Trump gay marriage supreme court
On June 26, the Joined States will mark 10 years since the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in favour of Jim Obergefell, legalising gay marriage across the country.
Obergefell filed the lawsuit against the governor of Ohio in July 2013, eight days after marrying his long-term partner John Arthur, who was battling amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), in Maryland, where lgbtq+ marriage was legal.
Ohio did not recognise the couple's marriage, and they decided to go to court after realising Arthur would be recorded as "unmarried" on his death certificate.
Arthur died in October 2013.
Context spoke with Obergefell about his husband's legacy and his worries for the future.
When did you and John decide to marry?
The third time we met was at John's Novel Year's Eve party, 1992 into 1993. I was 26, he was 27. I told him the next day I wanted to be a couple. I just knew he was special, and I wanted him in my life.
Within two years we talked about marriage. Not just a symbolic ceremony, we wanted everything it means to anyone who hears that term. But we thought we'd never have the possibility.
In 2013, John had started at-home hospice care. On June 26,
A protester carries a write as acctivists demonstrate outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, U.S., December 5, 2022. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
What’s the context?
Ten years after same-sex marriage was legalised, gay and lesbian couples are uneasy under Trump.
- Decade since Supreme Court legalised same-sex marriage
- At least six states call for judgment to be revisited
- Couples observe anniversary with concerns for future
LONDON - When Zach Bolen proposed to his spouse Derrick Dobson in 2017, he chose a place that meant a lot to them; the hiking trail where the couple had first met, with a view over their entire home city of Boise, Idaho.
"I drove him to the top, claiming it would be a fun last-minute adventure as we had not been there in a while. I proposed with all of our friends and family behind us to surprise him after," Bolen, 33, told Context.
Now the couple's long-awaited wedding plans are uncertain.
In January, lawmakers in Idaho passed a resolution urging the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the decision that legalised same-sex marriage across the United States.
On June 26, the Merged States will mark 10 years since that la
Could SCOTUS roll back gay marriage? Local LGBTQ+ families rush to protect themselves
CHICAGO (WLS) -- As CEO of Equality Illinois, Brian Johnson's life's work is protecting LGBTQ+ rights.
But with a second Donald Trump administration, it has develop personal, as Johnson is worried about his hold family.
ABC7 Chicago is now streaming 24/7. Click here to watch
"The risk is not just about my relationship with my husband. The risk is to our entire family and the unit that we have created to safeguard our daughter," Johnson said.
Since Trump was elected, Johnson says, Equality Illinois has received dozens of handset calls, emails and social media messages from male lover married couples who are concerned that the Trump administration will undermine their federal rights to marriage equality.
"We know that there are fierce opponents to our relationships who are coming to power in Washington that will act whatever they can in the most creative ways possible to chip away at our rights," Johnson said.
The concern is a conservative U.S. Supreme Court may overturn marriage equality and Congress may scale back the Respect for Marriage Act.
"Some of the co
Some Republican lawmakers increase calls against gay marriage SCOTUS ruling
Conservative legislators are increasingly speaking out against the Supreme Court’s landmark 2015 ruling on same-sex marriage equality.
Idaho legislators began the trend in January when the state House and Senate passed a resolution calling on the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision -- which the court cannot do unless presented with a case on the issue. Some Republican lawmakers in at least four other states like Michigan, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota have followed suit with calls to the Supreme Court.
In North Dakota, the resolution passed the express House with a vote of 52-40 and is headed to the Senate. In South Dakota, the state’s House Judiciary Committee sent the proposal on the 41st Legislative Daytime –deferring the bill to the final day of a legislative session, when it will no longer be considered, and effectively killing the bill.
In Montana and Michigan, the bills have yet to encounter legislative scrutiny.
Resolutions have no legal authority and are not binding law, but instead allow legislative bodies to express their collective opinions.
The resolutions in four other states ech
.