Supreme Court Ruling on Gay Marriage
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that all state same-sex marriage bans violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantees of due process and equal protection. Justice Anthony Kennedy, in writing the Obergefell v. Hodges majority opinion, explained:
“The right of same-sex couples to marry that is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment is derived, too, from that Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way, though they set forth independent principles. Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always coextensive, yet in some instances each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other. In any particular case one Clause may be thought to capture the essence of the right in a more accurate and comprehensive way, even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right.” (Source: SCOTUSblog)
Washington Reaction to the Obergefell decision
The decision brought both celebration and condemnation — from the public and leaders in Washington. From a White House bathed in rainbow colors and parades across the country, to a scathing dissent from minority justices and calls for new “religious freedom” bills in Congress.
And this ruling is a victory for America. This decision affirms what millions of Americans already believe in their hearts. When all Americans are treated as equal, we are all more free. … We are people who believe every child is entitled to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is so much more work to be done to extend the full promise of America to every American. But today, we can say in no uncertain terms that we’ve made our union a little more perfect.
— President Obama's remarks on the ruling (Read complete transcript)
Congressman Raul Labrador (R-ID) spoke on behalf of those opposed to the decision:
“The decision makes it all the more important that Congress move to protect the religious liberty of those who believe in traditional marriage. No American should be penalized for following their religious beliefs or moral convictions. In the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy states, ‘The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.’ To provide those very protections, I have introduced the First Amendment Defense Act.”
The First Amendment Defense Act (HR 2802 and S 1598 in the Senate) would ban penalties on individuals, businesses, groups, and religious organizations that refuse to participate in same-sex weddings.
Several conservative Members of Congress have suggested consideration of other related bills:
Marriage Protection Amendment (HJRes 32)
Sponsor: Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) “Would amend the United States Constitution to protect marriage, family, and children by affirming marriage as the union between one man and one woman for all federal and state purposes,” according to the sponsor. (Read resolution text)
State Defense of Marriage Act (S 435 and HR 824 in the House)
Sponsor: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) “Requiring that the federal government defer to the law of the state where a couple resides to determine whether the couple is married for purposes of federal law,” according to the bill sponsors. (Read bill text)
Restrain the Judges on Marriage Act (HR 1968)
Sponsor: Rep. Steve King (R-IA) “Strips federal courts of jurisdiction to hear cases related to marriage. The effect of the bill would prevent federal courts from hearing marriage cases, leaving the issue to the States where it properly belongs,” according to the bill sponsor. (Read bill text)
Comments from other Republlicans seemed to indicate that they would prefer to "move on" from the topic.
For gay rights advocates, the ruling was just one more step in their quest for greater equality. Several bills in Congress suggest where the focus may turn next:
Respect for Marriage Act (S 29)
Sponsor: Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) “To repeal the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act. The bill would also ensure that all legally-married, same-sex couples are treated equally under federal law by clarifying current statues,” according to the bill sponsors. (Read bill text)
Every Child Deserves a Family Act (S 1382 and HR 2449 in the House)
Sponsor: Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) “To bar any entity that receives federal funds and is involved in adoption or foster care placement from discriminating against parents based on sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status. Though as many as two million LGBT people nationally would adopt if able, many states ban same-sex couples from adopting or fostering children. Nationwide, there are an estimated 402,000 children in the US foster care system, and 23,000 children will “age out” before finding a permanent home,” according to the bill sponsors. (Read bill text)
Stop Harming Our Kids (SHOK) Resolution (HConRes 36)
Sponsor: Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) Expressing the sense of Congress that conversion therapy, including efforts by mental health practitioners to change an individual's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, is dangerous and harmful and should be prohibited from being practiced on minors. (Read resolution text)
Equality for All Resolution (HRes 208)
Sponsor: Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN) Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals are valuable, contributing members of society who deserve equal treatment under the law. Declares that: (1) discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is a serious problem; (2) existing federal protections are inadequate to ensure nondiscrimination; and (3) Congress should pass legislation that prohibits such discrimination in areas including credit, employment, education, federally funded programs, housing, jury service, and public accommodations. Encourages states to prohibit such discrimination and to reject laws that undermine nondiscrimination protections. (Read bill text)
Juror Non-Discrimination Act (HR 864)
Sponsor: Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA) “To prohibit a person from being removed from a jury because of their sexual orientation or gender identity,” according to the bill sponsors. (Read bill text)
Student Non-Discrimination Act (S 439)
Sponsor: Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) “Establishing a comprehensive federal prohibition against discrimination and bullying in public schools based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Specifically, the bill would forbid schools from discriminating against LGBT students or ignoring harassing behavior,” according to the bill sponsors. (Read bill text)
Charlie Morgan Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act (S 270 and HR 1598 in the House)
Sponsor: Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) “Extending veterans benefits to same-sex couples and their families regardless of where they live. The legislation is named after the late New Hampshire National Guard Chief Warrant Officer Charlie Morgan who passed away in 2013 after a battle with breast cancer; after her passing, Morgan’s wife and daughter were initially ineligible to receive certain survivor benefits until the Supreme Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. To this day, families in states where same-sex marriages are not recognized remain ineligible for certain Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits,” according to the bill sponsors. (Read bill text)
Social Security and Marriage Equality Act (HR 1404)
Sponsor: Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI) “To ensure all same-sex spouses receive equal treatment under the Social Security Act when applying for Social Security benefits, regardless of where they live. Eligibility for spousal benefits provided under the Social Security Act is determined by a place of residence standard. This standard has resulted in applications for Social Security benefits for legally married same-sex spouses living in states that do not recognize same-sex marriage not being approved. The SAME Act provides a roadmap to ensure all legally married couples have equal access to the benefits they have earned,” according to the bill sponsors. (Read bill text)
Copyright and Marriage Equality Act (S 23 and HR 238 in the House)
Sponsor: Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) “Would close a loophole in the Copyright Act that discriminates among lawfully married couples. A provision in the Copyright Act grants rights to the surviving spouse of a copyright owner only if the marriage is recognized in the owner’s state of residence at the time he or she dies. This means that a writer who lawfully marries his or her same-sex partner in Vermont or California is not a “spouse” under the Copyright Act if they move to Georgia, Tennessee, or one of the other states that do not currently recognize their lawful marriage. The Copyright and Marriage Equality Act amends the Copyright Act to consider simply whether a couple is lawfully married—not where a married couple happens to live when the copyright owner dies,” according to the bill sponsors. (Read bill text)
Social Security and Medicare Parity Act (HR 2025)
Sponsor: Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA) “Would close several loopholes in the Social Security Act and guarantee that all married couples, traditional and same-sex, receive the Social Security and Medicare spouse and survivor benefits that they have earned,” according to the bill sponsors. “The Social Security and Medicare Parity Act would close these loopholes by: Repealing discriminatory provisions and allow the Social Security Administration to award benefits to any marriage that is valid; Allowing same-sex married couples whose marriage was delayed because of discrimination to use a combination of marriage time and time in domestic partnership to qualify for benefits; and Requiring the Social Security Administration to notify Americans of the new policies and conduct a comprehensive outreach campaign to encourage same-sex couples to apply for the benefits they are owed.” (Read bill text)
