Does The U.S. Constitution Already Make Gay Marriage Legal?
Happy Birthday, 14th
Amendment!
Recent advances in gay marriage have created an interesting – and I use that term generously – cornucopia of marriage situations. In California, gay marriage was “illegal,” until May, when the California Supreme Court deemed any ban against same-sex marriage unconstitutional. That allowed 18,000 couples to wed – until Prop 8 was passed, overruling the Supreme Court and making same-sex marriage, essentially, illegal once again. But there are still 18,000 same-sex couples in California who are married – their marriages remain “legal.”
Iowa, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine have all moved to support marriage equality. So, what happens if one of those 18,000 couples moves to, say, Massachusetts? Well, aside from having better access to lobster, nothing. What happens if a promotion takes them to, say, New York? Again, nothing, because New York, while not enabled to perform same-sex marriages, still recognizes them from other jurisdictions. But, if that couple moves to New Jersey, voila! They are not married; they do not receive legal recognition of their marriage by the state. Crazy, huh?
In June 0f 1958, Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving were married in Washington, D.C. and went home to Virgina, where they were subsequently arrested one night, in their bed, having sex, which was illegal. Why? The Lovings were an interracial couple, and in 1958 Virgina, it was illegal for them to be married, and it was illegal for them to have sex. Crazy, huh?
Right now, that very same fictional California couple I mentioned is facing a similar fate. While they aren’t subject to arrest for being married or for having sex (thank God!) they are still not legally married in New Jersey or in any one of forty-two other states. And in the eyes of the federal government, they are not married in any state. Crazy, huh?
The Fourteenth Amendment, which is 141 years old today, was used in the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia to repeal anti-miscegenation laws, making interracial marriage legal. It should protect same-sex couples as well. Via Wikipedia:
“The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision, dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia’s argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the court wrote:
“Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.â€
The Supreme Court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:
“There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.”
And there you have it. The Supreme Court of The United States, in 1959 made it clear:
“Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival….”
The obvious question becomes, can race be viewed in the same manner as sexual orientation or identification?
The State of Massachussetts is taking this one step further. It is suing the federal government, saying the Defense of Marriage Act violates the Constitution and forces the states to discriminate against same-sex couples.
The Attorney General for Massachussetts, in the complaint filed in U.S. District Court, said,
“Congress overstepped its authority, undermined states’ efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people.”
In, “New DOMA Lawsuit is the Most Exciting Yet,” Emma Ruby-Sachs writes,
“The genius of this complaint is that it takes a conservative argument — that liberal states should not be permitted to impose their tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality on the rest of the country — and turns it around to benefit a state that really pioneered gay rights in the U.S.
“Even a conservative justice would support the notion that federal encroachment over those few areas where states have sovereign jurisdiction is unconstitutional. In this case, that principle supports, at the very least, limiting the application of DOMA when it affects state programs with federal funding.
“If a conservative justice chooses to oppose the argument put forward by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, then their logic could be used in the future to justify federal enforcement of equal rights on those states that oppose same-sex marriage. If state’s no longer have absolute jurisdiction over marriage, a liberal government can interfere with a conservative state’s policies.”
So, the Constitution, as we would hope, may already have embedded in its wisdom, equal rights for all people, including gay people who want to get married:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
 |
U.S. Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy is under fire for deflecting blame over the escalating crisis at Newark Liberty International Airport—issues his department has yet to resolve. Critics point to his references to “cracks in the system” nationwide and a so-called “Brand New Air Traffic Control System Plan” that, so far, lacks meaningful public detail.
Politico described the Secretary’s lack of specifics by saying that the “Trump administration has closely held the exact contents of Duffy’s plan, but it’s likely to contain some combination of investments in new technologies, facilities upgrades and consolidation along with money for air traffic controller retention and hiring and overhauling the FAA’s infrastructure that allows facilities to communicate together.”
There is already “a multibillion-dollar FAA program called NextGen, which aims to transition the country away from passive radars to a satellite-based system for tracking planes, has been ongoing since 2003,” including during the Biden administration. And, as Politico also reported, the “agency is also in the early stages of a $2.4 billion, 15-year contract with Verizon, issued during the Biden administration, to replace the copper wires that have plagued Newark with modern fiber-optic cables across the country.”
READ MORE: GOP Plan Redefines Dependent Child as ‘Under 7’—But Adds Loophole for Married Couples
But according to Secretary Duffy, “Biden and Buttigieg ignored the warning signs at Newark. It was shameful.”
Biden and Buttigieg ignored the warning signs at Newark. It was shameful.
We are fixing the problem. Here are the actions @USDOT is taking now. pic.twitter.com/i73WBOYKrh
— Secretary Sean Duffy (@SecDuffy) May 13, 2025
National security and civil liberties journalist Marcy Wheeler commented, “if this guy would just stop blaming the President whose efforts to fix FAA Republicans refused to fund and did something he might actually fix the problem. Stop whining, Crash @SecDuffy. Please do your job and stop whining.”
Duffy has repeatedly attacked his predecessor and the prior administration, attempting to blame the current crisis on them.
“So the blame belongs to the last administration?” asked former Marine F/A-18 pilot and Democratic former political candidate Amy McGrath. “You’ve got to be kidding me. The last administration passed major legislation for funding the fix [to transportation] infrastructure problems DESPITE Republicans (like Duffy) voting against it for years.”
“More lies from another failed reality show contestant,” charged U.S. Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY). “Also, pointing fingers instead of addressing our current air traffic issues? Passengers are delayed, airlines are struggling & ATC is understaffed. We need action, not excuses. Less blame game, more solutions.”
READ MORE: GOP ‘Voucher Scheme for the Wealthy’ Would Hand $5 Billion to Religious, Private Schools
CNN’s David Axelrod mocked Duffy, writing: “Nothing like taking responsibility.”
And Professor of Public Policy Robert Reich, the former Clinton Labor Secretary, added, “when Sean Duffy was a congressman, he and other Republicans voted against upgrading air traffic control systems. Now, he’s trying to blame those systems for Newark airport’s outages – while claiming DOGE’s cuts of critical support staff at the FAA had nothing to do with it. Hello?”
Secretary Duffy on Tuesday warned, “We’re starting to see cracks in the system.”
Watch the video below or at this link.
Reporter: You have been saying that this is a decades-old problems. Why didn’t this administration initiate change in the first term?
Duffy: The President was going to fix it four years ago but the last administration did nothing about it pic.twitter.com/L3KXKHQHeJ
— Acyn (@Acyn) May 12, 2025
READ MORE: ‘Bystander’ Trump Keeps Saying ‘I Don’t Know’ — Critics Ask ‘Who’s in Charge?’
Image via Reuters
House Republicans, intent on increasing work requirements for assistance programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and promoting marriage, have devised a new definition for “dependent child.” Currently, an adult has a dependent child if that child is under 18 years of age. Under the new proposed House definition for SNAP, once that child turns seven—usually someone in second grade—they could no longer be considered a dependent, with one exception.
The new House proposal also adds ten years to the time when the adult needs to continue working in order to receive SNAP benefits, from 54 to 64 years of age. However, it removes the work requirement if the adult with the dependent child is married and lives with someone who already complies with the new regulations. Unmarried couples with a child would not qualify for the exemption.
The new proposal would be part of Republicans’ legislation that would provide $4.5 trillion in tax cuts, largely benefiting the wealthy.
READ MORE: GOP ‘Voucher Scheme for the Wealthy’ Would Hand $5 Billion to Religious, Private Schools
The new bill refers to work requirements for “Able Bodied Adults Without Dependents,” or ABAWD. It reads:
“Specifically, this section would increase the age with which ABAWDs must continue working to qualify for SNAP to 64 (up from 54 currently); it changes the generic, functional definition of ‘dependent child’ for ABAWD purposes from under 18 years of age to under 7; and it carves out an exception to the work requirements for a person responsible for a child 7 years of age or older who is married and resides with an individual who complies with the SNAP work requirements.”
An April 30 report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reveals that the GOP’s proposal “could take food away from millions of people in low-income households who are struggling to find steady work or who face substantial barriers to employment, including families with children.”
That report also notes that “the people who would be newly at risk of losing food assistance under the Johnson proposal include…1.4 million older adults aged 55 through 64 without children in their homes,” “More than 3 million adults who live with school-aged children,” “Veterans, people experiencing homelessness, and young people who have aged out of foster care,” and, “About 1.6 million people living in areas without enough jobs.”
The move also comes as states lower or remove protections for child workers.
Last year, the Center for American Progress published a report titled, “Project 2025 Would Exploit Child Labor by Allowing Minors To Work in Dangerous Conditions With Fewer Protections.”
READ MORE: ‘Bystander’ Trump Keeps Saying ‘I Don’t Know’ — Critics Ask ‘Who’s in Charge?’
Image via Reuters
Speaker Mike Johnson’s House Republicans want to insert a provision into their massive tax cuts bill that would create a system to hand private and religious schools $5 billion annually and wealthy donors yet another tax break.
Calling it an “unprecedented effort to use public money to pay for private education,” the Associated Press reports that it “would advance President Donald Trump’s agenda of establishing ‘universal school choice’ by providing families nationwide the option to give their children an education different from the one offered in their local public school.”
If enacted, the system would provide a vehicle for donors to donate cash or stocks, then receive full value via a tax credit —”100% of the contribution back in the form of a discount on their tax bills,” according to the AP. “It would allow stock holders to avoid paying taxes that would be levied if they donated or transferred the stock.”
READ MORE: ‘Bystander’ Trump Keeps Saying ‘I Don’t Know’ — Critics Ask ‘Who’s in Charge?’
Samantha Jacoby, Deputy Director of Federal Tax Policy with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities described it as “a new federal tax credit to subsidize private school vouchers — effectively the first nationwide voucher program.” She called it “a costly tax break for the wealthy [with] an egregious capital gains tax loophole.”
Jacoby added, “this is a much more generous tax break than the existing charitable deduction. The max benefit from the deduction is 37 cents per $ donated, but the voucher credit would make taxpayers fully whole; i.e., the federal government pays the full cost of the vouchers.”
Critics are blasting the proposal.
“Voters have never approved vouchers in any state,” noted public education advocate Mike DeGuire, Ph.D. “Now the Republican-led Congress wants to spend billions to gut public education with their voucher scheme for the wealthy.”
“Trump and his cronies want [to] kick 9 million vulnerable people off Medicaid to pay for (1) tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, and (2) $5 BILLION to send to religious schools that are unaccountable to taxpayers,” observed constitutional attorney Andrew L. Seidel, a vice president at Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
In 2019, then-Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos proposed a similar program, Education Freedom Scholarships, which was met with opposition by Democrats.
Then-U.S. Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH) called it “a shell game to fund private and religious schools and their providers using taxpayers as the middleman.”
READ MORE: ‘Barely Literate’: Education Secretary’s ‘Deranged’ Letter Gets Major Red Ink Corrections
Image via Shutterstock
GOP Plan Redefines Dependent Child as ‘Under 7’—But Adds Loophole for Married Couples
GOP ‘Voucher Scheme for the Wealthy’ Would Hand $5 Billion to Religious, Private Schools
‘Less Blame Game, More Solutions’: Duffy Urged to ‘Do Your Job and Stop Whining’
‘Less Blame Game, More Solutions’: Duffy Urged to ‘Do Your Job and Stop Whining’
GOP Plan Redefines Dependent Child as ‘Under 7’—But Adds Loophole for Married Couples
GOP ‘Voucher Scheme for the Wealthy’ Would Hand $5 Billion to Religious, Private Schools
Two-Thirds of Americans Say Economy is Keeping Them From Having Babies
Trump Promises to Lower Drug Costs as House GOP Tries to Cut $880B From Medicaid
NCRM1 day agoTwo-Thirds of Americans Say Economy is Keeping Them From Having Babies
CORRUPTION1 day agoKaroline Leavitt Says Qatar Won’t Expect Anything in Return for Deluxe Jet
NCRM1 day agoUS Lifts Ban on Afghan Deportations, Despite UN Warning of ‘Escalating Crisis’
News10 hours agoGOP Plan Redefines Dependent Child as ‘Under 7’—But Adds Loophole for Married Couples
BAD PRESIDENT2 days agoWhat Is a Trade Deficit? Trump’s Main Excuse for Tariffs Isn’t an Actual Problem
NCRM1 day agoTrump Promises to Lower Drug Costs as House GOP Tries to Cut $880B From Medicaid
News12 hours agoGOP ‘Voucher Scheme for the Wealthy’ Would Hand $5 Billion to Religious, Private Schools
News7 hours ago‘Less Blame Game, More Solutions’: Duffy Urged to ‘Do Your Job and Stop Whining’