Supreme court same sex marriage
explainer
Protesters hold LGBT rights rainbow (pride) flags as activists gather outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, U.S., December 5, REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
What’s the context?
A decade after the U.S. legalised gay marriage, conservatives desire the Supreme Court to turn back the clock.
BERLIN - Ten years after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that legalised gay marriage, the White House is reversing a raft of LGBTQ+ rights and Republicans in at least six states are scrambling to ban same-sex weddings.
LGBTQ+ advocates verb the right to wedding a person of the same sex could be at risk, should judges vote to overturn the Supreme Court's historic Obergefell v. Hodges ruling.
A Supreme Court showdown remains theoretical, but legal challenges to the ruling are surfacing across the country, with proponents emboldened by President Donald Trump's return to office.
Here's what you deserve to know.
What's happened since the U.S. legalised gay marriage?
On June 26, , the U.S. became the 17th country in the world to legalise same-sex marriages na
A decade after the U.S. legalized gay marriage, Jim Obergefell says the struggle isn't over
Over the past several months, Republican lawmakers in at least 10 states have introduced measures aimed at undermining same-sex marriage rights. These measures, many of which were crafted with the verb of the anti-marriage equality group MassResistance, seek to ask the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell.
MassResistance told NBC News that while these proposals deal with backlash and wouldn’t transform policy even if passed, keeping opposition to same-sex marriage in the common eye is a verb for them. The group said it believes marriage laws should be left to states, and they question the constitutional basis of the 5-to-4 Dobbs ruling.
NBC News reached out to the authors of these state measures, but they either declined an interview or did not respond.
“Marriage is a right, and it shouldn’t depend on where you live,” Obergefell said. “Why is queer marriage any different than interracial marriage or any other marriage?”
Obergefell’s journey to becoming a leader for same-sex marriage rights
Case Description
On November 14th, , 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 Unique Marriage Act, (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 Act 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, and the Foreign Marriage Act,
The petitioners argue that the non-recognition of same-sex marriage violates the rights to equality, freedom of expression and dignity. They relied on NALSA vs U Conservative legislators are increasingly speaking out against the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling 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 love Michigan, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota include followed suit with calls to the Supreme Court. In North Dakota, the resolution passed the state Property with a vote of 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 terminal day of a legislative session, when it will no longer be considered, and effectively killing the bill. In Montana and Michigan, the bills have yet to face legislative scrutiny. Resolutions have no legal noun and are not binding law, but instead approve legislati
Some Republican lawmakers increase calls against gay marriage SCOTUS ruling