Justice Clarence Thomas recently stated that settled legal precedent should not be treated as “gospel,” suggesting some decisions may be based on questionable foundations. He criticized the court’s adherence to precedent, advocating for a re-evaluation of “stare decisis.” Thomas’s remarks come before the Supreme Court’s new term and follow the overturning of Roe v. Wade, where he also expressed a desire to reconsider other substantive due process precedents. This stance reflects a broader conservative effort to dismantle precedents related to civil liberties and social progress.
Read More
As SCOTUS considers whether to hear a case that could threaten federal protections for same-sex marriage, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has advised same-sex couples to consider getting married. Clinton expressed concern that the court could overturn the national right to marriage equality, potentially sending the issue back to individual states for decisions. This comes as a result of a case brought by former county clerk Kim Davis, who is appealing a financial penalty after refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples post-Obergefell v. Hodges. If marriage equality were overturned, existing marriages would likely be grandfathered, but states could be given the power to halt future same-sex unions.
Read More
Kim Davis, the former Kentucky County Court Clerk, has filed a lawsuit petitioning the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, seeking to appeal a ruling that requires her to pay damages for denying a marriage license to a gay couple. Davis, represented by the Liberty Counsel, argues her religious freedom is violated by the existence of marriage equality. Critics, like Dan Canon, believe the court is unlikely to take the case, although the current court is seen as politically motivated. The core argument, shared by some conservatives, is that the mere existence of same-sex marriage oppresses Christians, a perspective that could threaten LGBTQ+ rights.
Read More
Supreme Court formally asked to overturn landmark same-sex marriage ruling.
It’s honestly hard to know where to begin with this latest development: the Supreme Court being formally asked to overturn the landmark same-sex marriage ruling in *Obergefell v. Hodges*. It feels like a punch to the gut, even though many of us saw this coming from a mile away. The news immediately brings to mind the name of Kim Davis, and not for good reasons. She’s back in the spotlight, and it seems her arguments are echoing those of others who want to roll back the clock on marriage equality. It’s disheartening to see.… Continue reading
Why, after a decade of marriage equality, do we still hear the echoes of warnings that it would lead to societal collapse? The simple answer, it seems, is that some people just don’t like it when the world doesn’t conform to their narrow worldview. They predicted the end of days, a descent into chaos, the breakdown of all that is good and holy. Yet, here we are, still standing, still functioning, and still, for the most part, the same civilization we were before.
The arguments themselves were often absurd, filled with hyperbolic claims about the future of marriage, family, and the very fabric of society.… Continue reading
A new study reveals that same-sex weddings and related spending by couples and out-of-state guests have generated approximately $5.9 billion in economic activity over the past decade. This includes an estimated $4.9 billion directly spent on weddings by 473,000 same-sex couples, plus nearly $1 billion from out-of-state guests. This spending supported an estimated 41,300 jobs and generated $432.2 million in state and local sales tax revenue. Despite recent state-level challenges, the Respect for Marriage Act ensures federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
Read More
Thailand’s recent legalization of same-sex marriage marks a monumental step forward for LGBTQ+ rights in Southeast Asia, and the upcoming mass weddings are a joyous testament to this significant change. It’s a truly heartwarming event, showcasing the culmination of years of activism and a shift in societal attitudes. The sheer number of couples participating – around 200 – underscores the widespread anticipation and the deeply felt need for legal recognition among same-sex couples.
The story of Joe and Mate, a couple from Singapore and Malaysia respectively, perfectly encapsulates the struggles and eventual triumph that this landmark legislation represents. Their relationship, initially navigating the legal complexities and social stigmas surrounding homosexuality in their home countries, now blossoms under the umbrella of legal protection and recognition in Thailand.… Continue reading
Thailand’s landmark marriage equality bill, amending the Civil and Commercial Code to include LGBTQ couples, takes effect January 23rd, granting same-sex couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. Danaya Phonphayung and Sunma Piamboon, together for over 13 years, plan to register their marriage immediately, highlighting the significance of finally securing legal recognition after facing discrimination. The law’s passage, a significant victory for LGBTQ+ rights in Southeast Asia, follows years of advocacy and government support, culminating in a celebratory event for hundreds of couples. The government is working to ensure smooth implementation, including educating officials on gender diversity and inclusive communication.
Read More
The fact that 1 in 8 women admit to secretly voting differently than their partners reveals deep-seated issues within relationships that navigate the turbulent waters of political ideologies. This statistic speaks volumes about the complexity of political discussions in modern marriages, particularly when the partners in question find themselves on opposite ends of the political spectrum. The idea that someone might feel compelled to hide their voting intentions from their spouse illustrates just how polarizing our political climate has become.
The reluctance of these women to share their votes with their partners often stems from a fear of conflict or outright hostility.… Continue reading
As I read the news about Sen. Mike Braun suggesting that the ruling on interracial marriage should be left to the states, I couldn’t help but feel a surge of anger and disbelief. How can anyone think that who we love and marry should be up for debate or regulation by the government? It’s 2024, and the idea that someone would advocate for such a regressive and discriminatory stance is beyond comprehension.
The notion of pushing the decision on interracial marriage back to individual states reeks of a bygone era where segregation and discrimination were the norm. It’s a dog-whistle that echoes the dark days of slavery and Jim Crow laws, where states were given the power to oppress and dehumanize certain groups of people based on race.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood