marriage equality

  • September 18, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Steve Sanders, who teaches and writes about constitutional law, constitutional litigation, and family law at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law, Bloomington.

    *This post is part of ACSblog’s 2015 Constitution Day Symposium.

    Advocates for civil rights and civil liberties often look to our Constitution in their quest for legal and social change.  But the processes of legal and social change also shape the contours, sometimes the very meaning, of constitutional guarantees.  Last summer in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court applied the Fourteenth Amendment to transform the nationwide legal status of same-sex marriage.  But it is important to appreciate how same-sex marriage had already changed the Constitution.  

    On matters of individual liberty and equality, the Constitution is not a catalog of enumerated, narrow, and static rights, though most legal conservatives insist that we treat it that way.  Rather, it provides a set of bedrock values, values whose meanings grow and adapt alongside the growth of knowledge and human understanding. 

    As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution is “intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.”  Justice William Brennan, one of the greatest champions of a progressive Constitution, observed,  “Our amended Constitution is the lodestar for our aspirations.  Like every text worth reading, it is not crystalline. The phrasing is broad and the limitations of its provisions are not clearly marked.  Its majestic generalities and ennobling pronouncements are both luminous and obscure.”

    And as Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in a decision invalidating laws that criminalized same-sex sex acts, “Had those who drew and ratified the [Constitution] known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific.  They did not presume to have this insight….  As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

    In that 2003 decision, Lawrence v. Texas, the Court considered the last half-century of legal and social change, both in the United States and in other democracies, and found an “emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex.”

  • September 17, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law, Raymond Pryke Professor of First Amendment Law, University of California, Irvine School of Law

    *This post is part of ACSblog’s 2015 Constitution Day Symposium.

    In some of the most famous words ever written by the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Marshall declared in McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819, we must “never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding. . . .  [A] constitution intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” This is a clear expression of the need for a living Constitution, one whose meaning evolves by interpretation as well as by the very difficult process of amendment.

    This should not be controversial. The only way that the nation can be governed by a document written in 1787 for an agrarian slave society is for its intentionally broad, open-textured language to be given contemporary meanings. There is no clear “original understanding” of any constitutional provision and even if it could be identified, it should not be controlling today. The same Congress that ratified the Fourteenth Amendment also voted to segregate the District of Columbia public schools. But that does not mean that Brown v. Board of Education was wrongly decided.

    This would be unremarkable except that Justice Scalia and other conservatives have argued for decades that the meaning of the Constitution is limited to its original understanding. This philosophy, “originalism,” says that a constitutional provision means the same thing today as when it was adopted and that this meaning can be changed only by constitutional amendment.

    Never has a majority of the Court embraced this restrictive approach. One of the most important aspects of the Court’s decision in June recognizing a constitutional right to marriage equality for gays and lesbians was it again explicitly rejected originalism.

    In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Court declared unconstitutional laws in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee that prohibited same-sex marriage. Obviously, no one contends that the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment meant to include a right to marriage equality for gays and lesbians within its protections of due process and equal protection. The majority of the Court was clear that this does not matter because the understanding of constitutional provisions evolves over time.

    Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, observed that “[t]he identification and protection of fundamental rights . . . has not been reduced to any formula.” He explained why constitutional interpretation cannot be limited to understandings of the past: “The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution's central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.  If rights were defined by who exercised them in the past, then received practices could serve as their own continued justification and new groups could not invoke rights once denied. This Court has rejected that approach, both with respect to the right to marry and the rights of gays and lesbians.”

  • September 14, 2015

    by Jim Thompson

    In The Washington Post, Rep. John Lewis praises the latest book from The Nation's Ari Berman, Give Us the Ballot. The book, he argues, explains why Congress must fix the Voting Rights Act “without passion or favoritism.”  

    In The American Prospect, ACS President Caroline Fredrickson argues that the taxi industry needs a legal overhaul to ensure the safety of vehicles, dependability of drivers and fairness of payment schemes.    

    Lynette Holloway at The Root reports that a black woman was committed to a mental institution after police officers rebuffed her claims that she owned the BMW which she was arrested for driving.

    In The New Republic, Rebecca Leber discusses enduring obstacles for same-sex couples in the South.

    Liz Seaton at Talking Points Memo warns against the recent initiatives of some state legislatures seeking to inject partisan politics into state legal systems. 

  • September 10, 2015
    Guest Post

    by James C. Nelson, Justice, Montana Supreme Court (Retired)

    The swings in public perception are amazing. Case in point: Kim Davis, the Kentucky Clerk who thumbed her official nose at the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that marriage is a fundamental right of all persons, not just heterosexuals. Not on Davis’ watch, that is.

    No marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples would be issued over her official title, because to do so would violate her personal religious beliefs. That, apparently, is the belief that the Bible and the “loving” God who inspired it and who created all people in his own image, condemns marriages which are not between one man and one woman.

    Davis can believe what she wants, but the fact is that in Kentucky, as is the case elsewhere, public officials like her swear an oath (which my recollection is a promise to God) to support and uphold the Constitution. That is the same Constitution that the U.S. Supreme Court has decreed guarantees equal protection of the marriage laws to all people.

  • September 4, 2015

    by Nanya Springer

    On The Huffington Post BlogJudith E. Schaeffer of the Constitutional Accountability Center weighs in on the controversy in Rowan County, Kentucky, arguing that obtaining a marriage license should be hassle-free for everyone.

    In a press release, Demos announced that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Thursday reinstated a case challenging Nevada’s failure to provide voter registration services to its low-income citizens. The decision comes after the case was thrown out by the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

    Sam Ross-Brown and Amanda Teuscher report in The American Prospect that the Department of Labor’s new rules allowing workers at higher income levels to qualify for overtime pay will not only result in an effective raise for millions of people, but will also give workers more control over their work hours and personal lives.

    The Center for Reproductive Rights announced in a press release yesterday that it has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In June, the Fifth Circuit upheld onerous restrictions on abortion clinic access in Texas which, if allowed to stand, would close more than 75 percent of clinics in the state.