Civil and Human Rights

Nationwide marriage equality here we come

My new union is an emotional joy beyond measure.

 

With the Supreme Court’s historic decision Friday to review the constitutionality of laws in four states prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying, America may well be only a few months away from full nationwide marriage equality. As a lawyer who has been advocating for gay rights for decades, and as a lesbian, the possibility of that reality is almost overwhelming.

 

Certainly in my lifetime (I’m old enough now to collect Social Security), I never expected to be able to marry my partner. And yet, because we live in Virginia, which — thanks to the federal courts — now recognizes our fundamental right to marry, we are, in fact, married. This is an emotional joy beyond measure, and it’s also important in terms of our legal rights and the significant protections we now enjoy as a married couple.

 

But gay men and lesbians living in one of the 14 states that still deprive them of their constitutional rights are not as fortunate. And that’s wrong. The fundamental principles of equality enshrined in our Constitution prohibit each and every state from denying gay men and lesbians the right to marry.

 

Some have argued that the courts should not “intervene” in this matter, that states and voters should decide this issue for themselves through the “democratic process.” But when it comes to matters of equality and fundamental rights, that’s just not how our Constitution works. When states deny citizens their constitutional rights, it’s the job of the courts to step in and stop them. That’s why the Supreme Court’s decision today to review discriminatory marriage laws was not only historic, but also the right thing to do.

 

In one ruling in these cases, the Supreme Court can put an end to the balkanized America in which gay men and lesbians now live, able to marry in some states and not in others, an America in which the children of same-sex couples enjoy the important legal protections that come from having married parents, but only in some states, not in others.

 

We should know by the end of June what kind of America we’ll be living in. I hope and trust it will be an America in which marriage equality is recognized nationwide. The Constitution requires no less.

 

___

 

This piece appeared in at least the following additional outlets:

 

*  The Baxter (Mountain Home, AR) Bulletin (online)

*  The Arizona (AZ) Republic (paper)

*  The (Guam) Pacific Daily News (online)

*  The Vineland (NJ) Daily Journal (online)

*  The Green Bay (WI) Press-Gazette (online)

*  The Sheboygan (WI) Press (online)

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
April 19, 2024

Will the Supreme Court Uphold the 14th Amendment and Block an Oregon Law Criminalizing Homelessness?

Nearly 38 million Americans live in poverty. In some areas and among some populations, entrenched economic...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
April 18, 2024

DEI critics were hoping that the Supreme Court’s Muldrow decision would undermine corporate diversity programs. It does no such thing

Fortune
The Supreme Court just delivered a big win for workers and workplace equality–but conservatives are...
Civil and Human Rights
April 17, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court Decision Today Is Important Win for Workers

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Muldrow v. City of...
By: Brianne J. Gorod
Civil and Human Rights
April 15, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court should accept broad agreement among civil rights plaintiff, police, and the federal government in malicious prosecution case

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Chiaverini v....
Civil and Human Rights
April 5, 2024

Supreme Court Divides Gavin Newsom and Progressives

Newsweek
An upcoming Supreme Court case has divided Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom and progressives. Nearly 90 amicus briefs...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson

In Grants Pass v. Johnson, the Supreme Court is considering whether city ordinances that punish the status of being homeless impose “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of the Eighth Amendment.