Ten years ago, the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Now a new petition asks the court to overturn that decision. Read this summary from ScotusBlog to get up to date on what's happening:
You may want to look at some stats from the Pew Research Center on Americans' opinions about homesexuality and same-sex marriage. Be aware that the latest poll that Pew conducted on these issues was in 2023-2024, when two-thirds of Americans favored same-sex marriage; however, some people may have changed their minds since then.
It's also interesting to scroll to the bottom of that page and compare the very similar figures for attitudes about abortion, which also was legal nationawide until 2022. As I said in this blog ten years ago when the Obergefell decision came down, what the Supreme Court gives, it can also take away.
We may all be about to find out who our friends really are.
June 26 should be a red-letter day on every gay and lesbian calendar - the day the Supreme Court extended marriage equality to all Americans in these momentous words that will ring through centuries to come:
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.
Here's the NBC news report on that day and President Obama's eloquent remarks:
Here's your Head Trucker's post on that day. M.P. and I were teary-eyed with joy. I thought, finally -- it's over, we won, now life can flow on smoothly and happily for us gay folks, as it should.
But of course life doesn't always go as we expect. Now we face new challenges. Let's stay united, firm, and courageous. Our love is here to stay!
This is a black day in American history. In a momentous, breathtaking, party-line decision released this morning, the six Republican-appointed justices (three of them appointed by Trump) ruled that Trump - along with all former and future presidents - has "absolute immunity" and cannot be prosecuted for any "official act" during his presidency. The Supreme Court summarizes its decision (read the full document here) -- emphasis mine:
Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.
This case poses a question of lasting significance: When may a former President be prosecuted for official acts taken during his Presidency? In answering that question, unlike the political branches and the public at large, the Court cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies. Enduring separation of powers principles guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.
The three Democratic-appointed justices dissented. Justice Sotomayor's dissent was particularly irate (pp. 68-97):
Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes
a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution
and system of Government, that no man is above the law.
Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about
the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President, ante, at 3, 13, the Court gives former President Trump
all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering
for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent. , , ,
Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. . . . The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.
Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide [by] will not provide a backstop.
With fear for our democracy, I dissent.
The Court's reasoning on both sides of the case is nuanced and detailed, and requires an understanding of the basics of law and government to fully comprehend. (See the wikiarticle Sovereign Immunity and related topics.) None of which matters to Trump and his followers. He and they will take it as a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card, a license to kill, complete freedom to do whatever he wants.
It's a helluva mess, fellas. Instead of being the backstop of democracy, the six Republican justices have sold the country down the river. And they knew exactly what they were doing - they aren't ignorant, dimwitted "deplorables" out in the boonies. They know the effect this ruling will have on Trump's court cases and on the election. They know.
The only chance left to stop the madness is the ballot box - we have to save ourselves, because the politicized Supreme Court certainly won't. So Democrats and all others who aren't in league with the devil had better sure turn out in droves for this election. It doesn't matter if Biden or someone else is the candidate - the only thing to do is Vote Blue, No Matter Who.
God help us all.
FYI: Opinion polls show that voters are evenly split (within the margin of error) between Biden and Trump. Your Head Trucker cannot understand how half the population intends to vote for Trump, but go look at the figures for yourself:
Some time ago, your Head Trucker concluded that the only person left in the Administration with good sense was Pete Buttigieg, the Secretary of Transportation (who is young enough to be my son). But now I see I was mistaken.
My truckbuddies will have already read about Buttigieg's defense of the protesters outside the restaurant where Justice Kavanagh was dining the other day, citing their First Amendment rights.
Now I have no high regard at all for Kavanagh and the other Trumpists who voted to overturn Roe - and by direct and indirect statements, threatened also to undo the whole concept of a constitutional right to privacy that has been settled law for half a century, and which underpins many other rights that have come to be accepted as normative - like the right to contraception, and to same-sex marriage, to name but two.
It was a nasty thing those five justices did, who voted to overturn Roe and have precipitated us all into a constitutional crisis whose full extent and effects have yet to be seen.
Nevertheless, no matter how much I despise a public official's acts, I cannot endorse hounding and harassing him in the ordinary course of private life - whether at home or in a restaurant or store. This is a repugnant thing, and I will give you three good reasons why:
1. It violates the Golden Rule - often summarized as "Do as you would be done by." Although it was stated by Christ, it is not an exclusively Christian rule; in fact, it appears in the same or very similar form in the teachings of just about every religion around the world, and even among primitive tribes without a set of scriptures. Even oh-so-modern atheists are sometimes heard mouthing it.
2. But if course, if you don't give a flip for anything even remotely connected to religion, well then, surely you must consider an invasion of privacy to be at the very least a violation of the good manners you learned at your mother's knee. What's that, you say? Free speech trumps good manners? Well, I can only reply that my mother also taught me that Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right. Free speech is not the only right, and it does not justify doing anything you feel like doing, to anyone, anywhere, anytime.
And how do you justify disturbing the peace - a crime - of the other people in the neighborhood, the restaurant, the store? Perhaps you will say that the end justifies the means - a favorite line of dictators. But just exactly what good result will come of your disturbance? What exactly will it accomplish?
3. And if all that rings no bell with you, how about this: if it's just fine and dandy to harass the hell out of people at their homes and in restaurants, why then, what's sauce for the goose is certainly sauce for the gander, is it not? This nasty behavior invites retaliation in kind. Suppose a crowd gathered outside the Buttigieg home, or around the place where Pete and his husband were dining, shouting ugly words and carrying signs - would you like to see that happen? Say what? Oh, you wouldn't?
Well, I guarantee youit will be happening if you and Pete and the rest of the good liberal folks don't wake up and stop this stupidity. It's a great way to spark that civil war we have all heard rumors of.
Shame on you, Pete. I thought you were a bigger, better, wiser man. Now I don't see anyone under 80 on the Democratic side to admire. You were my last hope.
The Democratic Party that I knew is changing beyond recognition and dwindling rapidly into insipid uselessness - a cake left out in the rain. It makes me ill to see what is happening to my party and to my country, the steady erosion of common decency, the fragmentation of society, the descent into madness. I really hope I don't live to see the final act of this tragedy.
My hat is off to the valiant Liz Cheney, though - one of the few Republicans left with moral character and BALLS.
As a gay man, the abortion question has never been an issue for me; but I do know that my late mother and other female relations thought a woman should definitely be able to get an abortion, and I think no man should have a say in that: it's up to the woman who has to bear that child, and in nearly all cases, raise that child.
But today's ruling, supported by all three of the conservative justices Trump appointed to the Supreme Court, is another landmark case that bodes ill for many other rights that we have come to take for granted in the last half-century. A new era begins today, and it's not going to be pretty.
Read the full Supreme Court ruling here (PDF); the first 8 pages are a summary of the actual 200-page opinion.
This is only the first domino to fall. You fellas who are married - you do realize that you could now be un-marriedby the Supreme Court with the stroke of a pen, don't you? You fellas who aren't married - you could now be prosecuted as felons for having gay sex, the way it used to be here in Texas, if the Court continues to apply today's legal reasoning to other cases. What the Supreme Court gives, it can also take away.
It seems to me that today's ruling is just the first step in establishing a totalitarian, right-wing, one-party government that fuses religion and politics, and crushes the life out of all dissent. Don't think it can't happen here. It just did.
With a two-to-one majority on the Supreme Court - and with a Republican majority in both houses of Congress the likely result of this year's elections - a new dark age looms ahead. Wake up, guys. You Have Been Warned.
Mark my words: the right-wing wolves have tasted blood now, and they won't stop with abortion rights. Better enjoy Pride month while it lasts. Here's live coverage of today's events:
BIG NEWS: You can't be fired for being gay or transgender, and the President has your back.
President Biden just issued an executive order protecting Americans against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity — a turning point in our fight for equality under the law. https://t.co/fSuxT8dF8w
On his first day in his new job, President Biden has signed an executive order directing all federal agencies and employees to enforce and comply with the Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling last June that extended Title VII workplace protections to LGBT employees. Justice Neil Gorsuch - a Trump appointee - wrote the majority opinion, summarizing it thus:
In Title VII, Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.
Hooray! The President and the Supreme Court have now extended the equal protection of the laws to gay people and trans people. Finally. But now is the time for the Congress to make it the law of the land in so many words; equal rights should not depend on the ruling of a court (which can later overrule itself) or on the stroke of a President's pen (which a later President can revoke). It's true, an Act of Congress can be repealed by a later Congress; but that would put a sort of triple lock on our equality, which is important. Perhaps we might even dream of a future day when equality is written into the Constitution - but for now we should look to the Democratic majority in Congress to seal it into law.
Nevertheless, thank you, Mr. President, for upholding justice for all Americans today. Proud of you!
Wow! Oh my, what a happy, happy day - the Civil Rights Act protects the gays and trans folk too:
Sometimes small gestures can have unexpected consequences. Major initiatives practically guarantee them. In our time, few pieces of federal legislation rank in significance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There, in Title VII, Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.
Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. Likely, they weren’t thinking about many of the Act’s consequences that have become apparent over the years, including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees. But the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands. When the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it’s no contest. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.
Hooray! Read the Court's 6-3 ruling (172 pages, PDF) here.
NBC News reports today's stunning decision:
And your Head Trucker is ashamed to report that he did not really get the whole trans thing until he learned about Aimee Stephens - who, sadly, died last month of kidney failure:
According to the ACLU, this is the first trans civil rights case ever heard by the Supreme Court.
In short: If you don't have time to read the whole decision, Amy Howe at Scotusblog offers an overview of the ruling, written by Justice Gorsuch - remember how everybody feared he would be such a conservative jurist? - as well as the dissenting opinions. Among other things, she notes:
Gorsuch addressed some of the broader concerns that the employers had raised in the three cases, about the effect of the court’s ruling on issues like bathrooms in the workplace, locker rooms and dress codes. None of those issues, Gorsuch reiterated, were before the court in these cases. Instead, he stressed, the court is ruling only that an “employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law.” Whether sex-segregated bathrooms or locker rooms or dress codes might violate Title VII “are questions for future cases,” Gorsuch wrote.
The same is true, Gorsuch added, for questions involving the relationship between Title VII and federal laws and constitutional provisions protecting religious freedom. Although “other employers in other cases may raise free exercise arguments that merit careful consideration, none of the employers before us today represent in this Court that compliance with Title VII will infringe their own religious liberties in any way.”
Caution: It appears from a quick glance at the Wikipedia article on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that the law applies only to an employer "who has fifteen (15) or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year"; however, your Head Trucker is no lawyer, and you should consult an attorney if you have any questions about the law.
Silver lining: Michelle Goldberg opines in the New York Times on the irony of this decision in the era of Trump:
[T]he thrilling 6-3 decision the Supreme Court just issued upholding L.G.B.T. equality wouldn’t be as devastating to the religious right if it had happened under a President Clinton.
Before Monday, you could legally be fired for being gay, bisexual or transgender in 26 states. Now the court has ruled that gay and transgender people are protected by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex. The decision has extra cultural force because it was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, and joined by the conservative chief justice John Roberts. . . .
The phrase “But Gorsuch” is shorthand for how conservatives justify all the moral compromises they’ve made in supporting Trump; controlling the Supreme Court makes it all worth it. So there’s a special sweetness in Gorsuch spearheading the most important L.G.B.T. rights decision since the 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
This isn’t simply Schadenfreude. The fact that this momentous ruling was written by a right-wing judge sends a message that progress on L.G.B.T. rights will be very hard to reverse.
More is needed:Justice Kavanaugh's dissent is well-written, well-reasoned, and well worth reading in full, going as it does to the very heart of constitutional government in these United States. Susan Howe summarizes:
He began by acknowledging that the arguments for “amending” Title VII “are very weighty.” He also observed that the Supreme Court “has previously stated, and I fully agree, that gay and lesbian Americans ‘cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth.’” But, he continued, the job of judges is “not to make or amend the law,” and, as it currently stands, “Title VII does not prohibit employment discrimination because of sexual orientation.” . . .
Kavanaugh contended (and appeared to agree with his colleagues in the majority) that courts should follow the ordinary meaning of the words in a statute, because that is how both members of Congress and the public would understand the law. . . . And here, in Kavanaugh’s view, the ordinary meaning of the phrase “discriminate because of sex” does not extend to discrimination based on sexual orientation. . . .
Kavanaugh concluded by acknowledging “the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit—battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in today’s result.” But Kavanaugh reiterated his belief that Congress, rather the Supreme Court, should have been the source of that result.
Frankly, your Head Trucker is inclined to agree with Justice Kavanaugh on the simple basis of plain English. In all honesty, it does seem like doublespeak for Justice Gorsuch to say on the one hand that the Court must be bound by the plain text of the law; and on the other hand, to define the word sex with a meaning that is not part of the plain English meaning. To say that cat means all four-legged creatures is not to state the meaning of the word, but to add meaning to the word.
However, if a law were to forbid, let us say, cruelty to cats, and you interpret it to mean that cruelty to all four-legged animals is forbidden, then that is good morality, but bad English and bad interpretation, and highly liable to be contradicted by another interpreter. Because it is good morality, we will accept what the Court has so graciously given us; but can we count on it to be a lasting gift as years go by? Or merely a cupful of smoke?
It's also important to note that the Court's ruling does not rest on any constitutional right; the justices based their decision solely on the Civil Rights Act, which is merely a federal law, not the Constitution itself. Therefore, to remove all possible doubts and objections in future, it is imperative that Congress itself amend the Civil Rights Act to specifically prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Do keep that in mind, fellas, as we move forward - always remember that the Supreme Court can change its collective mind, and often has, down through the years. The protections we received today must be cemented into federal law at the first opportunity.
The same goes for for the right to same-sex marriage declared by the Court five years ago in Obergefell v. Hodges - which Chief Justice Roberts angrily dissented from at the time as another example of "legislating from the bench."
Of course, Congress can change its mind, too, and laws can be repealed; even provisions of the Constitution can be changed or removed by amendment. Nothing in this life is ever entirely sure and certain forever; but a law enacted by vote of the People or their representatives is somewhat harder to overturn than a court decision, especially if it reflects the popular will of the time. And according to the polls, it seems that equal rights for gays and trans folk is indeed the popular will in America at this time, by about 2 to 1. So let's be sure to nail this ruling down in law.
Meanwhile, again I say: Hooray! The gays are people too. We have a right to exist. And work and live and love, just like everybody else on this planet. Hooray! Hooray! God bless America!
And I have lived to see this day.
Bonus: Former President Obama tweeted out this message today:
What I Say: I don't know, fellas. Seems like all the hateful, dumbass creeps and jerks who used to sit at the back of the classroom, throwing spitballs and pulling the girls' hair, when they weren't stealing other kids' lunches or beating up sissies behind the gym, are now in control of all three branches of government of the richest, most powerful nation on earth - and they mean to have their way.
They have been planning it for years, like a military operation, gerrymandering all the state legislatures and House seats they could - then selling their souls to the Devil to elect a completely unqualified President. And now that they have achieved their goals, you think they will just throw up their hands and walk away from all that on account of some little midterm elections? Seriously?
The fascist revolution was just made complete with the confirmation of Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. There is now no check whatsoever on the power of the raving right. In less than two years, our republic has been subverted and changed into a New Order under the guise of the old forms, for the present. That's usually the way it happens, if you'll check your history books.
But in reality, the nation you and I grew up in no longer exists. The outward appearance of a democratic republic is merely an empty shell now, and everyone is at the mercy of the Trumpocracy.
Despite Robert Reich's optimism, it just seems to me this state of things is not going to end well, or soon. But I hope I'm wrong. What do you think?
The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on Monday in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for two gay men, as the New York Timesreports:
The court’s decision was narrow, and it left open the larger question of whether a business can discriminate against gay men and lesbians based on rights protected by the First Amendment.
The court passed on an opportunity to either bolster the right to same-sex marriage or explain how far the government can go in regulating businesses run on religious principles. Instead, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s majority opinion turned on the argument that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which originally ruled against the baker, had been shown to be hostile to religion because of the remarks of one of its members.
At the same time, Justice Kennedy strongly reaffirmed protections for gay rights.
“The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts,” he wrote, “all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”
There was some confusion of thought among the learned justices, it seems. This dizzying schematic diagram shows their various opinions, dissents, and concurrences.
The gay couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, appeared on CNN yesterday:
Baker Phillips appeared on the Today show yesterday:
What I say: First, the ruling applies only to this particular case, and turns on the technicality of some careless remarks by members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when they were considering the baker's case. So nothing is settled yet, and there is no reason to get excited one way or the other.
Second, as shown by the divisions among the justices themselves, the larger question is a thorny one, and it will be difficult to weigh the competing claims of religious belief and sexual orientation in order to come up with a rule of law that will satisfy everyone, one that all reasonable people of good will can in good conscience support. As Justice Kennedy said in the majority opinion,
any decision in favor of the baker would have to be sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying “no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,” something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons.
I well recall in the legally segregated South of my childhood that every restaurant, cafe, motel, and ice cream stand had a prominent sign behind the cash register: We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. As a kid, I thought nothing of it; only much later, as an adult in the post-civil rights era, did I realize that the message was code for "We don't serve Negroes, so don't even ask."
Of course it would be ridiculous, not to say unconscionable, for any business today to deny service to anyone on account of race, or religion, or ethnicity, or for almost any other reason except being drunk and disorderly, or unable to pay. And in fact, I would venture to say that most business owners of any kind are too eager to get some greenbacks in the till to worry about such things. As long as your credit card is good and you don't break up the furniture, you're good to go in our consumer nation, right?
And the laws should rightly penalize any business that discriminates against a paying customer for no good reason: whether you are selling lettuce or light bulbs, cars or candy, hamburgers, hotel rooms, or helicopter rides, your personal beliefs and opinions about the customer are irrelevant, and you treat everyone the same, selling the same goods or services to all comers (the exception being certain sales prohibited by law, such as selling booze to minors, etc.) This is a settled principle in our modern society, and rightly so.
However, when the goods sold are not essentially the same for all customers, personal preferences notwithstanding (a shirt is a shirt is a shirt; a cup of coffee likewise, and so on, and so on), then perhaps there is room for discussion--and especially, it seems to me, when communication is involved, or artistic talent (for at bottom, Art is always Communication of some sort, whatever else it may be). And if communication is involved, then the First Amendment, which we all revere, comes into play--and if that guarantees our freedom to speak our minds as we will, does it not also strongly imply the right not to speak what we do not will? Forced speech is not free speech, is it?
Let us get down to cases:
Suppose that you are a printer, and someone wants you to print up a thousand copies of a flyer for a KKK rally, something you find utterly abhorrent. Should the law require you to fill that order?
Or, say, you are a sign maker, and a very good one too, the old-fashioned kind who uses actual paint and brushes: if someone comes into your shop and asks for a sign saying "Death to Jews," must you (a Gentile, as it happens, with no anti-Semitic feelings) paint it or face the penalties of law?
Or again, if you are a seamstress specializing in custom-decorated clothing, and a biker brings you his leather jacket wanting "Fuck the Police" embroidered in great big letters on the back, should the law compel you to fulfill his request?
We could multiply examples ad infinitum here, but I think the point is clear enough: if you are in the business of selling communication in one form or another, should the law protect your scruples, whether based on religious beliefs or not--or force you to violate your conscience, and ruin you if you fail to comply? We are not talking here of great corporations selling housewares or hardware or trips to Tahiti, or the Moon--we are talking of individuals and small business owners whose livelihood is at stake. People who are just trying to make a living and get by, like everyone else. People who are, in the vast majority of cases, not bothering you or working against you, and not even thinking about you until you interfere with them.
Make no mistake: I sympathize strongly with Charlie and David. As my truckbuddies know from reading my story, I take a passionate, very personal interest in marriage equality, but not, I hope, an unreasonable one. Today we have liberty, we have justice, we have the right to marry, something almost inconceivable forty years ago when I came out. Let us rejoice in this magnificent turn of history, and not lose sight of the main thing: our common humanity. Let us not forget that we live in society with others, who also have a right to liberty and equal dignity under the law. The search for a wise, humane balance of competing rights and liberties is and has been the eternal question of American democracy from the very beginning.
Frankly, your Head Trucker is inclined to side with the baker. In the grand scheme of the universe, a cake is a silly little thing, a trivial thing, a ridiculous thing: here today and eaten tomorrow. If I were in the market for a wedding cake, I would certainly much rather take my business to someone who would bake it gladly and gratefully, rather than force another person to do it against his will and in violation of his conscience, which would do me and you and all of us no good at all, breeding resentment and even hatred. As history has shown times without number, in all ages and climes and countries, it is but one little step to go from oppressed to oppressor.
Of course, others may disagree with me, including some of my truckbuddies. But we must all find a way to get along peaceably--as we always have, eventually, in our history, usually through the high art of compromise. How shall we decide such things, and where should the line be drawn? And when I say "we," I mean straight and gay, religious and atheist, all the many colors of the human rainbow: for every story has two sides, if not more, and every voice must have its say. Is that not the first principle of democracy?
The Supreme Court has passed on the question, for now. So come, let us reason together.
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.
--Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority
in Obergefell v. Hodges, June 26, 2015
A year ago today, the Supreme Court made its landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, legalizing same-sex marriage throughout the United States. What a joyous day that was, so long awaited by so many, and the beginning of many happy marriages - legal at last. Here's that day's report from NBC News:
Not the least of those happy couples rushing to courthouses across the country were Jack Evans and George Harris, who first met in 1961 and were a committed couple for over half a century, and were the first gay couple to marry in Dallas a year ago today.
Sadly, Jack passed away in a Dallas hospital last Thursday, with George at his side, but their story continues to inspire all of us who believe in the right to love whom we choose. Here's an oral history interview they did in 2013:
It's been a week since the historic ruling that made same-sex marriage the law of the land, and Freedom to Marry offers this celebratory rendition of a classic tune:
And one more time - here's that fabulous moment again:
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.
Equal dignity in the eyes of the law: the Supreme Court this morning in a 5-4 decision made same-sex marriage legal nationwide.
That makes it the law of the land. Full text of the ruling, including dissents, in PDF format here.
THANK YOU, Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer, and Kennedy. You have recognized us as fully human beings, inherently possessed of the same rights to liberty, equality, and human dignity as everyone else, and we are deeply grateful.
A new era has begun, a whole new world for us queer people. It's beautiful.
And I have lived to see this day.
Just rolled out of bed and speechless with amazement here. I'll post more stuff on the ruling as I get to it.
President Obama spoke about the ruling from the Rose Garden this morning, saying: "Progress on this journey often comes in small increments, sometimes two steps forward, one step back, propelled by the persistent effort of dedicated citizens. And then sometimes, there are days like this when that slow, steady effort is rewarded with justice that arrives like a thunderbolt."
Matt Baume of the American Foundation for Equal Rights reviews the constitutional standing of marriage in general, and explains why today's ruling is a win-win victory:
Your Head Trucker, by the way, respectfully disagrees with the learned Chief Justice Roberts, who in his dissent opined that "The Constitution has nothing to do" with gay marriage. As Matt just pointed out, it has everyfuckingthing to do with it, and with the promise at the heart of America - that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - the Chief Justice's deeply Catholic views on the subject notwithstanding.
But I fear that his dissent, as well as the clownish, apoplectic hyperbole of Justice Scalia's dissent - in his calmest phrase, he calls the ruling "a threat to American democracy" - are not merely unworthy of the highest court in the land, but will furnish ammunition for the haters for generations to come, and indeed invite a vehement, if not violent reaction. By their dissents - which would callously deny to millions of ordinary Americans the equal protection and dignity of the laws - they have disgraced themselves, and deeply dishonored the court and the country.
As much as we are entitled to celebrate this day - which by curious coincidence or design is also the anniversary of the Lawrence and Windsor decisions - we must not expect that prejudice, bigotry, and murderous hatred will simply dry up and blow away. The shooting last week in Charleston shows only too clearly that they can remain and fester in ugly, evil ways for many decades: part of the sad, tragic story of our flawed human race.
And yet, sometimes we manage to lift ourselves above the level of the primordial mud and the law of the jungle, and approach towards the love that moves the stars - and today is one of those times.
Conservative commentator S.E. Cupp celebrates today's marriage ruling, and calls it a victory for conservative values that the Republican Party needs to embrace:
Andrew Sullivan, one of the earliest and most vociferous advocates for marriage equality, returned to his now-retired blog today to reflect upon the meaning of this victory:
This core truth is what Justice Kennedy affirmed today, for the majority: that gay people are human. I wrote the following in 1996:
Homosexuality, at its core, is about the emotional connection between two adult human beings. And what public institution is more central—more definitive—of that connection than marriage? The denial of marriage to gay people is therefore not a minor issue. It is the entire issue. It is the most profound statement our society can make that homosexual love is simply not as good as heterosexual love; that gay lives and commitments and hopes are simply worth less. It cuts gay people off not merely from civic respect, but from the rituals and history of their own families and friends. It erases them not merely as citizens, but as human beings.
We are not disordered or sick or defective or evil – at least no more than our fellow humans in this vale of tears. We are born into family; we love; we marry; we take care of our children; we die. No civil institution is related to these deep human experiences more than civil marriage and the exclusion of gay people from this institution was a statement of our core inferiority not just as citizens but as human beings. It took courage to embrace this fact the way the Supreme Court did today. . . .
I think of the gay kids in the future who, when they figure out they are different, will never know the deep psychic wound my generation – and every one before mine – lived through: the pain of knowing they could never be fully part of their own family, never be fully a citizen of their own country. I think, more acutely, of the decades and centuries of human shame and darkness and waste and terror that defined gay people’s lives for so long. And I think of all those who supported this movement who never lived to see this day, who died in the ashes from which this phoenix of a movement emerged. This momentous achievement is their victory too – for marriage, as Kennedy argued, endures past death.
I never believed this would happen in my lifetime when I wrote my first several TNR essays and then my book, Virtually Normal, and then the anthology and the hundreds and hundreds of talks and lectures and talk-shows and call-ins and blog-posts and articles in the 1990s and 2000s. I thought the book, at least, would be something I would have to leave behind me – secure in the knowledge that its arguments were, in fact, logically irrefutable, and would endure past my own death, at least somewhere. I never for a millisecond thought I would live to be married myself. Or that it would be possible for everyone, everyone in America.
But it has come to pass. All of it. In one fell, final swoop.
Know hope.
Here's YouTube's own celebration of marriage equality:
And to cap this momentous day in American history, here's a live shot time-lapse video of the White House bathed in a rainbow of light to celebrate the victory of love:
In case the video isn't working when you view this post, here's a screen shot I took - isn't it beautiful?
See more landmarks lit with the rainbow here and here.
Late yesterday, the Supreme Court once again gave the go-head to marriage equality, this time in the Sunshine State. The Washington Bladereports:
Same-sex couples may begin to marry in Florida after Jan. 5 as a result of a district court ruling striking down the ban on same-sex marriage in the state, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered late Friday. In a one-page order, the court announced it has rejected the request from Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, a Republican, to place a hold on same-sex marriage in the state beyond Jan. 5 as litigation seeking the right for same-sex couples to marry in Florida continues on appeal. . . .
Bondi tried to extend the stay on the same-sex marriages as she continued to defend the law in court, but her requests were by denied by the district court as well as the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which ordered the stay to be lifted “at the end of the day” on Jan. 5.
In a statement, Bondi said Florida will acquiesce to the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the stay to expire after Jan. 5 as initially ordered by the district court. “Tonight, the United States Supreme Court denied the State’s request for a stay in the case before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals,” Bondi said. “Regardless of the ruling it has always been our goal to have uniformity throughout Florida until the final resolution of the numerous challenges to the voter-approved constitutional amendment on marriage. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has now spoken, and the stay will end on Jan. 5.”
The refusal from the Supreme Court to stay same-sex marriages in Florida is noteworthy because although justices have denied similar requests to halt same-sex marriages in Alaska, Idaho, South Carolina and Kansas, they’ve never done so before in a state where a federal appeals court has yet to rule on the issue. The decision with regard to Florida could be a sign the Supreme Court is ready to rule in favor of nationwide marriage equality no matter what the federal appeals courts decide in the interim.
On the steps of the Old State Capitol in Tallahassee, the plaintiffs in the case of Brenner v. Armstrong: from left, Steve Schlairet, Chuck Jones, James Brenner, and Ozzie Russ.
In case you didn't see it the first time, here's a video I posted last August of Steve and Ozzie, who live in Chipley, a small town in the backwoods of the Florida Panhandle:
Today, U.S. District Court Judge Gergel ruled in favor of the freedom to marry in South Carolina, striking down the state's ban on marriage between same-sex couples. This ruling came after the United States Supreme Court denied review in five cases involving the freedom to marry, including a case in Virginia. Because Virginia is in the 4th Circuit, the ruling is binding for the entire circuit, including South Carolina. Since this ruling, West Virginia and North Carolina have secured the freedom to marry. The ruling is stayed until November 20 at noon.
Judge Gergel's ruling reads in part:
The Court finds that [Bostic v. Schaefer] controls the disposition of the issues before this Court and establishes, without question, the right of Plaintiffs to marry as same sex partners. The arguments of Defendant Wilson simply attempt to relitigate matters already addressed and resolved in Bostic. Any effort by Defendant Wilson or others to overrule Bostic should be addressed to the Fourth Circuit and/or the United States Supreme Court.
South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson has already announced he will immediately appeal the ruling.
--And in other news--
Update, 6:45 p.m.: Kansas couples are free to marry. Late this afternoon, the Supreme Court denied a stay of a federal judge's ruling striking down the Sunflower State's marriage ban. SCOTUSblog reports:
Because the judge’s ruling had been on hold only because of a temporary Supreme Court order issued Monday, the Kansas ruling took effect when the Justices’ new order lifted the earlier postponement. State officials are now under a federal court requirement to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
The Court has issued a series of orders in same-sex marriage cases over the past eleven months, but the Kansas order marked the first time that members of the Court had recorded dissents. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas noted only that they would have granted the delay sought by the Kansas attorney general.
Kansas officials had attempted to show that their case was different from others that the Supreme Court had chosen to leave undisturbed, arguing that the federal judge’s order was an invalid attempt to second-guess a Kansas Supreme Court order delaying the issuance of same-sex marriages. The federal judge had rejected that claim, but it may have been the one that drew the implied support of Justices Scalia and Thomas.
Today's order from the Supreme Court in its entirety. Click to enlarge.
Matt Baume of the American Foundation for Equal Rights reports:
Freedom to Marry has a live blog on today's momentous Supreme Court action here. Couples are marrying in Colorado, Indiana, Virginia, Utah, and even Oklafreakinhoma as I type, it seems. I'll update this post when I can find some good video coverage.
Wikipedia has numerous articles on same-sex marriage in the United States, which may or may not be reliable and up to date. Instead of posting the ugly, confusing Wikipedia map, here's one published by the Wall Street Journal, which is more helpful:
Update, 5:30 p.m.: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada as violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Text of the ruling here. A delicious quote from page 21:
[Idaho Governor Butch Otter, one of the defendants] also states, in conclusory fashion, that allowing same-sex marriage will lead opposite-sex couples to abuse alcohol and drugs, engage in extramarital affairs, take on demanding work schedules, and participate in time-consuming hobbies. We seriously doubt that allowing committed same-sex couples to settle down in legally recognized marriages will drive opposite-sex couples to sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll.
Worth reading is David Cole's NYRB essay on the Supreme Court's "prudent statesmanship" in declining all the marriage cases.
The ruling today from U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman in Louisiana was in Robicheaux et. al v. Caldwell, a federal case consolidated earlier this year with Louisiana Forum for Equality v. Barfield. The cases originally sought respect for marriages legally performed in other states, but in June, Judge Feldman ordered additional briefing in the case about whether same-sex couples should be free to marry within the state of Louisiana.
The plaintiffs and legal team in the case will likely appeal the out-of-step ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which is already slated to consider a case from Texas where a federal judge ruled in favor of marriage.
The 80-year-old Feldman was appointed to the district court bench by Ronald Regan in 1983. Full text of the ruling is here.
The New Orleans Advocate has a profile and pics of Jon Robicheaux and Derek Penton, the lead couple in this case, here.
Freedom to Marry also says, in their recap of all the marriage cases now pending throughout the nation:
There have been 38 victories [with just two losses now] for the freedom to marry since June 2013, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the core of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act in Windsor v. United States. Twenty-two rulings have been issued in federal court, thirteen have been issued in state court, and three have been issused by a federal appellate court.
What I Say: While it's a disappointment, this might be a blessing in disguise, according to my understanding of how the judiciary works. If all the federal courts around the country were in agreement, then the Supreme Court could avoid ruling on same-sex marriage indefinitely, there being no "controversy" to decide, as the Constitution requires. So it's not necessarily a bad thing that some antediluvian judges rule against us - it just may force Supreme Court to decide the issue sooner rather than later.
Lord, make me an instrument of your peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love; where there is injury, pardon; where there is discord, harmony; where there is doubt, faith; where there is despair, hope; where there is darkness, light; where there is sadness, joy. Grant that I may seek not so much to be consoled as to console; to be understood as to understand; to be loved as to love. For it is in giving that we receive; it is in pardoning that we are pardoned; and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life. Amen.
.
We cannot all do great things, but we can do small things with great love.
and welcome to the Blue Truck, a blog for mature gay men with news and views on gay rights, history, art, humor, and whatever comes to mind. Plus a few hot men. The truck's all washed and gassed up, so hop in buddy, let's go.
CAUTION: For mature gay men only beyond this point. Some posts and links may not be suitable for children or the unco guid. You have been warned.
Insert valid picture ID with date of birth now, or click here.
My Story
click photograph to read
Churches say that the expression of love in a heterosexual monogamous relationship includes the physical, the touching, embracing, kissing, the genital act - the totality of our love makes each of us grow to become increasingly godlike and compassionate. If this is so for the heterosexual, what earthly reason have we to say that it is not the case with the homosexual?
It is a perversion if you say to me that a person chooses to be homosexual. You must be crazy to choose a way of life that exposes you to a kind of hatred. It's like saying you choose to be black in a race-infected society.
If God, as they say, is homophobic, I wouldn't worship that God.
Note, 9/15/26: For the past week, Blogger has not updated most of the posts in this sidebar. I don't know what to do about it. You can still access the websites below by clicking on the titles of each one.
.jpg)
