SCOTUS: Approves same-sex marriage in all 50 states; Sets stage for next legislative fight over religious freedom.

From Newsmax:

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Friday that state bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, an historic decision that extends gay and lesbian nuptials nationwide.

The question before the justices in the case of Obergefell vs. Hodges was whether the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection and due process require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex.

The justices also were considering the question of whether a state is required to recognize a same-sex couple’s legal marriage performed out-of-state.

Read it all here.  And more from USA Today:

The justices ruled that states cannot deny gay men and lesbians the same marriage rights enjoyed for thousands of years by opposite-sex couples. Within days if not hours, the decision is expected to trigger same-sex marriages in states that still ban the practice.

The landmark ruling ends a legal battle that had brewed in the states for 45 years, from Minnesota in the 1970s to Hawaii in the 1990s and New England after the turn of the century. The final turning point came in 2013, when the high court forced the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages and allowed them to resume in California.

Had the court upheld gay marriage bans in Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee and Kentucky, it would have jeopardized federal court rulings striking down similar bans in 20 of the 37 states where same-sex marriage has been declared legal. Quickly, the number of gay marriage states could have been cut in half.

Instead, the court’s finding that same-sex couples have a right to marry under the Constitution will make gay marriage legal in the remaining 13 states, from Georgia to North Dakota. And it will make battles over religious-freedom and non-discrimination laws the next battleground in the nation’s continuing struggle with gay rights.


Throughout the battle, a patient legal strategy, savvy public relations campaign and superior financing and organization propelled the gay marriage movement past an outgunned and underfunded opposition.

Read it here.

What do you think this means for the residents of the State of South Dakota?

17 thoughts on “SCOTUS: Approves same-sex marriage in all 50 states; Sets stage for next legislative fight over religious freedom.”

  1. can’t wait to check in 4 hrs the number of people posting here that the sky has fallen. Can’t wait for our legislator to fall all over itself and accomplish nothing. Law of the land. Get over it and vote for Huckabee if you want it changed.

  2. I’m pleased with the opinion. Fully prepared to get smoked here for having that opinion, but screw it. It’s about time.

  3. Coming soon to a church near you: the phony gay couple transplant looking for a lawsuit.

    1. It just says the state has to recognize their marriage and issue a license. Nothing about a religious group being required to perform the wedding you hate filled bigot

      1. Really? That is exactly the strategy they used to file a lawsuit against South Dakota. There was some phony transplant gay couple living in Gettysburg just long enough to file a lawsuit against the state and leave. Do you honestly want me to believe that same strategy will not be employed on businesses and churches?

  4. I am happy that this group of citizens will now be treated equally. It’s about time.

    Don’t like it? Don’t marry the same sex. Your life should not be impacted in any way, so carry on.

  5. From Slate’s Hanna Rosin: “The dirty little secret about gay marriage: Most gay couples are not monogamous. We have come to accept lately, partly thanks to Liza Mundy’s excellent recent cover story in the Atlantic and partly because we desperately need something to make the drooping institution of heterosexual marriage seem vibrant again, that gay marriage has something to teach us, that gay couples provide a model for marriages that are more egalitarian and less burdened by the old gender roles that are weighing marriage down these days.”

  6. Maybe it is time to step back?

    The non-legal (political) movement of those who support SSM desire two fundamental things:

    1) Legal & economic benefits/privileges enjoyed by OSM. The courts have determined denying such benefits/privileges extended to OSM and not SSM violates the 14th Amendment. This is the new reality as the courts are not subject to accountability by the citizens.

    2) Endorsement of SSM by society in general. Here the courts have no jurisdiction or influence unless they proceed to something that forces pastors/churches who disagree to perform SSM if they want to continue as legally able to perform marriages and penalizes people/churches who do not endorse SSM. This has not occurred under this ruling.

    There are people who think the following:

    1) This ruling will lead to subsequent rulings or passage of laws which intend to address #2 above. This bears watching as it might be the next fight and if pastors/churches lose this might lead to new fights.

    2) This is the end of the issue. People who want SSM can get married at churches who endorse it or go to Justice of Peace and churches/pastors can exercise choice on wehther to perform just OSM or do SSM.

    3) Because some religions reject the confluence of SSM and OSM, they will begin to push a separation of the secular component of unions (legal and economic benefits), eliminate marriage as a role of the state (and only have civil unions for all) and only perform religious ceremonies of marriage.

    1. You nailed it Troy. I could not agree more and have been saying this will happen slowly State by State.

  7. Good analysis Troy. I pick door #3.

    There are vast differences between the concepts of state-sanctioned unions (called marriage) and marriages of the biblical kind.

  8. I choose what’s behind door number 3, as well.

    I really don’t care what someone wants to call their “mate” (spouse – life-partner – significant other – etc)

    Unless someone is personally involved with ME, it’s not really my business.

    I just don’t want people trying to MAKE me care what they do when they’re naked. I don’t even really want to THINK about what they do, let alone care about it.

    I’m far more libertarian (small “l”) in my views than most people, but I think we’d all be better off with a smaller government and a philosopy of “live & let live.

  9. After wading through all the decisions, opinions, commentaries, etc. I found the two rulings this week to extremely troubling.
    I have concerns about these cases being heard by the SCOTUS. Several states have, or had, laws and even written into their state constitution, that define marriage as being between a man and a woman. This ruling takes the issue out of the state’s hands and the federal government is now dictating to the states how things will be.
    This is a very dangerous precedent to be setting. The States are losing their rights to govern themselves.

      1. The arguments that was used to win this case can be used to win for plural marriages, or marriages to inanimate objects.

Comments are closed.