# data[].attributes.body
New Jersey is trying to pass a law to protect marriage equality after anxiety of what could happen to LGBTQ rights. On December 9, the Judiciary Committee of the New Jersey Assembly passed a bill to codify, arrange (laws or rules) into a systematic code, the right of same-sex couples to get married in the state. This is supposed to easily pass the bill before the end of the year. There was a bill before, but it contained religious exemptions that LGBTQ advocates did not support. This allowed it not to pass. However, this new bill does not include religious exemptions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
New Jersey is working to quickly pass a law to protect marriage equality in the wake of increasing anxiety about what the Supreme Court's conservative supermajority could do to LGBTQ rights.

"We have talked about this a few times in the past with our legislative allies," Lauren Albrecht, policy consultant for Garden State Equality, told Gay City News. "We can never be sure about anything. When it comes to equal rights for our community, we can't leave it up for chance."
Related: Supreme Court judge says gay rights case proves vaccine mandate is illegal
On December 9, the Judiciary Committee of the New Jersey Assembly unanimously passed a bill to codify the right of same-sex couples to get married in the state. The state legislature is expected to easily pass the bill before the end of the year.

While marriage equality has been legal in the state since 2013, it was done so through a court ruling rather than a law. There was a bill proposed after the ruling, but it contained religious exemptions that LGBTQ advocates did not support. The bill never passed.

The new bill does not include any religious exemptions, according to Politico. A previous version of the bill included a section that said that no religious institution "shall be compelled to provide space, services, advantages, goods, or privileges related to" marriages they don't agree with.

Churches can already refuse to perform marriages they don't approve of, but removing that section of the bill is meant to mitigate any issues for LGBTQ couples in New Jersey should the Supreme Court overturn marriage equality.

Some Supreme Court justices have already voiced opposition to the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, which legalized marriage equality in all 50 states in 2015.

In 2020, Justice Clarence Thomas issued an opinion that repeatedly attacked the decision as unconstitutional because it "bypassed" the "democratic process" and causes people "with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage" to "find it increasingly difficult to participate in society."

Justice Samuel Alito joined Thomas in the opinion, which said that the only solution is to ban marriage equality again.

The ACLU's Chase Strangio noted on Twitter that it's unusual to see Supreme Court justices openly show their desire to overturn a five-year-old decision.

"The brazenness of the rightward direction of the Court is a threat to even the most basic expectation of legal protection," he tweeted.

And with six conservative-leaning justices on the Supreme Court, many believe LGBTQ rights now hang in the balance, especially with the court's indication that they may be willing to overturn Roe v. Wade and allow states to further restrict or even ban abortion in the recent case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

Legal experts say that reasoning similar to that in the Roe decision was used in Obergefell, which means if the justices are willing to overturn Roe, they may be willing to overturn another. Justice Sonia Sotomayor even accused a lawyer of "dissimulating" when he argued that banning abortion wouldn't affect LGBTQ rights.

LGBTQ advocate Sharon McGowen of Lambda Legal told Bloomberg Law that LGBTQ victories like Lawrence v. Texas (which ended state bans on gay sex in 2003) and Obergefell "were built on the foundation of Roe and Casey and the Court's other reproductive rights cases."

New Jersey State Senate President Steve Sweeney (D) expressed this sentiment to Politico when explaining the legislature's decision to get a marriage equality bill passed.

"If they can [potentially gut Roe v. Wade], same-sex marriage can be the next thing," Sweeney said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
New Jersey moves to protect marriage equality in case the Supreme Court ends it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New Jersey is working to quickly pass a law to protect marriage equality in the wake of increasing anxiety about what the Supreme Court's conservative supermajority could do to LGBTQ rights. "We have talked about this a few times in the past with our legislative allies," Lauren Albrecht, policy consultant for Garden State Equality, told Gay City News .

# data[].attributes.body
This book is by Jack Balkin. In this book Jack Balkin and other scholars are sitting as a hypothetical Supreme Court. They are rewriting Obergefell v. Hodges. In eleven opinions, the authors offers arguments for and against same sex marriage. They even write about how this case will affect the future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Jack Balkin and an all-star cast of legal scholars, sitting as a hypothetical Supreme Court, rewrite the famous 2015 opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, which guaranteed same-sex couples the right to marry. In eleven incisive opinions, the authors offer the best constitutional arguments for and against the right to same-sex marriage, and debate what Obergefell should mean for the future.

In addition to serving as Chief Justice of this imaginary court, Balkin provides a critical introduction to the case. He recounts the story of the gay rights litigation that led to Obergefell, and he explains how courts respond to political mobilizations for new rights claims. The social movement for gay rights and marriage equality is a powerful example of how-through legal imagination and political struggle-arguments once dismissed as "off-the-wall" can later become established in American constitutional law.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision [Balkin, Jack M.] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision

# data[].attributes.body
In this cartoon, there is a giant wedding cake with "Gay Marriage" imprinted on it. There is a hand with "Supreme Court" on the sleeve taking a slice of the cake with the word "gay" on it. There is a text bubble that reads "You no longer need this qualifying piece". I think that the bias in this political cartoon is for same sex marriage. It is saying that at the end of the day, gay marriage is marriage.

# data[].attributes.body
In this cartoon, there is two men holding hands in front of a bakery with a sign saying "WEDDING CAKES SOLD OUT". Next to them is a sign saying that same sex marriages have been legalized. This cartoon is depicting that with same sex marriages legalized, more people are now getting married causing a decline in the amount of wedding cakes available. The bias in this cartoon is pro-same sex marriage.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Explanation of the Supreme Court by Dustin DeWitt

# data[].attributes.subject
The Explanation of the Supreme Court by Dustin DeWitt

# data[].attributes.body
If the Supreme Court could be one super hero, which one would it be?
I think the Supreme court would be someone like Captain America. He doesn't have crazy super powers, yet he is super important. The supreme court doesn't have crazy powers, yet it can decide the fate of our whole country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Copy of An Explanation of the Supreme Court