Congress Formally Grants Federal Recognition to Gay Marriage
While same-sex marriage was already protected under federal law, that protection was afforded by the Supreme Court, not Congress.
While same-sex marriage was already protected under federal law, that protection was afforded by the Supreme Court, not Congress.
The social changes that paved the way for gay and trans acceptance have made pedophile acceptance less likely, not more.
Federal recognition of same-sex marriage is now officially on the books and no longer dependent on the Supreme Court.
A website designer asks SCOTUS to let her eschew work that contradicts her opposition to gay marriage.
A million hypotheticals bloom in arguments over when and where the government may compel speech.
This isn't something radical. It basically just affirms a status quo supported by the polls.
Congress should not forget that they can legislate in response to Supreme Court rulings.
Plus: What Orion is carrying to the moon, when you might be able to munch on some lab-grown meat, and more...
If passed, same-sex couples wouldn’t need to worry about Supreme Court precedents.
The deal includes several amendments to the original draft legislation that are unlikely to have much substantive effect.
A genuine surprise: Politicians prioritize a bill’s possible success over partisan campaign signaling.
A compromise to protect religious freedom may bring on more Republican support.
How do you justify government speech mandates? Apparently, you deliberately pretend that businesses have no right to control the messages they choose to present.
Plus: The editors each consider a book they might secretly want to write one day.
A prominent academic expert on both same-sex marriage and full faith and credit weighs in.
Rubio says states should decide marriage laws, but DOMA is a federal law that overruled state regulation.
Does the bipartisan act protecting same-sex marriage run afoul of constitutional federalism principles? The answer is definitely not with respect to one of its provisions, and probably not with respect to the other.
Passing an actual law is a good and proper way of enshrining recognition.
The conservative majority's commitments on contraception, sexual intimacy, and same-sex marriage
The other justices declined to join him, but the future of the Supreme Court rulings on those matters remains unclear.
You’d think drag brunches are why we’re paying $6 a gallon for gas.
Can a web designer be compelled under the First Amendment to host wedding pictures?
The Secret City author explains how panic about homosexuality led to discrimination, bad policy, and, eventually, freedom.
What the Alito draft tells us about a possible future for same-sex marriage.
Various experts, including co-blogger Josh Blackman and myself, discuss whether the draft opinion would threaten other constitutional rights, if adopted by the Court.
Gorsuch just penned an important pro-LGBT decision two years ago. Americans are largely not interested in relitigating this issue.
Plus: Research says neuroscience studies are largely unreliable, Elizabeth Warren's new antitrust bill, and more...
Will this follow-up to the famous wedding cake case finally decide if this is mandated speech violating the First Amendment?
It's the one amicus brief supporting Mississippi's abortion restriction that takes a wrecking ball to the Supreme Court's fundamental-rights precedents
For the most part, supporters of Mississippi's abortion ban in the Supreme Court are steering clear of Obergefell
Trump's critics fault him for fomenting division. The left's efforts to drive people of faith from the public square are making the problem worse.
A new poll shows even a majority of Republicans now support same-sex marriage.
We've come a long way, baby. Don't let anybody try to convince you otherwise.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to landmark the longtime home of gay rights activists Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin.
Drawn from William Eskridge and Christopher Riano's comprehensive new book on the subject.
Plus: Appeals court considers whether nonstop surveillance violate due process, Utah governor signs porn filter bill into law, and more...
Will a rightward shift on the bench would result in the reversal of Obergefell? Probably not.
New Justice Amy Coney Barrett expresses concerns about wider implications of antidiscrimination policies.
In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, a key case currently before the Supreme Court, there is a strong reason to rule for the government that doesn't apply in most other religious-liberty disputes.
The settlement is subject to federal court approval.
His statement doesn’t change Catholic Church teachings, but it’s an indicator of big cultural shifts.
Democrats and Republicans agree on that point, although they disagree about what it means in practice.
Why are LGBT leaders letting the antigay senator frame polyamory as something bad and wrong?
Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito worry about the future of religious freedom. That’s not the same as a call to overturn the decision.