On June 26^th, the Supreme Court of the United Stated handed down its landmark decision on the Obergefell v. Hodges case, declaring marriage a fundamental right granted by the U.S. Constitution and effectively making same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states. It was a big week for the nation, with the highest court in the land deciding on legislation regarding the definition of marriage, the legality of the Affordable Care Act, the death penalty, and even what kinds of graphics can be displayed on Texan license plates. Largely seen as the civil rights movement of the current generation, a sentiment notoriously voiced by Vice President Joseph Biden soon after the Supreme Court decision, the legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States had immediate consequences nationwide and around the world. As many predicted, whatever the Supreme Court were to decide on that fateful Friday regarding the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, it would cause a ripple effect with both negative and positive outcomes.         

The Obergefell v. Hodges case reached the Supreme Court after a circuit split, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (based in Cincinnati, OH), ruled to uphold the ban on same-sex marriage, thus reversing the decisions previously made in federal district courts and four other circuit courts, and effectively forcing the Supreme Court to review the case upon appeals by the plaintiffs.

Subtle rumors that the Sixth Circuit Court had purposefully ruled to uphold same-sex marriage bans in order to force the hand of the Supreme Court quickly surfaced. This was fueled in part by Judge Martha C. Daughtrey, the sole dissent in the 2-1 vote of the Sixth Circuit Court decision, who wrote that this may have in fact been the majority’s ulterior motive because the “correct result” of the court’s ruling should be sufficiently “obvious.” These occurrences highlight some important factors: that the issue of same-sex marriage, some believed, should have been left for the states to decide as a matter of marriage laws, not civil rights; and that there may have been enough misinformation and chaos among state marriage laws that it was necessary for the Supreme Court to intervene and render a decision in lieu of, among other things, the changing views and opinions on same-sex marriage.

The first immediate results of the Obergefell case came from within the mainland itself. At least two states, Louisiana and Mississippi, said they would not issue any same-sex marriage licenses while they awaited formal legal mandates (Supreme Court rulings may take up to 25 days to go into effect). Other pockets of resistance followed suit throughout the nation. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton was eventually found in contempt of court for initially refusing, albeit eventually agreeing, to reflect the marriage of a gay couple on a death certificate and advising county clerks that they could refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses on the grounds of religious belief. That latter dispute came under special scrutiny, as many scholars predicted it would happen, after a few county clerks did refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses on the grounds that it violated their religious beliefs.

This was particularly exemplified by the case of Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis, which gained wide national media attention. After her refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses, Ms. Davis was found in contempt and eventually jailed for at least five days. Some presidential candidates at the time, including Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz, made public appearances supporting Ms. Davis’ decision not to supply marriage licenses. Upon her release from prison, Ms. Davis would still not issue them, but allowed her staff to do so in order to comply with the court’s decision. Whether these licenses, which do not bear her signature, hold any validity remains to be seen.

Another county clerk, Joyce Lewis-Kugle of Rusk County, Texas, resigned her post over the Supreme Court decision. As of October 2, at least 10 counties in Alabama, 2 in Kentucky, and 1 in Texas were still refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, though no legal action had been brought against them at the time.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court decision on the Obergefell case came at an opportune time for LGBT and their allies throughout the nation. It corresponded with the second anniversary of the U.S. v. Windsor case, another landmark ruling that struck down sections of the Defense of Marriage Act and had a direct effect on the Obergefell case, and the 12^th anniversary of the Lawrence v. Texas decision, which struck down sodomy acts in 13 states. The decision also came at the heels of Pride festivities throughout the nation, most notably the San Francisco and New York City Pride celebrations, two of the biggest in the world, which commemorate what most consider the beginning of the gay rights movement: the Stonewall riots. These celebrations and the Supreme Court’s decision reverberated throughout the world, and many are anticipating what its consequences will be on the international stage.

In Colombia, for example, LGBT activists looked at the Supreme Court’s decision as an important precedent, as the Colombian High Court was scheduled to hear arguments on the matter a month later. In regards to the Obergefell decision, the Colombian federal government made public announcements in favor of marriage equality through its Interior Minister Juan Fernando Cristo. Even though same-sex marriage is technically allowed in Colombia, its principles and validity are tricky.

In 2011, the South American country’s Constitutional Court recognized same-sex couples as families and ordered the Colombian congress to pass a law that would afford same-sex couples the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual couples within two years. Congress complied, but the language of the law is so vague that the actual definition of same-sex marriage as equivalent to heterosexual marriage is virtually nonexistent.

As such, gay couples may enter into “solemn contracts,” while some judges are actually officiating same-sex weddings at their own discretion and understanding of the law. Meanwhile, in the two years that it took the Colombian congress to enact this law, many same-sex couples registered as married based on the Constitutional Court’s decision, and the legitimacy of their unions is now in question. The case that has been brought up to the Colombian High Court challenges these discrepancies and demands that same-sex marriage is made indisputably legal. Should it fail, the case is slated to be brought to the Inter-American Court for Human Rights, whose rulings affects all of South America and looks at other nations’ precedents when making a decision, such as the one the Supreme Court handed down. Colombian LGBT activists remain hopeful, and the High Court should be coming to a decision in the next few weeks.

Somewhat similarly, courts in Europe took notice. A month after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) rebuked Italy for its failure to provide gay couples with any legal recognition of their unions, and ordered the Italian government to pay damages to at least three same-sex couples who brought their cases to the court. This is a stark reversal for the ECHR, which only a year before had decided that European human rights did not require countries to extend the right of marriage to gay couples in a similar case that hailed from Finland. While the ECHR may not enact laws for individual countries, this decision does mark a sort of platform that may eventually lead to European nations to adopt some form of recognition for same-sex couples. The court said that it took into account the recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court when makings its ruling, and many expect that Italy, along with other Western European countries such as Germany, will be next in line to take steps into the matter of gay unions. 

The Supreme Court decision also had effects on the other side of the world. Immediately after the Supreme Court made its ruling, media outlets in Australia reported on the outpour of support for the Oceanian country to make a comparable move. Members of the Green Party (the U.S. equivalent of the Democratic Party) were calling for similar measures to be taken up, and said that it was almost inevitable for the issue of same-sex marriage to be on the agenda for a vote later this fiscal year. The then Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, in contrast, said that what “happens in the United States is obviously a matter for the United States,” mirroring his comments on the then recent voter-enacted decision to legalize same-sex marriage in Ireland (which was widely seen as a major political victory for LGBT activists, given Ireland  ‘s  strong Catholic roots). That same-sex marriage may be back on the table of Australian legislature is already a big step.

In 2013, only a few months after Prime Minister Abbott of the Liberal Party which, despite its name, is a center-right political party in Australia (similar to the Republican party in the Unites States), took his post, its government challenged a newly passed act that would have allowed same-sex couples to legally marry. By the end of that same year, the High Court of Australia successfully dismantled that Marriage Equality Act as, it argued, it would go against a Federal Marriage Act enacted in 1961. A congressional vote on same-sex marriage is scheduled to happen within the next year, and whereas the newly elected Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull will challenge it as did his predecessor, remains to be seen.

Interestingly, this is the same principle that the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals used when it caused the circuit split that brought the Obergefell case to the Supreme Court. The Sixth Circuit Court argued that striking down same-sex marriage bans would go against a precedent set by the Supreme Court in 1971 when it refused to take up a case, Baker v. Nelson, regarding a same-sex marriage license for “want of a substantial federal question.” While not legally binding, the Supreme Court’s dismissal did constitute a decision on the merits of the case and established a precedent for lower courts. The case thus became the first relating to same sex-marriage to almost reach the Supreme Court, and a direct catalyst half a century later for the decision that made same-sex marriage legal in all of the United States.

Meanwhile, American LGBT activists look towards the next goals. Only 20 countries around the word recognize same-sex marriage, the United States being the latest nation to join the list (the first was The Netherlands in 2000; in Mexico, it is legal only in some jurisdictions). Most countries still criminalize homosexual activities, some with lengthy jail time and even death. With Freedom to Marry, an organization that was heavily involved in the same-sex marriage advocacy in the United States, shutting down for good, activists are focusing on securing more protections for LGBT in the American legislature, and working on making same-sex marriage legal throughout the world.   

Author Bio:

Angelo Franco is Highbrow Magazine’s chief features writer.