Q & A about Supreme Court's rulings on same-sex marriage
A: Wednesday's ruling does not affect the 37 states that ban gay marriage.
A: The ruling will bring federal recognition to more than 100,000 gays and lesbians who were legally married. The justices by a 5-4 vote said the federal law denying benefits to gay married couples was unconstitutional because it denied them equal protection of the laws.
Gay-rights groups hope that if enough states adopt laws allowing same-sex marriages, the Supreme Court will be willing to overturn the remaining statutes, much as it did in 1967 when it struck down laws that banned interracial marriages.
"This is far from over, I can tell you," said Chapman University law professor John Eastman, who supports the same-sex marriage ban.
Nationally, opponents of same-sex marriage will try to fight state by state and argue that the issue should be settled locally.
If normal procedures are followed, at that time the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco will be able to lift its stay on the original 2010 decision by U.S. District Judge Walker declaring Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional.
Gov. Brown on Wednesday ordered all 58 California counties to begin issuing marriage licenses "as soon as the 9th Circuit confirms the stay is lifted."
READER COMMENTS: 0
- U.S. says Islamic State video of journalist's killing is authentic - 0
- No paper on Monday; check UnionLeader.com for updated, breaking news - 0
- Concord attorney Leahy dies - 0
- Robin Williams’ ashes are scattered in San Francisco Bay - 0
- Syracuse, Iowa crowned top party schools - 0
- Parking fines cause disputes, raise revenues - 1
- Jon Cavaiani dies at 70; desperate stand in '71 led to Medal of Honor - 0
- Meriam Ibrahim, family welcomed as long journey ends in Manchester - 2
- Moose International files suit to claim Claremont lodge - 0
READER COMMENTS: 0
- Nashua man charged in domestic knife threat - 0
- Manchester man detained on Nashua rape charges involving child - 0
- Pair accused in Hampstead home invasion also face witness tampering charges - 0
- Gunman hits Circle K convenience store in Durham - 0
- Suicide car bomber kills 3 foreign troops in Afghan capital; Taliban claims responsibility - 0
- City officials to review proposed 'spice' ban - 0
- Widow of chiropractor killed this summer says fatal shooting was no accident - 0
- Manchester's Delana Curtis is left out in the cold - 0
- Another View -- Sharon Day: The Democrats' claim to be the party for women is just not believable - 8
DWI license revocations
Mexican man pleads guilty in international conspiracy to traffic hundreds of pounds of cocaine
Another View -- Sharon Day: The Democrats' claim to be the party for women is just not believable
Strategery: A war by any other name
Freeh dumb: Favoritism in Vt.?
Lawyer wants cellphone evidence thrown out
Deroy Murdock: Stuff the Obama lunch tax