Hillary Clinton opposed same-sex marriage until 2013, but as late as 2014 she suggested that marriage laws still ought to be determined by the states. Talking Points Memo's Sahil Kapur reports today that Clinton, who graduated from law school 42 years ago, has somehow discovered in 2015 that the U.S. Constitution establishes a right to same-sex marriage:
Last summer, Hillary Clinton gave a tense interview to NPR where she was pressed on same-sex marriage. Her position then? Leave it up to the states.
"For me, marriage had always been a matter left to the states. And in many of the conversations that I and my colleagues and supporters had, I fully endorse the efforts by activists who work state-by-state and in fact that is what is working," Clinton told Terry Gross on June 12, 2014.
She added that soon after stepping down as secretary of state she announced in 2013 she "was fully in support of gay marriage and that it is now continuing to proceed state-by-state." The interview didn't sit well with gay rights activists who strongly oppose the idea of letting states ban same-sex marriage.
Ten months later, Clinton is officially running for president, and appears to have shifted her view toward a full embrace of marriage equality. Her new position? Marriage should be a constitutional right for same-sex couples.
"Hillary Clinton supports marriage equality and hopes the Supreme Court will come down on the side of same-sex couples being guaranteed that constitutional right," Adrienne Elrod, a spokesperson for the Clinton campaign, said in a statement Wednesday.
Neither Clinton nor her spokesman have explained how or precisely when Clinton came to the conclusion that the U.S. Constitution includes a right to gay marriage.
Let us now praise famous men, or at least one good federal judge, as some recent work of his demonstrates. Jeffrey Sutton is this judge, and he sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which includes the states of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Earlier this month he announced an opinion for his court in DeBoer v.
In a speech the other day to state attorneys general, the U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder, offered an ideal job description for himself and his state counterparts: “not merely to use our legal system to settle disputes and punish those who have done wrong, but to answer the kinds of fundamental questions—about fairness and equality—that have always determined who we are and who we aspire to be.” This is what “all justice professionals are called” to do, said Holder, leaving us to wonder what we the mere people are supposed to do.
A visitor to Richmond can’t leave without a trip to John Marshall’s house, a living shrine to the greatest chief justice in the history of the United States. Passing through the halls of his former home, it is as if the spirit of the great man is present in the articles he used and the rooms he inhabited. The courtly tour guide will narr
Every discussion of gay marriage should begin with a recognition of its historical radicalness, its exceptionality. Heterosexual marriage has been the fundamental unit of human sociability for thousands of years, a common thread running through otherwise disjunctive cultures and wide-ranging ethnic diversity. Wherever one lands on the issue of same-sex marriage, there can be no gainsaying its extraordinariness.
Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation debated CNN's Piers Morgan and his guest, Suze Orman, about same-sex marriage Tuesday night. Morgan concluded the debate by saying he found Anderson's position "a bit offensive." "It's not fair, it's not tolerant, it's not American," said the British-born host.
Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on California’s Proposition 8, which defines marriage as being between couples of the opposite sex. Today they’re hearing them on the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman at the federal level. Like Roe v. Wade, the high court’s decision on these cases is likely to fuel the culture war for a generation or two, at least. Unlike with Roe, the Court seems to understand that it’s been handed an issue of enormous consequence.