Supremecourt gay 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 want 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 state the right to marry 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 need 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 homosexual marriages na
Some Republican lawmakers grow calls against lgbtq+ marriage SCOTUS ruling
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 declare House and Senate passed a resolution calling on the Supreme Court to reconsider its choice -- which the court cannot accomplish 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 have 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 House Judiciary Committee sent the engagement on the 41st Legislative Day –deferring the bill to the final evening 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 authority and are not binding statute, but instead permit legislati
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 other . There’s a sense of unease as state and federal lawmakers, as skillfully as several judges, grab steps that could transport 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 alive, the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Rule has been on the front lines of LGBTQ rights. Its amicus terse in the Obergefell case was instrumental, with Justice Anthony Kennedy citing statistics from the institute on the number of homosexual 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,&r
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 Particular 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 lgbtq+ 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