In a long-sought victory for the gay rights movement, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Constitution guarantees a nationwide right to same-sex marriage. The Times has concluded updates on the stream.
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook, and sign up for the First Draft politics newsletter.
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — Margaret H. Marshall, the former chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, was a legal trailblazer, writing the 2003 majority opinion in the Goodridge case that made Massachusetts the first state to allow gay marriage.
She said Friday she was thrilled to see Constitutional democracy culminate in the Supreme Court’s legalization of gay marriage throughout the country. “So many times the states lead the way, not because we’re more clairvoyant but because different issues arise in different parts of the country,” she said.
She added that Justice Anthony Kennedy’s language in Friday’s decision was “beautifully crafted.”
“To read that opinion and to see the equality provisions of the United States Constitution given such meaning is far more important to me as a citizen than as the author of the Goodridge decision,” she said.
DETROIT – John Stevens could not hold back the tears Friday afternoon, as he exchanged vows and married his long-time partner David Daily at a mass wedding ceremony conducted by the clerk of Wayne County in downtown Detroit.
Mr. Stevens and Mr. Daily were among seven same-sex couples married in the ceremony, which took place just a few hours after the Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a constitutional right.
After 39 years together as a couple, Mr. Stevens said he was never fully confident that he and Mr. Daily could ever be legally wed in the state of Michigan.
“I never thought it could happen in our lifetime,” said Mr. Stevens, 63, a retired computer programmer. “I’ve been following the Supreme Court blog for weeks, hoping this day would come.”
The couple had hoped to get married in 2014, when for less than a day, same-sex marriage was legal in Michigan. That brief window of opportunity closed, however, when the state appealed a federal judge’s ruling which had overturned Michigan’s ban on gay marriage.
Cathy Garrett, the Wayne County clerk, said the civil ceremony was not handled any differently than others she had conducted. “I’ve done this quite a few times,” she said. “People are people, and we are here to help them.”
In response to accept the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling, some of the most conservative Republican presidential candidates, such as Senator Ted Cruz, Gov. Bobby Jindal and Gov. Scott Walker, have called for a constitutional amendment that would allow states to keep marriage between men and women.
But legal experts say that such a plan only gives false hopes to those who were disappointed by the court’s decision.
There have only been 27 amendments to the constitution in its history despite the fact that there have been thousands of attempts.
While America’s founding document is malleable, the threshold remains very high.
“As a practical matter, it’s impossible,” said Louis Michael Seidman, a law professor at Georgetown University.
Amending the Constitution requires votes of two-thirds of the Senate and the House of Representatives and then approval of three-fourths of the country’s state legislatures.
Another option is for two-thirds of state legislatures to call a Constitutional convention, which can propose amendments that then must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures. That option has never been accomplished.
Not all Republican candidates are calling for an amendment. Former Gov. Jeb Bush and Senator Lindsey Graham have said they are against it and an aide to Senator Marco Rubio said he has never supported one.
From a logistical standpoint, an amendment would be a hard promise to deliver.
“It’s a useful organizing tool,” Mr. Seidman said. “But I think we can be confident that there’s not going to be a Constitutional amendment over the Supreme Court decision.
DENVER — It was a hectic Friday at the Denver clerk and recorder’s office, with at least two lesbian couples stopping by to pick up marriage licenses, saying they had waited to marry until it was legal for all same-sex couples in the United States.
One couple wed right at the office, their supporters cradling bouquets of flowers.
“My first reaction is: Wow,” said Debra Johnson, this city’s clerk and recorder. “We’re all wearing large smiles.”
Ms. Johnson is a supporter of gay marriage, but stopped issuing same-sex marriage licenses in this city in February 2014, a move designed to prompt a lawsuit against her office that would force state courts to take a stance on same-sex weddings.
In October 2014, the state’s Supreme Court lifted a ban on gay marriage, and it became legal around Colorado.
“I’ve been a part of the pathway for the state of Colorado,” said Ms. Johnson, adding that she took a risk for “these couples, these loving couples that have not been recognized for all these years.”
Hundreds gathered at the steps of City Hall in New York on Friday to witness Mayor Bill de Blasio officiate two weddings and renew the vows of a third couple in celebration of the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage.
“Today love wins,” Mr. de Blasio said to a cheering crowd.
The mayor spoke, in English and Spanish, of the “singular pride” New Yorkers felt given that the movement that fueled the day’s triumph began in the city in 1969 at the now landmark Stonewall Inn.
Stonewall played a unique role at the ceremony on Friday, as one of the two couples who were married by Mr. de Blasio — Sarah Joseph and Katrina Council — met on a blind date at the bar, the mayor said.
Mr. de Blasio also officiated the marriage of Denise Niewinski and Cindy Jackson.
“May God bless our union,” Ms. Jackson said in her wedding vows.
The playwright Terrence McNally and Thomas Kirdahy, Mr. de Blasio’s college roommate, also renewed their marriage vows on the City Hall steps.
All three couples and the crowd were treated to a performance of Mendelssohn’s wedding march at the end of the ceremony by the Lesbian and Gay Big Apple Corps band.
For all the celebrations and nuptials the Supreme Court ushered in Friday, the decision to legalize same-sex marriage left Congress with some mundane work to do: remaking tax forms.
Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, the Senate Finance Committee’s ranking Democrat, moved quickly Friday to draft the Marriage Equality for All Taxpayers Act, which would remove all gender-specific references to marriage from the tax code. Out: husband and wife. In: married couple and spouse.
“It is high-time that Congress addresses the glaring fact that the tax code is replete with out-of-date references to marriage that no longer reflect the institution of legal marriage,” Mr. Wyden wrote Friday to fellow senators, seeking co-sponsors for his bill. “Such outmoded language arguably disparages those married couples who the Supreme Court has sought to protect and dignify by recognizing their constitutional right to marriage.”
Of course, Congress broadly — and Mr. Wyden specifically — have been promising to rewrite an outmoded tax code for years. Just maybe Justice Anthony M. Kennedy has knocked down yet another domino.
PHOENIX — Arizona is one of 27 states that does not include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected categories under nondiscrimination laws governing employment, housing and public accommodations.
Although same-sex marriage has been legal in the state since last October, gay-rights advocates plan to use the Supreme Court ruling to bolster their case for comprehensive nondiscrimination protections.
Already, the majority-Republican Legislature passed a bill last year that would have allowed business owners to deny service to invoke their religious convictions to deny services to gay men and lesbians. The state’s governor at the time, Jan Brewer, vetoed the bill, but the concept still has much support among conservative Christians in the Legislature.
In a statement on Friday, the Center for Arizona Policy, a conservative organization that was the driving force behind the bill, issued a warning: “The U.S. Supreme Court can never change the fundamental truth that the lifelong union of one man and one woman is at the foundation of a strong state and nation.”
Meanwhile, advocacy and business groups are pushing an online campaign, “Competitive Arizona,” encouraging state residents to sign a letter to legislators that starts with, “I believe in an Arizona that is open for business to everyone.”
CHICAGO — Greg Harris, an Illinois state representative who had led efforts to permit same-sex marriage in 2013 in his state, seemed stunned on Friday afternoon, even though he had been optimistic that the Supreme Court might issue a favorable ruling.
“I thought it would be a ‘Yes, but….’ or a ‘Yes, and…’ kind of a ruling,” Mr. Harris said before he stepped onto a stage at Sidetrack, a gay bar packed with jubilant people and flowing champagne on Friday afternoon. “This was just ‘yes.’ — just ‘yes, the Constitution protects us all.”
Elected officials crowded into the Halsted Street bar, which had no sign on the outside of it when it first opened in the 1980s. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s voice cracked with emotion at one point as he thanked gay and lesbian people for waging the battle. “It allows America to be true to our values,” the mayor said, before introducing Mr. Harris.
In 2011, Illinois lawmakers approved civil unions for gay couples. Two years later, they approved same-sex marriage.
“I don’t think any of us ever thought when this battle began that it would ever happen so quickly,” Mr. Harris said.
Same-sex couples in Louisiana could wait nearly a month for marriage licenses after officials in the state advised clerks of court about a provision of the Supreme Court’s rules that would conceivably allow the justices to rehear the matter.
Officials in East Baton Rouge Parish, citing the advice of their counsel and the Louisiana Clerks of Court Association, said in a statement on Friday that they would “not be issuing same-sex marriage licenses until the period for Supreme Court rehearing has elapsed and all other legal necessities are in place.”
Under the court’s rules, a request for a rehearing must be filed “within 25 days after entry of the judgment or decision,” but a justice can extend or shorten that time frame. Experts said that a rehearing is unlikely, in part because the court’s rules require that a majority of the justices agree to such a proposal.
The Clerks of Court Association did not immediately respond to a message, and officials in other parishes said they planned to follow the group’s advice.
“In Louisiana, we’re trying to do this correctly where we won’t have an issue where something will come down at a later time and cause licenses to be rescinded,” said H. Lynn Jones II, the clerk of court in Calcasieu Parish.
Mr. Jones, whose parish has about 197,000 residents, said same-sex couples had reached out to his office on Friday, but were told that the Calcasieu authorities would not immediately issue licenses.
Separately, the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals said the state’s same-sex marriage ban remained in force, and Attorney General James D. Caldwell’s office said it had “found nothing in today’s decision that makes the court’s order effective immediately.”
HOUSTON – The delay here for same-sex couples to receive marriage licenses will end later this afternoon, officials announced Friday.
No marriage licenses were being issued in Houston’s Harris County because the county clerk, a Republican, said he was waiting for updated marriage-application forms from state health officials. The current form, which is issued by the state, has two sections to be filled out by a man and a woman, with the words “man” and “woman” in bold in the margin. About six gay, lesbian and transgender couples wanting to receive marriage licenses have been standing in line since about 10 a.m. at the Harris County Civil Courthouse downtown.
The county clerk, Stan Stanart, told reporters that at 3 p.m. local time, his office would issue marriage licenses, using either a new form provided by the state or the old form if a new one is not ready. “I was trying to follow the statute,” he said, citing state law that requires county clerks to use the forms provided by the state. “I am sorry that anybody had to wait.”
Mr. Stanart made the announcement shortly after a lawyer representing the first couple in line, Josh Verde, filed a lawsuit against the county and Mr. Stanart to order him to issue marriage licenses. Couples in line and Democrats accused Mr. Stanart of delaying the issuing of licenses for political reasons, accusations Mr. Stanart denied.
Mr. Stanart said he was unaware of the lawsuit. Asked, if he does not have a new form, how a same-sex couple would fill out a marriage application reading “man” and “woman,” Mr. Stanart replied, “They’re going to go in one field or the other.”
At least a few other counties in Texas appeared to be doing what Houston’s Harris County had been doing for much of Friday – delaying same-sex couples from getting marriage licenses because they were waiting for the state to send out updated marriage applications.
News of the Supreme Court’s decision rocketed around social media on Friday morning.
Indeed, in just one hour after the decision, 3.8 million people in the United States made 10.1 million likes, posts, comments and shares on Facebook related to the decision, according to data provided by the social media company.
Rainbow avatars and hashtags like #LoveWins, #LoveIsLove, #MarriageEquality and #EqualityForAlllittered littered Facebook news feeds.
And the company’s founder and chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, posted a note in support of the decision on his personal account, saying, “I’m so happy for all of my friends and everyone in our community who can finally celebrate their love and be recognized as equal couples under the law.”
Six million people in the United States identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer on Facebook.
Mr. Zuckerberg also shared a picture of the growing number of people who have joined “L.G.B.T. groups” on Facebook, which, according to the company, has grown to nearly one million users in the United States.
On Twitter, there were more than 6.2 million messages about the Supreme Court in the first four hours after the decision, at a clip of about 20,000 messages on the decision per minute. President Obama’s Twitter message was the most shared, with over 310,000 resends
Twitter also created two custom emojis, a rainbow heart and a rainbow flag, that appear alongside the #LoveWins and #Pride hashtags.
Like other officials in Massachusetts, Senator Elizabeth Warren could not help boasting a bit over today’s decision legalizing same-sex marriage and Thursday’s decision upholding the Affordable Care Act.
“Just for today, let’s start with a little bragging,” the state’s senior senator said in a statement. “Massachusetts was the first state in the country to issue marriage licenses to L.G.B.T. couples, and we passed comprehensive health care reform nearly a decade ago. Anyone who wants to see the future should take a look around Massachusetts.”
Durham, N.C. — Opponents of same-sex marriage may now turn their attention to states like North Carolina, where legislators passed a law earlier this month allowing magistrates to refuse to perform any marriage against which they hold a “sincerely held religious objection.”
The law, enacted June 11 by a supermajority of the state Legislature which overrode a veto by Gov. Pat McCrory, a Republican, does not specifically mention same-sex couples. But sponsors said it was in direct response to a 2014 federal court ruling that overturned a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages, effectively legalizing such unions throughout the state.
Mollie Young, a spokeswoman for State House Speaker Tim Moore, a Republican, said Friday afternoon that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling would not “directly affect” the new state law.
But Equality North Carolina spokeswoman Jen Jones said that the Supreme Court had again showed its intention to scrutinize “measures subjecting the L.G.B.T. community to second-class treatment.”
In a statement issued after the Supreme Court decision, Gov. McCrory reaffirmed his belief that “the definition of marriage should be determined by the states and it should be the union between one man and one woman.” “However, he added, “I took an oath to uphold the constitution which compels me as governor to ensure that North Carolina upholds the rule of law.”
The biggest practical effect of the Supreme Court’s decision establishing a national right to marriage will be felt in a band of cities that starts in Texas, moves through the Southeast and up into the industrial Midwest — from Dallas and Houston through New Orleans and Atlanta, and up into Nashville and Columbus, Ohio.
While most presidential candidates were busy issuing statements following the Supreme Court’s gay marriage decision, former Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland headed down to the Supreme Court to witness history in person.
Following his a comprehensive foreign policy speech at the TruCon15 conference, Mr. O’Malley switched gears from warning about global threats to celebrate with the #LoveWon crowd.
So excited that #LoveWon—had to take part in the celebration! #SCOTUS #marriageequality pic.twitter.com/gZ3MrhYdx1
— Martin O'Malley (@MartinOMalley) June 26, 2015
Leaders of faiths that do not accept same-sex marriage said they see multiple battles on many fronts over the definition and boundaries of “religious freedom” in the years ahead.
It is highly unlikely, they said, that their clergy will be forced to perform same-sex marriages against their will – at least not in the foreseeable future. But they worry about the scenarios for religious institutions operating in the public square, receiving government funding or serving the public.
Religiously affiliated hospitals, schools, charities, adoption agencies and shelters now face a new landscape in which they could eventually be required by governments or courts to recognize same-sex couples in ways that violate their beliefs, these religious leaders said.
“I do think that religious liberty is the next front in this skirmish in American life and one of the most tragic results we can see is an unrelenting culture war from secular progressives against those who dissent,” said Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, in a telephone news conference on Friday.
Archbishop William E. Lori of Baltimore, who is chairman of the ad hoc committee on religious liberty for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, said in a news conference, “We serve millions of people every day, and we do it well, we do it lovingly and it would be a shame to see it jeopardized, to see it swallowed up in this decision.”
This article from The Associated Press in 1971 shows how The New York Times reported on the court case of the first same-sex couple known to have applied for a marriage license, Jack Baker and Michael McConnell, in Minneapolis in 1970.
The couple would ultimately lose their case when it was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
But the one-sentence dismissal played an indirect role in pushing same-sex marriage to the high court this year, as the Times reporter Erik Eckholm wrote in a feature about the couple in May.
With some sleight of hand involving a legal change to a gender-neutral name, they obtained a marriage license in another county, and in 1971, in white bell-bottom pantsuits and macramé headbands, they exchanged vows before a Methodist pastor and a dozen guests in a friend’s apartment. Their three-tiered wedding cake was topped by two plastic grooms, which a friend supplied by splitting two bride-and-groom figurines.
Ever since, they have maintained that theirs was the country’s first lawful same-sex wedding. The state and federal governments have yet to grant recognition, but the pastor, Roger W. Lynn, 76, calls theirs “one of my more successful marriages.”
BOSTON — Officials in Massachusetts, the first state to allow same-sex marriage, which it ushered in more than a decade ago, celebrated the state’s legacy and happily welcomed the rest of the country into the fold.
“It brings Boston great joy to know that every American and every American community will experience this equality,” Mayor Martin J. Walsh, a Democrat, said.
“I think especially of the courageous Bostonians who shared their stories with me in the early days of our struggle for Massachusetts’ pioneering marriage law,” he said.
In November 2003, the state’s Supreme Judicial Court became the first in the nation to rule that same-sex couples had the legal right to marry. On May 18, 2004, Massachusetts became the first to conduct same-sex marriages.
Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican, whose brother, Alex, is gay, said that for him, the issue was personal. In March, Mr. Baker was one of 300 Republicans who urged the United States Supreme Court to make same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states.
Representative Niki Tsongas, Democrat of Massachusetts, recalled that her husband, Paul Tsongas,who died in 1997, became the first United States senator to introduce legislation to expand gay rights.
“I agreed with him then,” she said of the 1979 legislation, “and feel just as strongly about the importance of this cause today.”
Leaders reflect on seeing their communities, their nation and themselves transform on the issue of same-sex marriage.
As word of the Supreme Court’s decision filtered through Southern capitals on Friday, one thing became clear: There was no immediate consensus among the region’s state attorneys general about when or how, exactly, the ruling would be implemented.
In Louisiana, Attorney General James D. Caldwell said the ruling “overturns the will of the people of Louisiana” and takes away the state’s rights. His office, perhaps in a harbinger of future legal clashes, insisted it had “found nothing in today’s decision that makes the court’s order effective immediately” and that there was “not yet a legal requirement for officials to issue marriage licenses or perform marriages for same-sex couples in Louisiana.”
Attorney General Jim Hood of Mississippi also warned that Friday’s decision was “not immediately effective” in the state because the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had not yet lifted a stay in a case that challenged Mississippi’s same-sex marriage ban.
“This could come quickly or may take several days,” Mr. Hood said in a statement. “The Fifth Circuit might also choose not to lift the stay and instead issue an order, which could take considerably longer before it becomes effective.”
In a subsequent statement, Mr. Hood said his office was “certainly not standing in the way of the Supreme Court’s decision” but only wanted “to inform our citizens of the procedure that takes effect after this ruling.”
Attorney General Samuel Olens of Georgia quickly sent a three-paragraph memo to all state agencies explaining that the court’s “mandate requires Georgia to recognize same-sex marriage in the same way it recognizes marriage between a man and a woman.”
And Alabama’s attorney general, Luther Strange, said that while he disagreed with the decision, “I acknowledge that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling is now the law of the land.”
ANN ARBOR, Mich. — April DeBoer, one of the plaintiffs in the Michigan case, thanked her “beautiful, soon-to-be-wife” at a noon news conference on Friday, adding, “To my beautiful children, we did this for you.”
“Do it right now,” one audience member shouted at them during the news conference held in the courtyard just outside of the Jim Toy Community Center, making Ms. DeBoer laugh.
Since the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage was announced Friday, the courtyard has been packed with supporters dancing to songs like Aretha Franklin’s, “Respect,” Pharrell Williams’s “Happy” and “Celebration” by Kool and the Gang.
Her fiancée, Jayne Rowse, said, “None of us ever thought this day would come, at least not in our lifetime.”
Ms. Rowse, 50, and Ms. DeBoer, 44, decided to sue the state after they realized that the legal safeguards they had set in place might not offer protection to their family.
“When we felt like our kids’ well-being was jeopardized because of the Michigan laws, did we decide to take a stand,” Ms. DeBoer said in an interview in April.
Ms. Rowse and Ms. DeBoer, who met through mutual friends in 1999, have four children — all under the age of 7 — between them. Ms. Rowse legally adopted Nolan and Jacob, and Ms. DeBoer adopted Ryanne and Rylee. Same-sex marriage is not legal in Michigan, so the couple exchanged vows at a commitment ceremony in 2008.
“We’ve done all this to make sure our kids are protected,” Ms. Rowse said. “We really went into it as equals in every sense of the word,” she added.
The White House reached out to Jim Obergefell, one of the plaintiffs in the same-sex marriage case decided by the Supreme Court on Friday, to get his thoughts on the decision. He responded with an open letter, that the White House posted to Medium.
“My husband John died 20 months ago, so we’re unable to celebrate together the Supreme Court’s decision on the case that bears my name, Obergefell v. Hodges,” he wrote.
They started their fight for a simple reason, Mr. Obergefell wrote: “We wanted the State of Ohio to recognize our lawful Maryland marriage on John’s impending death certificate.”
Mr. Obergefell’s husband, John, had learned that he had A.L.S., and they knew his death was imminent. So they wanted a record of their 20-year relationship on his “last official record as a person.”
Mr. Obergefell’s entire letter is on Medium.
Donn Russell, 85, clutched a framed photograph of himself and his late partner, Charles Arthur Schaefer, who died last August at the age of 101.
The photograph shows the couple in front of the Stonewall Inn amid celebrations of the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act.
Mr. Russell returned to the landmark bar on Friday in honor of the court’s ruling that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage.
“I just wanted to bring him out so he could be a part of the celebration,” Mr. Russell said.
Cooper Talmas-Vitale’s birth certificate was incomplete, with a footnote saying it was pursuant to legal action in district court.
That is because neither Rob Talmas nor Joe Vitale, plaintiffs in the case decided by the Supreme Court on Friday, would give up the right to be listed as a parent, a status they thought was theirs after Cooper’s adoption was made final in New York.
Mr. Talmas and Mr. Vitale live in Manhattan, and married in Brooklyn in 2011. When they wanted to expand their family, they went through the necessary channels, matched with Cooper’s birth mother in Ohio and were in the room when the baby drew his first breath.
They thought everything was in order until they went back to New York and realized that Ohio’s state laws prohibited same-sex parents.
“He shouldn’t have to be a second-class citizen,” said Mr. Talmas, 44.
Their fight to complete Cooper’s birth certificate ended Friday.
“We are thrilled that our son Cooper and families like ours around the
country will now have the protections and dignity of marriage,” the couple said in a statement.
JACKSON, Miss. — The Hinds County application form currently contains lines for the name of the groom and bride. Barbara Dunn, the circuit clerk, thought the form might best be modified to read “Applicant 1” and “Applicant 2” following Friday’s decision.
The same form has been used in the circuit clerk’s office since before Mrs. Dunn, 77, was elected to her first term in 1984.
Two times in the past, gay couples have come to Mrs. Dunn’s office and attempted to have licenses issued. The applicants completed the paperwork, and the deputy assisting them asked Mrs. Dunn to be the one to turn them down.
“She didn’t want to tell them,” Mrs. Dunn recalled. “I said, ‘You know as well as I do the law will not let me issue this license.’”
When asked her personal opinion on the ruling, Mrs. Dunn said, “That’s them and their life.” She said, “I’m going to try to live by the Golden Rule.”
SAN FRANCISCO — City Hall was draped in a large rainbow-colored flag Friday morning. Outside, dozens of people gathered to celebrate the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage.
“Did you hear and did you feel the earth shake this morning?” Mayor Ed Lee asked the growing crowd. “I don’t think it was an earthquake, I believe it was the scales of justice tipping.”
Some wept openly, others gave congratulatory hugs or waved homemade signs that read, “Love Is Supreme,” and “Love Wins.”
Among them were Roby Chavez, 51, who wore a sticker that said “Proud of My Family,” his husband Chris Roe, 50, and their two adopted toddler sons.
“This is a wonderful day for this family and this country,” said Mr. Chavez, who married five years ago in Washington, D.C., and now lives in the San Francisco’s Castro neighborhood, where he is a stay-at-home dad.
“Now our marriage will be honored and respected in every state,” he said.
The crowd of supporters and media outside city hall continued to grow as passers-by honked and hooted from passing cars.
“Today, San Francisco’s values become America’s values,” said State Senator Mark Leno, who represents the city.
DENVER — In Colorado, supporters of same-sex marriage planned an evening celebration at the capitol, while leaders of several conservative organizations voiced disappointment in the Supreme Court’s decision.
Jim Daly, president of the Christian nonprofit Focus on the Family, described his reaction to the decision as “cautious absorption of where the culture has chosen to go.”
“Unfortunately, this falls in the worst-case scenario from our perspective,” he said, speaking from his office in Colorado Springs, and adding that the decision was a sign that Christians are no longer in the “seat of power,” when it comes to marriage.
His major concern, he said was that the ruling will subject Christians to “prejudice and persecution” if they choose to take a stance against same-sex marriage.
Will the ruling force Christian universities to house same-sex couples in married dorms? Will cake-makers and florists have to work same-sex weddings?
“To me it’s a mind-boggling maze of treacherous future court cases,” he said, “and I don’t know where it’s going to go.”
“It’s as if the culture is saying: Come on, pivot — move with us,” he added. “It’s less comfort for us. It’s painful. It’s a different world for our kids.”
DETROIT — About an hour after same-sex marriage became legal across the nation and in their home state, Steve Dickey, 64, and Bill McGinnis, 67, became the first same-sex couple to apply for a marriage license in Detroit.
Mr. Dickey and Mr. McGinnis, of Livonia, Mich., have been together 45 years and have celebrated their union several times.
They had a “mock wedding” 45 years ago, a 25th-anniversary party 20 years ago, and a civil union commitment ceremony on a beach in Maui two years ago, but they’ve been waiting most of their lives to tie the knot for real.
“Oh my God. I was teary-eyed,” Mr. McGinnis, a retired teacher, said of his first reaction when he saw the news Friday morning. “I never thought this day would come in Michigan.”
This time, they have no flowers or cake or wedding guests. They exchanged rings years ago.
“There’s no need for any hoopla at this point,” Mr. McGinnis said.
But they wanted to be married as soon as they could and turned on their TV to find out if today would be the day. They planned to head to the courthouse as soon as they knew they could.
“We’ve waited long enough. We’ve been waiting for this for 45 years,” Mr. McGinnis said. “We weren’t legally recognized by our United States of America.”
“This is acceptance,” said Mr. Dickey, a retired social worker.
Representative Vicky Hartzler, Republican of Missouri, who led the successful fight in 2004 to enact a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriages, said on Friday that the voices of the electorate were “stifled” by the Supreme Court.
“Today’s ruling tramples on the voice of the people,” she said. “I will continue to champion marriage as the union between one man and one woman so every child has the opportunity to have both a mom and a dad.”
The office of the Missouri attorney general, Chris Koster, a Democrat who supports same-sex marriage but contended it was his duty to defend the state’s ban, announced on Friday that his office would no longer ban same-sex marriage licenses from being issued.
Missouri’s governor, Jay Nixon, a Democrat, said his office, in the coming days, “will be taking all necessary and appropriate actions to ensure this decision is implemented throughout the state of Missouri.”
Governors of states in the Midwest responded to the Supreme Court’s decision Friday with statements ranging from defiance to acceptance.
Without taking a position on the decision itself, Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan, a Republican, said the matter was now settled.
“Recognizing that there are strong feelings on both sides, it is important for everyone to respect the judicial process and the decision today from the U.S. Supreme Court,” Mr. Snyder said. “Our state government will follow the law and our state agencies will make the necessary changes to ensure that we will fully comply.”
He also said: “Let’s also recognize while this issue has stirred passionate debate, we now should focus on the values we share.”
Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin suggested that the nation pursue an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would allow states to define marriage as they choose.
Some Democratic governors were far less muted in their views.
Gov. Jay Nixon of Missouri called the ruling “a major victory for equality and an important step toward a fairer and more just society for all Americans.” He went on, “No one should be discriminated against because of who they are or who they love.”
In Minnesota, where same-sex marriage was already legalized by the State Legislature, Gov. Mark Dayton said: “What a great day for America! This decision is a huge step forward, toward equal rights and guarantees for all citizens under our Constitution.”
Emma Foulkes and Petrina Bloodworth became the first gay couple to legally marry in Georgia.
After the ceremony, Ms. Foulkes said, “It means everything, it means everything that means to every other married couple. I’m choked up. I can’t think right now.”
In 2004, a referendum banning gay marriage in the state was approved by 76 percent of Georgia voters.
Ms. Foukes said being the first gay couple in the state to marry wasn’t planned, “It just sort of happened. Everyone wants to be the first couple today.”
A honeymoon will be planned.
Not everyone outside the Supreme Court on Friday was celebrating the same-sex marriage ruling. A small but vocal group of Christian activists who oppose same-sex marriage wielded their own signs and chants as the court’s decision came down.
Christine Weick has been standing outside the court each of the last
63 days with a large sign that reads “WARNING! GOD draws a line in GAY MARRIAGE.”
Friday’s decision, she said, was a major disappointment.
“I could be better, but I knew this was coming,” Ms. Weick, 51, said. “It breaks my heart. My tears are the Lord’s tears. I really feel that.”
Ms. Weick said Friday will be her last day at the court. She is headed
for California but said she will continue to bring her sign to pride
festivals and same-sex weddings around the country.
Despite Friday’s Supreme Court decision, Louisiana has yet to start issuing marriage licenses to gay couples around the state.
Jon A. Gegenheimer, the clerk in Jefferson Parish, said that he was waiting for direction before he acts.
“I’m on a holding pattern,” he said. “It’s premature to have a knee-jerk reaction and start issuing gay marriage licenses until we hear more. We have to wait for the dust to settle. There’s no reason to start issuing these licenses until we hear back from our counsel.”
Mark J. Graffeo, the West Baton Rouge clerk, said they’re waiting on further information before acting as well.
“I’ll do whatever counsel says,” he said. “We haven’t heard back.”
The Lafayette Parish clerk, Louis J. Perret, said his office was on hold as well.
“We’re just going to follow the law. As soon as we hear what to do we’ll do it,” he said.
As rainbow flags celebrating the Supreme Court’s ruling legalizing same-sex marriage filled up social media feeds, city halls and the steps of the Supreme Court itself, they also made their way onto corporate websites.
Delta, for example, splashed a rainbow flag across its entire landing page, with the tag line “Marriage Takes Flight: Celebrating Marriage Equality for Our Customers Nationwide.”
The homepage of @delta: “Marriage Takes Flight” pic.twitter.com/XUfnqbEgGZ
— Nick Corasaniti (@NYTnickc) June 26, 2015
Uber put little rainbow flags on the backs of their cars on the main page of their ride-sharing app.
Uber app has rainbows trailing cars after today's #SCOTUS same sex marriage decision (seen here around the court): pic.twitter.com/7HzyCShiC9
— Frank Thorp V (@frankthorpNBC) June 26, 2015
Citi, which supplies the sponsorship for New York City’s bike share program, put rainbows on all of it’s bikes, calling the program #RideWithPride.
MT @Citi: #NYC, join us as we #RideWithPride on 200 festively-wrapped Citi Bikes: //t.co/6nUDklSO02 #CitiPride pic.twitter.com/YoOPl010se
— Citi Bike (@CitiBikeNYC) June 26, 2015
Google placed a statement right below its search bar on it’s main page: “YouTube and Google are proud to celebrate marriage equality. #ProudtoLove.” and a video of people coming out.
Goldman Sachs raised the rainbow flag outside of their headquarters and posted a picture of it.
https://www.twitter.com/GoldmanSachs/status/614469033669304320
Apple put up a collection of music, movies and apps on iTunes that celebrate “pride.”
We are just bursting with #Pride! So much incredible music, movies, apps and more. //t.co/m047GapR7l pic.twitter.com/1UvmgOQkJd
— iTunes Movies (@iTunesMovies) June 26, 2015
And Ben and Jerry’s, who have been supporters of same-sex marriage for years, is renaming their Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough ice cream “I Dough, I Dough.”
We’ve honorarily renamed Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough to “I Dough, I Dough” in our Scoop Shops. //t.co/J8Kd68ZQaB pic.twitter.com/xCgss0vXdM
— Ben & Jerry's (@benandjerrys) June 26, 2015
Indeed, hundreds of companies have been urging the Supreme Court to support same-sex marriage. In March, 379 companies signed an amicus brief that told the Supreme Court, “Allowing same-sex couples to marry improves employee morale and productivity, reduces uncertainty and removes the wasteful administrative burdens imposed by the current disparity of state law treatment.”
Friday’s Supreme Court decision hit especially close to home for Senator Rob Portman, the Ohio Republican who two years ago endorsed same-sex marriage when his son, Will, came out as gay.
“In 2013, I decided to support marriage equality after I came to understand this issue better in the context of my own family,” Mr. Portman said in a statement. “I can’t help but view today’s Supreme Court decision through that same lens. And as a father, I welcome today’s decision.”
Despite his popularity back home, Mr. Portman’s change in view on same-sex marriage was not without political risk and it put him at odds with most of his fellow Congressional Republicans. Conservative activists have cited his stance as a reason to field a strong primary challenger and the possibility of facing a Republican challenge contributed to his decision last year not to run not to for president in 2016.
Mr. Portman acknowledged there can be differing views on an issue he has struggled with himself.
“The issue of marriage equality is one that divides people of principle, and I understand that,” he said.
In a signal of the type of resistance that could emerge in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision on Friday, an Alabama probate judge said that his office would no longer issue marriage licenses to anyone.
“My office discontinued issuing marriage licenses in February, and I have no plans to put Pike County back into the marriage business,” Probate Judge Wes Allen said in a statement. “The policy of my office regarding marriage is no different today than it was yesterday.”
The Supreme Court’s decision, Judge Allen said, had not voided a provision of Alabama law that says “marriage licenses may be issued by the judges of probate” in the state.
“The word ‘may’ provides probate judges with the option of whether or not to engage in the practice of issuing marriage licenses,” Judge Allen said, ‘and I have chosen not to perform that function.”
Judge Allen’s decision means that Pike County’s roughly 33,000 residents will have to obtain marriage licenses from probate offices elsewhere in the state.
Hundreds of people remained outside the Supreme Court early Friday
afternoon, two hours after the court handed down its decision
legalizing same-sex marriage nationally.
Even as the sky threatened rain, there were few signs that those still
on hand were going anywhere. People posed for photographs in front of
the marble court building, shared stories, and
congregated with
friends who’d come to hear news of the decision outside the
court.
Most of the chanting that filled the air here earlier had quieted down
by noon, though.
U.S. Capitol Police directed traffic running between the court and the
Capitol as members of the crowd and the news media streamed back and forth.
The decision was a devastating blow for religious denominations and believers who regard the marriage of two people of the same gender as a repudiation of biblical law and God’s will. In sometimes apocalyptic terms, some saw it is as another portentous sign of the nation’s fall into immorality.
“A nation that has lost its values has lost its soul,” said Judie Brown, president and founder of the American Life League, a Catholic anti-abortion organization. “Our nation has become like a dead body floating downstream, to what destination only the devil knows.”
Mrs. Brown said in a statement that the same-sex marriage decision “strikes at the heart of our nation just as Roe v. Wade did,” comparing it to the landmark Supreme Court verdict in 1973 that legalized abortion.
The National Organization for Marriage, a group in the forefront of the fight against same-sex marriage, called it a “completely illegitimate” decision that will be rejected by “countless millions” and “further plunge the Supreme Court into public disrepute.”
Brian S. Brown, president of the group, said, “It represents nothing but judicial activism, legislating from the bench, with a bare majority of the Justices on the Supreme Court exercising raw political power to impose their own preferences on marriage when they have no constitutional authority to do so. It is a lawless ruling that contravenes the decisions of over 50 million voters and their elected representatives.”
Gov. Scott Walker, the Wisconsin Republican who has been seeking to burnish his credentials as the most conservative presidential candidate in the field, called on Friday for a Constitutional amendment to allow states to define marriage on their own.
After the Supreme Court’s ruling that legalizes same-sex marriage across the United States, Mr. Walker called an amendment “the only alternative.”
“Recognizing that our Founders made our Constitution difficult to amend, I am reminded that it was first amended to protect our ‘First Freedom’ — the free exercise of religion,” Mr. Walker said.
I believe SCOTUS' decision is a grave mistake. 5 unelected judges have taken it upon themselves to redefine the institution of marriage.-SKW
— Scott Walker (@ScottWalker) June 26, 2015
Mr. Walker was less strident last year when the Supreme Court rejected Wisconsin’s marriage ban, acknowledging that “it’s over for us” in Wisconsin.
The idea of an amendment appears to be the next wedge issue facing the Republican Party as the 2016 presidential election season gathers pace.
Kristy Campbell, a spokeswoman for former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, said that he does not think amending the Constitution is the correct course of action.
“Right now, we should focus on defending religious liberty by protecting those who act on their conscience and appointing judges who understand the limits placed on them by the Constitution,” she said.
Less than two hours after the Supreme Court announced its ruling, officials in Georgia, one of the states that had long resisted same-sex marriage, began to implement the decision.
Just before 11:30 a.m., the state’s attorney general, Samuel Olens, said he was sending a three-paragraph memo to all state agencies explaining that the court’s “mandate requires Georgia to recognize same-sex marriage in the same way it recognizes marriage between a man and a woman.”
In the aftermath of the decision, Mr. Olens wrote, “State agencies and employees should immediately review their current practices related to their agency’s function and benefits and ensure that their practices conform to the current state of the law.”
Separately, Gov. Nathan Deal said on Twitter that while he thought states should decide marriage policies instead of the courts, “The State of Georgia is subject to the laws of the United States, and we will follow them.”
President Obama on Friday hailed the arrival of a new era of equality in American society, saying the Supreme Court’s decision to make same-sex marriage legal is a civil rights victory for those who have long fought for the right to love whomever they choose.
“This decision affirms what millions of Americans already believe in their hearts,” Mr. Obama said. “When all Americans are treated as equal, we are all more free.”
“Today,” he added, “we can say, in no uncertain terms, that we have made our union a little more perfect.”
Mr. Obama, who appeared to choke with emotion at times, made his remarks in the Rose Garden before heading to South Carolina for a far more somber purpose: to eulogize the pastor of a black church in South Carolina who was killed with eight others during Bible study.
As the president hailed the court’s decision on Friday, members of his administration gathered in the Rose Garden to witness, in person, the moment. They stood silently while he spoke and then burst into applause as he walked back into the Oval Office.
On the second floor of a six-story Chelsea walk-up, in the offices of Freedom to Marry, the group’s founder, Evan Wolfson – who as a Harvard Law student in 1983 wrote a thesis advocating a right to same-sex marriage – sat in his office and wept as he read Justice Kennedy’s opinion.
Now Mr. Wolfson, one of the principal architects of the campaign to legalize same-sex marriage, is making plans for his group to go out of business.
“We will close in a matter of months,’’ said Mr. Wolfson, who began building Freedom to Marry in 2001 and started it in 2003, adding that he has not thought about what he will do next. ‘’I want to allow myself to step back for a moment and really think about who I am when I’m not Mr. Marriage.’’
Mr. Wolfson, 58, married his husband, Cheng He, in 2011, after same-sex marriage became legal in New York. He called the decision “a profound affirmation of gay people’s right to be fully part of America,’’ adding, “part of what made me cry was how much so much of it resembled the paper I wrote 32 years ago.’’
As Colleen McCollum, 45, and her wife, Shellie Cross, 43, climbed up the subway stairs to Christopher Street they heard the cheers of victory for the Supreme Court decision that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage.
“I can be married here and go to some place else and still be married,” Ms. Cross said.
The couple took the day off and traveled from their home in New Jersey to visit the now officially designated landmark, the Stonewall Inn, along with several others who gathered in anticipation for the decision.
“For a bit it was like, ‘it will happen, it won’t happen,'” said Paul Grajales, 34, in Spanish. Mr. Grajales is in New York on vacation for Pride Weekend from his home in Puerto Rico, and was taking selfies in front of the bar with his friend Jaime Luis Santana Rivera, 37.
“But there was a feeling, you could just feel that something was going to happen today,” Mr. Grajales said.
Churches, synagogues, seminaries and religious leaders of many faiths who support same-sex marriage exulted in Friday’s decision, pointing out that they have been blessing and advocating for marriage equality for a generation.
Members of the United Church of Christ, which 10 years ago became the first mainline Protestant denomination to allow its clergy members to perform same-sex marriages, celebrated the ruling at their biennial churchwide meeting in Cleveland. Ministers with the United Church of Christ announced they will begin officiating at same-sex marriages on Friday at the Cleveland Convention Center as soon as the county begins issuing licenses.
The Rev. Ben Guess, the first openly gay United Church of Christ national officer, whose marriage is now legal in the state of Ohio, said, “We’ve been at this a long time, and when the final story is written on how marriage equality came to this country, it will be impossible for anyone to ignore the significant leadership that the United Church of Christ, our churches and leaders, contributed toward making this victory for L.G.B.T.Q. families possible.”
In Washington, Rabbi Jack Moline, executive director of the Interfaith Alliance, a longstanding liberal coalition that generally favors a strong separation of church and state, said, “We have denigrated loving couples, we have jeopardized the rights of parents and children, and we have threatened to roll back our Constitution’s assurance of religious freedom. Today’s decision is a first step toward atoning for those wrongs.”
As Justice Kennedy finished reading his opinion, several attendees seated in the bar section of the court’s gallery wiped away tears, while others grinned and exchanged embraces.
Former Justice John Paul Stevens, now 95, who retired from the Supreme Court in 2010, was on hand for the decision. Many of the justices’ clerks also took seats in the chamber, which was nearly full as the ruling was announced.
COLUMBUS, Ohio — Hundreds of same-sex marriage supporters crowded Union, a bar here, in celebration of the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of marriage equality.
“Let’s celebrate everybody, what a great day,” said Steven Shellabarger, a longtime activist with the Human Rights Campaign in Columbus.
Mr. Shellabarger spoke to a crowd
that was bursting with energy.
And even though it was midmorning, the scene was more like a Saturday night than a Friday morning, with some celebrants buying rounds of cocktails.
Alex Copeland, 24, and his boyfriend of three years, Que Jones, 25, came to Union to wait for the decision and to have brunch. Both said they were thrilled when the court ruled in their favor.
“It was really emotional, I was almost crying and then I called my mom to talk to her about it,” Mr. Copeland said.
“It means we have hope for our future,” Mr. Jones said. “It’s hard to put into words, it’s hard to put it all into words, it’s overwhelming.”
Before the decision was handed down, supporters at the bar chattered quietly as they watched televisions that showed the Scotus blog. No music played, people just watched.
Not long after the decision was announced, upbeat music began playing over people discussing their celebration plans for later in the day.
“Hey baby, I think I wanna marry you,” were the lyrics of one of the songs that played.
The police allowed the crowd at the Supreme Court to advance onto the court plaza as those present for the decision streamed down the steps.
“Love has won,” the crowd chanted as courtroom witnesses threw up their arms in victory.
A few moments later, a men’s choir assembled in one corner of the
plaza, where they sang “Make Them Hear You.” A crowd formed around the choir, many standing in a rare moment
of silence.
Republican presidential candidates said on Friday that they were disappointed with the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision, but they were left with few answers on how to proceed.
Former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas channeled the anger that many of the party’s social conservatives are likely feeling.
“I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch,” Mr. Huckabee said. “We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat.”
Mr. Huckabee, a former pastor who is popular with evangelical Christians, called the ruling an “irrational, unconstitutional” rejection of people in more than 30 states.
Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard chief executive, said that the court had ignored its constitutional duty and that religious freedom needs to be protected.
Former Senator Rick Santorum said that it was time for the American people to rise up against the decision.
Today, 5 unelected judges redefined the foundational unit of society. Now it is the people's turn to speak #Marriage
— Rick Santorum (@RickSantorum) June 26, 2015
Ben Carson, the retired neurosurgeon, expressed acceptance of the ruling, acknowledging that it is now “the law of the land.” But he urged the government to never force Christians to violate their beliefs.
Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina struck a similar, saying he would accept the decision.
“Given the quickly changing tide of public opinion on this issue, I do not believe that an attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution could possibly gain support of three-fourths of the state or a supermajority in the U.S. Congress,” he said.
The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent.”
— Justice Antonin Scalia in his dissent
Justice Antonin Scalia used his dissent as an opportunity to muse on the meaning of marriage and intimacy and he questioned whether the latter was, in fact, a freedom.
“And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage” Justice Scalia wrote. “Ask the nearest hippie.”
Deeply disappointed by the decision, Justice Scalia said that logic and precision are not requirements for poetry, but the law demands them. He argued that his colleagues in the majority failed the law on Friday.
“The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis,” Justice Scalia wrote.
Former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida was one of the first Republican presidential candidates to weigh in on the Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, saying he believed this decision should have been left up to the states.
“Guided by my faith, I believe in traditional marriage,” he wrote in a statement. “I believe the Supreme Court should have allowed the states to make this decision.”
But he also called for the country to “love our neighbor and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments,” a slightly more subdued tone than some of his Republican rivals, such as Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, who compared the decision to King George III.
“In a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side,” Mr. Bush wrote. “It is now crucial that as a country we protect religious freedom and the right of conscience and also not discriminate.”
In Cincinnati, the home of Jim Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the same-sex marriage case, there are plans for a public wedding on Friday afternoon downtown in Fountain Square, with Mayor John Cranley – who has called Mr. Obergefell a ‘’historic figure’’ – officiating.
“We just did a big cheer of ‘Hip, hip, hooray to the Supreme Court,’’ Jennifer Branch, a partner in the law firm that represented Mr. Obergefell, said moments after the ruling. While Mr. Obergefell and his lawyer, Al Gerhardstein, were in Washington for the decision, Ms. Branch gathered clients in their downtown office for a watch party that included Champagne and a cake that said, “Love Is the Law.’’
Ms. Branch said she expects that the Hamilton County probate judge will issue marriage licenses immediately.
In an interview Thursday, Kyerra Crigler, 24, a waitress, said she and her partner, Shavaughn Silas, 26, and a chef, have already applied for a license. They plan to head to the courthouse on Friday morning — with the hope that it will be approved by the judge, and that they will be married by the mayor in the afternoon.
The crowd outside the court swelled, spilling into the street and onto the Capitol grounds as news of the ruling sent waves of excitement across the immediate area.
Chants of “Love doesn’t hate,” filled the air. A group who had been
holding red balloons spelling “LOVE” and “HRC,” released them above the crowd.
Several people stood, friends new and old huddled around them, reading aloud the court’s decision on their smartphones.
“This goes on for like 100 pages,” one man yelled out.
Another called to get him some water, and the reading went on.
As the lead plaintiff in the case against Ohio’s ban on gay marriage, Jim Obergefell, 48, has become a very public face of the national movement. Mr. Obergefell, who lives in Cincinnati, is from a city whose views on same-sex marriage have changed over the years. In 2013, he married his longtime partner, John Arthur, in Maryland. When Mr. Arthur died of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or A.L.S., that October, Ohio refused to list Mr. Obergefell as his spouse on the death certificate, and that led to the beginnings of the lawsuit.
Same-sex couples in Wayne County, Michigan’s largest, apparently weren’t expecting a ruling today. Just before 10 a.m., no one (gay or straight) was in line for a marriage license.
The Wayne County clerk in downtown Detroit was ready for the decision with gender-neutral applications and affidavits. But so far, no one has arrived. If people want to marry here on Friday, they can take advantage of 3 p.m. mass ceremony that the clerk has, for years, offered to everyone in the summer.
HOUSTON – In Texas, where Republican leaders have long denounced same-sex marriage, there was considerable uncertainty over how quickly county clerks will begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples and whether some of them will resist entirely.
The Supreme Court’s ruling will likely set up a legal standoff between Democratic-leaning counties and the Republican-controlled state leadership in Austin that could complicate or delay same-sex marriages from being performed or recognized in some parts of the state.
The Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, said in a previous statement he recommended that “all county clerks and Justices of the Peace wait for direction and clarity” from his office about the meaning of the Supreme Court’s ruling, and reiterated that “the law in the state of Texas is that marriage is one man and one woman.” Yet at least a few clerks in some of the state’s largest counties suggested that they would not wait for guidance from the attorney general but would start issuing marriage licenses after county lawyers reviewed the decision.
In Dallas County, John F. Warren, the county clerk, said once he had reviewed the ruling with his legal counsel, he expected to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples “within a few hours” if it was determined they were allowed to do so. He planned to extend the hours at the downtown office in Dallas to accommodate any crowds.
In Austin’s Travis County, the county clerk, Dana DeBeauvoir, said her office and the Travis County Attorney’s office were reviewing the Supreme Court ruling, and that at this time, they were not issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples while the decision was under review.
Chief Justice John Roberts has been vilified by Republicans for his handling of the Affordable Care Act, but on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, he left no doubt where he stood in his dissent.
“Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”
A roar let out shortly after 10 a.m. at the foot of the court steps as the nation’s highest court ruled what many here said they’ve always known: marriage is a right.
Many waved flags, others thrust celebratory signs skyward. In the front of the crowd, Christopher Sargent and Scott Roewer, not far from their home in Washington, shared a long kiss. They were present for history, they said.
“They acknowledged what is true: that we all have a right to the same
things. This is a human right,” Mr. Sargent said.
The Supreme Court on Friday said that same-sex couples had a constitutional right to marry, effectively requiring that the 13 states that prohibit such unions reverse those bans. Over the last two years, the number of states authorizing same-sex marriage had expanded rapidly because of legislative decisions, referendums or court orders.
Hillary Rodham Clinton and former Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, two of the Democrats running for president, were quick to praise the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage.
Mrs. Clinton, whose position on the issue has evolved over the years, said she was “proud to celebrate a historic victory for marriage equality and the courage and determination of L.G.B.T. Americans who made it possible.”
Proud. pic.twitter.com/9J44PCYeuQ
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 26, 2015
Mr. O’Malley, who just finished delivering a foreign policy speech in Washington, praised the court for affirming that marriage is a human right, not a state right. “The American dream is strongest when we are all included,” he said.
ANN ARBOR, Mich. — Jayne Rowse and April DeBoer, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging Michigan’s ban on adoption by same-sex couples, read about the decision on the Scotus blog at the Jim Toy Community Center here. The two sat with their lawyers, Dana Nessel and Carole Stanyar, as well as Ms. Nessel’s fiancée, Alanna Maguire. The couple became engaged outside of the Supreme Court right after the Supreme Court heard the case..
“I am elated this is what we have wanted and waited for and now we can be a legal family. I guess we have to plan a marriage,” Ms. DeBoer said.
(Earlier, we reported incorrectly that the lawyer Dana Nessel argued the Rowse-DeBoer case.)
Today is a big step in our march toward equality. Gay and lesbian couples now have the right to marry, just like anyone else. #LoveWins
— President Obama (@POTUS) June 26, 2015
Until recently, the court had been cautious and halting in addressing same-sex marriage, signaling that it did not want to outpace public support and developments in the states. Now, though, they have issued a definitive decision.
In 2013, the justices ducked the question. Similarly, the court in October refused to hear appeals from rulings allowing same-sex marriage in five states, expanding the number of states with same-sex marriage to 24. The number has since grown to at least 36.
The justices might have been content to remain on the sidelines. But a decision in November from a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, forced their hand.
The Sixth Circuit’s decision created a split among the federal appeals courts, a criterion that the Supreme Court often looks to in deciding whether to hear a case. The couples challenging the bans promptly appealed to the Supreme Court. In January, the justices agreed to step in.
In a long-sought victory for the gay rights movement, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Constitution guarantees a nationwide right to same-sex marriage.
The decision, the culmination of decades of litigation and activism, came against the backdrop of fast-moving changes in public opinion, with polls indicating that most Americans now approve of same-sex marriage.
As in earlier civil rights cases, the Supreme Court had moved cautiously and methodically, laying careful judicial groundwork for a transformative decision.
A crowd of several hundred people, many of them waving blue and red
equality flags, were assembled outside the Supreme Court again Friday morning in hopes that the much-anticipated ruling on
same-sex marriage would come Friday.
Many in the crowd — which is substantially larger than
Thursday, when the court issued an opinion on the Affordable Care Act — were hoping for a ruling today, rather than on Monday, the last day in which the court could hand down a decision.
Matt Young, who is in Washington on business from San Diego, was
wandering through the group with a friend near the foot of the court
steps. He said he came to witness what he expects will
be a historic
ruling.
Mr. Young, 44, said he and his husband married three days before
Proposition 8 made same-sex marriage illegal in California in 2008. A
ruling today legalizing same-sex marriage across the
country would be the
end of a long journey, he said.
“It would just mean we’re not sitting on the back of the bus anymore,”
Mr. Young said.
His husband is scheduled to arrive in town around 10 a.m. and will come
directly to the court, hopefully, Mr. Young said, to celebrate.
Roughly the same share of Americans give the Supreme Court a positive job rating as give it a negative one, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. The public is also divided on whether the court is too liberal or conservative, with independents more likely to say that the court’s leaning is just about right.
The Supreme Court’s health care decision arrived a day before the conventional wisdom had anticipated. That caused the conventional wisdom to recalculate, with many now wondering whether the court’s remaining blockbuster, on same-sex marriage, might land on Friday.
It could be a fitting anniversary. The court’s last gay rights decision, United States v. Windsor, was announced exactly two years before. Another gay rights landmark,Lawrence v. Texas, will turn 10 that day.
But there is no evidence that the Supreme Court takes account of such things. Decisions are announced, the justices like to say, as soon as they are ready. And yet:an academic study documented that the biggest cases tend to come last.
Let’s do the math.
There are five decisions left before the justices can leave for their summer break. There are two days left on the official schedule: Friday and Monday.
The oldest case, on nonpartisan redistricting, was argued in February and may be ready on Friday. So may the second-oldest case, on the regulation of mercury and other toxins.
That leaves three cases argued in April: a minor one on a gun law and major ones on lethal injections and same-sex marriage. Those may come on Monday. Or not.
In addition to Obergefell v. Hodges, in which the court will decide whether the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage, and Glossip v. Gross, which looks at whether states may use a drug linked to apparently botched executions to carry out death sentences, the justices ruled rule this term on cases regarding the health care law and religious freedom in prisons, among others. Here’s a useful guide to the term’s major decisions.
The court on Friday could issue an opinion in Glossip v. Gross, answering the question of whether states may use a drug linked to apparently botched executions to carry out death sentences.
Read about the case and listen to the arguments.
It’s also possible that the court could rule in Obergefell v. Hodges and three related cases, and decide whether the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage.