Seneca Falls, Selma and Stonewall

I subscribe to the New York Times through email; which means that every morning I get an email with all of the day's headlines.  Even if I don't have time to read the articles in detail, I still get a sense of the day's news by browsing the stories and seeing what they are all about.  And then, if something really captures my eye I can click on the link and read the entire story.  After class this morning, I checked my email and scrolled down the the editorials in today's issue of the Times.  This headline caught my eye:  

Beyond Selma-to-Stonewall:  President Obama's elevating inaugural message on gay rights needs legal follow-through.

This is exactly what we were discussing in class today!  I can make the quick connection between Selma and Stonewall:  These are two important events in American history, both in the 1960s, where attacks on the civil rights of minority groups made headlines.  

And then it got me thinking, what kind of legal follow-through do the editors of the New York Times recommend?  What will Obama's role be in ensuring equality for LGBTQ Americans?  Was it just part of his Inauguration Day speech or is he going to make this issue central to this second term?

Here is the link:  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/opinion/beyond-mr-obamas-inaugural-message-on-gay-rights.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130128&_r=0

From what I read, I now know that the Supreme Court is hearing a case on marriage equality.  From what I can decipher, the constitutionality of California's ban on same-sex marriage is being tested.  

To put it simply, in 2008 Californians voted to support an amendment to their state constitution that defined marriage between a man and a woman.  This means that same-sex marriage became illegal in their state.  Now, the issue is being heard by the United States Supreme Court and it could have implications for marriage equality issues nationwide.

I love this article because it makes me think of federalism.  The states have the right to regulate marriage; but only to a certain extent.  The Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia in 1967 ruled that states cannot outlaw interracial marriage.  So yes, states can regulate marriage.  But no, states cannot go too far.

So I guess the question now is:  How far is too far?  Is Proposition 8 too far?  What can President Obama do to voice his support of marriage equality?  This editorial states that "he should have his solicitor general file a brief...saying that California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage in unconstitutional."  It seems like the editors at the Times want to build on Obama's message and hold him accountable. They highlight his stand on same-sex marriage and make it clear what they think the next step should be:

"Mr. Obama’s Inaugural Address appeared to reflect a deepened understanding that the right to marry the person of one’s choice is a fundamental right “under the law.” He needs to make sure his solicitor general conveys that sound legal view loud and clear in the Proposition 8 case."

I am looking forward to following this Supreme Court case more closely, not to mention whether or not the President uses the power of his own opinion to try to influence the court.