Election
Kamala Harris talks threats to marriage equality with Howard Stern
SiriusXM
It's one of the few mentions of LGBTQ+ issues on the campaign trail.
October 10 2024 7:04 PM EST
October 10 2024 7:04 PM EST
trudestress
By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Private Policy and Terms of Use.
It's one of the few mentions of LGBTQ+ issues on the campaign trail.
In one of the few mentions of LGBTQ+ rights on the presidential campaign trail this year, Democratic nominee Kamala Harris discussed her support for marriage equality — and the need to be aware of threats to it — in an interview Tuesday on The Howard Stern Show.
Stern brought up the threats, and Harris noted that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said he was ready to overturnObergefell v. Hodges, the court’s 2015 marriage equality ruling, after the justices overturned Roe v. Wadetwo years ago. That would take a case getting to the court, but the threat is there, especially if Donald Trump is elected president and has the opportunity to appoint additional conservative justices.
The vice president talked about her longtime support for equal marriage rights. “I actually was proud to perform some of the first same-sex marriages as an elected official in 2004,” Harris said. That was when she was San Francisco district attorney, and then-Mayor Gavin Newsom declared same-sex marriage legal in the city. The marriages were later nullified.
- YouTubewww.youtube.com
“A lot of people have evolved since then. … Here’s how I think about it: We actually had laws that were treating people based on their sexual orientation differently,” she continued.
“So if you’re a gay couple, you can’t get married. We were basically saying that you are a second-class citizen under the law, not entitled to the same rights as a couple.”
At least two seats on the Supreme Court may come open in the next few years, and if Trump is president, he would undoubtedly appoint justices who oppose marriage equality, Harris noted. So his effect would be felt not just for four years but for 40, as Supreme Court justices have lifetime terms, she said. It would be a court committed not to expanding rights but to limiting them, she added.
Watch a clip above or the full interview below.
- YouTubewww.youtube.com