June, 26 2015, 10:15am EDT
Victory at Last: SCOTUS Rules for the Freedom to Marry Nationwide, Once and for All
WASHINGTON
Today, June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court issued a historic, sweeping ruling in favor of the freedom to marry in Obergefell v. Hodges. The unprecedented decision, decades in the making, will soon bring the freedom to marry to same-sex couples across the country, ending marriage discrimination once and for all. Follow our Live Blog HERE for up-to-the-minute updates on what's going on in the states.
Read the full ruling in Obergefell HERE.
The ruling means that same-sex couples throughout the entire nation will no longer be banned from the rights and responsibilities of marriage guaranteed by the Constitution.
Evan Wolfson, founder and president of Freedom to Marry, celebrated joyously with the thousands of Americans couples who will finally be able to share in the fundamental freedom to marry the person they love. He said:
Today's ruling is a transformative triumph decades in the making, a momentous victory for freedom, equality, inclusion, and above all, love. For anyone who ever doubted that we could bend the arc of the moral universe toward justice, today the United States again took a giant step toward the more perfect union we the people aspire to. Today the Liberty Bell rings alongside wedding bells across an ocean of joy.
With the ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, the justices affirmed what a super-majority of Americans had come to understand: the freedom to marry is a precious, fundamental right that belongs to all, and that same-sex couples and our families share the same dreams and needs as any others.
Freedom to Marry has long worked toward winning marriage nationwide, always with the ultimate goal of winning at the United States Supreme Court. The decision today was issued in cases brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, as well as local counsel from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. Learn about each of the cases here.
Freedom to Marry is the gay and non-gay partnership working to win marriage equality nationwide. Headed by Evan Wolfson, one of America's leading civil rights advocates and lawyers, Freedom to Marry brings new resources and a renewed context of urgency and opportunity to this social justice movement.
LATEST NEWS
Supreme Court Porn ID Ruling 'A Blow to Freedom of Speech and Privacy,' Says ACLU
"The legislature claims to be protecting children from sexually explicit materials, but the law will do little to block their access, and instead deters adults from viewing vast amounts of First Amendment-protected content," said Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the ACLU.
Jun 27, 2025
Free speech advocates are sounding the alarm after the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday upheld a Texas law requiring users to share personal identification to view adult material online.
The law, which mandates websites that host sexual content to require users to provide photo IDs or biometric scans to verify that they are over 18, was challenged by several adult websites and free speech organizations. They argued that it violated adult users' First Amendment rights.In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines siding with Texas, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion that the law "only incidentally burdens the protected speech of adults," and therefore did not require "strict scrutiny" from the Court.
But advocates for free speech and online security have warned that such laws—which have passed in 24 states—have the potential to be much more invasive, both to personal expression and privacy.
Following the ruling, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) decried the Court's decision as "a blow to freedom of speech and privacy."
"The Supreme Court has departed from decades of settled precedents that ensured that sweeping laws purportedly for the benefit of minors do not limit adults' access to First Amendment-protected materials," said Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the ACLU. "The legislature claims to be protecting children from sexually explicit materials, but the law will do little to block their access, and instead deters adults from viewing vast amounts of First Amendment-protected content."
The ACLU's concerns echoed those expressed in Justice Elena Kagan's dissenting opinion, in which she said the court should have applied "strict scrutiny," which would have required the bill to use the least restrictive means possible to meet its goal. Applying strict scrutiny is standard in cases involving content related restrictions on expression, and has been used in past cases related to obscenity.
"No one doubts that the distribution of sexually explicit speech to children, of the sort involved here, can cause great harm," she added. "But the First Amendment protects those sexually explicit materials, for every adult. So a state cannot target that expression, as Texas has here, any more than is necessary to prevent it from reaching children."
During oral arguments in January, Kagan warned of the potential "spillover danger" if the court were to weaken strict scrutiny for free expression cases.
"You relax strict scrutiny in one place," she said, "and all of a sudden, strict scrutiny gets relaxed in other places."
Friday's ruling comes as red states have introduced laws increasingly cracking down on public discussion of sex and gender.
These have included laws banning sexual education or the discussion of LGBTQ+ identities in schools, bans on books containing "divisive" topics including sex and gender, and bans on drag shows in public spaces. Many states have also introduced laws allowing parents to challenge books containing "divisive" concepts, including discussions of sexuality and LGBTQ+ identity.
On Friday, the Supreme Court also ruled on religious liberty grounds in favor of parents' rights to opt their children out from classes with storybooks involving LGBTQ+ characters.
"As it has been throughout history, pornography is once again the canary in the coal mine of free expression," said Alison Boden, executive director of the Free Speech Coalition, which was one of the plaintiffs in the Texas case.
Beyond burdening adults' free expression, critics warned that requiring photo identification poses a privacy risk to porn viewers.
The conservative justices defended the law as tantamount to others that require identification to access alcohol or to enter adults-only spaces. In his majority opinion, Thomas wrote that the law is "appropriately tailored because it permits users to verify their ages through the established methods of providing government-issued identification and sharing transactional data."
However, Kagan argued in her dissent that requiring photo ID for online activity is fundamentally different because the user has no idea if their identifying information is being tracked or logged.
"It is turning over information about yourself and your viewing habits—respecting speech many find repulsive—to a website operator, and then to… who knows?" she said.
Evan Greer, founder of the online privacy advocacy group Fight for the Future, wrote on BlueSky that the ruling bodes ill for internet privacy more generally.
"This is bad in a variety of ways that have nothing to do with porn and everything to do with expanding invasive surveillance of every single internet user, including all adults," Greer said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Just Killed, for Nothing': Israeli Troops Say They Were Ordered to Shoot Aid-Seeking Gaza Civilians
"Killing innocent people—it's been normalized," said one senior reserve officer. "We were constantly told there are no noncombatants in Gaza, and apparently that message sank in among the troops."
Jun 27, 2025
Israel Defense Forces commanders ordered troops to shoot and shell aid-seeking Palestinian civilians in Gaza, even when they posed no threat, according to IDF officers and soldiers interviewed by Israel's oldest daily newspaper.
Haaretz on Friday published testimonies of IDF members including senior officers who said that commanders including Brig. Gen. Yehuda Vach ordered troops to open fire on aid-seeking Palestinians in order to disperse them, even when there was no danger to Israeli troops.
"It's a killing field," one soldier said. "Where I was stationed, between one and five people were killed every day. They're treated like a hostile force—no crowd-control measures, no tear gas—just live fire with everything imaginable: heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, mortars. Then, once the center opens, the shooting stops, and they know they can approach. Our form of communication is gunfire."
The soldier said troops informally call this activity "Operation Salted Fish." Salted fish, or dag maluach in Hebrew, is an Israeli children's game similar to red light, green light. One IDF reservist who just finished a round of duty in Gaza this week said that "the loss of human life means nothing. It's not even an 'unfortunate incident,' like they used to say."
Last month, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification report revealed that 244,000 people in Gaza were suffering such "an extreme deprivation of food" that "starvation, death, destitution, and extremely critical levels of acute malnutrition are or will likely be evident." Gaza officials say at least hundreds of people have already died of malnutrition and lack of medical care since Israel tightened the siege in March. Many of the victims are children and elders. Hundreds of premature infants face imminent death.
Amid such desperation—driven by 629 days of U.S.-backed Israeli bombardment, invasion, and ethnic cleansing that have killed, wounded, or disappeared more than 200,000 Palestinians and forcibly displaced over 2 million—Gazans are willing to risk their lives for their next meal.
According to Gaza's Government Media Office, at least 549 Palestinians have been killed and more than 4,000 others have been wounded by IDF troops since May 27 while trying to obtain humanitarian aid amid Israel's "complete siege" of the Gaza Strip that has fueled mass starvation and illness. Dozens or more civilians have been killed in the worst of these aid massacres.
A reserve officer in Vach's Division 252—veterans of which have accused the general of telling them "there are no innocents in Gaza"—told Haaretz that he was ordered to fire artillery shells toward a crowd gathered near an aid distribution site.
"Technically, it's supposed to be warning fire—either to push people back or stop them from advancing," he said. "But lately, firing shells has just become standard practice. Every time we fire, there are casualties and deaths, and when someone asks why a shell is necessary, there's never a good answer. Sometimes, merely asking the question annoys the commanders."
"You know it's not right. You feel it's not right—that the commanders here are taking the law into their own hands," the soldier added. "But Gaza is a parallel universe. You move on quickly. The truth is, most people don't even stop to think about it."
A senior reserve officer who was present when more than 10 aid-seekers were killed said:
When we asked why they opened fire, we were told it was an order from above and that the civilians had posed a threat to the troops. I can say with certainty that the people were not close to the forces and did not endanger them. It was pointless—they were just killed, for nothing. This thing called killing innocent people—it's been normalized. We were constantly told there are no noncombatants in Gaza, and apparently that message sank in among the troops.
That message has come all the way from the top. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza, including murder and weaponized starvation—has invoked the biblical command for genocide against Israel's ancient enemy Amalek. Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said that the killing of every man, woman, and child in Gaza would be "justified and moral." Deputy Knesset Speaker Nissim Vaturi asserted that "there are no uninvolved people" in Gaza, and "we must go in there and kill, kill, kill." Many other prominent Israelis have made similar statements.
Israel's Military Advocate General has instructed the IDF General Staff's Fact-Finding Assessment Mechanism to investigate the killing of aid-seeking civilians as possible war crimes. However, the historical record suggests impunity—or at worst, wrist-slap punishment—will prevail for most if not all of those who ordered and carried out the shooting and shelling of civilians.
One military source who attended a high-level IDF meeting during which the use of artillery on aid-seekers was discussed told Haaretz that "they talk about using artillery on a junction full of civilians as if it's normal."
"An entire conversation about whether it's right or wrong to use artillery, without even asking why that weapon was needed in the first place," the source said. "What concerns everyone is whether it'll hurt our legitimacy to keep operating in Gaza. The moral aspect is practically nonexistent. No one stops to ask why dozens of civilians looking for food are being killed every day."
"This isn't about a few people being killed—we're talking about dozens of casualties every day."
A legal official who attended the meeting told Haaretz that representatives of the Military Advocate General's Office rejected the IDF's argument that aid killings were one-off incidents.
"The claim that these are isolated cases doesn't align with incidents in which grenades were dropped from the air and mortars and artillery were fired at civilians," the official said. "This isn't about a few people being killed—we're talking about dozens of casualties every day."
The near-daily massacres of aid-seeking Palestinian civilians by Israeli forces and Israel's use of the U.S.-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation—whose operations have been called a "death trap"—have drawn international condemnation.
Earlier this week, a spokesperson for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights said that "the weaponization of food for civilians... constitutes a war crime and, under certain circumstances, may constitute elements of other crimes under international law," remarks that came amid the ongoing genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz rejected the claims in the Haaretz report as "blood libels," while the IDF responded to the exposé in a statement claiming that "any allegation of a deviation from the law or IDF directives will be thoroughly examined, and further action will be taken as necessary."
"The allegations of deliberate fire toward civilians presented in the article are not recognized in the field," the IDF added.
IDF troops have previously admitted to witnessing alleged war crimes including indiscriminate murder of people including women and children in Gaza and torture, sometimes fatal, in Israeli detention centers including the notorious Sde Teiman prison.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Vicious Islamophobia': GOP Calls for Deportation of US Citizen Mamdani
Journalist Mehdi Hasan demanded "any leadership at all from the Democrats against brazen Islamophobia against their own presumptive mayoral candidate."
Jun 27, 2025
The victory of New York state lawmaker Zohran Mamdani in New York City's Democratic mayoral primary this week quickly ushered in what one progressive media outlet called "mask-off racism and fascism" from several Republicans in Congress, with U.S. Rep. Andy Ogles going as far as making an official request to the Trump administration for "denaturalization proceedings" for the U.S. citizen.
Mamdani would be the first Muslim mayor of the nation's largest city if he wins the general election in November—a fact that appears to have enraged the Tennessee Republican, who wrote to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to call for a federal investigation into rap lyrics Mamdani wrote before he became a naturalized citizen and began his political career.
Ogles pointed to the lyrics, "Free the Holy Land Five / My guys"—a reference to the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, a major Muslim charity that was shut down by the George W. Bush administration and designated a terrorist group after the September 11, 2001 attacks—even though it donated money to Palestinian charities that the U.S. government also supported.
Dozens of major U.S. and international rights organizations have also called for five philanthropists who worked for the Holy Land Foundation—who were sentenced to up to 65 years in prison even though they were not accused of directly funding terrorism—to be pardoned and released, but Ogles accused Mamdani of publicly glorifying "a group convicted of financing terrorism."
Ogles also pointed to Mamdani's refusal to condemn the phrase "globalize the intifada," which includes the Arabic word for "uprising" and is associated by supporters of the Israeli government with Hamas' violent attacks on Israel—but evidently not with Palestinians' numerous peaceful acts of protest against Israel's apartheid policies.
Mamdani said in a podcast interview before the primary election this week that the word intifada means "very different things" for different people, including "a desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights"—comments many New Yorkers who voted for him, including as many as 1 in 5 Jewish Democrats, according to some polls—appeared to agree with.
But Ogles claimed the remarks bolstered the case for Mamdani's denaturalization seven years after he became a U.S. citizen, and suggested without evidence that the New York state assemblymember "concealed relevant associations" when he applied for citizenship.
"Publicly praising the [Holy Land] Foundation's leadership as 'My Guys' raises serious concerns about whether Mr. Mamdani held affiliations or sympathies he failed to disclose during the naturalization process," Ogles claimed.
In a post on X announcing his request to Bondi, Ogles referred to Mamdani as "little muhammad" said, "He need to be deported."
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) posted on the social media platform X after Mamdani's victory that "we sadly have forgotten" the September 11 attacks, adding a photo of Mamdani wearing a traditional tunic with other Muslims at a gathering in New York.
She later posted a poll on her account, providing no justification or supporting evidence as she asked her more than 500,000 followers whether the Democratic mayoral candidate should be denaturalized and deported.
Journalist Mehdi Hasan of Zeteo pointed out that while both establishment Democratic and Republican lawmakers have joined the corporate media in lobbing accusations of antisemitism at progressive politicians and pro-Palestinian student protesters, they are "totally normalizing and amplifying the worst and most vicious Islamophobia."
"Will Rep. Hakeem Jeffries or Sen. Chuck Schumer be saying anything about this? Condemning it? Calling for a censure vote of Ogles? Any leadership at all from the Democrats against brazen Islamophobia against their own presumptive mayoral candidate?" asked Hasan, referring to the top Democrats in the House and Senate.
Democratic members of the House Homeland Security Committee denounced Ogles for spreading "racist drivel" and issued a reminder that Ogles "faked a $320,000 campaign loan" and "lied about being an economist," but at press time neither Schumer nor Jeffries—both New York Democrats—had publicly addressed the Republicans' attacks on the mayoral candidate and sitting lawmaker from their home state.
Another prominent Democrat in Mamdani's home state, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, appeared to align herself squarely with Republicans like Ogles—proclaiming on "The Brian Lehrer Show" that Mamdani had made references to "global jihad" and saying unequivocally that the phrase "globalize the intifada" is a call to "kill all the Jews."
Hasan was among those who said Gillibrand should "resign for falsely smearing Zohran Mamdani as a terrorist." A spokesperson for the senator later said she "misspoke" when using the phrase "global jihad"—a term Mamdani is not reported to have ever said. At press time Gillibrand herself had not publicly apologized for the remark.
In contrast to Democratic leaders' approach to Mamdani thus far, in November 2023, Palestinian-American Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) faced a censure vote that was supported by 22 House Democrats for expressing support for Palestinian rights and criticizing the Israeli government after a Hamas-led attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.
Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) said "egregious behavior" like that of Ogles "has gone unchecked for too long and will inevitably lead to more political violence."
"It's full-blown, dangerous Islamophobia and racism," said Ansari. "House Republican leadership must condemn it unequivocally and urgently. Enough."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular