Quantcast
Connect with us

South Carolina justifies same-sex marriage ban by arguing that women once lacked basic rights

Published

on

South Carolina officials filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court that argued banning same-sex marriage was constitutional because the Fourteenth Amendment originally did not prohibit states from discriminating against women, Slate’s Mark Joseph Stein reports.

The amicus brief — filed by amicus curiae, or “friends of the court,” meaning people who are not a party to a case but who have a vested interest in a particular outcome — addressed the question, “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?”

ADVERTISEMENT

The answer, according to South Carolina, is that it does not — because although the anachronistic “views of the Fourteenth Amendment’s framers are not those of the State today…such evidence is, nevertheless, reflective of the Amendment’s original meaning which we believe controls this case.”

The state is interpreting the Amendment in accordance with the “originalist” school of judicial interpretation, which privileges the intent of the authors at the time a law was written. According to the state, then, because the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly allowed states to determine whether married women could own property or sign contracts without their husband’s consent, it also granted states the right to determine who could be married — so long as they didn’t discriminate on the basis of race.

“The framers,” the state claims, “insisted upon leaving untouched those state laws depriving women of basic rights upon marriage to a man.” The only marriage-related Fourteenth Amendment restriction, South Carolina argues, involved cases of miscegenation. It “barred racial discrimination, certainly, but its dicta regarding the fundamental right to marriage does not suggest anything about same-sex marriage.”

Because the Amendment’s equal protection clause only originally applied to matters of race — and didn’t even apply to married women in some states — South Carolina argues, as Stein put it, that “[i]f the Fourteenth Amendment permits discrimination against married women, it surely also allows discrimination against gay people who wish to wed.”

ADVERTISEMENT

“In fact,” he added, “according to South Carolina, the Fourteenth Amendment forbids only racial discrimination, leaving states free to disadvantage women and gays in any way they wish.”

As outrageous as Stein’s summary of the state’s position might sound, it is, in fact, the argument being proffered by South Carolina’s highest legal authorities.

“The Fourteenth Amendment framers went to considerable lengths to preserve the traditional family unit, even insisting upon the subordination of married women,” they write. “With this in mind, they did not, by any stretch of the imagination, contemplate that same-sex marriage was required by the Amendment or its Due Process Clause.”

ADVERTISEMENT

“If states wish to authorize same-sex marriage, they certainly may, but the Fourteenth Amendment does not mandate they do so,” they conclude.


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Tapper smacks Mnuchin with Trump kids’ international business deals after attack on Biden son

Published

on

In a fairly contentious interview with Steve Mnuchin, CNN host Jake Tapper pointed out how Donald Trump's children -- Don Jr., Ivanka and Eric -- have been using their father's name to swing international deals after the Treasury secretary accused former Vice President Joe Biden's son of doing the same.

Mnuchin first dismissed reporting by the Washington Post and the conservative Wall Street Journal that Donald Trump was withholding Ukraine funding in an effort to get dirt on Biden and his son -- saying neither newspaper could be trusted -- he then complained to the CNN host about having to spend seven and a half minutes talking about Trump's Ukraine scandal.

Continue Reading

2020 Election

Will Trump peacefully vacate the Oval Office if he loses the presidential election in 2020? A lesson from 1800

Published

on

As primary season heats up in the United States, the Democrats are anxiously debating the best path to unseat Donald Trump in 2020. But the question of how to beat Trump is perhaps less urgent than the issue of whether he will accept defeat.

Trump has already questioned his loss of the 2016 popular vote with baseless accusations of voter fraud. He has also repeatedly toyed with the idea of extending his presidency beyond the eight-year limit enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, even trumpeting Jerry Falwell Jr.’s assertion that his first term be extended by two years to compensate for the Russia investigation. Perhaps most ominously, Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen warned while testifying before the House Oversight Committee in February 2019:

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Something is killing galaxies — and science is on the case

Published

on

In the most extreme regions of the universe, galaxies are being killed. Their star formation is being shut down and astronomers want to know why.

The first ever Canadian-led large project on one of the world’s leading telescopes is hoping to do just that. The new program, called the Virgo Environment Traced in Carbon Monoxide survey (VERTICO), is investigating, in brilliant detail, how galaxies are killed by their environment.

As VERTICO’s principal investigator, I lead a team of 30 experts that are using the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) to map the molecular hydrogen gas, the fuel from which new stars are made, at high resolution across 51 galaxies in our nearest galaxy cluster, called the Virgo Cluster.

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Investigate and Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1 and go ad-free.
close-image