Why didnt the 14th amendment apply to gay couples
Cato at Liberty Cato at Liberty
Two years ago in United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution forbids the federal government from treating same-sex marriages differently than opposite-sex marriages. The Court’s majority, writing through Justice Anthony Kennedy, known that discriminating against lawfully wed gay couples violates the Fifth Amendment’s “prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws,” a prohibition which the “equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes … all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved.” Because Windsor challenged only the federal Defense of Marriage Act, no state marriage laws were directly affected.
Given the Court’s broad language, however—especially its immediate reference to the Equal Protection Clause—many (including Justice Antonin Scalia in dissent) predicted that the opinion’s reasoning would eventually be used to strike down state laws and constitutional provisions that deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. They were right. Windsor served as the basis for dozens of challenges to marriage la
Gay rights wins minor, not big, at the Supreme Court
By Tom Watts*
Today, on the anniversary of Lawrence v. Texas and United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court declared in Obergefell v. Hodges that states that deny legal recognition to lgbtq+ couples are violating the Constitution. Marriage equality is the law of the land. This is a victory for the gay rights movement, which has been fighting for the right to marry for over forty years. It vindicates the gigantic tide of lower-court decisions over the past two years. This is a great outcome.
But I’m disappointed.
I’m disappointed because this could include been so much more. Yes, from this day forward, same-sex couples will be able to marry on equivalent terms as opposite-sex couples can, and this is clearly good. However, the victory today could have been a broad one, declaring a new protected classification that gives gays and lesbians the same constitutional protections that racial minorities have, or at least the same protections that women have, so that states couldn’t adopt discriminatory laws aimed at lgbtq+ people. It could at least hold been a mighty, well-supported decision immune from criticism by the legal commu
PITTSBURGH (KDKA) – A Federal judge has ruled that Pennsylvania's ban on homosexual marriage is unconstitutional.
Judge John Jones released his opinion a short age ago saying "Pennsylvania's marriage laws violate both the due process and matching protection clauses of the 14th amendment to the United States constitution."
In his decision Jones wrote, "same-sex couples who seek to marry in Pennsylvania may do so, and already married same-sex couples will be recognized in the Commonwealth."
READ COMPLETE RULING BY JUDGE JONES HERE
The suit, Whitewood v. Wolf, was filed last July in U.S. District Court in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Allegheny County Executive Rich Fitzgerald says lgbtq+ couples who wish to marry may get marriage licenses beginning Wednesday morning at 8:30 a.m. at the City-County building.
Couples may also apply for marriage licenses online here.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of 21-couples who want to marry in Pennsylvania, or want the commonwealth to recognize their out-of-state marriages.
The lawsuit alleges that Pennsylvania's Defense of Marriage Act and refusal to marry lesbian and gay couples or distinguish their out-of-state marriages vio
UCLA faculty voice: Five things to look for in the Supreme Court gay marriage cases
UCLA
Adam Winkler
Adam Winkler is a professor at the UCLA School of Law and an professional on American constitutional statute. Winker has written extensively on legal matters regarding marriage for same-sex couples. This column appeared April 27 in the Huffington Post.
Oral argument in the Supreme Court can be opaque, especially for those who aren’t well versed in the legal issues at stake or the precedents likely to be considered. During oral argument, the justices aren’t interested in educating the citizenry. They are trying to gain a better understanding of the case or subtly influencing the votes of their colleagues, so the questions and comments fly instantly — and usually right over the heads of anyone but the experts. Because oral argument in the same-sex marriages cases will draw an remarkable amount of public attention, here’s a list of five things to monitor for when the justices hold Court on April 28.
1. Justice Kennedy
The first and most obvious thing to pay careful attention to is the questioning by Justice Anthony Kennedy. With four just
Cato at Liberty Cato at Liberty
Readers of this blog know that Cato filed a brief in Hollingsworth v. Perry arguing that state prohibitions on gay marriage violate the Equivalent Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. But since when have they done that? More broadly, to quote a colloquy between Justice Scalia and Ted Olson in the Perry argument:
JUSTICE SCALIA: I’m curious, when - when did — when did it get unconstitutional to exclude lesbian couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted? Sometimes — some time after Baker, where we said it didn’t even hoist a substantial Federal question? When — when — when did the statute become this?
MR. OLSON: When — may I answer this in the form of a rhetorical question? When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools.
JUSTICE SCALIA: It’s an effortless question, I think, for that one. At — at the time that the Equal Protection Clause was adopted. That’s absolutely true. But don’t grant me a question to my question. When execute you think it became u