Gay rights scotus


Some Republican lawmakers increase calls against gay 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 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 possess followed suit with calls to the Supreme Court.

In North Dakota, the resolution passed the verb House with a vote of and is headed to the Senate. In South Dakota, the state’s House 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 have yet to face legislative scrutiny.

Resolutions have no legal command and are not binding law, but instead allow legislati

A decade after the U.S. legalized gay marriage, Jim Obergefell says the fight 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 help of the anti-marriage equality group MassResistance, seek to ask the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell.

MassResistance told NBC News that while these proposals face backlash and wouldn’t change policy even if passed, keeping opposition to same-sex marriage in the public eye is a win for them. The group said it believes marriage laws should be left to states, and they verb 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

In The Courts

Court Cases

LGBTQ Rights

Featured

Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of Florida v. Raymond Rodrigues

The University of Florida chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine filed a lawsuit on November 16, , challenging the Chancellor of the State University System of Florida’s order to state universities to deactivate the student group. This order threatens the students’ constitutionally-protected right to free speech and association in violation of the First Amendment. The ACLU and its partners are seeking a preliminary injunction that would bar the Chancellor and the University of Florida from deactivating the UF SJP.

Students For Justice In Palestine At The University Of Florida V. Raymond Rodrigues. Explore Case.

Jun

R.G. &#; G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v EEOC &#; Aimee Stephens

Aimee Stephens had worked for nearly six years as a funeral director at R.G. and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes when she informed the funeral home’s owner that she is a transgender female. She was fire

Introduction
Two Supreme Court decisions involving gay rights, one decade apart, possess left a lot of people wondering just where the law now stands with respect to the right to engage in homosexual conduct.

The Court first considered the matter in the case of Bowers v Hardwick, a challenge to a Georgia law authorizing criminal penalties for persons found guilty of sodomy.  Although the Georgia law applied both to heterosexual and homosexual sodomy, the Supreme Court chose to consider only the constitutionality of applying the law to homosexual sodomy.  (Michael Hardwick, who sought to enjoin enforcement of the Georgia law, had been charged with sodomy after a police officer discovered him in bed with another man.  Charges were later dropped.)  In Bowers, the Court ruled 5 to 4 that the Due Process Clause "right of privacy" recognized in cases such Griswold and Roe does not prevent the criminalization of homosexual conduct between consenting adults.  One of the five members of the majority, Justice Powell, later described his vote in the case a