Politics

Q&A: Issues, Possible Legal Outcomes in Gay Marriage Cases

Published

11 years ago

April 27, 2015

In this June 26, 2013, file photo, Sean Lewrence, of Philadelphia, holds up a flag during a rally for gay marriage, on Independence Mall in Philadelphia. A federal appeals court on Thursday, Nov. 6. 2014, upheld anti-gay marriage laws in four states, breaking ranks with other courts that have considered the issue and setting up the prospect of Supreme Court review. (AP Photo/Matt Slocum, File)

Mark Sherman, ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) — Just two years ago, the Supreme Court struck down part of the federal anti-gay marriage law that denied a range of government benefits to legally married same-sex couples.

The decision in United States v. Windsor did not address the validity of state marriage bans, but courts across the country, with few exceptions, said its logic compelled them to invalidate state laws that prohibited gay and lesbian couples from marrying.

The number of states allowing same-sex marriage has grown rapidly. As recently as October, just over one-third of the states permitted same-sex marriage. Now, same-sex couples can marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia. A look at what is now before the Supreme Court, and the status of same-sex marriage around the country:

___

WHAT’S LEFT FOR THE SUPREME COURT TO DO AMID ALL THIS CHANGE?

The justices on Tuesday are hearing extended arguments, scheduled to run 2½ hours, in highly anticipated cases about the right of same-sex couples to marry. The cases before the court come from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, all of which had their marriage bans upheld by the federal appeals court in Cincinnati in November. That appeals court is the only one that has ruled in favor of the states since the 2013 Windsor decision.

___

WHAT’S AT STAKE?

Two related issues would expand the marriage rights of same-sex couples. The bigger one: Do same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry or can states continue to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman? The second: Even if states won’t allow some couples to marry, must they recognize valid same-sex marriages from elsewhere?

___

WHAT ARE THE MAIN ARGUMENTS ON EACH SIDE?

The arguments of marriage-rights supporters boil down to a claim that states lack any valid reason to deny the right to marry, which the court has earlier described as fundamental to the pursuit of happiness. They say state laws that allow only some people to marry violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law and make second-class citizens of same-sex couples and their families. Same-sex couples say that preventing them from marrying is akin to a past ban on interracial marriage, which the Supreme Court struck down in 1967.

The states respond that they have always set the rules for marriage and that voters in many states have backed, sometimes overwhelmingly, changes to their constitutions to limit marriage to a man and a woman. They say a lively national debate is underway and there is no reason for courts to impose a solution that should be left to the political process. The states also argue that they have a good reason to keep defining marriage as they do. Because only heterosexual couples can produce children, it is in the states’ interest to make marriage laws that encourage those couples to enter a union that supports raising children.

___

IS THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PLAYING A ROLE?

The administration is backing the right of same-sex couples to marry, although its argument differs in one respect. The plaintiffs say that the state laws should fall, no matter what standard the court applies. The administration calls for more rigorous scrutiny than courts ordinarily apply to most laws, saying it is appropriate when governments discriminate against a group of people. That already is the case for claims that laws discriminate on the basis of race, sex and other factors. But the administration is silent about what the outcome should be if the court does not give gays the special protection it has afforded women and minorities.

The Justice Department’s decision to stop defending the federal anti-marriage law in 2011 was an important moment for gay rights, and President Barack Obama declared his support for same-sex marriage in 2012.

___

WHAT HAPPENS IF THE COURT STRIKES DOWN THE STATE BANS?

A ruling that same-sex couples have a right to marry would invalidate the remaining anti-gay marriage laws in the country. If the court limits its ruling to requiring states to recognize same-sex unions, couples in states without same-sex marriage presumably could get married elsewhere and then demand recognition at home.

___

WHAT HAPPENS IF THE COURT RULES FOR THE STATES ON BOTH QUESTIONS?

The bans in 14 states would survive. Beyond that, confusion probably would reign. Some states that had their marriage laws struck down by federal courts might seek to reinstate prohibitions on gay and lesbian unions. Questions also could be raised about the validity of some same-sex weddings. Many of these problems would be of the Supreme Court’s own making.

___

WHY IS THAT?

From October to January, the justices first rejected appeals from states seeking to preserve their marriage bans, then allowed court rulings to take effect even as other states appealed those decisions. The result is that the court essentially allowed the number of states with same-sex marriage to double.

___

WHERE IS SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LEGAL?

Same-sex couples can marry in 36 states, the District of Columbia and parts of Missouri. More than 500 marriage licenses were issued to same-sex couples in Alabama this year after a federal court struck down the state’s ban. But probate judges have not issued any more licenses to gay and lesbian couples since the Alabama Supreme Court ordered a halt to same-sex unions in early March.

Gay and lesbian couples may not marry in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, most of Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas.

___

HOW MANY MARRIED SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE THERE IN THE U.S.?

Gary Gates, an expert at UCLA’s Williams Institute on the demography of gays and lesbians in the U.S., estimated that there were 350,000 married same-sex couples as of February. Gates relied on Gallup Inc. survey data and Census Bureau information to arrive at his estimate. That’s just 0.3 percent of the nation’s 242 million adults, Gates said. Almost as many same-sex couples are unmarried, Gates said.

___

WHAT ARE THE NEXT ISSUES FACING GAY RIGHTS?

One fight in the news this year is over efforts to carve out religious exemptions for people and institutions that object to same-sex marriage. It is clear that churches do not have to marry same-sex couples if doing so violates their religious tenets, but what about county clerks? Can photographers refuse to shoot same-sex weddings? Can bakers decline to bake a cake for two men? Civil rights groups say they will continue pressing for other protections from discrimination against LGBT people in employment and housing, among other areas. Even if same-sex couples win the right to marry everywhere, people still can be fired because of their sexual orientation in more than half the states.

___

Online:

Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourt.gov

Follow Mark Sherman on Twitter at: http://www.twitter.com/shermancourt.
Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

###

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Texas Asks Appeals Court to Uphold Voter Photo ID Law

Don't Miss

Obama’s Top 10 Jokes at the Correspondents’ Dinner

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Bay Area

Oakland Mayor Pushes Charter Overhaul to Clarify Roles in City Government, Increase Accountability and Improve Service Delivery

Under the proposal, the mayor would serve as Oakland’s chief executive, overseeing city departments, implementing policy, proposing the annual budget, and managing day-to-day operations. The measure would also give the mayor veto power over legislation and the budget, though the City Council could override a veto with a two-thirds vote.

Published

3 days ago

May 17, 2026

Oakland Post

Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee. File photo.

By Oakland Post Staff

Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee is backing a sweeping proposal to restructure Oakland’s government, arguing the changes would make City Hall more accountable and improve the delivery of basic services like public safety, homelessness response, and infrastructure repairs.

The charter reform measure, introduced April 7 and co-sponsored by Oakland City Council President Kevin Jenkins, would ask voters in November to approve a “strong mayor, strong council” system designed to create clearer lines of authority inside city government.

The City Council, meanwhile, would maintain legislative authority by adopting ordinances, approving budgets, conducting oversight hearings, and confirming key mayoral appointments. The proposal would also create an Independent Budget and Legislative Analyst Office to provide nonpartisan fiscal and policy analysis for councilmembers.

“I’ve spent months listening to Oaklanders across every neighborhood about what they expect from their city government,” Lee said. “The Charter Reform Working Group’s engagement made clear that residents want a system where there are no questions about who is responsible for delivering results on public safety, homelessness, infrastructure, and basic services.”

Jenkins said the proposal would strengthen both executive leadership and council oversight.

“I’ve long believed Oakland works best when residents have clear lines of accountability and a government structure that aligns responsibility with results,” Jenkins said.

The proposal follows recommendations from the Mayor’s Charter Reform Working Group, co-facilitated by the League of Women Voters of Oakland and SPUR.

Over five months, the group conducted more than 60 interviews, held 14 public meetings across Oakland, and engaged more than 750 residents while reviewing governance models used in other cities.

“The process of engaging residents across Oakland surfaced the governance clarity Oakland needs,” said Sujata Srivastava of SPUR. “The Charter Reform Working Group has produced a thoughtful set of recommendations that if adopted could strengthen accountability and improve service delivery across city government.”

Polling cited by the mayor’s office suggests voters may be open to the changes. A February 2026 poll by the East Bay Polling Institute found 64% of voters support adopting a strong-mayor system. Separate polling conducted by the Oakland Chamber of Commerce and David Binder Research found support ranging from 61% to 63% among likely voters.

The measure is scheduled to be heard by the City Council Rules Committee on May 21. If approved by the council, it would appear on the November 2026 ballot, where Oakland voters would have the final say.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

The Ladies of Delta Sigma Theta Hold Day of Advocacy at the Capitol in Sacramento

A member of the “Divine Nine,” Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., was founded on Jan. 13, 1913, at Howard University in Washington, D.C. The organization was established by 22 women who sought to shift the group’s focus from social activities to public service, academic excellence, and social activism.

Published

3 days ago

May 17, 2026

Oakland Post

Sen. Laura Richardson (D-San Pedro) presents a Senate resolution to the Delta Theta Sigma Sorority Farwest Region at the State Capitol on May 4. Photo courtesy of the Senate Rules Committee.

By Antonio Ray Harvey, California Black Media

On May 4, members of the Farwest Region of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., convened at the California State Capitol for the organization’s 23rd annual Delta Days in Sacramento.

The two-day advocacy event brings together chapters from across California to engage directly in the legislative process, connect with lawmakers, and advocate for policies impacting Black communities.

Members of the sorority were honored on the Senate floor by Sen. Laura Richardson (D-San Pedro), who is also a member of Delta Sigma Theta.

Richardson welcomed the Farwest Region during the presentation of a Senate resolution recognizing outgoing Regional Director Kimberly Usher for her leadership and service.

“In addition to the Far West Region, we are led by a fearless leader, regional director Kimberly Usher. She has now served her full term of what’s allowed,” Richardson said. “We are going to be having our regional conference, but we wanted to give it to her here, officially recognizing her service.”

The resolution was co-authored by Richardson and fellow members of the California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC) and Delta Sigma Theta, Sen. Akilah Weber Pierson (D-San Diego) and Assemblymember Rhodesia Ransom (D-Stockton).

Usher has served in the leadership role since 2022.

“We are founded on sisterhood that is deeply rooted in scholarship, service, and social action,” said Weber Pierson, a member of the Gamma Alpha chapter of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority.

“Today, we continue a legacy of empowering communities and upholding the high cultural, intellectual, and moral standards established by our founders over a century ago,” she added.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Rep. Kamlager-Dove Introduces Bill to Protect Women in Custody After Reports Detailing Miscarriages and Neglect

The Pregnant Women in Custody Act would expand safeguards beyond the federal prison system to include women detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The proposal follows reports of pregnant women being shackled, denied medical care and suffering miscarriages while in immigration detention.

Published

3 days ago

May 17, 2026

Oakland Post

iStock

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA-37) on May 7, reintroduced updated legislation aimed at strengthening protections and healthcare standards for pregnant and postpartum women held in federal custody, including in immigration detention facilities.

The Pregnant Women in Custody Act would expand safeguards beyond the federal prison system to include women detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The proposal follows reports of pregnant women being shackled, denied medical care and suffering miscarriages while in immigration detention.

The legislation builds on a bipartisan version previously passed by the House during the 117th Congress. The updated bill includes new standards for healthcare access, mental health and substance use treatment, high-risk pregnancy care, family unity protections and increased federal oversight.

“Proper pregnancy care is a human right, regardless of your immigration or incarceration status,” Kamlager-Dove said in a statement. “It’s unacceptable that there are virtually no legal safeguards for pregnant women in federal custody.”

The bill would also limit the use of restraints and restrictive housing for pregnant women, improve data collection on maternal health in custody and require additional staff training and enforcement measures.

Supporters of the measure said the legislation is intended to address long-standing concerns about maternal healthcare and safety in detention settings, particularly for Black women and low-income women who are disproportionately impacted by incarceration and health disparities.

“Pregnant women in custody should never be subjected to dangerous and inhumane treatment that threatens their health, dignity, or the well-being of their babies,” said Patrice Willoughby, chief of policy and legislative affairs for the NAACP and a longtime public policy and government affairs strategist, in a statement.

A 2021 report estimated there are about 58,000 admissions of pregnant women into U.S. jails and prisons each year. Kamlager’s statement also cited a recent investigation by NBC News and Bloomberg Law that identified allegations of severe mistreatment or medical neglect involving at least 54 pregnant women or families in county jails between 2017 and 2024.

Federal policy under the Department of Homeland Security restricts the detention of pregnant, postpartum and nursing immigrants except in extreme cases. However, the agency reported that ICE deported 363 pregnant, postpartum or nursing women between January 2025 and February 2026, including 16 recorded miscarriages during that period.

The bill is cosponsored by several House Democrats and backed by organizations including the NAACP and the Vera Institute of Justice.