Supreme Court Questioning Threatens 650,000 Same-Sex Couples And Their 250,000 Children
America’s top justices appear poised to threaten 650,000 same-sex couples, many of whom are raising 250,000 children today. The Court must answer five moral questions before they can decide the top two civil rights cases of this generation.
Five moral matters are about to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, in two of the many civil marriage disputes that have been percolating for 22 years in agencies, legislatures, and courtrooms across the nation.
The Court, yesterday and today, will hear oral arguments challenging two same-gender marriage bans. California’s Proposition 8 bans civil marriage for same-gender couples and families, and forces them into second-class domestic partnership. The federal Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) ignores civilly married couples and families whenever spouses are of the same gender, and denies them access to 1,138 federal programs, including most military pay and benefits. These are the first two marriage equality cases to get Supreme Court reviews since 1967, when all laws banning interracial couples from civil marriage were declared unconstitutional.
In these and many similar lawsuits now underway, looming over the cases, the judges, and America are five moral questions. In order to recognize the moral questions, one must first understand the disputes, and then hear the arguments.
Four core facts are undisputed.  (1) Families — headed by both same-gender couples and mixed-gender couples — often raise children from prior marriage, fertilization, surrogacy, foster care, and/or adoption. (2) Regardless of pregnancy type or family structure, all children have the same constitutional rights. (3) In 2011, the U.S. Census Bureau counted 646,464 same-gender couples nationwide, and 20% of those couples (129,293 families) are raising nearly 250,000 children. (4) Of those 646,464 couples, 22% live in states where they now can marry, but 78% live in states where they still cannot marry.
Given these facts, the two lawsuits arise from two practical questions. Should states ban marriage for same-gender couples? Should governments treat such couples and their children as inferior to other families? More than anything else, the outcomes will be driven by the ultimate morality query for Americans: Do we treat others the same way that we ourselves want to be treated? The opponents of equality say, “No, we do not, and we should not.â€
Those opponents of equality are the Mormon and Roman Catholic church officials who funded the campaign and legal defense for California Proposition 8, and the Republican Party officials who are funding the legal defense for DOMA.
In their latest briefs filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, Mormon- and Catholic-funded leaders (here and here) and Republican Party leaders (here and here) now argue: that true gays and lesbians don’t even exist, that all of humanity is heterosexual, that people who claim to be gays or lesbians are just heterosexuals who “choose to misbehave,†that they’re mentally ill, and they’re curable, but they refuse to be cured, so that’s why they should be denied equality under the law.  [No peer-accepted, scientific evidence supports such ideas, and all major professional organizations reject these claims.]
These opponents insist that mixed-gender couples are superior to same-gender couples, that government should promote “natural†procreation (no contraception, no fertilization, no surrogacy), and should ban same-gender marriage to promote mixed-gender marriage.  They argue that because mixed-gender couples produce unplanned, unwanted offspring and same-gender couples do not, that’s why society should ban marriage for same-gender couples.
These opponents claim that mixed-gender parents are ideal and superior to same-gender parents [even though peer-accepted, scientific studies disprove that claim.] Â These opponents admit that most children of mixed-gender parents are unplanned and unwanted, and then argue that government should promote mixed-gender parents and their children by penalizing same-gender parents and their children.
These opponents claim that same-gender couples don’t procreate, they rarely raise children, they cut marriage/birth rates and raise promiscuity rates among mixed-gender couples, they kill civilizations, and they’ll make humanity extinct. [That’s untrue. Same-gender couples do procreate (via fertilization and/or surrogacy); they do have children (from prior partners, foster care, and adoption); and they often raise children (most of whom are abandoned by mixed-gender couples). Despite 22 years of campaigns and courtroom trials, marriage equality opponents never once showed how banning marriage for same-gender couples would raise marriage rates, boost birth rates, or cut promiscuity among mixed-gender couples. And there’s no scientific evidence suggesting that same-gender marriage kills civilizations, or could end the human race.]
These opponents imagine that same-gender marriage might have an unknown flaw today that could be catastrophic tomorrow, and that this is why the justice system should do nothing.
These opponents of equality argue that same-gender couples should stop asking courts to overturn unjust laws, and should instead take the long, unaffordable route of obtaining fairer laws through 43 legislatures (41 states, the Puerto Rico territory, and Congress). They say that since same-gender couples are gaining political power, they might eventually get to marry after all, and so past and present discrimination should count for nothing. They say that national divisiveness is beneficial, and a court ruling would end that benefit, so the current divisiveness should continue.
In particular, the Republican Party defenders claim that although DOMA does hurt couples and families, that was just an accident, so it should continue. Â They claim DOMA saves money, i.e., mixed-gender couples get more benefits when same-gender couples get nothing. Â [DOMA never saved money. That was proven nine years ago by the Congressional Budget Office.]
Facing all these claims made by the opponents of equality, America’s nine top justices can decide these cases only after they answer — for themselves — five morality questions:
• Will society admit that gays and lesbians actually exist, as real people?
• Will society allow couples seeking civil marriage to privately choose their own beliefs?
• Will society recognize that all legally married couples and families have the same constitutional rights, regardless of the number of children or their source (prior marriage, fertilization, surrogacy, foster care, adoption)?
• Will society treat every civilly married couple equally, regardless of their breeding ability, pregnancy method, desire for offspring, or intent to procreate?
• Will society treat every couple equally to every other couple, every spouse equally to every other spouse, and every child equally to every other child?
If the justices answer “yes†to all five morality questions, then their decisions will honor the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you.†But if they answer “no†to even one of these five morality questions, then the U.S. Constitution will cease to be inclusive, and American democracy will lose its moral authority.
If the Mormon, Catholic, and Republican opponents of equality win at the U.S. Supreme Court, then the federal government will continue its current unfairness, in which mixed-gender couples are still treated as if they all have children (even when they don’t, won’t, or can’t), and same-gender couples are still treated as merely unmarried friends, with children who are inferior.
Image, top, by The New Civil Rights Movement’s Tanya Domi, taken at the Supreme court yesterday
Ned Flaherty is an LGBT activist currently focused on civil marriage equality, and previously on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal. He writes from Boston, Massachusetts, where America’s first same-gender civil marriages began in 2004. He suffered a childhood exposure to Roman Catholic pomp and circumstance, but the spell never took, and he recovered.
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.
 |
Stephen Miller’s latest anti-immigrant rant is drawing attention, including from a well-known Catholic Jesuit priest, who appeared to liken the White House Deputy Chief of Staff’s remarks to those made by Hitler’s notorious Reich Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, in 1941.
Miller, one of the most powerful members of the Trump administration, is seen as the principal architect of the President’s anti-immigration and deportation policies.
“U.S. Marines on the streets of Los Angeles. Masked immigration officers at courthouses and popular restaurants. Bans on travelers from more than a dozen countries,” Reuters reported on Friday. “For senior White House aide Stephen Miller, the architect of President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, things were going according to plan.”
READ MORE: ‘Dumb-Dumb’: Fox News Host Declares Rising Democrat a ‘Mental Deficient’ Amid Senate Buzz
Denouncing the city government of Los Angeles as “waging a campaign of insurrection against the federal government,” Miller on Friday painted a scenario without undocumented immigrants in remarks made to Fox News.
“Let’s be very clear,” he said. “What would Los Angeles look like without illegal aliens?”
“Here’s what it would look like: You would be able to see a doctor in the emergency room right away, no wait time, no problem. Your kids would go to a public school that had more money than they know what to do with. Classrooms would be half the size. Students who had special needs would get all the attention that they needed.”
“There would be no violent transnational gangs. There would be no cartels. There would be no Mexican Mafia. There would be no Sureños. There would be no MS-13 There would be no TdA.”
“You would be living in a city that would be safe, that would be clean, there would be no fentanyl, there would be no drug dens,” he alleged. “That could be the future Los Angeles could have, but the leaders in Los Angeles have formed an alliance with the cartels and their criminal aliens.”
READ MORE: Record Majority of Americans Support Immigration in Massive Blow to Trump Agenda
Some of Miller’s claims are incorrect. For example, public schools often receive state funding in part based on the number of students and their attendance rate. Fewer students in classrooms means fewer dollars. And federal funding is tied to the number of low-income students and students with disabilities.
Miller’s claims about fentanyl and “drug dens” also don’t hold up. Most fentanyl comes into the U.S. via U.S. citizens, according to the Cato Institute.
Father James Martin, editor-at-large for America Magazine, which is published by the Jesuits, responded to Miller’s remarks by posting a quote from Goebbels:
“The enemy is in our midst. What makes more sense than to at least make this plainly visible to our citizens?”
It’s not the first time Father Martin has responded to Miller’s anti-immigrant rants with a quote.
In April, he quoted the Bible:
“‘I was a stranger and you did not welcome me’ (Matthew 25).”
See Martin’s post and video of Miller’s remarks below or at this link.
“The enemy is in our midst. What makes more sense than to at least make this plainly visible to our citizens?” Joseph Goebbels, Nov 16, 1941. https://t.co/f6cHSLqlbU https://t.co/lACjN2F9Ql
— James Martin, SJ (@JamesMartinSJ) July 11, 2025
READ MORE: ‘Racial Profiling’: Border Czar Blasted for Claim ICE Can Detain for ‘Personal Appearance’
Image via Shutterstock
A record-high majority—nearly eight in ten Americans—now view immigration positively, with similarly strong support for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants—particularly those brought to the U.S. as children. The Gallup poll also found that most Americans favor maintaining or increasing current immigration levels.
Meanwhile, large segments of the public oppose expanding the number of immigration enforcement agents—a cornerstone of President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda. Overall, just 35% of Americans approve of Trump’s immigration policies, while 65% disapprove.
Gallup’s report deals a major blow to the very core of President Donald Trump’s agenda, and his “One Big, Beautiful Bill” that dramatically increases spending on immigration enforcement, including detention camps, deportations, and removal, even to third-party countries.
RELATED: ‘Racial Profiling’: Border Czar Blasted for Claim ICE Can Detain for ‘Personal Appearance’
“Americans have grown markedly more positive toward immigration over the past year, with the share wanting immigration reduced dropping from 55% in 2024 to 30% today,” Gallup reported on Friday. “At the same time, a record-high 79% of U.S. adults say immigration is a good thing for the country.”
When asked if immigration is generally a good thing or bad thing for the country, a record-high 79% of U.S. adults call it a good thing; a record-low 17% see it as a bad thing. pic.twitter.com/VCGVplgsE9
— Gallup (@Gallup) July 11, 2025
“These shifts reverse a four-year trend of rising concern about immigration that began in 2021 and reflect changes among all major party groups,” the top-rated pollster also reported.
Now, just 38% of Americans support deporting all undocumented immigrants, in vast contrast to the stated Trump agenda. That’s down from 47% last year.
In what could be seen as a warning to the GOP, Gallup notes that “the desire for less immigration has fallen among all party groups, but it is most pronounced among Republicans, down 40 percentage points over the past year to 48%.”
Just this week, several top Trump administration officials have continued to promote his anti-immigrant policies.
READ MORE: ‘Dumb-Dumb’: Fox News Host Declares Rising Democrat a ‘Mental Deficient’ Amid Senate Buzz
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins this week told reporters there will be “no amnesty” for undocumented farm workers while insisting adults on Medicaid could replace them.
“There will be no amnesty, the mass deportations continue, but in a strategic way, and we move the workforce towards automation and 100% American participation,” Secretary Rollins said.
Republican Senators have been promoting the Trump anti-immigrant agenda as well. On Thursday, U.S. Senator Ashley Moody (R-FL) called Democrats who oppose the often warrantless raids and tactics used by the DHS’s frequently masked ICE agents, “ignorant pawns of a subversive anarchist agenda.”
President Donald Trump’s and the Republican Party’s budget, which Trump signed into law last weekend, is tremendously unpopular, including his exponential expansion of immigration enforcement budgets, as well as aspects that gut vital social safety net programs like Medicaid and Medicare.
Critics praised Gallup’s findings.
“Nativism had its 6 months and now it’s clear that it’s not the answer,” wrote Cato Institute Director of Immigration Studies David J. Bier.
NBC News senior national political reporter Sahil Kapur, pointing to the Gallup statistics, called it “backlash politics.”
“Turns out, mass kidnappings and deportations are deeply unpopular when put into practice,” observed New York State Democratic Assemblywoman Emily Gallagher.
See the social media post above or at this link.
READ MORE: Luxury Air Force One, Rose Garden Reno? ‘Priorities’ Says Trump Budget Chief
Image via Reuters
President Donald Trump’s hand-picked border czar, Tom Homan, is facing backlash from legal and political experts after asserting that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents do not need “probable cause” to detain individuals—and can do so based on factors like “personal appearance.”
“Look, people need to understand,” Homan told Fox News on Friday. ICE officers “don’t need probable cause to walk up to somebody, briefly detain and question them.”
“They just need to tally the circumstances, right?” he claimed. “They just go through their observation, you know, get out typical facts based on the location, the occupation, their physical appearance, their actions.”
“A uniformed border police officer walks up to them, for instance, at a Home Depot. And they got all these … facts, plus the person walks away or runs away,” Homan said, offering one scenario. “Agents are trained. What they need to detain somebody temporarily and question them.”
READ MORE: ‘Dumb-Dumb’: Fox News Host Declares Rising Democrat a ‘Mental Deficient’ Amid Senate Buzz
“It’s not probable cause,” he insisted. “It’s reasonable suspicion.”
“We’re trained on that. Every agent, every six months, gets Fourth Amendment training over and over again,” Homan said.
Legal experts blasted Homan’s remarks.
Professor of Law, former U.S. Attorney and MSNBC/NBC News legal analyst Joyce Vance summed up Homan’s remarks: “Racial profiling.”
“This is patently false,” declared U.S. Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-NY), also an attorney, “DHS has authority to question and search people coming into the country at points of entry. But ICE may not detain and question anyone without reasonable suspicion — and certainly not based on their physical appearance alone. This lawlessness must stop.”
Attorney and California Democratic state Senator Scott Wiener charged, “This is literally the definition of a white nationalist police state.”
U.S. Rep. Yvette Clark (D-NY) warned, “Trump’s thugs will racially profile you, then go on national television to brag about getting away with it.”
READ MORE: Luxury Air Force One, Rose Garden Reno? ‘Priorities’ Says Trump Budget Chief
Attorney and CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Evan Gold explained, “Walking up to people (without threatening) is legal. But ‘detaining’ people without ‘reasonable suspicion’ of criminal or quasi-criminal activity is illegal. Racial profiling is not cause for the required reasonable suspicion. ‘Let me see your papers’ is un-American.”
U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA), who, in a highly-publicized incident was forcibly removed and handcuffed by federal agents at a DHS press conference, wrote: “And there you have it. Under the Trump Administration, ICE and Border Patrol are being empowered to stop and question you based solely on how you look. No probable cause. No real reason. Just your ‘physical appearance.’ That’s not justice—it’s profiling.”
“They’re saying the quiet part out loud now,” wrote New York Democratic State Senator Gustavo Rivera. “Don’t get it twisted: if we let them keep doing this, they’ll find a reason to come for ANY ONE OF US soon enough.”
“THEY ARE ADMITTING IT,” wrote David J. Bier, Cato Institute Director of Immigration Studies and an expert on legal immigration, border security, and interior enforcement. “Homan is admitting to participating in a criminal conspiracy against the Constitution of the United States,” he alleged.
Max Flugrath, communications director for Fair Fight Action, wrote: “Trump’s Border Czar and Project 2025 contributor says ICE can detain anyone based on ‘suspicion’ and physical ‘appearance.’ That’s not immigration policy, it’s fascism.”
Watch the video below or at this link:
Homan: “People need to understand ICE officers and Border Patrol don’t need probable cause to walk up to somebody, briefly detain them, and question them … based on their physical appearance.” pic.twitter.com/aQzwepaHpk
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 11, 2025
READ MORE: Trump Dodges, Denies and Deflects Questions as Ukraine Weapons Scandal Grows
Image via Reuters
Stephen Miller’s Latest Rant Prompts Priest to Cite Goebbels Propaganda
Record Majority of Americans Support Immigration in Massive Blow to Trump Agenda
‘Racial Profiling’: Border Czar Blasted for Claim ICE Can Detain for ‘Personal Appearance’
Luxury Air Force One, Rose Garden Reno? ‘Priorities’ Says Trump Budget Chief
‘Dumb-Dumb’: Fox News Host Declares Rising Democrat a ‘Mental Deficient’ Amid Senate Buzz
News4 days ago‘Dumb-Dumb’: Fox News Host Declares Rising Democrat a ‘Mental Deficient’ Amid Senate Buzz
News3 days agoStephen Miller’s Latest Rant Prompts Priest to Cite Goebbels Propaganda
News4 days ago‘Absolute Cringe’: DHS Ridiculed After Attacking CNN Report—by Confirming It
News4 days agoGOP Senator Denounces Anti-ICE Democrats as ‘Pawns’ of an ‘Anarchist Agenda’
News3 days ago‘Racial Profiling’: Border Czar Blasted for Claim ICE Can Detain for ‘Personal Appearance’
News3 days agoLuxury Air Force One, Rose Garden Reno? ‘Priorities’ Says Trump Budget Chief
News3 days agoRecord Majority of Americans Support Immigration in Massive Blow to Trump Agenda