He Said ~
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up a case challenging its landmark decision to legalize gay marriage nationwide.
The challenge to the court’s 2015 ruling came from Kim Davis, the former Kentucky clerk who refused to issue same-sex licenses after the court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which recognized a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
(SIDEBAR – the following is taken directly from Obergefell v. Hodges) – Plaintiffs challenged the laws as violating the Fourteenth Amendment. The district courts ruled in their favor. The Sixth Circuit consolidated the cases and reversed. The Supreme Court reversed. The Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state. The Court noted other changes in the institution of marriage: the decline of arranged marriages, invalidation of bans on interracial marriage and use of contraception, and abandonment of the law of coverture. The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. Marriage is a centerpiece of social order and fundamental under the Constitution; it draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. The marriage laws at issue harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples; burden the liberty of same-sex couples; and abridge central precepts of equality. There may be an initial inclination to await further legislation, litigation, and debate, but referenda, legislative debates, and grassroots campaigns; studies and other writings; and extensive litigation have led to an enhanced understanding of the issue. While the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, individuals who are harmed need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. The First Amendment ensures that religions, those who adhere to religious doctrines, and others have protection as they seek to teach the principles that are central to their lives and faiths.
In the aftermath of her refusal, Davis was jailed for acting in contempt of court and lost her clerk re-election. A jury also ordered her to pay $360,000 to a couple who she refused to marry. Davis attempted to get out of paying this verdict by additionally requesting that the court assert that she has a First Amendment religious protection from liability for her actions.
The court declined her petition without comment.
Davis has long argued that religious liberties conflict with Obergefell.
“If ever there was a case of exceptional importance, the first individual in the Republic’s history who was jailed for following her religious convictions regarding the historic definition of marriage, this should be it,” she argued in her petition before the court.
She is not alone in wanting to challenge the legality of same-sex marriage. According to Lambda Legal, which advocates for gay rights, in this year alone at least nine states have entertained bills or resolutions criticizing Obergefell or have sought to limit marriage to heterosexual couples. On Oct. 24, the Supreme Court of Texas adopted language allowing judges to refuse to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies due to religious beliefs.
In his concurring opinion in the case that overturned the constitutional right to abortion, Justice Clarence Thomas expressly stated that the Supreme Court should reconsider its stances on birth control, same-sex marriage, and same-sex intimacy.
Had the Supreme Court decided to hear Davis’ case and later overturn Obergefell, same-sex marriage would still be protected on the federal level.
In 2022, former President Joe Biden signed into law the Respect for Marriage Act, which repeals the Defense of Marriage Act and recognizes the legitimacy of same-sex and interracial marriages. If Obergefell was overturned, however, individual states could refuse to recognize same-sex marriages.
She Said ~
Joseph Niépce created the photographic camera in 1816 and by 1826, the first permanent photograph had been captured.
This invention forever changed who and what was memorialized. During the early stages of this development, only the very wealthy could afford permanent photographs. There, in black and white for all to see were the lucky ones and all of their possessions.
However, during the 1840s, fierce competition amongst photographers drove prices down. Now, the middle class, factory workers, and ordinary people could afford to have their visage captured.
During the 19th century, the development of the Kodak camera granted access to the working person. Having your picture taken no longer required a trip to the photo studio, donning your Sunday best, or the forced smiles.
Today, having your picture taken is as easy as saying “CHEEEEEEEESE!”
As a child, I sought out the camera and eagerly displayed enthusiasm and spunk. Over the years, not so much, but I’ll make an exception for Thanksgiving.
Did You Know? September 3, 1971, Jack Baker and Michael McConnell were married in Minnesota, becoming the first same-sex couple to be legally married and have their marriage recognized by a civil government. May 17, 2004, Marcia Kadish and Tanya McCloskey were the first same-sex couple to be married in Massachusetts after the state’s Supreme Judicial Court decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health. Other couples were also married in Massachusetts on the same day, as the state became the first in the U.S. to legalize same-sex marriage.
Thank you for all the history of the struggle for womans rights as well as same sex marriage—In this present political climate the struggles that were won now all NEED and Must be protected—–especially the love and union between ALL people—Elisabeth