Before Same-Sex Marriage Was U.S. Law, They Said ‘I Do' in Massachusetts
On Thursday, 10 years will have passed since the U.S. Supreme Court established same-sex marriage as a right guaranteed under the Constitution.
But many of the tens of thousands of American L.G.B.T.Q. couples who have wed in the decade since might never have exchanged vows if it hadn't been for seven couples who sued the State of Massachusetts in 2001 after they were denied marriage licenses.
The state's high court ruled in their favor in November 2003, and six months later, hundreds of gay couples descended on churches and synagogues and town halls across Massachusetts to make their unions official. As they did so, they were helping to set in motion a period of profound change.
By the time the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015, that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage, 37 states and the District of Columbia already allowed it and public opinion was moving swiftly toward acceptance.
Today, though, the picture is more complicated. Last month, a Gallup survey found that while 68 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage, approval among Republicans had slipped to 41 percent after peaking at 55 percent in 2021 and 2022. And the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling that a right to abortion could not be found in the Constitution raised fears among many supporters of same-sex marriage that the court could overturn the Obergefell decision on similar grounds.
Those who said 'I do' in Massachusetts on May 17, 2004, were among the first same-sex couples to be legally married in the United States. (The marriages of thousands of couples who were issued marriage licenses in San Francisco earlier that year were later voided by the California Supreme Court.)
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
8 minutes ago
- Fox News
SCOOP: Blue state Republican could oppose Trump tax bill over Medicaid changes
FIRST ON FOX: A House Republican representing part of Southern California will oppose President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" if it returns to her chamber without the House's original language on Medicaid, a source familiar with her thinking told Fox News Digital. Rep. Young Kim, R-Calif., is one of several moderates who are uneasy on Saturday after the Senate released updated text of the massive bill advancing Trump's agenda on tax, immigration, defense, energy, and the national debt. Two other sources told Fox News Digital that as many as 20 to 30 moderate Republicans are reaching out to Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., with serious concerns about the Senate's bill. The source familiar with Kim's thinking said, "As she's said throughout this process, 'I will continue to make clear that a budget resolution that does not protect vital Medicaid services for the most vulnerable, provide tax relief for small businesses, and address the cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions will not receive my vote.'" The Senate released the nearly 1,000-page bill minutes before midnight on Friday night. It makes some notable modifications to the House's version of the bill – which passed that chamber by just one vote in May – particularly on Medicaid and green energy credits. Among their issues is the difference in provider tax rates and state-directed payments, both of which states use to help fund their share of Medicaid costs. Whereas the House bill called for freezing provider taxes at their current rates and blocking new ones from being implemented, the Senate's bill went a step further – forcing states to gradually phase down their provider tax rates to 3.5%, if they adopted the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) Medicaid expansion. That would include 40 states and Washington, D.C. The Senate's most recent bill text shows that phase-down happening between 2028 and 2032. Sixteen House GOP moderates wrote a letter to congressional leaders sounding the alarm on those Medicaid provisions earlier this week. They said it "undermines the balanced approach taken to craft the Medicaid provisions in H.R. 1—particularly regarding provider taxes and state-directed payments." "The Senate version treats expansion and non-expansion states unfairly, fails to preserve existing state programs, and imposes stricter limits that do not give hospitals sufficient time to adjust to new budgetary constraints or to identify alternative funding sources," the letter read. To offset Senate Republicans' concerns about their chamber's proposed limits on state-directed payments and provider tax rates, the Senate Finance Committee included a $25 billion rural hospital fund in their legislation. It was enough to sway Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., who told reporters on Saturday that he would support the bill after expressing earlier concern about the Medicaid provisions' impact on rural hospitals. But in the House, sources are signaling to Fox News Digital that moderate Republicans could still need convincing if the bill passes the Senate this weekend. It could pose problems for House GOP leaders given their thin three-vote majority, though it's worth noting that the legislation could still change before it reaches the lower chamber. But one senior House GOP aide told Fox News Digital they believe the moderates will ultimately fall in line, even if the text doesn't change. "Moderate Republicans can plead and beg with House leadership all they want – the reforms to Medicaid made in the Senate are here to stay," the senior aide said. "And ultimately, these lawmakers will roll over and vote for the 'Big, Beautiful Bill' because the wrath of President Trump is far worse than a lower provider tax." Fox News Digital reached out to Speaker Mike Johnson's office for comment. For his part, Johnson, R-La., has publicly urged the Senate on multiple occasions to change the bill as little as possible – given the fragile unity that must be struck in the House to pass it.
New York Times
9 minutes ago
- New York Times
Republicans Lavish Alaska With Benefits in Policy Bill, Grasping for a Key Vote
When Senate Republicans released the latest version of their sprawling domestic policy package in the wee hours of Saturday morning, it contained a number of new provisions that might have seemed out of place — including a measure aimed at helping Alaskan whaling captains. But the seemingly random items were anything but arbitrary; they appeared to be aimed at winning the support of a critical Republican holdout whose vote could make or break the measure: Senator Lisa Murkowski. Ms. Murkowski has made no secret of her problems with her party's bill and the harm she believes it could bring to her state. Chief among her concerns were new work requirements for Medicaid recipients and a provision that would require states to pay for a share of nutrition assistance payments currently paid entirely by the federal government. 'I want to try to do what we can to address certain aspects of our entitlement spending,' Ms. Murkowski said in an interview last weekend on CBS. 'We've got to do that. But doing it with the most vulnerable bearing the brunt of that is not the answer.' As G.O.P. leaders scrounged on Saturday for the votes to pass the legislation, they seem to have addressed many of her concerns, insulating Ms. Murkowski's state from some of its most painful cuts while including an assortment of other Alaska-friendly provisions in the bill. The latest version, which leaders hoped to begin voting on as early as Saturday afternoon, would provide a new tax exemption to fishers from villages in western Alaska. There is now an exemption from new work requirements for food assistance. And several provisions have been added that would funnel federal dollars to Alaskan health care providers. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Times
12 minutes ago
- New York Times
Chief Justice Urges Political Leaders to Tone Down Rhetoric
On the day after the Supreme Court issued a decision that sharply curtailed the power of federal judges to block Trump administration policies, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. spoke before a hotel ballroom filled with them. He didn't say a word about it. The chief justice on Saturday gave a public interview with Judge Albert Diaz, the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, at a judicial conference in Charlotte attended by lower court judges who will be expected to parse and follow the Supreme Court's directive limiting their ability to block executive branch policies nationwide. During the discussion, the chief justice hinted at the stress of the end of the court's term, which concluded on Friday, a time that he described as 'a lot of sharp division and some sharp adjectives.' During its last session of the term, the justices released six major opinions, including one that found lower court judges had most likely exceeded their authority by repeatedly issuing nationwide injunctions, powerful judicial tools that block an executive action not just for the parties in a case but for the whole country. Legal experts say the ruling will create complex new questions for lower court judges, as they sort out how to deal with executive actions they believe they may violate the law. But the chief justice was not asked for — and did not volunteer — any guidance or thoughts on the role of the federal judges who have been flooded with legal challenges to Trump administration policies. He did urge political leaders to limit heated rhetoric about judges. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
