the events on Capitol Hill of June 2015 will surely go down as some of the most
will surely go down as some of the most
will surely go down as some of the most significant civil rights moments of this
significant civil rights moments of this
significant civil rights moments of this generation welcome to watchmojo.com down
generation welcome to watchmojo.com down
generation welcome to watchmojo.com down 10 crucial facts you should know about
10 crucial facts you should know about
10 crucial facts you should know about same-sex marriage laws in the United
same-sex marriage laws in the United
same-sex marriage laws in the United States number 10
States number 10
States number 10 when did the issue of same-sex marriage
when did the issue of same-sex marriage
when did the issue of same-sex marriage begin United States same-sex marriage
begin United States same-sex marriage
begin United States same-sex marriage issues were first brought under
issues were first brought under
issues were first brought under significant scrutiny during the 1950’s
significant scrutiny during the 1950’s
significant scrutiny during the 1950’s but the push for change truly gathered
but the push for change truly gathered
but the push for change truly gathered pace in the 70s delivery of the August
pace in the 70s delivery of the August
pace in the 70s delivery of the August 1953 edition of one magazine was delayed
1953 edition of one magazine was delayed
1953 edition of one magazine was delayed by the post office amid concerns that
by the post office amid concerns that
by the post office amid concerns that its front cover headline questioned
its front cover headline questioned
its front cover headline questioned homosexual marriage was radical to the
homosexual marriage was radical to the
homosexual marriage was radical to the point of obscenity the post office would
point of obscenity the post office would
point of obscenity the post office would then take major qualms with the October
then take major qualms with the October
then take major qualms with the October 1954 edition featuring lesbian fiction
1954 edition featuring lesbian fiction
1954 edition featuring lesbian fiction entitled Sappho remembered subsequently
entitled Sappho remembered subsequently
entitled Sappho remembered subsequently refusing to deliver one magazine at all
refusing to deliver one magazine at all
refusing to deliver one magazine at all one went all the way to the top until
one went all the way to the top until
one went all the way to the top until the Supreme Court ruled in one ink V
the Supreme Court ruled in one ink V
the Supreme Court ruled in one ink V Olson that homosexual writings could not
Olson that homosexual writings could not
Olson that homosexual writings could not be banned for mailing under the guise of
be banned for mailing under the guise of
be banned for mailing under the guise of obscenity same-sex marriage continued as
obscenity same-sex marriage continued as
obscenity same-sex marriage continued as a controversial idea for over a decade
a controversial idea for over a decade
a controversial idea for over a decade until a string of high-profile court
until a string of high-profile court
until a string of high-profile court cases gave the issue even greater
cases gave the issue even greater
cases gave the issue even greater emphasis 1970s Baker V Nelson in 1973 s
emphasis 1970s Baker V Nelson in 1973 s
emphasis 1970s Baker V Nelson in 1973 s Jones V Hallahan heaped perhaps the most
Jones V Hallahan heaped perhaps the most
Jones V Hallahan heaped perhaps the most pressure onto US lawmakers despite
pressure onto US lawmakers despite
pressure onto US lawmakers despite neither case resulting in a positive
neither case resulting in a positive
neither case resulting in a positive ruling for the homosexual cause with the
ruling for the homosexual cause with the
ruling for the homosexual cause with the Kentucky Court of Appeals claiming in
Kentucky Court of Appeals claiming in
Kentucky Court of Appeals claiming in the latter that the lesbian relationship
the latter that the lesbian relationship
the latter that the lesbian relationship proposed was not a marriage number nine
proposed was not a marriage number nine
proposed was not a marriage number nine when did the first legal same-sex
when did the first legal same-sex
when did the first legal same-sex marriage occur in the United States
marriage occur in the United States
marriage occur in the United States resistance against same-sex marriage
resistance against same-sex marriage
resistance against same-sex marriage continued throughout America for the
continued throughout America for the
continued throughout America for the rest of the 20th century and into the
rest of the 20th century and into the
rest of the 20th century and into the 21st before the first major victory for
21st before the first major victory for
21st before the first major victory for the homosexual cause was enjoyed in the
the homosexual cause was enjoyed in the
the homosexual cause was enjoyed in the state of Massachusetts on May 17 2004
state of Massachusetts on May 17 2004
state of Massachusetts on May 17 2004 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in Goodridge V the depart
ruled in Goodridge V the depart
ruled in Goodridge V the depart of public health that to only allow
of public health that to only allow
of public health that to only allow opposite sex couples to marry was
opposite sex couples to marry was
opposite sex couples to marry was unconstitutional within the state laws
unconstitutional within the state laws
unconstitutional within the state laws establishing itself as the only sixth
establishing itself as the only sixth
establishing itself as the only sixth jurisdiction worldwide to legalize
jurisdiction worldwide to legalize
jurisdiction worldwide to legalize same-sex marriage behind the Netherlands
same-sex marriage behind the Netherlands
same-sex marriage behind the Netherlands Belgium and the Canadian provinces of
Belgium and the Canadian provinces of
Belgium and the Canadian provinces of Ontario British Columbia and Quebec the
Ontario British Columbia and Quebec the
Ontario British Columbia and Quebec the actual ceremonies began happening the
actual ceremonies began happening the
actual ceremonies began happening the very same day with couples lining up
very same day with couples lining up
very same day with couples lining up from midnight to obtain their marriage
from midnight to obtain their marriage
from midnight to obtain their marriage licenses
licenses
licenses Tanya McCluskey and Marcia kadish are
Tanya McCluskey and Marcia kadish are
Tanya McCluskey and Marcia kadish are regarded as the first to Wed having been
regarded as the first to Wed having been
regarded as the first to Wed having been together for 18 years previously they
together for 18 years previously they
together for 18 years previously they tied the knot in the city of Cambridge
tied the knot in the city of Cambridge
tied the knot in the city of Cambridge at 9:15 a.m. in the week that followed
at 9:15 a.m. in the week that followed
at 9:15 a.m. in the week that followed almost 2,500 same-sex couples applied
almost 2,500 same-sex couples applied
almost 2,500 same-sex couples applied for licenses in Massachusetts as over
for licenses in Massachusetts as over
for licenses in Massachusetts as over 150 couples had travelled in from other
150 couples had travelled in from other
150 couples had travelled in from other states number eight who opposes same-sex
states number eight who opposes same-sex
states number eight who opposes same-sex marriage in terms of political
marriage in terms of political
marriage in terms of political opposition the Republicans are America’s
opposition the Republicans are America’s
opposition the Republicans are America’s major political party that is providing
major political party that is providing
major political party that is providing the most resistance to same-sex marriage
the most resistance to same-sex marriage
the most resistance to same-sex marriage in recent history George W Bush the last
in recent history George W Bush the last
in recent history George W Bush the last Republican president as of July 2015
Republican president as of July 2015
Republican president as of July 2015 went on record on several occasions
went on record on several occasions
went on record on several occasions during his time in office to declare an
during his time in office to declare an
during his time in office to declare an anti same-sex marriage stands like on
anti same-sex marriage stands like on
anti same-sex marriage stands like on gay marriage I’m going to stand up as
gay marriage I’m going to stand up as
gay marriage I’m going to stand up as head on support gay marriage I support
head on support gay marriage I support
head on support gay marriage I support marriage between men and women in fact
marriage between men and women in fact
marriage between men and women in fact in February 2004 Bush actually announced
in February 2004 Bush actually announced
in February 2004 Bush actually announced his support for a constitutional
his support for a constitutional
his support for a constitutional amendment that would have actively
amendment that would have actively
amendment that would have actively banned same-sex marriage 2015 s ruling
banned same-sex marriage 2015 s ruling
banned same-sex marriage 2015 s ruling that same-sex couples can marry
that same-sex couples can marry
that same-sex couples can marry nationwide was by no means a landslide
nationwide was by no means a landslide
nationwide was by no means a landslide victory however and opposition to the
victory however and opposition to the
victory however and opposition to the movement still remains the five to four
movement still remains the five to four
movement still remains the five to four ruling shows how close the Capitol’s
ruling shows how close the Capitol’s
ruling shows how close the Capitol’s decision was with Justice Anthony
decision was with Justice Anthony
decision was with Justice Anthony Kennedy proving to be the crucial
Kennedy proving to be the crucial
Kennedy proving to be the crucial majority vote conservative justices
majority vote conservative justices
majority vote conservative justices Samuel Alito Antonin Scalia Clarence
Samuel Alito Antonin Scalia Clarence
Samuel Alito Antonin Scalia Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts
Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts
Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts wrote separate opinions varying their
wrote separate opinions varying their
wrote separate opinions varying their degrees of opposition to the bill
degrees of opposition to the bill
degrees of opposition to the bill Alito offered some of the clearest cut
Alito offered some of the clearest cut
Alito offered some of the clearest cut arguments claiming quote today’s
arguments claiming quote today’s
arguments claiming quote today’s decision usurped the constitutional
decision usurped the constitutional
decision usurped the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to
right of the people to decide whether to
right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional
keep or alter the traditional
keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage while Chief
understanding of marriage while Chief
understanding of marriage while Chief Justice Roberts said the majority
Justice Roberts said the majority
Justice Roberts said the majority opinion was quote an act
opinion was quote an act
opinion was quote an act of will not legal judgment many strongly
of will not legal judgment many strongly
of will not legal judgment many strongly religious organizations ranging from
religious organizations ranging from
religious organizations ranging from Christian to Jewish to Muslim and beyond
Christian to Jewish to Muslim and beyond
Christian to Jewish to Muslim and beyond also oppose same-sex marriage in the
also oppose same-sex marriage in the
also oppose same-sex marriage in the United States
United States
United States number seven who supports same-sex
number seven who supports same-sex
number seven who supports same-sex marriage for the for against the 2015
marriage for the for against the 2015
marriage for the for against the 2015 legislation however there were five in
legislation however there were five in
legislation however there were five in favor of it justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg
favor of it justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg
favor of it justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer Sonia Sotomayor and Elena
Stephen Breyer Sonia Sotomayor and Elena
Stephen Breyer Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined the after mentioned Anthony
Kagan joined the after mentioned Anthony
Kagan joined the after mentioned Anthony Kennedy in support of same-sex marriage
Kennedy in support of same-sex marriage
Kennedy in support of same-sex marriage quote no longer may this Liberty be
quote no longer may this Liberty be
quote no longer may this Liberty be denied said Kennedy of the issue
denied said Kennedy of the issue
denied said Kennedy of the issue describing marriage as a quote keystone
describing marriage as a quote keystone
describing marriage as a quote keystone of America’s social order before
of America’s social order before
of America’s social order before underlining that the homosexual
underlining that the homosexual
underlining that the homosexual community could now enjoy quote equal
community could now enjoy quote equal
community could now enjoy quote equal dignity in the eyes of the law lead
dignity in the eyes of the law lead
dignity in the eyes of the law lead plaintiff in the historic ruling Jim
plaintiff in the historic ruling Jim
plaintiff in the historic ruling Jim obergefell who was seeking recognition
obergefell who was seeking recognition
obergefell who was seeking recognition as the surviving spouse on the death
as the surviving spouse on the death
as the surviving spouse on the death certificate of his late husband John
certificate of his late husband John
certificate of his late husband John Arthur also received direct support from
Arthur also received direct support from
Arthur also received direct support from some of the nation’s leading politicians
some of the nation’s leading politicians
some of the nation’s leading politicians most notably taking a congratulatory
most notably taking a congratulatory
most notably taking a congratulatory phone call from President Barack Obama
phone call from President Barack Obama
phone call from President Barack Obama shortly after the ruling was made Obama
shortly after the ruling was made Obama
shortly after the ruling was made Obama said that obergefell ‘s leadership had
said that obergefell ‘s leadership had
said that obergefell ‘s leadership had quote changed the country before
quote changed the country before
quote changed the country before summarizing his thoughts during a Rose
summarizing his thoughts during a Rose
summarizing his thoughts during a Rose Garden speech later that same day
Garden speech later that same day
Garden speech later that same day hailing the decision as a quote victory
hailing the decision as a quote victory
hailing the decision as a quote victory for America in addition to many LGBT
for America in addition to many LGBT
for America in addition to many LGBT movements other supporters of same-sex
movements other supporters of same-sex
movements other supporters of same-sex marriage throughout the years have also
marriage throughout the years have also
marriage throughout the years have also included members of the Democratic
included members of the Democratic
included members of the Democratic libertarian and green parties number six
libertarian and green parties number six
libertarian and green parties number six what is the Defense of Marriage Act in
what is the Defense of Marriage Act in
what is the Defense of Marriage Act in short the Defense of Marriage Act is a
short the Defense of Marriage Act is a
short the Defense of Marriage Act is a piece of legislation that’s now been
piece of legislation that’s now been
piece of legislation that’s now been entirely overturned by the Supreme Court
entirely overturned by the Supreme Court
entirely overturned by the Supreme Court enacted September 21st 1996 DOMA defined
enacted September 21st 1996 DOMA defined
enacted September 21st 1996 DOMA defined marriage as the union of one man and one
marriage as the union of one man and one
marriage as the union of one man and one woman at the federal level allowing
woman at the federal level allowing
woman at the federal level allowing States to refuse not only to recognize
States to refuse not only to recognize
States to refuse not only to recognize same-sex marriages if they so choose but
same-sex marriages if they so choose but
same-sex marriages if they so choose but also to refuse same-sex marriages the
also to refuse same-sex marriages the
also to refuse same-sex marriages the benefits enjoyed by heterosexual unions
benefits enjoyed by heterosexual unions
benefits enjoyed by heterosexual unions DOMA which was controversially signed by
DOMA which was controversially signed by
DOMA which was controversially signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton also
Democratic President Bill Clinton also
Democratic President Bill Clinton also define the word spouse as a person of
define the word spouse as a person of
define the word spouse as a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or
the opposite sex who is a husband or
the opposite sex who is a husband or wife section 3 of the law was famously
wife section 3 of the law was famously
wife section 3 of the law was famously overturned
overturned
overturned in 2013 with the landmark United States
in 2013 with the landmark United States
in 2013 with the landmark United States v Windsor in this civil rights case
v Windsor in this civil rights case
v Windsor in this civil rights case Edith Windsor fought to have DOMA
Edith Windsor fought to have DOMA
Edith Windsor fought to have DOMA reviewed as unconstitutional following
reviewed as unconstitutional following
reviewed as unconstitutional following the death of her partner Thea Spyer and
the death of her partner Thea Spyer and
the death of her partner Thea Spyer and the subsequent realization that she
the subsequent realization that she
the subsequent realization that she would not be recognized as a spouse
would not be recognized as a spouse
would not be recognized as a spouse which meant she also wouldn’t be
which meant she also wouldn’t be
which meant she also wouldn’t be eligible for a state tax exemption and
eligible for a state tax exemption and
eligible for a state tax exemption and was therefore compelled to pay over
was therefore compelled to pay over
was therefore compelled to pay over three hundred and fifty thousand dollars
three hundred and fifty thousand dollars
three hundred and fifty thousand dollars to the IRS that has been ruled
to the IRS that has been ruled
to the IRS that has been ruled unconstitutional by Supreme Court
unconstitutional by Supreme Court
unconstitutional by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for the
Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for the
Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for the court the Supreme Court ruled in favor
court the Supreme Court ruled in favor
court the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Windsor and following 2015 s ruling
of Windsor and following 2015 s ruling
of Windsor and following 2015 s ruling on obergefell V Hodges the remainder of
on obergefell V Hodges the remainder of
on obergefell V Hodges the remainder of the Act is now deemed entirely
the Act is now deemed entirely
the Act is now deemed entirely unconstitutional number five what is the
unconstitutional number five what is the
unconstitutional number five what is the US public’s opinion opinion polls
US public’s opinion opinion polls
US public’s opinion opinion polls indicate that the five to four Supreme
indicate that the five to four Supreme
indicate that the five to four Supreme Court ruling is a fair reflection of US
Court ruling is a fair reflection of US
Court ruling is a fair reflection of US public opinion in general since 2010
public opinion in general since 2010
public opinion in general since 2010 national polls have consistently shown
national polls have consistently shown
national polls have consistently shown majority support for same-sex marriage
majority support for same-sex marriage
majority support for same-sex marriage with many votes creeping closer towards
with many votes creeping closer towards
with many votes creeping closer towards 60% by 2015 an August 2010 opinion poll
60% by 2015 an August 2010 opinion poll
60% by 2015 an August 2010 opinion poll conducted by CNN showed that 49 percent
conducted by CNN showed that 49 percent
conducted by CNN showed that 49 percent of voters believed that gay and lesbian
of voters believed that gay and lesbian
of voters believed that gay and lesbian couples have the constitutional right to
couples have the constitutional right to
couples have the constitutional right to marry while 51 percent believed they
marry while 51 percent believed they
marry while 51 percent believed they should not those figures had increased
should not those figures had increased
should not those figures had increased by July 2013 when a USA Today poll found
by July 2013 when a USA Today poll found
by July 2013 when a USA Today poll found that 55% of Americans supported same-sex
that 55% of Americans supported same-sex
that 55% of Americans supported same-sex marriage while 40 percent did not
marriage while 40 percent did not
marriage while 40 percent did not finally a human rights campaign poll
finally a human rights campaign poll
finally a human rights campaign poll held in February 2015 a few months
held in February 2015 a few months
held in February 2015 a few months before the obergefell ruling found that
before the obergefell ruling found that
before the obergefell ruling found that 60% of Americans favored same-sex
60% of Americans favored same-sex
60% of Americans favored same-sex marriage with only 37 against it number
marriage with only 37 against it number
marriage with only 37 against it number 4 what was the Supreme Court’s decision
4 what was the Supreme Court’s decision
4 what was the Supreme Court’s decision what happened on June 26th 2015 will
what happened on June 26th 2015 will
what happened on June 26th 2015 will likely be remembered as a clear landmark
likely be remembered as a clear landmark
likely be remembered as a clear landmark day in the history of American civil
day in the history of American civil
day in the history of American civil rights the five-to-four decision made by
rights the five-to-four decision made by
rights the five-to-four decision made by the Supreme Court in favor of same-sex
the Supreme Court in favor of same-sex
the Supreme Court in favor of same-sex marriages has enabled gay and lesbian
marriages has enabled gay and lesbian
marriages has enabled gay and lesbian couples to obtain a marriage license in
couples to obtain a marriage license in
couples to obtain a marriage license in any state and have their Union
any state and have their Union
any state and have their Union recognized on an equal level with
recognized on an equal level with
recognized on an equal level with heterosexual partnerships throughout
heterosexual partnerships throughout
heterosexual partnerships throughout America drawing significantly upon the
America drawing significantly upon the
America drawing significantly upon the Constitution’s 14th amendment
Constitution’s 14th amendment
Constitution’s 14th amendment in particular its Equal Protection
in particular its Equal Protection
in particular its Equal Protection Clause swing voter Justice Kennedy wrote
Clause swing voter Justice Kennedy wrote
Clause swing voter Justice Kennedy wrote that previously quote challenged laws
that previously quote challenged laws
that previously quote challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples
burden the liberty of same-sex couples
burden the liberty of same-sex couples and it must be further acknowledged that
and it must be further acknowledged that
and it must be further acknowledged that they abridge central precepts of
they abridge central precepts of
they abridge central precepts of equality the decision to legalize
equality the decision to legalize
equality the decision to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide also means
same-sex marriage nationwide also means
same-sex marriage nationwide also means that there is no longer a variance
that there is no longer a variance
that there is no longer a variance between state laws something that if
between state laws something that if
between state laws something that if left unchanged Kennedy believes would
left unchanged Kennedy believes would
left unchanged Kennedy believes would have quote promoted instability and
have quote promoted instability and
have quote promoted instability and uncertainty
uncertainty
uncertainty number three what was the dissenting
number three what was the dissenting
number three what was the dissenting opinion and now I fear for my country
opinion and now I fear for my country
opinion and now I fear for my country this is a spit in God’s face dissenting
this is a spit in God’s face dissenting
this is a spit in God’s face dissenting opinion drew upon the traditional view
opinion drew upon the traditional view
opinion drew upon the traditional view of marriage as something held between a
of marriage as something held between a
of marriage as something held between a man and a woman and upon the argument
man and a woman and upon the argument
man and a woman and upon the argument that the June 26th 2015 ruling was
that the June 26th 2015 ruling was
that the June 26th 2015 ruling was actually less democratic than one might
actually less democratic than one might
actually less democratic than one might immediately think Chief Justice John
immediately think Chief Justice John
immediately think Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that quote stealing this
Roberts wrote that quote stealing this
Roberts wrote that quote stealing this issue from the people well for many cast
issue from the people well for many cast
issue from the people well for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage making a
a cloud over same-sex marriage making a
a cloud over same-sex marriage making a dramatic social change that much more
dramatic social change that much more
dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept essentially Roberts
difficult to accept essentially Roberts
difficult to accept essentially Roberts is worried that in legalizing same-sex
is worried that in legalizing same-sex
is worried that in legalizing same-sex marriage throughout America the Supreme
marriage throughout America the Supreme
marriage throughout America the Supreme Court may have quote stepped on the toes
Court may have quote stepped on the toes
Court may have quote stepped on the toes of those states that were yet to
of those states that were yet to
of those states that were yet to legalize it independently damaging
legalize it independently damaging
legalize it independently damaging America’s Democratic fundamentals in
America’s Democratic fundamentals in
America’s Democratic fundamentals in doing so and potentially paving the way
doing so and potentially paving the way
doing so and potentially paving the way for future protests as a result in
for future protests as a result in
for future protests as a result in relation justice Alito’s concern is that
relation justice Alito’s concern is that
relation justice Alito’s concern is that the ruling quote will be used to vilify
the ruling quote will be used to vilify
the ruling quote will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to
Americans who are unwilling to assent to
Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy therefore creating a
the new orthodoxy therefore creating a
the new orthodoxy therefore creating a politically tenser environment than that
politically tenser environment than that
politically tenser environment than that which had already existed number two
which had already existed number two
which had already existed number two what was the case based on while history
what was the case based on while history
what was the case based on while history will likely remember the Supreme Court
will likely remember the Supreme Court
will likely remember the Supreme Court case title with most prominence
case title with most prominence
case title with most prominence obergefell V Hodges was based upon more
obergefell V Hodges was based upon more
obergefell V Hodges was based upon more than just Jim obergefell ‘s personal
than just Jim obergefell ‘s personal
than just Jim obergefell ‘s personal claim there were actually several
claim there were actually several
claim there were actually several significant cases encompassing some
significant cases encompassing some
significant cases encompassing some thirty plaintiffs that ultimately
thirty plaintiffs that ultimately
thirty plaintiffs that ultimately decided the ruling which were merged
decided the ruling which were merged
decided the ruling which were merged together to apply greater pressure and
together to apply greater pressure and
together to apply greater pressure and urgency on to the court de Bourgh V
urgency on to the court de Bourgh V
urgency on to the court de Bourgh V Snyder is a 2012 lawsuit filed in
Snyder is a 2012 lawsuit filed in
Snyder is a 2012 lawsuit filed in Michigan by a lesbian couple that found
Michigan by a lesbian couple that found
Michigan by a lesbian couple that found themselves unable to jointly adopt their
themselves unable to jointly adopt their
themselves unable to jointly adopt their three children because of the state’s
three children because of the state’s
three children because of the state’s ban on same-sex marriages tanco V Haslam
ban on same-sex marriages tanco V Haslam
ban on same-sex marriages tanco V Haslam is a 2013 lawsuit filed in Tennessee
is a 2013 lawsuit filed in Tennessee
is a 2013 lawsuit filed in Tennessee on behalf of three same-sex couples that
on behalf of three same-sex couples that
on behalf of three same-sex couples that had been legally married elsewhere in
had been legally married elsewhere in
had been legally married elsewhere in America but found that the state would
America but found that the state would
America but found that the state would not recognize their marriages work V
not recognize their marriages work V
not recognize their marriages work V Beshear is a 2013 lawsuit filed by a
Beshear is a 2013 lawsuit filed by a
Beshear is a 2013 lawsuit filed by a same-sex couple married in Ontario and
same-sex couple married in Ontario and
same-sex couple married in Ontario and living in Kentucky where their union was
living in Kentucky where their union was
living in Kentucky where their union was not legally recognized and finally love
not legally recognized and finally love
not legally recognized and finally love v Beshear is Bork’s companion case filed
v Beshear is Bork’s companion case filed
v Beshear is Bork’s companion case filed after two same-sex couples were denied
after two same-sex couples were denied
after two same-sex couples were denied marriage licenses in Kentucky in 2014
marriage licenses in Kentucky in 2014
marriage licenses in Kentucky in 2014 these cases were merged with obergefell
these cases were merged with obergefell
these cases were merged with obergefell a move that resulted in the historic
a move that resulted in the historic
a move that resulted in the historic ruling of June 2015
ruling of June 2015
ruling of June 2015 number one what does this mean for gay
number one what does this mean for gay
number one what does this mean for gay rights going forward
rights going forward
rights going forward recent events will likely have
recent events will likely have
recent events will likely have significant bearing internationally as
significant bearing internationally as
significant bearing internationally as well but domestically the focus will now
well but domestically the focus will now
well but domestically the focus will now shift to how exactly the new legislation
shift to how exactly the new legislation
shift to how exactly the new legislation is implemented across the country the
is implemented across the country the
is implemented across the country the conservative dissenters voting in the
conservative dissenters voting in the
conservative dissenters voting in the Supreme Court fear that those Americans
Supreme Court fear that those Americans
Supreme Court fear that those Americans who are anti same-sex marriage will now
who are anti same-sex marriage will now
who are anti same-sex marriage will now face difficulties in voicing their
face difficulties in voicing their
face difficulties in voicing their alternative opinion and that various
alternative opinion and that various
alternative opinion and that various conflicts between religious belief and
conflicts between religious belief and
conflicts between religious belief and national law could arise in turn it may
national law could arise in turn it may
national law could arise in turn it may yet prove difficult for same-sex
yet prove difficult for same-sex
yet prove difficult for same-sex marriages to become socially accepted in
marriages to become socially accepted in
marriages to become socially accepted in some communities even if they are legal
some communities even if they are legal
some communities even if they are legal the challenge ahead seems very much a
the challenge ahead seems very much a
the challenge ahead seems very much a balancing act however in terms of the
balancing act however in terms of the
balancing act however in terms of the LGBT community itself the recent ruling
LGBT community itself the recent ruling
LGBT community itself the recent ruling is a massive step forward for gay rights
is a massive step forward for gay rights
is a massive step forward for gay rights before obergefell V Hodges 13 US states
before obergefell V Hodges 13 US states
before obergefell V Hodges 13 US states had continued to ban same-sex marriage
had continued to ban same-sex marriage
had continued to ban same-sex marriage and there had been uncertainty in
and there had been uncertainty in
and there had been uncertainty in recognizing it after obergefell V Hodges
recognizing it after obergefell V Hodges
recognizing it after obergefell V Hodges every jurisdiction in the USA is now
every jurisdiction in the USA is now
every jurisdiction in the USA is now compelled to allow same-sex marriages
compelled to allow same-sex marriages
compelled to allow same-sex marriages and to equally recognize them speaking
and to equally recognize them speaking
and to equally recognize them speaking shortly after the ruling lead plaintiff
shortly after the ruling lead plaintiff
shortly after the ruling lead plaintiff obergefell voiced his hope that quote
obergefell voiced his hope that quote
obergefell voiced his hope that quote the term gay marriage will soon be a
the term gay marriage will soon be a
the term gay marriage will soon be a thing of the past that from this day
thing of the past that from this day
thing of the past that from this day forward it will simply be marriage and
forward it will simply be marriage and
forward it will simply be marriage and that America quote will be better off
that America quote will be better off
that America quote will be better off because of it going forward the notion
because of it going forward the notion
because of it going forward the notion is likely to dominate as gay and lesbian
is likely to dominate as gay and lesbian
is likely to dominate as gay and lesbian couples look for seamless integration
couples look for seamless integration
couples look for seamless integration that asks for no special treatment only
that asks for no special treatment only
that asks for no special treatment only simple equality did these facts surprise
simple equality did these facts surprise
simple equality did these facts surprise you to vote for which new story is
you to vote for which new story is
you to vote for which new story is covered next
covered next
covered next head over to watchmojo.com slash
head over to watchmojo.com slash
head over to watchmojo.com slash suggests
suggests
suggests and be sure to hit that subscribe button
and be sure to hit that subscribe button
and be sure to hit that subscribe button for more newsworthy top 10s published
for more newsworthy top 10s published
for more newsworthy top 10s published every week
”
Be First to Comment