How Same-Sex Marriage Decision of Supreme Court Has Impacted Lives

¶ … United States Supreme Court ruling on same sex marriage. The paper also examines how that decision impacted management policy decisions in terms of public safety administration. An examination of the ruling's overall impact on public policy is also given. Reactions on the ruling are given in the end.

Background knowledge on same sex marriage

For the majority of Americans, the matter of same sex marriage may have first come to their knowledge when it burst into the political limelight in late 2003. At this time, Massachusetts' highest court ruled that the state had no authority or grounds on which to deny lesbian and gay couples the right to marriage. In the next few months after the ruling in the state same sex marriage ceremonies were conducted in many counties and cities across the United States (U.S.) including mass weddings in the city of San Francisco. This brought a lot of media attention to the issue (Brewer and Wilcox, 2005). Religious conservatives pushed for a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage, a push which eventually had the (then) President's support. On the other hand, several interests groups coalesced to fight and "defend equal rights" for couples who wanted to perform and/or participate in same sex marriages; simultaneously other interest groups also mobilized to campaign and "protect the traditional family" through calling for the banning of same sex marriages.

However, viewed from a wider perspective, same sex marriage is just the latest front or battle in the long political contest over gay rights. Other fronts in the struggle have involved the issue of the legal status of same sex, or homosexual, relations. In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court case of Bowers v. Hardwick maintained the constitutional basis of antisodomy laws. The 2003 Supreme Court case, Lawrence v. Texas, was one in which the court overturned its earlier ruling in Bowers. Employment (non) discrimination was one of the other fronts in this contest; the issue was subject to several state legislations and regulations in the 1980s and 1990s, in addition to a congressional vote in 1996 on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. The Armed Forces have also been a front on which this contest has played out, such as the controversy that was elicited by President Bill Clinton's push for the inclusion of gays in the army in 1993. The wider picture that has come out of the these previous studies in terms of public opinion is that more and more members of the American public are supporting gay rights (Brewer and Wilcox, 2005).

Recent surveys report that the vast majority in American society supports recognition of same sex marriages and couples. However, the results in these surveys and polls are not uniform; some polling firms are still recording and reporting no majority support in favor of same sex marriages (Flores, 2015). Still, after accounting for this deviation, it can be seen that the majority of the members of the public are in favor of same sex-marriage in the polls done in 2014, and any variations from that estimate can be accounted for by organizational "house" impacts and framing of the question.

The Supreme Court decision

In a historic five to four decision, the United States Supreme Court declared this year (2015) that same sex couples do have the right to marry anywhere across the nation. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, speaking for the majority, noted that it would be a misunderstanding of these women and men to say that they do not respect the idea of marriage. He further noted that, their plea is that they do have respect for it, and that they respect so much that they are seeking to find the fulfillment of marriage for themselves (Spicuzza, et.al, 2015). That is, the hope of these men and women is not to be condemned to live by themselves in loneliness by being excluded from one of the oldest institutions of civilization. The justice further wrote, that they are asking for equal dignity, with regards to the law and that the constitution gives them, that right.

The Obama administration supported the right to same sex marriages. The Department of Justice's decision to halt its defense of the anti-marriage law in the year 2011 was a crucial victory for the gay rights movement. President Obama's declaration of his support for same sex marriages in the year 2012 was also an important moment for gay rights. The states that were most affected by Friday's ruling are those which did not allow same sex marriages including: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas.

Analysis of the Ruling made by the U.S. Supreme Court on same sex marriages and its impact

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) was not constitutional on the grounds that it stipulated that federal law was to not to recognize any licensed same sex marriages performed under state laws. The (USDOL) United States Department of Labor and the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) recently gave opinions after the ruling on treatment of homosexual marriages by employers (Hobbs and Stevens, 2013). The definition of marriage which now entails lesbian and gay partnerships as being marriages under state law did essentially affect employers in terms of employee benefits. The 2013-2014 technical release published by the USDOL states that the term spouse should be read to include all people who are legally married under state law, including individuals married in homosexual marriages in states that recognize such marriages, even if those individuals are residents of a state that does not recognize such marriages. However, the term "spouse" does not yet define individuals who are in a state-accepted relationship that is not recognized as "marriage" in that state's law. Such recognized relationships not regarded as marriages include domestic partnerships and civil unions, and that is the case even in instances where such relationships come with the same responsibilities, rights, and benefits as do marriages in those states' regulations and laws (Hobbs and Stevens, 2013).

In its 2013 and 2017 revenue ruling, the IRS gave the opinion that couples in same-sex relationships will be deemed married for the use of federal government's Internal Revenue Code if the partners relationship did qualify as a "marriage" relationship under any jurisdiction, both in and out of the U.S., in which the couple was married and that did accept and recognize homosexual marriages. In such scenarios today, employee partner's benefits in same sex marriages are not taxed to the employee himself or herself, but are deemed non-taxable, just as the case is for traditional heterosexual married employees. Workers in officially recognized same sex relationships are also currently able to pay for their partner's coverage, on a pretax basis, within their employers' benefits scheme (Hobbs and Stevens, 2013).

Moreover, under the ruling, same sex married partners are allowed to recover any extra taxes they paid in tax years before the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that were caused by "inputed income." Employers would then be wise from now on to delete any gender-specific language from their employee hire orientation files that query about spousal information. Employers ought also to review their benefits schemes and scheme-related files to make sure that they account for the new regulations resulting from the Supreme Court decision on same sex marriages.

The Supreme Court's 2015 decision implies that lesbian and gay couples in more than fourteen states-in addition to the couples who had already secured that right in thirty six states-can now marry. The aforementioned fourteen states no longer have the authority to enforce their same sex marriage bans (Spicuzza, et.al, 2015). In Wisconsin, for instance, gay and lesbian couples have, since Supreme Court refused to overturn a ruling that struck out its 2006 homosexual marriage ban, been able to marry.

There are about 390,000 married homosexual partners in the U.S. according to the U.C.L.A affiliated Williams Institute, which tracks and documents trends in the demographics of lesbian and gay Americans. A further 70,000 couples who currently live in states that don't permit them to get married would do so in the next few months or years after the Supreme Court's ruling, according to the institute (Sherman, 2015). Approximately a million same-sex couples, unmarried and married, already live together in the U.S., the institute further stated; thus they would very likely be positively affected by the ruling made.

The morality issue on gay marriages according to certain movements and groups has also been examined now more than ever in the history of the nation. For instance, this includes how different news media perceive the matter. The New York Times, for example, repeatedly emphasized within the period of the case that both heterosexuals and homosexuals had equal human rights under the law (Pan, et.al, 2010). However, more importantly, the news site strongly linked the matter of gay marriages and human equality, particularly before the state of Massachusetts legalized the marriages of lesbian and gay couples. One likely explanation for this change of mind of The New York Times would be that the media company was inclined to favor gay marriage, and to also influence its readers to gain awareness of the crucial nature of equal rights with regards to same sex marriages. At the same time, The New York Times also attempted to influence or direct its audiences to emphasize or consider on human equality while debating same sex marriages.

In contrast, the issues that were stressed by the Chicago Tribune were somewhat different from the topics that were emphasized by The New York Times. The Chicago Tribune failed to emphasize the matter of equal rights with regards to same sex discussions. However they did highlight other matters that were linked to family values, American traditions, and the determinations of religious disciplines on their articles on the same sex marriages debate. One way to account for this was that perhaps the Chicago Tribune was inclined to believe that same sex marriages might put to risk American values, religion and the family institution. Thus, the Chicago Tribune attempted to persuade its news readers to see the effects of same sex marriages on the American society. Moreover, polls indicated that the amount of same-sex news coverage that was linked to the matter of equal rights was hugely reduced after Chicago Tribune's coverage on same sex marriage legitimization (Pan, et.al, 2010). The backlash against same sex marriage may be explained by Chicago Tribune's coverage of same sex marriage legitimization, whereby the news media might have overlooked the significance of equal human rights in homosexual marriages. In other words, between The New York Times and the Chicago Tribune, the former emphasized equal human rights, while the latter embraced the issue of American family values in their public discussions of the issue of same sex marriage.

The Supreme Court ruling is also very likely to impact the upcoming 2016 U.S. elections. Each of the 2016 presidential candidates will without a doubt have a thing or two to say about the ruling on same sex marriages. However, there are two presidential hopefuls who could in reality affect the implementation of the Court's ruling that legalizes gay marriages nationwide. These politicians are Ohio governor John Kasich and Lousiana governor Bobby Jindal. These two individuals lead the thirteen states where same sex marriages were not yet legal, and the ruling provides them with an opportunity to define their candidature against those of their rivals on the matter in the 2016 elections (Bruggeman, 2015). Neither of the two governors would in any way have any powers to stop gay marriages in Ohio or Louisiana because the court has ruled it is a constitutional right. However, they could make decisions or take actions if one of them was elected president so as to delay the implementation of the ruling - the decisions which would most definitely be a topic in the 2016 presidential campaigns. According to Sarah Warbelow, a legal director of Human rights campaign, a pro-gay marriage group, Gov. Kasich would have to respond quickly, whereas Gov. Jindal faces a different situation in Louisiana, because that is a more conservative state. Jindal therefore has some space to debate from a firm ground, which will set him apart from other rivals in the GOP presidential nominations. Same sex marriages are already the law of the land for other Presidential contestants like Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, and New Jersey governor Chris Christie. This means that Governor Jindal would be the only other alternative who is capable of delaying a policy that voters at the Republican primaries are likely to oppose (Bruggeman, 2013). However such a move would likely put Jindal on the opposite side of national opinion. According to a May 2015 Gallup poll, about 60% of Americans believe that gay marriages should be legal.

Religious schools that are conservative in nature forbid gay relationships and/or marriages, from dating, to couples who are accommodated in their married-students hostels. Such schools fear that they will soon be forced to make a difficult choice. They fear that the Supreme Court ruling would mean that they will have to abandon their religion-based policies that forbid same-sex relationships or risk being removed from the tax-exempt status if they do not comply (Goodstein and Liptak, 2015). Such schools are worried that if they continue to prohibit same sex relationships, the IRS could declassify them from their tax exempt status as a result of their lack of compliance with "essential federal public policy" on the grounds of the 1983 Supreme Court ruling that gave IRS the power to withdraw a school's tax exemption condition in case it excluded interracial associations (Goodstein and Liptak, 2015). Officials from over seventy religious schools recently sent a letter to congressional leaders that stated that the Supreme Court decision on same sex marriages has put to risk all schools and educational institutions adhering to traditional moral and religious values.

The spreading of fear and anxiety among conservatives by institutions and individuals, including Senator Rand Paul in a recent interview on "the Daily Show," hints at the potential impact of the Supreme Court ruling, particularly on religious institutions that were against sexual relationships especially outside the confines of heterosexual marriage. It also gives clues on the likely political battles that will ensue (Goodstein and Liptak, 2015). In the aforementioned letter written to congressional leaders, married housing was one of the concerns identified by the officials. Other concerns included dating policies that were against gay relationships, along with questions concerning whether religious institutions would be forced to extend benefits to gay partners of their employees or face consequences. Legal scholars have noted that the scenario of religious charities and schools losing their tax-exempt classification was quite unlikely-particularly in the short-term. However, the scholars did not rule out that possibility, based on prior civil rights cases and the arguments during the Supreme Court case on gay marriages.

With the ruling made, in a certain context it can be thought that the Supreme Court has given finality on the issue of gay marriages. Again in the legal history of the nation, people across the political divide waited with baited breaths as the court took its time the same way it did when it ruled on a technicality on the issue of gay marriages in two decisions in 2013 (Archibald, 2014). That 2013 decision, however did nothing to settle the issue of whether gay partners have a constitutional right to marriage; however the decision did result in reinstating gay marriages in California, the nation's most populous state. The other decision, a landmark one struck out section three of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) and ruled that gay couples legally married under state legislature ought to have their unions or marriages recognized by federal law. This Supreme Court decision in the case of United States v. Windsor, changed the impact of over a thousand federal laws and affected the lives of thousands of gay couples or partners and their children nationwide (Archibald, 2014).

The language used in the United States v. Windsor decision was persuasive and not in any way combative. The court was aware that that decision would upset many people. Thus, it bent backwards and noted that marriage between man and woman is thought by a majority of the people to be key to the definition of the word itself and to its function and role throughout civilization (Archibald, 2014). The court then used a persuasive tone to explain why this position was not correct; it noted that the restriction of legal marriage to heterosexual partners came to be seen in many states as an unjust and unfair exclusion. The Supreme Court in its 2013 decision noted that states like New York had utilized essential and historic authority to define marital unions to incorporate gay couples. The Court noted that its decision bettered the dignity, protection, and recognition of gay couples in all kinds of marriages. The New York court's decision to allow gay marriages also sought to remove inequality.

The 2015 Supreme Court ruling will also bring in several kinds of change in public policies. For instance, it will improve health insurance among gay spouses as they could also have access to employer benefits schemes. The logic is pretty simple. Fewer than 50% of the employers who offer health benefits to the employees extend those benefits to same-sex spouses who are not married. Yet almost all of them offer insurance coverage to spouses. By getting married to partners who are covered under employer health schemes, individuals in gay relationships are very likely to get coverage even in states that had prohibited same-sex marriage up to now, in addition to those who had welcomed it. Courtesy of the quickly shifting legal ground, thirty seven states had recognized same sex marriages by the 2015 Supreme Court's ruling; this is up from 9 in 2012.