Denying people the right to marry who they love denies them equal protection under the law because the court has already ruled that the right to marriage is a fundamental right. It's not a complicated issue.
Where the country stands on gay marriage in the future might be a foregone conclusion. But what federal and state legislatures do about this is far from a foregone conclusion. As a result, a punt by the Court might mean that gay marriage supporters will have to wait a very long time to get the ball and the momentum back.
What if you really against gay marriage? -- Could it be because of your religious views -- after all, the Bible says what it says. Or you might have s...
It is never wise to predict U.S. Supreme Court decisions on oral arguments, or else Obamacare would have been repealed. Based on the Justices' line of questioning, however, it appears that they will overrule Proposition 8 -- but on narrow grounds that will only affect California.
After listening to the oral arguments presented in the Proposition 8 case in the U.S. Supreme Court today, one can't help but marvel at the intricacies of the legal debate. But what's really going on, in a nutshell?
Competition from generic drugs is a critical way to reduce drug prices, with a generic typically costing 85 to 90 percent less than its brand-name equivalent. But consumers wait years longer than they should to see those savings when drug companies pay to delay competition.
Based on the oral arguments, no party (including the justices) seems to agree on what the question is before them. Is the case even properly brought before the court given that the state of California has chosen not to defend Proposition 8?
Listening to the Supreme Court's arguments on the big gay marriage case -- which will decide if California, or for that matter any other state, can forbid same-sex marriage, as California's Proposition 8 did in 2008 -- I was struck by the baldly political nature of the conversation.
Today, standing outside the Supreme Court on this historic day, the first day that the Court heard oral arguments on a gay marriage case, one thing became clear: We are winning.
Advocates of gay marriage gathered in Washington this week to hear the arguments presented at the Supreme Court, with some justices hinting that they are afraid to move too quickly on the issue. But that's because they were hearing the wrong argument.
Here is how a clergyperson stops a wedding from occurring in their church: they say "no".
Millennials do not see a world divided by black or white, gay or straight, male or female. The world is changing fast -- not only on this issue, and not only in America.
It is my hope that the court will find the courage to rule this year on a constitutional conclusion that is inevitable -- and not wait another 50 years for justice.
It may have taken us 100 years to get it right with respect to race-restrictions on the freedom to marry, but it doesn't mean those laws weren't unconstitutional in 1868. The same is true, nearly 150 years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, for laws that deny gay and lesbian couples the freedom to marry.
A Roberts ruling in favor of overturning the Defense of Marriage Act would be a victory for federalism, a triumph for the gay equal rights movement, and a historic moment for the Court that could well mark the moment that conservative opposition to same-sex marriage crumbled to dust.
Last Thursday, Natalie Morales --who is one of the top anchors on the "Today" show and a prominent reporter for NBC-- hosted the National Lesbian and ...