Civil and Human Rights

Editorial: A chance for marriage equality across the land

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday finally opted to weigh in on one of the paramount civil rights issues of our day:

 

Are same-sex couples in every state entitled to the same freedoms and rights of marriage as heterosexual couples?

 

The answer should be an unequivocal yes, a strong affirmation of the basic principles of equal protection enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The court is expected to decide by June.

 

Marriage equality is a reality in 36 states and D.C, covering more than 70 percent of the U.S. population. And the vast majority of courts that already have spoken have sided with marriage equality. The Supreme Court is weighing in only after finding a major court that upheld bans on same-sex marriage, in the states of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. Until that decision, nearly every court had ruled in favor of same-sex marriage.

 

The court needed a conflict to justify stepping in, but it also clearly was biding its time until a pattern among the states emerged. And the pattern is easy to read: same-sex marriage is flourishing across the U.S, with the majority of Americans supporting it.

 

The high court is historically a conservative body, loath to get too far ahead of the states and public opinion. A decision affirming the rights of loving same-sex couples poses little risk of that — it would merely reflect a more tolerant America.

 

There is a risk, of course, that the court could uphold the bans on gay marriage in those four states. The court also is weighing the question of whether the 14th Amendment requires the recognition of same-sex marriages performed in others states.

 

Illinois, which allows for gay marriage, is vulnerable on the second front. The state’s gay marriage law is likely to remain untouched, but gay couples could lose their rights when they head into, say, Michigan.

 

A far more likely scenario is that the Supreme Court says yes to both questions, offering up a landmark civil rights decision that will stand in the history books alongside Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 decision that struck down prohibitions on interracial marriage.

 

The Loving case is likely the best guide. At the time, all but 16 states had eliminated such laws, Elizabeth B. Wydra of the Constitutional Accountability Center wrote on Friday. The majority of states had embraced equality. The rest eventually caught up.

 

The rest found their way, on interracial marriage as well as gay marriage, because basic human fairness took over. This is about people we know, our neighbors, our friends, our co-workers, who are denied the most basic of fundamental rights: to be with the one you love.

 

Lambda Legal, a forerunner in the fight for marriage equality, reminded us on Friday who stands behind these cases: a couple expecting a child that had hoped to marry before the child’s arrival; a widower who wanted his name on his partner’s death certificate.

 

There is nothing radical about these desires. This is only something deeply human.

 

We look forward to a day, not long from now, when the U.S. Supreme Court fully recognizes the humanity in each and every one of us.

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington is considering whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is considering whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional. 
Civil and Human Rights
March 11, 2025

Equality and Protection: The Forgotten Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment

102 Denv. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2025)
Civil and Human Rights
North Dakota Supreme Court

Access Independent Health Services Inc. v. Wrigley

In Access Independent Health Services Inc. v. Wrigley, the North Dakota Supreme Court is considering whether North Dakota’s abortion ban violates the state constitution.