States history and culminating in victory in June 2015. Throughout the extended fight for marriage equality, HRC was at the forefront.

Volunteer with HRC

From gathering supporters in tiny towns across the country to rallying in front of the Supreme Court of the Joined States, we gave our all to ensure every person, regardless of whom they love, is recognized equally under the law.

A Growing Call for Equality

Efforts to legalize same-sex marriage began to pop up across the state in the 1990s, and with it challenges on the express and national levels. Civil unions for same-sex couples existed in many states but created a separate but equal standard. At the federal level, couples were denied access to more than 1,100 federal rights and responsibilities associated with the institution, as well as those denied by their given state. The Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law in 1996 and defined marriage by the federal government as between a dude and woman, thereby allowing states to deny m

Four Cases That Paved The Way for Marriage Equality and a Reminder of the Function Ahead

Post submitted by Brian McBride, former HRC Digital Strategist

Today marks the two-year anniversary of the historic Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which made marriage equality the statute of the area and changed the lives of millions of people who can now wed the person they love. As people across the U.S. celebrate this momentous day, today also serves as an important reminder of the work that still lies ahead in achieving occupied federal protections for the LGBTQ community.

Just today, the Supreme Court ruled that Arkansas officials must list the names of both married homosexual parents on their child’s birth certificate. The nation’s extreme court also agreed to hear a case involving a Colorado baker who refused to provide services for a same-sex couple planning their marriage ceremony. Elected leaders across the country are seeking to make certain that LGBTQ people are not discriminated against in housing,employment, public accommodations and education, while federal courts are determining how sexual orientation and gender culture are co

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

Excerpt: Majority Opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy

The identification and protection of fundamental rights is an enduring part of the judicial duty to interpret the Constitution. That responsibility, however, “has not been reduced to any formula.” Rather, it requires courts to exercise reasoned opinion in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. . . . That process is guided by many of the similar considerations relevant to assessment of other constitutional provisions that set forth broad principles rather than specific requirements. History and tradition guide and discipline this inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. That method respects our history and learns from it without allowing the past alone to regulation the present.

The nature of injustice is that we may not always notice it in our hold times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to understand the extent of independence in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its definition. . . .