Tweets by @Stanford_Daily

Learn about both the difficulties and the resources that come with being a student athlete at Stanford. https://t.co/3RNId2OPnx: 7 hours ago, The Stanford Daily
Stanford Daily headlines: 12/10/2015 - https://t.co/DpwHR3f97N: 13 hours ago, The Stanford Daily
Stanford Daily headlines: 12/9/2015 - https://t.co/iwgZnRpCim: 2 days ago, The Stanford Daily
Stanford Daily headlines: 12/8/2015 - https://t.co/vrx5bGAhd9: 3 days ago, The Stanford Daily
Stanford Daily headlines: 12/7/2015 - https://t.co/ip2j6mBm91: 4 days ago, The Stanford Daily
Stanford Daily headlines: 12/4/2015 - https://t.co/WofW7yq7Z1: 7 days ago, The Stanford Daily
Stanford Daily headlines: 12/3/2015 - https://t.co/JdWMKeKTZw: 1 week ago, The Stanford Daily
Read the first full account detailing the events leading up to SAE's removal from campus last year. https://t.co/UKRTIymXPd: 1 week ago, The Stanford Daily
Stanford Daily headlines: 12/2/2015 - https://t.co/pjgr3Ey7R3: 1 week ago, The Stanford Daily
Stanford Daily headlines: 12/1/2015 - https://t.co/HgZ0UbHN1d: 1 week ago, The Stanford Daily

Morrison delivers marriage equality speech at Supreme Court

Rebecca Aydin

Staff Writer

By: Rebecca Aydin | Staff Writer

Kinsey Morrison '18 spoke at rally before the Supreme Court hearing on marriage equality. (Courtesy of Kinsey Morrison)

Kinsey Morrison ’18 spoke at rally before the Supreme Court
hearing on marriage equality. (Courtesy of Kinsey Morrison)

Kinsey Morrison ’18 was the youngest speaker at a rally on the steps of the Supreme Court on April 28, preceding a hearing of oral arguments over the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans.

The Family Equality Council (FEC)—which links and provides support for LGBTQ parents and their children around the country—asked Morrison to deliver a speech after approaching her to sign their amicus brief. As an amicus signer, Morrison was able to include her full name on the document that told the stories of the FEC’s Outspoken Generation program members, many of whom are children of LGBTQ parents under the age of 18 and therefore could only use their initials. The brief was sent to the Supreme Court in March in order to garner support for same-sex marriage from the justices.

“Just knowing that was a moment I would remember forever was just incredible,” Morrison said about delivering her speech, “but it was definitely shocking to see the amount of hatred.”

She describes being heckled by the opposition, which placed its podium a mere 10 feet away from her, chanting lyrics to popular songs and bible verses that had been twisted into anti-gay slurs.

The FEC initially approached Morrison, the daughter of a lesbian couple who is active in the fight for marriage equality, after finding her video “Sanctity” online. The film, made by Morrison and her two sisters this past winter, tells her family’s story and shows viewers how her mothers—a devoted couple of 24 years—only strengthen the sanctity of marriage, not threaten it. In her speech in front of the Supreme Court, she credits her mothers with “[teaching] me the power of my voice, and also the price of my silence. Today I refuse to be silent.”

Morrison is optimistic about how both the FEC’s work and the potential ruling in favor of gay marriage by the Supreme Court will impact the six million children of LGBTQ parents living in the United States, such as herself. 

“I think that it’s a really hopeful and incredible thing that the next generation of kids with LGBTQ parents really might never live in a world where they feel like they might have to come out about their family, and they feel like they have to hide it, whereas my generation definitely did,” Morrison said.

Religion plays a significant role in both Morrison’s identity and her fight for marriage equality. A self-described “conservative Christian,” she has found herself identifying as more progressive since coming to Stanford.

“I’ve spent my entire life judging my life by how well I can sell it to straight, white conservative Christians in Kentucky,” said Morrison. Now, she is concentrating on her “evolution from trying to prove ‘I’m just like you’ to ‘I should be treated with love and respect even if I’m not just like you.’”

Thirteen states currently have same sex-marriage bans. The Supreme Court met in order to review cases that concern bans in just four of those states: Tennessee, Michigan, Ohio and Kentucky. However, the 14th Amendment of the Constitution says that no state can “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” If the decision finds that the amendment has been violated by forbidding LGBTQ citizens from marrying, the ban may be lifted in all states.

Morrison now awaits the announcement of the Supreme Court’s decision in June, in which Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy are expected to be the swing votes. She believes the decision will be remembered as one of the largest decisions in her lifetime and in American history.

“[Marriage is] one of the last…fundamental rights that is still barred from huge group of people,” Morrison said. “To move into the next century where we’re working more on lived equality and less on legal equality…this is the last domino to fall.”


Contact Rebecca Aydin at raydin ‘at’ stanford.edu.

Tagged with:

About Rebecca Aydin

Rebecca Aydin '18 is a staff writer covering University and local news. A New York City native, Rebecca’s academic interests include English and film. To contact Rebecca, email her at raydin 'at' stanford.edu.
  • OldBut YoungMoney

    This is going to seem like a rant, but one man’s rant is another man’s truth:

    What a disgusting human being. These people are going die some day. And when they do, I can’t wait to see how they tell God to his face that he was wrong. Moreover, can somebody tell me what the heck is going on here? My God America has gone to heck. I mean how can anyone tell me it’s right to impose homosexual “marriage” upon a society? Especially against the will of the GOVERNED?? What about the consent of the governed? Some one please PLEASE tell me how it’s ok to usurp the states 10 amendment rights or our vote, meaningless now, to define marriage and some one PLEASE tell me how it is ok to force people to pay into, contribute, and actually reward a relationship that serves no purpose in society? Because when people who commit the acts of homosexuality get married what happens? They get benefits and are rewarded. And who gives them those benefits and rewards them? The government. And who is the government? The people. And that includes people like me, my friends, and my fellow Church goers who oppose homosexual “marriage” and will do so until we die. So how is it ok to force us to actually reward and basically subsidize that meaningless twisted backwards ungodly relationship? And can someone please tell me, wtf is going on that these homosexual couples are getting a tax break for like nothing? Why are we giving homosexual couples a tax break allowing them to basically cheat the system and for what? Most marriages get tax breaks and other benefits because they freaking need those benefits to be able to afford to take care of their family with children. So why in the hell are we just handing them a tax break for like NOTHING? Hell, people might as well just marry whoever now not for any reason, just to get the tax break and benefits, and then they can just break off the “marriage” whenever they want when they don’t need to reap it’s non earned non deserved easy to cheat the system benefits. And ALLEGID CHRISTIANS WHAT THE HECK IS WRONG WITH YOU??? YOU KNOW GOD FORBIDS HOMOSEXUALITY, WHY ARE YOU WILLFULLY DEFYING THE FATHER??? Apparently like 70% of America is Christian so what the heck. America is doomed, it’s no wonder as soon as the morals die so does our economy our dollar and now we have this massive debt and a destabilized foreign policy and shrinking military. Ugg, and I, a future college student, am going to have to grow up in a society that puts Christ in a jar of piss and calls that art.

  • Vincent Campanale

    For a curt reply to your comment,
    First off the state is supposed to be separated from religion
    Sources:The constitution, the first amendment, and the treaty of tripoli
    Secondly, the goal of a state is to represent the will of the majority, but also to protect the rights of the minority, and even if the will of majority is more important than the right of the minority, more than 60% of americans approve of same sex marriage.
    Lastly on a tangent, the mention of the military, the budget for thats going up, and our massive debt is mostly do to America’s most religious president who put into place tax cuts for the rich.
    P.S. Imposing same Sex Marriage? Don’t you mean granting EQUAL RIGHTS to people who have otherwise been discriminated against
    P.S.S. Good Mention of Piss Christ, by the way, but could you also recall how christian terrorist destroyed it?

  • OldBut YoungMoney

    Uhh that’s actually wrong, on all accounts. First off, the state doesn’t have to be separated from religion. The phrase separation between church and state is found nowhere in the constitution. In fact, that phrase was found in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Bishop from Rome. So when the constitution says that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, than that means religion is to be left to the states to decide. In fact, that’s how it was for decades until recently. You must know that, so to say what you said about that is just misleading and dishonest or ignorant. Everyone knows, religion used to be a big center piece of society until recently under the virtually the same constitution we have now, in respect to religion. Furthermore, considering marriage is found nowhere in the constitution, you should know that powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the STATES respectively, or the PEOPLE. That means considering marriage is found nowhere in the constitution the states have the power to define marriage. In fact, technically, the federal government can determine marriage as well and did for long a time until the recent wave of activist judges came about. Moreover, we already have limits on marriage like age, how many people can be in a marriage, what benefits and rewards they get, tax breaks, and more. So to tell us we can’t make marriage what we want is unconstitutional and arbitrary. Also, that 60% statistic is complete propaganda. I mean what are you taking polls from? NBC lol? Because I can name very recent polls that would contradict that claim vastly.
    Furthermore, what in the hell are you talking about? The smaller military = Obama’s fault. A massive take off in deficit = Obama’s fault. Massive debt = definitely Obama’s fault. And idk what a presidents religion has to do with anything when it comes to taxes lol… Technically Obama is Christian too so… even though I don’t buy that for a minute. And actually, no, his tax cut reached the middle class as well, especially income tax. But, he was also a RINO Bush was so…
    Moreover, furthermore, equal rights? Wtf are you talking about? What are you trying to say this is like the civil rights movement like with African Americans lmfao? That’s ridiculous.
    And I can’t account for piss Christ attacks, but I am not surprised. In fact, I am not surprised that pig wasn’t hunted down for his actions by that group. Not saying I condone the attack, but I can’t say I am not surprised.

  • Vincent Campanale

    Article Six of the United States Constitution provides that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States”.

    The first amendment to the US Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”

    The Treaty of Tripoli states “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”

    Just because something used to have a big place in society, doesn’t mean it isn’t unconstitutional (refusing customers on the basis of race)

    Powers not found in the constitution are up to the states to decide, that much is true,so long a it is constitutional, with most state supreme courts have found laws banning marriage equality to be unconstitutional.

    The states have been found that they can’t set unfair restrictions(no interracial marriages)

    Yes, this is exactly like the civil rights movement. We are talking about a persecuted(murdered, abused tortured) minority that lacks fundamental rights(marriage, protections from discrimination) that is seeking to gain these protections through peaceful protesting.

  • OldBut YoungMoney

    Well firstly, idk why you keep bringing religion into this to fight my argument. I didn’t use religion one time with respect to my argument. Furthermore, ik what the first amendment says, I just went over that. It says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” yes, and then if you keep reading it says in the 10th amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”. Which is why the states respected established religion in many respects for 150+ years until fairly recently.

  • OldBut YoungMoney

    Well firstly, idk why you keep bringing religion into this to dispute my argument. I haven’t used religion one time in respect to my argument.

    I mean you’re bringing up Article Six, “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States” and that doesn’t even have anything to with this discussion. Article Six is dealing with the requirements of government officials being able to obtain office. So I don’t even know why you’re bringing this up.

    Furthermore, I know what the first amendment says, I just went over that. It says “CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” yes, and then if you keep reading it says in the 10th amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”. Which is why the states were able to respect established religion in many respects for 150+ years until fairly recently. I mean don’t you see how it makes a distinction between the United States = federal government, and the States = state government. Just because Hugo Black a known KKK member wrote the non dissenting majority opinion claiming that also applies to the states for like no reason doesn’t mean what he says is right. I mean if you look at the dissenting arguments in that case, they are far more compelling than the because I says so argument Hugo Black made.

    Moreover, who said anything about this country being founded upon religion? Why do you keep going off topic specifically attacking religion, specifically Christianity? I made no mention of those as my argument against this manner, yet you’re just bringing it up out of nowhere. Furthermore, the Treaty Tripoli is a treaty, it’s not apart of the constitution and we are talking about the constitution. And yeah so we should trust John Adams? Isn’t that the same guy who enforced the alien and sedition acts, which are highly unconstitutional?

    And funny how you brought up that, oh well now that more people want same sex marriage it should be legal now. Yeah, well I think the founding fathers would differ from you on that one, especially when Thomas Jefferson said and I quote, “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine”. Hm… seems to be what is happening with same sex “marriage”, not that it’s possible, a slight majority is stripping all the rights of the other states based on zero changes to the constitution, just popular opinion. I mean the only argument that you guys even remotely bring up is the 14th amendment, known as one of the civil war amendments seeing as it was drafted after the civil war lol and that is such a bs claim that it isn’t even funny. Those who drafted the 14th amendment would want to have you thrown in prison if you argued that way.

    Not only that, but when you say that the circuit courts are all of the sudden declaring bans on same sex “marriage” as unconstitutional you forget to mention that the reason this is happening is because democrats control 9 of the 13 circuit level courts now in America. Due primarily to Harry Reid a slim ball passing the nuclear option allowing for a simple majority to pass judicial nominees while suspending the filibuster thus stacking the courts in the democrats favor. The only reason the courts are ruling it this way is because they are stacked and will turn on a dime with their democrat party masters who before 2012 did not support same sex “marriage”. Look here, the courts are stacked highly in favor of the democrats, and almost all of the courts that ruled the bans unconstitutional were democrat only with exception to I think one court which is independent, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2014/05/29/obama-judges-tip-appeals-courts-to-democrats/.

    And, assuming you are probably a person who commits homosexuality yourself, did you just compare yourself to a race? That is so absurd. You’re just like me, it’s just the only difference between us is your desires and genitalia and what you do with your genitalia. It’s your actions that separate you from me. You’re not special. Furthermore, to equate your desires and genitals and what you do with your genitals to the civil rights movement is disgusting. You cannot act and feel black, for example, you can’t have black desires, you can’t commit blackness, but you can act and feel homosexual, you can have homosexual desires, you can commit homosexuality and the fact that you even brought up race in accordance to your desires and genitalia and what you do with your genitalia is messed up, you seriously need to rethink what you just said. Because the comparison you are making is a sheer mockery of the true civil rights movement.

  • Vincent Campanale

    Your stupidity is starting to hurt me, but I feel I must mention just a few things, so you believe it should be a right to discriminate against people based on the way their born? Yes, the civil rights movement is just like the current move for equality for the LGBTQ communitty, due to it being a matter of how people are born, and what they cannot change. And a mention of some past where discrimination was okay as the basis of your argument is ridiculous. These are the same people who didn’t allow women, minorities, or the poor to vote. Treaties are something congress ratifies and agrees to, so yes the treaty of tripoli is valid. The mention of religion was due to there being no other argument against marriage equality and your first words being of god. May god have mercy on your soul which dares to turn against his word by hating his neighbor. When future generations talk to you about your failed fight against equality I hope you remember your bigotry.
    P.S. I actually had the great luck to be born straight, but I fail to see how my sexuality has to do with my validity.
    P.S.S. Your comment about homosexuality are quite appalling and your bigotry makes me want to vomit.
    Sincerely, Not a Biggoted Dick

  • OldBut YoungMoney

    Wow personal insults, look, I don’t demean you in any way man. I don’t look down upon you… I respect my fellow man and you should too if you really do believe in God, assuming you’re Christian. And if you do, than why are you defying the Father on this? You know homosexuality is wrong, and then to throw marriage on top of that defiling marriage (this isn’t apart of my argument, this is me just talking Christian to Christian) I just can’t believe my ears.
    Moreover, I don’t know why you have to talk that way to me. Why can’t we just have a conversation without you insulting me.
    And yes there is an argument against homosexual “marriage” that doesn’t include religion. I just gave one in my first comment, just re read it. Furthermore, so you are basing your entire argument off of the born that way argument which there is no basis for in any way? There is no test you can run to prove someone has homosexual feelings. There just isn’t. So like I said, the only thing that distinguishes people who commit homosexuality from me is their actions. That’s it.
    And who ever said the Treaty of Tripoli was invalid? I never said that, I said that we are talking about the constitution and you’re over here quoting the Treaty of Tripoli trying to bash my religion, and assuming you’re very own as well, for no reason.
    And lastly, a bigot is a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions…. which is kind of starting to sound like you right now more so than me seeing as you’re insulting me on a personal level and calling me names like dick and saying how I am stupid…

  • Vincent Campanale

    I apologize for my anger, but you have to see where I’m coming from here. Marriage is a fundamental human right. I didn’t choose to be straight no more than you did or any gay person choose homosexuality. And why would anyone in their right mind choose to be a homosexual in this country?My main point here is that We can not and should not discriminate against the way people are born by preventing marriage equality. To get further on this point, say you who feel only attraction for the opposite gender , were to say perform a sexual favor on someone of the same sex? Would that make you a homosexual? What if someone of your gender raped you? Would that make you a homosexual? I will not go further than that. Have you ever met someone of the LGBT community? Have you ever discussed the experience of a gay in this country? If you have, you would understand that it is not homosexuality that is wrong, but rather, it is those who use a nitpicked faith that is reliant on hate rather than following the message of love for all men and peace. I sincerely hope you do see that this issue is about caring couples who had the great misfortune of being born a certain way, which got these hatefuls to attack them all their lives, but even yet they have managed to make a meaningful relationship, ones which are every bit as loving and meaningful as those that you have seen in your life. Once again, I apologize for loosing my temper.

  • The Leviathan

    It’s always fulfilling to watch some bovine showed up by someone who knows what they are talking about and has a good sense of logic and reasoning. Maybe if you stopped drowning reasoning in a pool of religious mumbo-jumbo you could actually perceive the world for how it truly is. Human emotions can help us make decisions, but you cannot do so if you hinder your reasoning so much and therefore ignore necessary emotions such as empathy. It is obvious that this should be settled under the equal protection clause. Previous statements of how the church and state are separated are indeed correct. The only thing missing is The Three Part Establishment clause. You know what isn’t said though and your religiously-bogged mind can never come to? Perhaps you should rethink your diluted, choked religious bigotry when you start to seriously hurt millions of people with it.
    -Sincerely, Also not a Bigoted Dick

  • John Smithers

    Vincent, you are wasting your
    time. I agree with everything you have said here. But those who believe that
    the law of the land should be the same as biblical law will never change
    their mind. Those people have been brain washed to follow a religious book.. I
    am not saying that religion is bad, many people need it survive, it helps them
    cope. The problem is that there is hate in that book. It was created a long
    time ago and translated with biblical bias. It’s been proven. Laying with
    another man is the same sin as getting a tattoo, eating pork, and many of the
    skipped sins people do today. By that book no one is without sin.

    Their hypocritical. It’s sad to see a college student think this way, it shows
    he is closed minded and only believes in the things he was taught as a child.
    Incapable of seeing the truth.

    Either way, I don’t want to write a long comment cause with someone like him it’s
    useless. But it doesn’t matter, it will happen, they will marry and there is
    nothing he can do about it. Except go to his church and prey and hate. The only
    difference is he can do it where that type of thing belongs in the church.

    BTW, OldBut YoungMoney, (your screen name makes we wonder if your a rich spoiled
    kid, maybe that’s where this Republican bible thing is coming from.) I’m not
    gay since you think all supporters are. I just now people who have been hurt by
    this and they are loving people, more loving then some straight people. I hope
    you wake up one day and stop believing everything that is spoon feed to you.

    And Vincent I could not have said it any better than u did..

  • John Smithers

    Vincent, you are wasting your time. I agree with
    everything you have said here. But those who believe that the law of the land should be the same as biblical law will never change their mind. Those
    people have been brain washed to follow a religious book.. I am not saying that
    religion is bad, many people need it survive, it helps them cope. The problem
    is that there is hate in that book. It was created a long time ago and
    translated with biblical bias. It’s been proven. Laying with another man is the
    same sin as getting a tattoo, eating pork, and many of the skipped sins people
    do today. By that book no one is without sin.

    Their hypocritical. It’s sad to see a college student think this way, it shows
    he is closed minded and only believes in the things he was taught as a child.
    Incapable of seeing the truth.

    Either way, I don’t want to write a long comment
    cause with someone like him it’s useless. But it doesn’t matter, it will
    happen, they will marry and there is nothing he can do about it. Except go to his church and prey and hate. The only difference is he can do it where that
    type of thing belongs in the church.

    BTW, OldBut YoungMoney, (your screen name makes we wonder if ur a rich spoiled
    kid, maybe that’s where this Republican bible thing is coming from.) I’m not
    gay since you think all supporters are. I just now people who have been hurt by
    this and they are loving people, more loving then some straight people. I hope
    you wake up one day and stop believing everything that is spoon feed to you.

    And Vincent I could not have said it any better than u did..

© 2015 THE STANFORD DAILY