The Washington Post over the weekend published a rather silly column online by Judd Birdsall, managing director of the Cambridge Institute on Religion & International Studies, asserting that opponents of same-sex marriage had reacted gracefully to Friday’s U.S. Supreme Court.
Editor’s Note: Today’s blog post is a personal reflection by Gary Wright, one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit that sought to end Alabama's ban on same-sex marriage. The legal action was sponsored by Americans United and three other groups.
Editor’s Note: This blog post is the third and final in a series by Americans United’s Legal Department examining possible outcomes in the marriage equality case currently pending before the Supreme Court. This post discusses what will likely happen if the high court issues a split decision.
Nothing stokes the ire of my soul more than political blowhards and mouthpieces of the Religious Right who blatantly misrepresent millions of people of faith when they piously proclaim the evils of marriage equality in America.
Let me be perfectly clear: I am a Christian and have been since officially proclaiming so at age 10 in the oldest Baptist church in Charleston, S.C. Baptist DNA runs through my veins as the names of Roger Williams, John Leland and Walter Rauschenbusch are permanently etched into my personal and theological psyche.
Editor’s Note: This blog post is the second in a series by Americans United’s Legal Department examining possible outcomes in the marriage equality case currently pending before the Supreme Court. This post, written by AU Senior Litigation Counsel Gregory Lipper and AU Law Clerk Kaitlyn Vitale, discusses what will likely happen if the high court rejects marriage equality.
Editor’s Note: The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014-15 term is coming to a close, and a landmark ruling on marriage equality is pending. In light of that, “The Wall of Separation” asked AU’s Legal Department to examine the three possible outcomes in this case. In this blog post, Gregory Lipper, senior litigation counsel, and Matthew Russo, an AU legal intern, discuss what will likely happen if the high court extends marriage equality nationwide.
Conventional wisdom holds that social issues won’t have much impact on the 2016 presidential election. Americans are more concerned about jobs and the economy, and besides, some recent polls show that Americans are less religious and moving to the left on social issues.
That’s the conventional wisdom. But there’s a problem – conventional wisdom can be, and often is, wrong.
Seats inside the U.S. Supreme Court were at a premium today for the oral argument in Obergefell v. Hodges, the marriage equality case.
I was fortunate to get a spot in the press gallery. I was in the back row, and my view was obstructed by two large columns, but I’m not complaining; I would have been willing to hang from the rafters for this historic argument, a marathon session that featured five attorneys and lasted two and a half hours.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments tomorrow in Obergefell v. Hodges, the marriage equality case.
In preparation for this, a sad collection of Religious Right leaders trooped to the microphone at the National Press Club on Friday to denounce marriage equality – again.
Last week I taped an interview with Sister Maureen Fielder, host of “Interfaith Voices,” a popular radio program exploring religious issues that is carried by many NPR stations.
The topic of the show was Indiana’s new “religious freedom” law, and appearing with me was Mollie Ziegler Hemingway, senior editor at The Federalist, a libertarian journal. We had a spirited but thoughtful discussion.