gay marriage

Bob: Kentucky Clerk Furthers Oppression

Bob Bradley

WJBC Forum

In a short period of time my daughter will be getting married. She will marry her soul mate. They share a love that will sustain them through any tough times that may lie ahead.

The wedding ceremony will be one of joy and celebration. Friends and family from near and far will join in the happy festivities. They will eat, drink, laugh, dance, and be merry. As a father I could not be more proud and happier.

So should my and others’ delight in the ceremony be tempered if the gender of the bride and groom were the same? Should my pride be diminished if my daughter had chosen as the love of her life a same-sex partner? Should my happiness and love for my daughter be lessened if the ceremony was a same-sex marriage? Clearly not.

As for the Kentucky county clerk, the contempt finding against her is not depriving her of religious liberty and her actions are not comparable to those of Martin Luther King. Consider if she was a Quaker and refused to issue a license to carry a firearm based on her strong belief in non-violence. Would the outrage by certain segments of the community and particular presidential candidates be the same?

In fact, her actions are similar to those of local authorities who claimed it was against God’s will to allow biracial couples to marry in the 1960s despite a Supreme Court ruling saying they could. And are comparable to the refusal of certain Southern school authorities to integrate public schools in the 1950s after the issuance of the famous Brown decision.

The clerk used her official position to force citizens to abide by her religious views. This runs counter to the principle of the separation of church and state embodied in our Constitution. That principle was designed to prevent the government from making people conform to a specific religion.

And by not carrying out a Supreme Court decision granting a right to a minority group, the clerk is furthering the oppression of that group. This is the opposite of King’s actions, which tried to eliminate laws that were oppressive of minorities.

I hope my daughter’s wedding goes well and that she continues to live in a country where a specific religion does not dictate government actions.

Bob Bradley is a professor emeritus from Illinois State University where he primarily taught law-related courses in the political science department for 30 years. He did a weekly-segment for WJBC on politics and law for more than a decade. He also co-hosted a live- radio show from the Democratic and Republican national conventions in 2008, and reported live from the 2012 Republican convention. Currently, he serves on several community boards, does volunteer work, enjoys golf and fishing, and likes landscaping and bird-watching. He is married to the love of his life, Reenie, and has one daughter, Erin.

Minister: Church/LGBT Rift Serious Issue

For the faithful who identify as LGBT, rejection by their church can shake not only their confidence but also their very faith.

As Not In Our Town: Bloomington-Normal works to forge alliances with churches and other faith-based institutions at the heart of various local communities, it also hopes to explore a major rift between the LGBT community and many churches that crosses racial lines.

Disciples of Christ's General Assembly voted in 2013 to embrace gay and transgender members and welcome them to serve in its churches (which includes Bloomington's Centennial Christian Church and First Christian Church, the Twin Cities' oldest continuing congregation). The Unitarian Church, represented in the Twin Cities by Unitarian Universalist Church, has been a traditional haven for openly LGBT Christians, and Normal's New Covenant Community declares its invitation to all "regardless of race, gender, age, or sexual orientation."

But many other traditional churches run the spectrum from condemning homosexuality or same-sex marriage to maintaining a don't ask/don't tell sort of philosophy toward acceptance or membership. In a video continuing to draw popular buzz and heated debate, Rev. Dewey Smith, pastor of the House of Hope Atlanta in Decatur and the House of Hope Macon, Ga., argued church condemnation of the LGBT community is hypocritical "if you look at half of our choirs and a great number of our artists who we call abominations and we call demons."

"We demonize and dehumanize the same people that we use," the African-American clergyman said. "We don't say nothing about the gay choir director, because he's good for business. . . .We have done what the slave master did to us -- dehumanize us, degrade us, demonize us, but then use them for our advantage."

Cheryl Strong, a Bloomington counselor who is black and a member of the LGBT community, was devastated when her former church not rejected her but also refused to participate in a family member's funeral following her coming-out. Now a member of New Covenant Community, Strong is gratified by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision upholding same-sex marriages but remains concerned by continued interpretation of biblical scriptures as condemning such a union.

She argues "same-sex attraction was not specifically addressed by the Bible." Church condemnation imposes celibacy on LGBT worshippers rather than allowing them to choose what she deems "a gift from God."

"Marriage is an institution of love and intimacy," Strong maintained. "By not sanctioning marriage for gays and lesbian It makes it impossible for an LGBT person to even have a hope of having that kind of intimacy that's afforded in any institution of marriage.

"We're all people, and we all deserve to have love. If you choose to be married, it should be between two people who love each other."

 

High Court Rules For Marriage Equality

Same-sex couples won the right to marry nationwide Friday as a divided Supreme Court handed a crowning victory to the gay rights movement, setting off a jubilant cascade of long-delayed weddings in states where they had been forbidden.

"No longer may this liberty be denied," said Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Chicagoans react.

Chicagoans react.

The vote was narrow — 5-4 — but Kennedy's majority opinion was clear and firm: "The court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry."

Same sex marriages have been legal in Illinois since June 1, 2014.

The ruling will put an end to same-sex marriage bans in the 14 states that still maintain them, and provide an exclamation point for breathtaking changes in the nation's social norms in recent years. As recently as last October, just over one-third of the states permitted gay marriages.

Kennedy's reading of the ruling elicited tears in the courtroom, euphoria outside and the immediate issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in at least eight states. In Dallas, Kenneth Denson said he and Gabriel Mendez had been legally married in 2013 in California but "we're Texans; we want to get married in Texas."

In praise of the decision, President Barack Obama called it "justice that arrives like a thunderbolt."

Four of the court's justices weren't cheering. The dissenters accused their colleagues of usurping power that belongs to the states and to voters, and short-circuiting a national debate about same-sex marriage.

"This court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in dissent. Roberts read a summary of his dissent from the bench, the first time he has done so in nearly 10 years as chief justice.

"If you are among the many Americans — of whatever sexual orientation — who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision," Roberts said. "But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."

Justice Antonin Scalia said he was not concerned so much about same-sex marriage as "this court's threat to American democracy." He termed the decision a "judicial putsch." Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas also dissented.

Several religious organizations criticized the decision.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said it was "profoundly immoral and unjust for the government to declare that two people of the same sex can constitute a marriage."

Kennedy said nothing in the court's ruling would force religions to condone, much less perform, weddings to which they object. And he said the couples seeking the right to marry should not have to wait for the political branches of government to act.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution requires states to allow same-sex couples to marry on the same basis as heterosexuals, he said

"The dynamic of our constitutional system is that individuals need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. The nation's courts are open to injured individuals who come to them to vindicate their own direct, personal stake in our basic charter," Kennedy wrote in his fourth major opinion in support of gay rights since 1996. It came on the anniversary of two of those earlier decisions.

"No union is more profound than marriage," Kennedy wrote, joined by the court's four more liberal justices.

The stories of the people asking for the right to marry "reveal that they seek not to denigrate marriage but rather to live their lives, or honor their spouses' memory, joined by its bond," Kennedy said.

As he read his opinion, spectators in the courtroom wiped away tears when the import of the decision became clear. One of those in the audience was James Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court fight.

Outside, Obergefell held up a photo of his late spouse, John Arthur, and said the ruling establishes that "our love is equal." He added, "This is for you, John."

Obama placed a congratulatory phone call to Obergefell, which he took amid a throng of reporters outside the courthouse.

Speaking a few minutes later at the White House, Obama praised the decision as an affirmation of the principle that "all Americans are created equal."

The crowd in front of the courthouse at the top of Capitol Hill grew in the minutes following the ruling. The Gay Men's Chorus of Washington, D.C., sang the "Star-Spangled Banner." Motorists honked their horns in support as they passed by the crowd, which included a smattering of same-sex marriage opponents.

The ruling will not take effect immediately because the court gives the losing side roughly three weeks to ask for reconsideration. But county clerks in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Ohio, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas began issuing licenses to same-sex couples within hours of the decision.

The cases before the court involved laws from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Those states have not allowed same-sex couples to marry within their borders, and they also have refused to recognize valid marriages from elsewhere.

Just two years ago, the Supreme Court struck down part of the federal anti-gay marriage law that denied a range of government benefits to legally married same-sex couples.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor formed the majority with Kennedy on Friday, the same lineup as two years ago.

The earlier decision in United States v. Windsor did not address the validity of state marriage bans, but courts across the country, with few exceptions, said its logic compelled them to invalidate state laws that prohibited gay and lesbian couples from marrying.

There are an estimated 390,000 married same-sex couples in the United States, according to UCLA's Williams Institute, which tracks the demographics of gay and lesbian Americans. Another 70,000 couples living in states that do not currently permit them to wed would get married in the next three years, the institute says. Roughly 1 million same-sex couples, married and unmarried, live together in the United States, the institute says.

The Obama administration backed the right of same-sex couples to marry. The Justice Department's decision to stop defending the federal anti-marriage law in 2011 was an important moment for gay rights, and Obama declared his support for same-sex marriage in 2012.

The states affected by Friday's ruling are Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, most of Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas.

ACLU/Prairie Pride Hosting Talk on Marriage Equality Case

The Central Illinois Chapter of the ACLU of Illinois and the Prairie Pride Coalition would like to invite you to a discussion on the Supreme Court's marriage equality case at 7 p.m. Wednesday at the Normal Public Library Community Room, at 206 West College Ave.

The event will take place one day after the Supreme Court hears arguments on same-sex marriage as a constitutional right for couples across the country.

Sara Benson from the University of Illinois School of Law and ACLU of Illinois Communications and Public Policy Director Ed Yohnka will discuss their reactions to the hearing and share their predictions for the ruling on the case when it comes down.
 
The event is free and open to the public.

As of now, gay marriage is legal in 36 states. By the end of this Supreme Court term, either same-sex couples will be able to wed in all 50 states, or gay marriage bans may be reinstituted in many of the states where they've previously been struck down.

Tuesday's Supreme Court arguments focus on two questions: First, whether bans on gay marriage are constitutional; and second, if they are, whether those states with bans may refuse to recognize out-of-state gay marriages performed where they are legal.

The court has scheduled 2 1/2 hours of argument and will make the audio available online late Tuesday.

Four states — Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky — are defending their bans. They won their case in the lower court, and because other appeals courts threw out bans enacted in other states, the Supreme Court now must resolve the conflict.

The high-stakes legal battle is the culmination of a decades-long struggle in the courts, state legislatures and at the ballot box. During that time, public opinion has changed, and done so more rapidly — and dramatically — than on any major social issue in memory.

In 1996, public opinion polls showed, on average, only 27 percent of the public favored legalization; this year, although many states still adamantly resist gay marriage, public opinion polls put the approval number nationally at well over 50 percent.

Tuesday's courtroom battle pits states' rights against the fundamental right to marry; it pits the traditional definition of marriage against a more modern definition; and it pits majority rights against minority rights.

Before the court are the consolidated cases of 12 couples and two widowers. Among them are nurses, teachers, veterinarians, an Army sergeant and businessmen and women.