President Obama Says U.S. Constitution Guarantees Same-Sex Couples the Right to Marry

In an interview with The New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin, President Obama has for the first time announced he believes the U.S. Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry in all fifty states. This is a stark progression from the President’s previous position, which to allow each state to decide the issue individually. President Obama told Toobin, “Ultimately, I think the Equal Protection Clause does guarantee same-sex marriage in all fifty states.”

“The President’s position on marriage equality is supported by dozens of federal court rulings over the last year, which have ruled discriminatory state bans on marriage unconstitutional,” said Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin.

President Obama Says U.S. Constitution Guarantees Same-Sex Couples the Right to Marry

This is big. I think this means that those States who are still banning same-sex marriage are screwed and will now have to allow it. If I am correct and same-sex marriage is finally legal in all of the U.S than it's about time. The Netherlands was the first country to legalize same-sex marriage and that was back in 2001.

It is time that people realize LGBTQ+ people are humans who deserve the same rights as every other human. A LGBTQ+ person is as different from a heterosexual person as African Americans are different from Caucasians.

a reply to: Sabiduria

I love how our politicraps love to used the constitution when they feel is in their best interest to further agendas but disregard the constitution when it doesn't work in their favor.

The issue of marriage has always been left to the states

The role of states[edit]

In the United States, civil marriage is governed by state law. Each state is free to set the conditions for a valid marriage, subject to limits set by the state's own constitution and the U.S. Constitution. Traditionally, a marriage was considered valid if the requirements of the marriage law of the state where the marriage took place were fulfilled. (First Restatement of Conflicts on Marriage and Legitimacy s.121 (1934)). However, a state can refuse to recognize a marriage if the marriage violates a strong public policy of the state, even if the marriage was legal in the state where it was performed. (Restatement (Second) Of Conflict of Laws § 283(2) (1971).) States historically exercised this "public policy exception" by refusing to recognize out-of-state polygamous marriages, underage marriages, incestuous marriages, and interracial marriages. Following these precedents, nearly all courts that have addressed the issue have held that states with laws defining marriage as a one man, one woman union can refuse to recognize same-sex marriages that were legally performed elsewhere.

Same-sex marriage is currently legal in several US States. In 2003 and 2008 respectively, the Massachusetts and California Supreme courts ruled in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health and In Re Marriage Cases that the states' constitutions required the state to permit same-sex marriage.

The Massachusetts decision could be reversed by an amendment to the state constitution; to date, no such amendment has successfully been passed in Massachusetts. On June 2, the California Marriage Protection Act qualified for the 2008 General Election ballot.[1] Voted into law on Nov 4, 2008, it amended the California Constitution to provide that "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California"; this was found to be unconstitutional.[2] Several other states including Illinois, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, Delaware, and Wisconsin allow same-sex couples to enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships that provide some of the rights and responsibilities of marriage under state law. Thirty states have passed state constitutional amendments defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Now once in 2011 an amendment to the constitution was talk about to limit marriage only between men and women, but it didn't make it

The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) (also referred to by proponents as the Marriage Protection Amendment) is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution which would limit marriage in the United States to unions of one man and one woman. The FMA would also prevent judicial extension of marriage rights to same-sex or other unmarried heterosexual couples.

Now is also times when the federal government has put limits to marriage, this what brings the problems of why the federal government doesn't recognize same sex marriage

Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), section 3 of which defined marriage as a legal union of one man and one woman for the purpose of interpreting federal law. Under DOMA section 3, the federal government did not recognize same-sex marriages, even if those unions were recognized by state law. For example, members of a same-sex couple legally married in Massachusetts could not file joint federal income tax returns even if they filed joint state income tax returns. DOMA section 3 was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Windsor on June 26, 2013.

When it comes to the states and federal government views of same sex laws is still pretty much just in the development stages.

Obama is just campaigning so it will be long after he is gone before we see anything done to protect same sex marriage by the law of the US federal government.

en.wikipedia.org...

That must be right beside the part that says right to bare arms for hunting.

He came to his stand late, as he was against gay marriage not very long ago. But then he did a 180, talked it up, gave gays good words in his last inaugural address, and much of the country and judiciary have come to share his point-of-view. Gay marriage in the states is now old news. Australia seems like the next likely place to rattle the bushes, and then.....Russia (the bear stands guard over the ancient forest cries of 'One man, one woman!').

a reply to: Aleister

Russia is depressing. I don't know who treats LGTQ+ worse, Russia, Jamaica or Africa.

a reply to: marg6043

You are right. This is probably to try and get more people to want to vote for him.

The issue is that marriage has been the realm of the chirches, not the government. That is the issue. The government needs to establish that marriage is a legal union, not a religious one.

There is suppose to be a separation of church and state. I guess excepting marriage, that is.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
The issue is that marriage has been the realm of the chirches, not the government. That is the issue. The government needs to establish that marriage is a legal union, not a religious one.

There is suppose to be a separation of church and state. I guess excepting marriage, that is.

Your absolutely right
Marriage is a legal contract.
That's why it takes a judge to divorce you, not a preacher.
Seems simple enough to me.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Yes you are right, but it also has been left to states to regulate and pass laws regarding of the meaning of marriage.

Until the federal government decides to pass law when it comes to marriage and take away their rights of citizens in the individual states to vote for what they chose to, is always going to be debates about the definition of marriage.

You know what's not in the COTUS at all, for anyone? Marriage.

LGBTQ? I don't know what half those letters stand for. But I think we cater to way to many groups in this country. South Park recently had one of the funniest skits on this.

a reply to: marg6043

The federal government has given itself plenty of authority to define what marriage means, and have even allowed industry regulatory codes to further define it. All within the acceptable limits of what the religious institutions will allow.

That is why a gay couple living together for 40 years is not considered "common law" married, and when filing federal papers such as their income tax return, file as single people.

It is also why that same gay couple, in their twilight years, have limits on how they execute life insurance policies.

It we want it to be a states rights issue, then so be it. But the federal government has all the authority in the world, given to themselves when they decided to form the IRS and Obamacare, to mandate that a legal union can be between two couples of either gender(s). Which causes issues when it comes to the Supremacy Clause, for any state that has its own state level income tax.

originally posted by: American-philosopher
LGBTQ? I don't know what half those letters stand for. But I think we cater to way to many groups in this country. South Park recently had one of the funniest skits on this.

It isn't catering to someone when you just ignore what they are doing and leave them be.

Just sayin'

Can a religion exist that has tenets that violate the Constitution?

a reply to: Sabiduria

The constitution guarantees freedom of speech (infringed) and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure (almost non existent at this point). While I think gay marriage is fine, the constitution does not guarantee that.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Yes the federal government has given itself authority to define what marriage is.

This comes in views on how to exercises tax codes under the law, mostly., and perhaps to appease the religious right.

But the government always protected the rights of individuals to define marriage, be a man and a wife or same sex, when states wants to limit who can marriage and who can not, specially when issues of bigamy became a problem.

Interestingly it contradicts itself when it comes to marriage definition for tax codes purposes.

To the point that they passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), but that was struck down by the Supreme court in 2013.

This really is big. Obama admits to reading the Constitution!
We know he's been ignoring it for 6 years now it suddenly matters?
Can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-I-t-e ?

a reply to: Sabiduria

I have a problem with this... one problem but it is a big one.

Obama is NOT the Judicial Branch of government- It is the Judicial Branch's role to interpret law. Obama has done enough stepping into the Legislative Branch's role with his law-making Executive Orders. Now he is blatantly interpreting the law to reporters? This is not about Same-sex marriage to me. The elephant in the room is the Executive Branch of government reaching tentacles into the other branches of government.

I am absolutely fine with same-sex marriage, just to be crystal clear on the basis of my alarm bells ringing...

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Actually it show is a still a dumb president, because he should know what laws has been enacted that still controls the definition of marriage when it comes to the federal government.