Anderson's preoccupation with activism leads him to miss out on a crucial point that all defenders of limited government should be able to agree upon: The Court should make an independent determination of the constitutionality of the challenged marriage laws, rather than reflexively deferring to the political branches.
This week, the Republican presidential field is going to double, from three candidates to six. Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio have all previously officially announced their candidacies, and this week they will be joined by Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, and Mike Huckabee.
The National Organization for Marriage has just published a new blog post in which the anti-gay group reveals its plans for 2016. Strangely enough, none of those plans include the most likely scenario: that the organization will cease to exist.
Such an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts would not only strengthen the decision but put into the Supreme Court's toolbox the importance of viewing discrimination against someone on the basis of her sexual orientation as simple sex discrimination. This would help bring "heightened scrutiny" into consideration in future gay-rights cases.
Everyone who believes that Americans are entitled to the full measure of freedom that the Constitution guarantees should resist this case for reflexive judicial restraint, which is profoundly hostile to liberty.
Over and over again, anti-gay groups have trotted out clergy and chaplains as beleaguered minorities whose rights are being trampled. And over and over again, this line of reasoning intentionally misconstrues the relationship among religion, law and marriage.
Bernie Sanders deserves the Most Impressive Democrat award this week, because he threw his hat in the ring. No, he is not Elizabeth Warren. But, more importantly, he is running to become president, which she is not.
As expected, civil rights legend Mary Bonauto knocked it out of the park for marriage equality. But something bigger was in the air -- a sense that history wasn't just turning but had, in some basic sense, turned.
Conservatives believe that if blacks and Latinos simply work hard, get a good education and earn a good income, historical racial wealth gaps will disappear. The problem is that this sentiment ignores the ways that race continues to affect Americans today.
In recent hearings on efforts by state governments to ban same-sex marriages, Supreme Court justices peppered representatives of both sides with quest...
When I use the word "unthinkable" in connection with the Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts, I typically have in mind the long line of unthinkably bad decisions the court has issued since Roberts assumed office in 2005.
In the past, marriage was primarily about property and procreation whereas today the emphasis is on egalitarian partnership, companionship and love. In the past, the state and most religions did not recognize divorce, remarriage, interracial marriage or the equality of the marriage partners.
I have always loved the Supreme Court. As a law student, I made pilgrimages to the Court to listen to arguments. It fortified me and inspired me for the hard work and sacrifice ahead.
In this episode of Nicholas Snow Live, I bring you the complete audio recording of the oral argument in 14-556, Obergefell v. Hodges, and consolidated cases.
At the end of the day, the overwhelming emotion we were left with was hope. Hope for a future where all kids can grow up with the simple right to love whomever they love and have that love recognized.
Marriage in the Bible was much more about property rights, ensuring paternity of offspring, succession, political alliances and tribal stability than it was about companionship, mutual support and affection as we think of marriage today.