By Junior Mayema,
Striking down of DOMA(defense of marriage act) by The United States Supreme Court meant and still mean that those laws banning samesex marriage in states are unconstitutional, i wonder why adult and intellectual people are whining and behaving like kids on this issue, it is done already, we’re just waiting for the Highest court of the land in June to give a green light nationwide.
All lower court rulings were and are in accordance with the USA supreme court based on the ruling of the Supreme Court on the unconstitutionality of DOMA(defense of marriage act) we are in 2015 those laws are archaic, samesex couples are americans and have the constitutional rights as all american citizens to be able to get married.
In 2013, the Court struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, in United States v. Windsor. No state statute was in question, and therefore the Equal Protection Clause did not apply. The Court did employ similar principles, however, in combination with federalism principles. The Court did not purport to use any level of scrutiny more demanding than rational basis review, according to law professor Erwin Chemerinsky. The four dissenting justices argued that the authors of the statute were rational.
The Equal Protection Clause is located at the end of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
The Equal Protection Clause itself applies only to state governments. However, the Supreme Court held in Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) that equal protection requirements apply to the federal government through the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Okay Now all clarified. lets wait to see how the justices will utilize the due process to restore the legal recognition that samesex marriage always have under the law
And below here is how a justice is already signaling that the US Supreme court is already on the right side of history ;
Early Monday morning, the Supreme Court refused to stay a federal judge’s order invalidating Alabama’s ban on same-sex marriage. In doing so, the justices immediately set up a constitutional crisis between the state’s lawless chief justice and the federal judiciary. They also effectively admitted what court-watchers have suspected for months: The court is preparing to rule in favor of nationwide marriage equality at the end of this term.
Here’s how Monday’s decision reveals the justices’ intention to strike down gay marriage bans across the country. Typically, the justices will stay any federal court ruling whose merits are currently under consideration by the Supreme Court. Under normal circumstances, that is precisely what the court would have done here: The justices will rule on the constitutionality of state-level marriage bans this summer, so they might as well put any federal court rulings on hold until they’ve had a chance to say the last word. After all, if the court ultimately ruled against marriage equality, the Alabama district court’s order would be effectively reversed, and those gay couples who wed in the coming months would find their unions trapped in legal limbo.
Don’t believe me? Then ask Justice Clarence Thomas, who, along with Justice Antonin Scalia, dissented from Monday’s denial of a stay. (Oddly—and perhaps tellingly—Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, two other foes of marriage equality, didn’t bother to join Thomas’ dissent.) The court’s “acquiescence” to gay marriage in Alabama, Thomas wrote, “may well be seen as a signal of the Court’s intended resolution” of the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. Thomas and Scalia meant this to be a grave warning. The rest of us, however, should take it as a white flag—and a cause for celebration.
And now the Justices wanna hear about us about our stories and how discrimination is affecting how daily lives please take time to sign this friend of the court brief the human rights campaign website, i did sign it already it is your turn to be on the right sign of history :
WASHINGTON —The Supreme Court is going to hear from a lot of people on same-sex marriage.
In an effort to win the hearts and minds of five or more justices, opponents of gay marriage bans being challenged at the high court this spring are inviting average citizens to sign a “friend of the court” brief that will be filed in early March.
The first name on the brief will be that of Edie Windsor, who won her lawsuit in 2013 when the high court struck down a key section of the Defense of Marriage Act that had denied federal benefits to legally married gays and lesbians. Her lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, wrote the brief in conjunction with the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay rights organization.
Americans interested in signing the so-called “amicus” brief can go to HRC.org and add their names. The brief must be filed with the court by March 6.
“The word ‘amicus’ comes from the Latin for ‘friend,'” Kaplan said. “I hope that this brief will serve that function in helping to explain to the justices the remarkable sea change that our nation has experienced in terms of our understandings about gay people.”
Dozens of briefs are certain to be filed before the case is heard in late April. A decision is expected by late June.
Obama: Supreme Court ‘About To Make A Shift’ On Gay Marriage
President Barack Obama predicted Tuesday that the Supreme Court is “about to make a shift” on same-sex marriage, a change he says he welcomes.
“My sense is that the Supreme Court is about to make a shift, one that I welcome, which is to recognize that — having hit a critical mass of states that have recognized same-sex marriage — it doesn’t make sense for us to now have this patchwork system,” Obama told BuzzFeed News. “It’s time to recognize that under the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution, same-sex couples should have the same rights as anybody else.”
On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to put a hold on same-sex marriages in Alabama, where a federal judge recently struck down the state’s previous ban on gay marriage. As Justice Clarence Thomas noted in his dissent, the move signals that the justices are likely to rule later this year that it is unconstitutional for any state to limit marriage to heterosexual couples.http://ads.tw.adsonar.com/adserving/getAds.jsp?previousPlacementIds=&placementId=1523113&pid=2345767&ps=-1&zw=300&zh=250&ssl=false&url=http%3A//www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/10/obama-supreme-court-gay-marriage_n_6657198.html&v=5&flash=true&fv=16&dct=Obama%3A%20Supreme%20Court%20%27About%20To%20Make%20A%20Shift%27%20On%20Gay%20Marriage&ref=https%3A//www.facebook.com/&metakw=obama%3A,supreme,court,%27about,to,make,a,shift%27,on,gay,marriage,politics
Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, Alabama Chief Justice Roy Mooremade an 11th-hour attempt to stop the state’s judges from issuing marriage licenses. The move drew comparisons to George Wallace, the former governor who was determined to keep Alabama schools from desegregating in the 1960s.
In the BuzzFeed interview, Obama said the comparison to Wallace is not a “perfect analogy,” but like Wallace, Moore will need to accept the federal decision.
“When federal law is in conflict with state law, federal law wins out,” he said.
Obama officially came out in favor of same-sex marriage in May 2012, just months before he was elected to a second term as president. According to a new book by longtime adviser David Axelrod, Obama personally supported legalizing gay marriage well before his announcement, but hid his stance out of political concerns.
In October 2014, Obama’s position shifted again, telling the New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin he believes the 14th Amendment requires all states to allow same-sex couples to wed.
“Ultimately, I think the Equal Protection Clause does guarantee same-sex marriage in all fifty states,” he said.
Last month, Obama said he hoped the Supreme Court would rule as such.
“My hope is that they go ahead and recognize what the majority of the American people now recognize,” he said in an interview with YouTube star GloZell Green.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: America Is Ready For Same-Sex Marriage (Video)
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says that America is ready for same-sex marriage, and she believes “it is doubtful” that same-sex marriage would not be accepted by the public.
“The change in people’s attitudes on that issue has been enormous,” the 81-year old jurist toldBloomberg Business in an interview published Thursday morning. “In recent years, people have said, ‘This is the way I am.’ And others looked around, and we discovered it’s our next-door neighbor — we’re very fond of them. Or it’s our child’s best friend, or even our child. I think that as more and more people came out and said that ‘this is who I am,’ the rest of us recognized that they are one of us.”
She added it “would not take a large adjustment” for the nation to accept marriage equality.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in four same-sex marriage cases in April, and a decision is expected by June.
Professor files Supreme Court brief about same-sex marriage
Professor files Supreme Court brief about same-sex marriage
Maurer School of Law Professor Steve Sanders is teaming up with two others to file an amicus brief to the United States Supreme Court that argues state laws banning same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, according to an IU press release.
This particular amicus brief will argue the state laws commit “animus” — using the law to unjustifiably harm a group — against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, according to the press release.
Committing animus violates the Equal Protection Clause in the constitution.
Past briefs and cases regarding same-sex marriage haven’t addressed animus, but instead argued about marriage being a fundamental right or that sexual orientation discrimination deserves “heightened scrutiny,” according to the press release.
Sanders is working on this brief with Robbie Kaplan, the attorney who won United States v. Windsor, which gave federal recognition to same-sex marriages, and Dale Carpenter, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School.
Sanders and Carpenter were asked by Kaplan to join her because they are both top scholars in regards to animus.
“In our own scholarship and blogging, Dale and I have both explored in various ways how the legal concept of animus — that is, the desire to use the law to harm a group without sufficient justification — contributed to the enactment of anti-same-sex marriage laws in most of the country over a very short period of time,” Sanders said in a press release. “I’ve also written about how state laws that nullify existing legal same-sex marriages inflict a particularly unjustified injury.”
The three lawyers found each other via Facebook, according to the press release.
“Robbie added me as a friend after she read an essay I had written for SCOTUSblog,” Sanders said. “And she had previously worked with Dale. It was Robbie’s vision that the three of us should collaborate on a brief that would make this animus argument directly to the Supreme Court.”
The Human Rights Campaign will submit the brief in March and has invited the public to read and sign it beforehand.
The lawyers chose the HRC because of the organization’s efforts in ending anti-LGBT animus, according to the press release.
Thirteen states have yet to completely legalize same-sex marriages or recognize same-sex marriages from other states, as well as some counties in Alabama, which are refusing a federal court order to start issuing same-sex marriages.
Sanders has also written on other legal issues surrounding marriage equality and families headed by same-sex couples and is affiliated with IU’s gender studies and political science departments and the Kinsey Institute for Research in Gender, Sex and Reproduction, according to the press release.
Those wanting to read and or sign the brief can visit http://www.thepeoplesbrief.com.