The Past and Future of (Same-Sex) Marriage
With its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court took a step that seemed unimaginable two decades ago, when I started researching same-sex marriage. Many politicians, pundits and commentators have rightly hailed the Court’s decision as both just and historic. Legal experts can parse the finer points of the majority opinion and the four separate dissents, but let’s take this momentous occasion as an opportunity to reflect on where we have been on this issue, and what the future may hold.

First, a look backward. Although the dissents in Obergefell claimed that Americans should be given more time to sort out this issue through the democratic process, the history of the struggle over same-sex marriage is actually rather long. The first court ruling on the issue dates back to 1971, when the Minnesota Supreme Court found in Baker v. Nelson that neither the state nor the federal constitution guaranteed a right to same-sex marriage. But the issue really broke into public consciousness in the mid-1990s, when another state supreme court — this time in Hawaii — ruled its state constitution did in fact require the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

That ruling prompted Congress to pass the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, and many state legislatures (including Hawaii’s) passed their own “baby DOMAs” to ensure they would not have to recognize same-sex marriages. Then in 2004 Massachusetts became the first U.S. state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and for the next decade opponents and advocates of marriage equality fought ferocious and emotional battles in state after state.

Speaking in the Rose Garden shortly after the Obergefell decision came down, President Obama lauded the ruling and asserted that the result was a consequence of “countless small acts of courage” by people who came out to others and stood up for themselves. Obama framed the marriage victory as “a vindication of the belief that ordinary people can do extraordinary things,” and those words resonated for me as I thought about the plaintiffs in the earliest marriage cases — in Minnesota, Hawaii and elsewhere — who pursued dignity and equal treatment on their own, without the support of a coordinated, strategic effort by the national LGBT rights movement.

Indeed, it was only after the initial favorable ruling in Hawaii that the national gay rights groups were willing to devote significant attention and resources to the marriage issue, a detail that is easy to forget after years of high-profile, professionalized activism on marriage equality. Even those in the LGBT community who think other issues should have had priority over marriage, or who reject the institution outright, must be heartened by this evidence that major social change that starts at the grassroots is still achievable in our age of deep political cynicism and polarization.

The little-noted irony of the marriage equality victory is that it arrives at a moment when more heterosexual Americans are turning away from marriage. This “retreat from marriage,” as family scholars call it, manifests in lower marriage rates, a higher age at first marriage, more children born to unmarried parents, and a high divorce rate. The causes of the retreat from marriage are complex, but it’s clear the phenomenon is not spread evenly over the American population; it is disproportionately people on the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder who are delaying or foregoing marriage, or dissolving their existing marriages.

The economic conditions produced by de-industrialization and globalization are a significant factor: Stagnant wages and employment insecurity place less-educated Americans in a precarious position, and many now view marriage as a kind of middle-class luxury good that is out of reach or irrelevant to their daily struggles to survive.

Recognizing this larger reality of American marriage does not negate the value of expanding marriage rights to include same-sex couples, but as we celebrate marriage equality we must also acknowledge that the broader retreat from marriage is both a cause and a consequence of widening economic inequalities in our country. The optimism and enthusiasm of same-sex couples choosing marriage may be refreshing, but it will probably do little to reverse these broader trends.

Where are we headed? In the short term, the nationalization of same-sex marriage recognition will further increase the cultural visibility of sexual minorities and “alternative” family forms. Legal battles over same-sex marriage will shift to the terrain of religious liberty, where opponents of marriage equality will seek to use religious freedom arguments as grounds for ongoing discrimination against same-sex couples. Even if those legal fights are resolved fairly quickly, it will not be time for the LGBT rights movement to declare victory and close up shop.

The majority of U.S. states still lack anti-discrimination laws covering sexual orientation and gender identity, and efforts to pass a federal employment non-discrimination law have failed repeatedly in Congress. Hate crimes and bullying continue to pose difficult and sometimes life-threatening challenges for sexual minorities and gender variant people. And while Caitlyn Jenner’s coming out has generated mostly positive reactions, transgender rights issues are only starting to get the attention they require.

Finally, I hope that LGBT folk of all political persuasions will view the marriage victory as an invaluable opportunity to dedicate our resources and creativity to more coalition-building with other groups fighting for social justice. In public statements on the steps of the Supreme Court right after the ruling was announced, both lead plaintiff James Obergefell and plaintiffs’ attorney Mary Bonauto made a point to acknowledge the deep pain of the Charleston massacre and the reality that discrimination and hate persist in many forms in contemporary America. I thank them for using their moment in the public spotlight to link LGBT rights struggles to other important issues confronting our nation. Their sentiments represent the most inspiring and expansive elements of the LGBT rights crusade: a recognition of the importance of dignity and equality for all people, of how struggles for social justice are interlinked, and of the power of coalitions to create strength greater than the sum of their parts.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

feeds.huffingtonpost.com/c/35496/f/677065/s/47a62b31/sc/7/l/0L0Shuffingtonpost0N0Ckathleen0Ee0Ehull0Cthe0Epast0Eand0Efuture0Eof0Esame0Esex0Emarriage0Ib0I76814780Bhtml0Dutm0Ihp0Iref0Fgay0Evoices0Gir0FGay0KVoices/story01.htm

Sean Hayes And His Husband Scott Celebrate SCOTUS’ Marriage Equality Ruling: VIDEO

Sean Hayes and his husband Scott Icengole were so elated by the Supreme Court’s decision Friday legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide they decided to make a video celebrating the momentous occasion.

The pair lip sync to “Fit As A Fiddle” sung by Gene Kelly and Donald O’Connor and don various old-timey ensembles including a Barbershop Quarter look, a get-up made popular with mustachioed body-builders in cut-out photo boards, and a Charlie Chaplin-esque ‘little tramp’ three-piece suit.

Wrote Hayes on Facebook:

What’s better than a supreme taco from Taco Bell? The Supreme Court of the United States. Thank you for making marriage legal for EVERYONE today. Best birthday gift ever. Here’s a celebration video from my legal husband and me. #MarriageEqualityForAll#LoveWins #SCOTUS — with Scott Icenogle.

Whimsy and joy await you below:

The post Sean Hayes And His Husband Scott Celebrate SCOTUS’ Marriage Equality Ruling: VIDEO appeared first on Towleroad.

Sean Mandell

Sean Hayes And His Husband Scott Celebrate SCOTUS’ Marriage Equality Ruling: VIDEO

WATCH: Lindsey Graham Wants GOP to Stop Fighting Marriage Equality

‘Accept the court’s ruling; fight for the religious liberties of every American,’ says the South Carolina Senator and Republican presidential candidate.

read more

Sunnivie Brydum

www.advocate.com/politics/election/2015/06/28/watch-lindsey-graham-wants-gop-stop-fighting-marriage-equality

Marriage Equality and Science
It’s worth noting that the decision to make same-sex marriage a nationwide right in America owes a big debt of gratitude to science.

Scientific research proved pretty conclusively that being gay is not a choice but a matter of genetics. Some of us would argue that even if you could choose to be gay, you should still get the same rights and protections as those who “chose” to be straight. Scientific evidence, however, revealed not just the immorality of prejudice, but the irrationality of it too — and completely changed the way ordinary people looked at the LGBT community.

Without science, this Supreme Court decision might have been delayed another century until mere decency prevailed over the entrenched forces of American fundamentalism. This is the power of science: to quietly change and improve our lives through research and evidence. But sometimes science is too quiet. This is why I and many others — Nobel laureates, science and tech stars, major science organizations, artists, politicians, university presidents and universities — support ScienceDebate.org, an organization calling for televised public debates in which the U.S. presidential and congressional candidates share their views on science and technology policy, health and medicine, and the environment.

The fact that science is complex and hard to talk about is the very reason why it must be talked about. Avoiding the subject allows it to become another form of magic, dangerously open to political manipulation and exploitation. This is brilliantly explained in this short TEDx talk by science writer and ScienceDebate.org board chair, Shawn Otto.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-chapman/marriage-equality-and-science_b_7679908.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay+Voices

WATCH: Stunning Time Lapse Shows The White House Light Up With Rainbow Colors

You’ve most likely seen the stunning image of The White House lit up in the colors of the rainbow to celebrate the Supreme Court’s historic ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide (and you certainly have if you’re reading this post).

But now a new time-lapse video from NBC News shows the People’s House erupting in color as night fell on the nation’s capitol Friday night, forever capturing a moment we will never forget.

Watch the below:

And in case you missed it, check out other national Landmarks that got rainbow-ified on Friday.

(Photo via The White House / Twitter)

The post WATCH: Stunning Time Lapse Shows The White House Light Up With Rainbow Colors appeared first on Towleroad.

Sean Mandell

WATCH: Stunning Time Lapse Shows The White House Light Up With Rainbow Colors

Op-ed: Witness to Stonewall History, 46 Years Later

Go inside the impassioned hearing that led to the protection of New York’s historic Stonewall Inn.

read more

Richard Allen

www.advocate.com/commentary/2015/06/28/op-ed-witness-stonewall-history-46-years-later

A Good Rule of Law: Mind Your Own Business
Friday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision was a great victory for LGBT rights. But it also was a great victory for something that rests right at the heart of the human experience, the paramount legal doctrine of M.Y.O.B.

Mind Your Own Business.

Reporters love to generate controversy. In a TV interview on Friday, a reporter asked me, “What do you have to say to all of the millions of opponents of gay marriage?”

I replied thusly: “Mind your own business.”

OK, I’ll admit that that response will not earn me the Nobel Peace Prize. But I’m making an important point here. What difference does it make to Person X if Person Y marries Person Z? Seriously.

I sometimes give a speech where I go through a mock agenda for a Tea Party conference. One of the items on the agenda, from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m., is a colloquium on “How Gay Marriage Destroyed My Straight Marriage,” moderated by No One. And attended by No One.

(Now that I think about it, most Tea Partiers who might attend that colloquium wouldn’t know what a colloquium is. And for sure, they couldn’t spell it. Or as they would write, “spel it.”)

Let’s face it: Whenever anyone sticks his nose into other people’s business, something bad happens. The war in Iraq. The NSA spying on everyone because I-don’t-know-why. Chinese cyberattacks. Even the Patriots stealing opponents’ signals. Hey, everyone, just mind your own business!

One of the basic functions of the U.S. Supreme Court, which we just saw in spades, is to prevent a prejudiced majority from employing the law as a device to stick their noses into the business of “discrete, insular minorities.” That phrase comes from the most famous footnote in U.S. Supreme Court history, footnote 4 of the decision United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938). Here’s the good part:

“[P]rejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry…”

(Congratulations, you just passed the bar exam. Now good luck finding a job.)

In Carolene terms, the LGBT community is a discrete, insular minority. Prejudice against gays means that they cannot rely exclusively on political processes to protect them from prejudice and inequality. Therefore, in Friday’s decision, after a “searching judicial inquiry,” the U.S. Supreme Court did so. Q.E.D.

So Friday’s decision was not merely a victory for our LGBT friends. It was a quantum leap forward in how we see each other- – with a very healthy respect. We mind our own business.

Or, as Pope Francis put it, “Who am I to judge?” A very good question, for all of us.

Courage,

Rep. Alan Grayson

“It doesn’t matter much to me.”

— The Beatles, “Strawberry Fields Forever.” (1968).

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

feeds.huffingtonpost.com/c/35496/f/677065/s/47a58ed7/sc/7/l/0L0Shuffingtonpost0N0Crep0Ealan0Egrayson0Ca0Egood0Erule0Eof0Elaw0Emind0Eyour0Eown0Ebusiness0Ib0I7680A9980Bhtml0Dutm0Ihp0Iref0Fgay0Evoices0Gir0FGay0KVoices/story01.htm