The University of Utah's Independent Student Voice

The Daily Utah Chronicle

The University of Utah's Independent Student Voice

The Daily Utah Chronicle

The University of Utah's Independent Student Voice

The Daily Utah Chronicle

Write for Us
Want your voice to be heard? Submit a letter to the editor, send us an op-ed pitch or check out our open positions for the chance to be published by the Daily Utah Chronicle.
@TheChrony
Print Issues
Write for Us
Want your voice to be heard? Submit a letter to the editor, send us an op-ed pitch or check out our open positions for the chance to be published by the Daily Utah Chronicle.
@TheChrony

Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage but the fight’s not over yet

Social media erupted in rainbows and the hashtag #LoveWins after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution guarantees same-sex marriage as a right in all states.

The nation’s reaction varied from excited to critical after Friday’s decision brought same-sex marriage to the remaining 14 states where it was illegal. Although there has been some resistance from lawmakers, U professor of law Clifford Rosky said marriages will soon proceed throughout the U.S. unimpeded, as states have no authority to invalidate a federal Supreme Court ruling.

While some Supreme Court rulings, like Brown v. Education, were difficult to enforce, marriage licenses require only a photocopier and a county clerk willing to comply with the law, Rosky said.

“County clerks that don’t want to administer marriage licenses to same-sex couples have an easy decision to make. They can either go to jail or they can resign their job, but there’s not some third option where they get to stay county clerks and discriminate against same-sex couples,” Rosky said.

Same-sex marriage suits reach as far back as the 1970s. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the majority’s decision celebrating the achievement.

“No longer may this liberty be denied,” Kennedy wrote. “The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.”

Not everyone was happy with the ruling, however.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a dissent to the decision, “The court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the states and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia…Who do we think we are?”

Beyond redefining marriage, the court’s dissenting judges listed concerns over the protection of religious liberties and a violation of people’s rights to democratically decide the legality of same-sex marriage.

“It’s true that most things are decided by the democratic process, but we also know that some things aren’t,” Rosky said. “The Supreme Court has always said that marriage is a fundamental right and it’s always said that fundamental rights are not subject to a vote.”

Conservative members of society are not the only ones concerned over the ruling, however. Individuals who identify as bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex and asexual voiced their concerns online that allies and more mainstream gay and lesbian may think the fight for equality is over.

Alex Vermillion, a senior in English, said there are still other concerns, such as transgender rights, healthcare, availability of gender-neutral bathrooms, poverty and the higher rates of rape and sexual abuse that non-heterosexual and cisgender people face.

“We are not even close to done. Not even close. If you consider yourself an ally,” Vermillion said. “Marriage does not solve everything. Don’t stand down yet. We are still angry.”

Rosky said there is now a need to improve the state’s hate crime laws to protect LGBTQIA* citizens, which he refers to as “broken” and written in a way “no one could be prosecuted under.” Rosky also said there is a need for legislation directed at public accommodations, where businesses can refuse to serve customers based on things like race and sexual orientation.

According to a report done by FOX13, in response to the decision, a Utah lawmaker drafted a bill that may appear in the next legislative session that would remove the state’s involvement in marriage entirely. The sponsor and wording are unconfirmed.

“It’s not exactly a coincidence that the proposal is coming up now that gay marriage is legal,” Rosky said. “It’s like heterosexual people got all of these benefits but all of a sudden when gay people get to have them, well we’re going to take them away from everyone.”

Rosky said it’s unlikely the motion will pass.

[email protected]
@EhmannKy

Leave a Comment

Comments (0)

The Daily Utah Chronicle welcomes comments from our community. However, the Daily Utah Chronicle reserves the right to accept or deny user comments. A comment may be denied or removed if any of its content meets one or more of the following criteria: obscenity, profanity, racism, sexism, or hateful content; threats or encouragement of violent or illegal behavior; excessively long, off-topic or repetitive content; the use of threatening language or personal attacks against Chronicle members; posts violating copyright or trademark law; and advertisement or promotion of products, services, entities or individuals. Users who habitually post comments that must be removed may be blocked from commenting. In the case of duplicate or near-identical comments by the same user, only the first submission will be accepted. This includes comments posted across multiple articles. You can read more about our comment policy here.
All The Daily Utah Chronicle Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *