In a historic decision, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favour of marriage equality across all 50 states.
READ MORE: U.S. Supreme Court says same-sex couples can marry in all 50 states
“It demeans gays and lesbians for the State to lock them out of a central institution of the Nation’s society,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the court’s majority opinion.
“It is now clear that the challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and it must be further acknowledged that they abridge central precepts of equality. Here the marriage laws enforced by the respondents are in essence unequal: same-sex couples are denied all the benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right. ”
More than half the country — 36 states, as well as the District of Columbia and Guam — had already legalized same-sex marriage, since Massachusetts paved the way in 2004.
But, Friday’s ruling means 14 other states most stop enforcing bans on same-sex marriage and ensures that the unions of same-sex couples get the same recognition afforded to couples of the opposite sex.
There is no longer a reason for a same-sex marriage performed out-of-state not to be recognized in the state where the couple lives.
Same-sex couples will no longer be denied spousal privileges such as hospital access, medical decision-making authority adoption rights the rights and access to health benefits because a state doesn’t recognize their marriage.
What was the case that is before the Supreme Court?
The Supreme Court had two questions to debate in the Obergefell v. Hodges case: to rule whether existing bans are unconstitutional and whether to make states recognize marriages performed in other states.
The case was named for James Obergefell, one of four plaintiffs fighting for marriage equality. Obergefell took the state of Ohio to court over the recognition on the death certificate of his partner, John Arthur, who passed away in 2013. According to Reuters, the couple was married in Maryland a few months before Arthur’s death from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). They had been together for 21 years.
Richard Hodges was the defendant in the case. He’s the head of the Ohio Department of Health, which issues death certificates.
There were three other cases from three other states linked to Obergefell v. Hodges, that challenged whether the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires same-sex couples to be treated equally.
Those cases were:
- Valeria Tanco v. Bill Halsam (governor of Tennessee)
- April DeBoer v. Rick Snyder (governor of Michigan)
- Gregory Bourke v. Steve Beshear (governor of Kentucky)
What happens now that the Supreme Court ruled in favour of same-sex marriage?
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 decide there is little risk in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
But counties in the states where the bans on same-sex marriage were being challenged have been preparing for what could be a rush for marriage licences.
In Michigan’s Ingham County, where they had a short experience of legal same-sex marriage last year before the ruling was put on hold by an appellate court, they’re prepared to issue licenses but are aggravated by one thing.
County Clerk Barb Byram told the Michigan Public Radio Network this week the state has not yet prepared gender-neutral marriage licence applications.
READ MORE: Gay couples awake to new Ireland, hope to wed by Christmas
Still, she said she has an email list of couples on hand to let them know when they can come in to apply for their marriage licences.
In the states where bans remained until now, would-be married couples may still have to wait a while longer.
Incidentally, Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal tweeted shortly after the ruling his state would abide by the ruling.
In Dallas County, Texas — where the court ruled the state’s gay marriage ban was unconstitutional in February, but the ruling was appealed — Clerk John Warren told the Dallas Morning News he’s prepared to accept marriage licences shortly after the ruling.
He added he’s prepared to keep the office open extra hours to accommodate hundreds of additional applications, which staff may have to edit manually to indicate two people of the same sex are applying to get married.
Is the United States ready to accept same-sex marriage across the country?
Public opinion on same-sex marriage has shifted in the American public. According to a Pew Research Center poll in May, 57 per cent of Americans support allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry, up from 37 per cent six years prior.
And even those who don’t necessarily agree with marriage equality realize it’s going to happen whether they support it or not. According to Pew, 72 per cent of Democrats and Republicans say the legalization of same-sex marriage is “inevitable.”
Beyond marriage equality, the fight for LGBT rights continues
Universal marriage equality in the United States won’t mean universal rights for LGBT individuals. As The Atlantic noted, just 19 states have protected LGBT individuals from discrimination in the workplace while 18 states have no protection against discrimination based on one’s orientation or gender identity.
“So, in the wake of the anticipated Supreme Court ruling, many more LGBT Americans could find themselves in a strange, precarious place. Eighteen states would be forced to recognize the legality of their marriage while providing no protections against discrimination in the workplace, housing, or public accommodations,” The Atlantic‘s Robert P. Jones wrote.
LGBT rights organizations are also bracing for potential “backlash” against a Supreme Court ruling in favour of same-sex marriage.
“Right now we are facing a critical inflection point, because, should there be a victory of this magnitude for LGBT people, you will see an increasingly desperate backlash,” Eliza Byard, executive director of the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, told The Guardian. “And at a moment when so many legislatures are in the hands of Republican majorities – and sometimes supermajorities – you see unbelievably unconstitutional action in response.”
That could come in the form of support for bills that would allow businesses to deny service to LGBT people based on their religious beliefs, much like those that were met with controversy in Indiana, Arkansas and Arizona earlier this year.
With files from The Associated Press
Comments