(Opposite-sex parents are placed on their child’s birth certificate even when they lack a biological connection.) SCOTUS struck down a virtually identical law in 2017, but the court has changed since then, and Indiana wants to try its luck. Indiana has asked the court to uphold a law that discriminates against same-sex parents by refusing to place both of them on their child’s birth certificate. The Lie at the Heart of Overturning Roe Is Now in Plain Sight The Supreme Court Just Took on Abortion Again. 6 Trump Trial Still on Track Despite Supreme Court Intervention Wade Just Got Stranger-and More Infuriating She called Obergefell “a ‘who decides’ question.” In a 2016 speech, Barrett said Obergefell “was about who gets to decide whether we have same-sex marriage or not.” The dissenting justices weren’t anti-gay, Barrett explained, but rather believed that “it wasn’t for the court to decide” whether they should be allowed to marry. Barrett, meanwhile, has extremely conservative personal and public views on gay rights. Justice Brett Kavanaugh hasn’t taken a clear position on the issue, but his recent vote against LGBTQ civil rights signals hostility to same-sex marriage. Chief Justice John Roberts’ outraged dissent in Obergefell raises the very real possibility that he will roll back or reverse that precedent if he gets the opportunity. Justice Neil Gorsuch previously wrote a dissent opposing equal rights for same-sex parents, and joined an earlier Thomas opinion that bashed marriage equality. There may soon be a conservative majority willing to overturn Obergefell. Thomas warned of Obergefell’s “ruinous consequences” for religious freedom, fretting that anti-gay Americans will no longer be able “to participate in society.” But his real fear seems to be that Americans-including judges and voters-will criticize opponents of marriage equality who transform their religious views into official discrimination. She was not persecuted for private beliefs but for her failure to do her job. As a county clerk, Davis had a responsibility to perform her official duties, which included providing marriage licenses. While Thomas spilled much ink complaining that Kim Davis was persecuted by the government, he never grappled with the fact that Kim Davis was the government. Davis asked the Supreme Court to throw out the case, which the justices unanimously declined to do on Monday. Davis refused to give the men a marriage license “on God’s authority.” They sued her, and the lower courts found that Davis was, indeed, liable for violating their constitutional rights. SCOTUS had granted same-sex couples the right to marry in every state less than two weeks earlier. The Kim Davis saga began in July 2015 when two men walked into the clerk’s office in Rowan County, Kentucky, seeking a marriage license. Their message is clear: If Trump installs Amy Coney Barrett, the Supreme Court will take aim at marriage equality. And they did so just weeks before Election Day, as Donald Trump attempts to ram another far-right conservative onto the Supreme Court, creating a 6–3 conservative supermajority. They wrote that marriage equality is an affront to the Constitution, one that trammels the First Amendment rights of Christians. These two justices did not simply state that marriage equality has no basis in the Constitution. But their Monday opinion is still profoundly alarming. It’s no secret that Thomas and Alito oppose equal rights for LGBTQ Americans.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |