Political News

Supreme Court extends gay marriage nationwide

Posted June 26, 2015

— The Supreme Court declared Friday that same-sex couples have a right to marry anywhere in the United States, a historic culmination of decades of litigation over gay marriage and gay rights generally.

Gay and lesbian couples already could marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia. The court's 5-4 ruling means the remaining 14 states will have to stop enforcing their bans on same-sex marriage. The states affected by Friday's ruling are: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, most of Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas.

A court in Atlanta issued marriage licenses to three same-sex couples Friday morning, soon after the decision, and licenses also were issued in Kentucky, Texas and other states.

Gay rights supporters cheered, danced and wept outside the Supreme Court after the decision, which put an exclamation point on breathtaking changes in the nation's social norms.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, just as he did in the court's previous three major gay rights cases dating back to 1996. It came on the anniversary of two of those earlier decisions.

"No union is more profound than marriage," Kennedy wrote, joined by the court's four more liberal justices.

The stories of the people asking for the right to marry "reveal that they seek not to denigrate marriage but rather to live their lives, or honor their spouses' memory, joined by its bond," Kennedy said.

As he read his opinion, spectators in the courtroom wiped away tears after the import of the decision became clear. One of those in the audience was James Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court fight.

Outside, Obergefell held up a photo of his late spouse, John, and said the ruling establishes that "our love is equal." He added, "This is for you, John."

President Barack Obama placed a congratulatory phone call to Obergefell, which he took amid a throng of reporters outside the courthouse.

Speaking a few minutes later at the White House, Obama praised the decision as "justice that arrives like a thunderbolt." He said it was an affirmation of the principle that "all Americans are created equal."

The Obama administration backed the right of same-sex couples to marry. The Justice Department's decision to stop defending the federal anti-marriage law in 2011 was an important moment for gay rights, and Obama declared his support for same-sex marriage in 2012.

The four dissenting justices each filed a separate opinion explaining his views, but they all agreed that states and their voters should have been left with the power to decide who can marry.

"This court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in dissent.

Roberts read a summary of his dissent from the bench, the first time he has done so in nearly 10 years as chief justice.

"If you are among the many Americans – of whatever sexual orientation – who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision," Roberts said. "But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."

Justice Antonin Scalia said he was not concerned so much about same-sex marriage but about "this court's threat to American democracy." Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas also dissented.

Several religious organizations criticized the decision, and a group of pastors in Texas vowed to defy it.

Kennedy said nothing in the court's ruling would force religions to condone, much less perform, weddings to which they object.

As Catholics, we are called to never compromise the beliefs that we treasure and celebrate," Bishop Michael Burbidge of the Diocese of Raleigh said, "while always respecting and loving one another other as God’s sons and daughters."

"We recognize that this continues to be a difficult and complex issue for many people of faith. So, we would reiterate that this ruling does not force people to change their personal beliefs, and the decision about performing marriage ceremonies, whether for straight or gay couples, remains at the discretion of clergy, congregations and denominations," said Rev. George Reed, executive director of the North Carolina Council of Churches.

The ruling will not take effect immediately because the court gives the losing side roughly three weeks to ask for reconsideration. But some state officials and county clerks might follow the lead of the Fulton County, Ga., probate court and decide there is little risk in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The cases before the court involved laws from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Those states have not allowed same-sex couples to marry within their borders, and they also have refused to recognize valid marriages from elsewhere.

Just two years ago, the Supreme Court struck down part of the federal anti-gay marriage law that denied a range of government benefits to legally married same-sex couples.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor formed the majority with Kennedy on Friday, the same lineup as two years ago.

The earlier decision in United States v. Windsor did not address the validity of state marriage bans, but courts across the country, with few exceptions, said its logic compelled them to invalidate state laws that prohibited gay and lesbian couples from marrying.

The number of states allowing same-sex marriage has grown rapidly. As recently as last October, just over one-third of the states permitted it.

North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2012 defining marriage as between one man and one woman, but the stance was ruled unconstitutional last October after the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated a similar gay marriage ban in Virginia.

State officials expressed disappointment Friday at the Supreme Court ruling but said that they would abide by it.

"Like many North Carolinians, I still believe the definition of marriage should be determined by the states, and it should be the union between one man and one woman," Gov. Pat McCrory said. "However, I took an oath to uphold the Constitution, which compels me as governor to ensure that North Carolina upholds the rule of law."

There are an estimated 390,000 married same-sex couples in the United States, according to UCLA's Williams Institute, which tracks the demographics of gay and lesbian Americans. Another 70,000 couples living in states that do not currently permit them to wed would get married in the next three years, the institute says. Roughly 1 million same-sex couples, married and unmarried, live together in the United States, the institute says.

Gay-rights advocates in North Carolina said Friday's ruling won't end their fight for equality, noting that state law doesn't yet outlaw workplace discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity. Meanwhile, opponents predicted the ruling would energize their side of the debate in the future.

"Today's ruling by the Supreme Court will no more settle the issue of gay marriage than Roe v. Wade settled the issue of abortion. Forty years later, the majority of Americans are more pro-life than ever, and I believe that history will prove the arrogance of this Supreme Court's new illusory definition for marriage," said Tami Fitzgerald, executive director of the North Carolina Values Coalition.

343 Comments

Please with your WRAL.com account to comment on this story. You also will need a Facebook account to comment.

Oldest First
View all
  • John Snow Jun 27, 2015
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    And religious people still discriminate. "God is love" is about as real as "compassionate conservative".

  • Joaquín Kobayashi Jun 27, 2015
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    Tolerance and respect, freedom for all, adherence to the Constitution of the United States...you think the world is going down because of this? Now that is what is weird.

  • Luther Ingram Jun 27, 2015
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    yes lovely the world is going down i agree. Weirdo is the new normal and normal people are the new weirdos.

  • Sam Nada Jun 27, 2015
    user avatar

    "Marriages actually don't have to be recognized across state boundaries."

    This has been a matter of some legal dispute, but in general they are recognized, which means there are inter-State implications for marriage, so that each State is not fully independent. It becomes terribly complex with respect to divorce, inheritance, parental rights, visitation rights, etc. if marriage is not recognized across State boundaries. Courts have held that marriages in other States must be recognized even if local State laws would have prohibited the marriage. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution is relevant, though rarely used.

  • Joaquín Kobayashi Jun 27, 2015
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    Absent the 14th you might have had an argument. Also if there were no clear benefits that accrue to the couple from either the state or federal government then again, you might have a case. Given that neither of these things is the case you are, happily, completely and irrevocable wrong. It doesn't matter if it's your opinion.

  • Joaquín Kobayashi Jun 27, 2015
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    Marriages actually don't have to be recognized across state boundaries. They are as a matter of course, even if the marriage wouldn't necessarily be legal in the state you are in, say if 16 is a legal age back home but not where you go on your honeymoon. That was always the rub with SSM.

  • Sam Nada Jun 26, 2015
    user avatar

    View quoted thread



    Marriages are recognized across State boundaries. It is not just a State by State issue. The right to marry, and to be free from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation are also human rights, which transcend the authority of individual States. Marriage has very clear legal and economic benefits. The Constitutionally guaranteed virtue of equality under the law for every citizen trumps any notion of the authority of a State to deny it.

  • Roy Hinkley Jun 26, 2015
    user avatar

    View quoted thread



    Just out of curiosity.
    Do you also think they overstepped thier authority when they ruled on interracial marriage?

  • Norman Lewis Jun 26, 2015
    user avatar

    I completely believe the Supreme Court does not have the Constitutional authority to make this ruling. The gay marriage issue is a State by State issue, not a Federal one. Licenses are issued by the involved State, not Washington DC. My personal opinion on this issue is not as important as the Federal government usurping the responsibilities that belong solely to the States.

  • Joaquín Kobayashi Jun 26, 2015
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    Same boat, but I'm more like the wife. Still the interesting conversations over beer.

More...