What did the supreme court say about gay marriage
Case Description
On November 14th, 2022, two same-sex couples filed writ petitions in the Supreme Court seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriages in India. The petitions were centred around the constitutionality of the Particular Marriage Act, 1954 (the Act). The first petition was filed by Supriyo Chakraborty and Abhay Dang. The second petition was by Parth Phiroze Merhotra and Uday Raj Anand.
The petitioners argue that Section 4(c) of the Execute recognises marriage only between a ‘male’ and a ‘female’. This discriminates against same-sex couples by denying them matrimonial benefits such as adoption, surrogacy, employment and retirement benefits. The petitioners asked the Court to declare Section 4(c) of the Act unconstitutional. The plea has been tagged with a number of other petitions challenging other personal laws on similar grounds. The challenged enactments include the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Foreign Marriage Operate, 1969.
The petitioners argue that the non-recognition of queer marriage violates the rights to equality, freedom of expression and dignity. They relied on NALSA vs Union of India (2014) and Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India (2018) which re
Some Republican lawmakers grow calls against homosexual marriage SCOTUS ruling
Conservative legislators are increasingly speaking out against the Supreme Court’s landmark 2015 verdict on same-sex marriage equality.
Idaho legislators began the trend in January when the state House and Senate passed a resolution calling on the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision -- which the court cannot do unless presented with a case on the issue. Some Republican lawmakers in at least four other states like Michigan, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota include followed suit with calls to the Supreme Court.
In North Dakota, the resolution passed the declare House with a vote of 52-40 and is headed to the Senate. In South Dakota, the state’s Dwelling Judiciary Committee sent the proposal on the 41st Legislative Day –deferring the bill to the final day of a legislative session, when it will no longer be considered, and effectively killing the bill.
In Montana and Michigan, the bills hold yet to deal with legislative scrutiny.
Resolutions hold no legal rule and are not binding law, but instead allow legislative bodies to state their collective opinions.
The resolutions in four other states ech
A decade after the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision, marriage equality endures risky terrain
Milestones — especially in decades — usually call for celebration. The 10th anniversary of Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that made same-sex marriage legal nationwide, is alternative. There’s a sense of unease as state and federal lawmakers, as adequately as several judges, accept steps that could take the issue back to the Supreme Court, which could undermine or overturn existing and future gay marriages and weaken additional anti-discrimination protections.
In its nearly quarter century of being, the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Statute has been on the front lines of LGBTQ rights. Its amicus little in the Obergefell case was instrumental, with Justice Anthony Kennedy citing information from the institute on the number of gay couples raising children as a deciding factor in the landmark decision.
“There were claims that allowing lgbtq+ couples to marry would somehow devalue or diminish marriage for everyone, including different-sex couples,” said Brad Sears, a distinguished senior scholar of law and policy at the Williams Institute. &
US Supreme Court rules gay marriage is legal nationwide
Minutes after the ruling, couples in one of the states that had a disallow, Georgia, lined up in hope of being wed.
In Texas, Yasmin Menchaca and her partner Catherine Andrews told the BBC that they are "trying to round up our parents" in request to get married on Friday.
The two have been together for six years, and had attempted to marry in Washington state - but decided to wait because of the financial burden of flying their parents across the country.
On social media, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton merely tweeted the pos "proud" and the White House changed its Twitter avatar, external into the rainbow colours.
The case considered by the court concerned Jim Obergefell, an Ohio resident who was not recognised as the legal widower of his sdelayed husband, John Arthur.
"It's my hope that gay marriage will soon be a thing of the past, and from this day forward it will simply be 'marriage,'" an emotional Mr Obergefell said outside the court.
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)
Excerpt: Majority Opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy
The identification and protection of fundamental rights is an enduring part of the judicial duty to interpret the Constitution. That responsibility, however, “has not been reduced to any formula.” Rather, it requires courts to exercise reasoned decision in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. . . . That process is guided by many of the alike considerations relevant to assessment of other constitutional provisions that set forth broad principles rather than specific requirements. History and tradition guide and discipline this inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. That method respects our history and learns from it without allowing the past alone to regulation the present.
The nature of injustice is that we may not always observe it in our hold times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to recognize the extent of release in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its sense. . . .
Th