[bacan]

Post article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/g...?tid=sm_tw

Informative reddit thread: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/g...?tid=sm_tw

5-4 ruling in favor legalizes gay marriage in all 50 states.

Opinion in favor (last two paragraphs):
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.
It is so ordered.

Dissenting opinion from justice Roberts:
Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.
Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.

[Truth Teller]

They've made their decision. Now let them enforce it.

[DjembaDjemba]

delete

[CaracaoSteel]

This is a case of jurists ruling what they want and think, rather than by a formative legal opinion and analysis. Regardless of your conviction, this decision is simply judicial activism, as the Constitution does nothing to deal with marriage whatsoever. At this point, I cannot see the prohibition of any types of marriages now. Not all states allow first cousins to marry, but this must be changed by this ruling. What about polygamy? Such a decision opens the door for such questions.

[Truth Teller]

(06-26-2015 10:02 AM)DjembaDjemba Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 10:01 AM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

They've made their decision. Now let them enforce it.

And they will.

I was quoting Andrew Jackson. And I don't think they will as easily as people seem to think. The conservative states are going to resist tooth and nail.

[Phoenix]

Well they're just following the "the judiciary can rewrite the English language" clause of the constitution. Doesn't exist you say? Incorrect, we have interpreted it to exist.

[DjembaDjemba]

(06-26-2015 10:04 AM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 10:02 AM)DjembaDjemba Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 10:01 AM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

They've made their decision. Now let them enforce it.

And they will.

I was quoting Andrew Jackson. And I don't think they will as easily as people seem to think. The conservative states are going to resist tooth and nail.

I agree, it's not easy but it will happen. The supreme court has always made unfavourable decisions, sometimes it's judicial activism, sometimes it's based on the constitution rights. I'm not a US lawyer so I can't tell which is which in this case. When interracial marriage (totally NOT the same as gay marriage by the way) was made legal in all 50 states by the supreme court, most Americans were against it.

Canada has had gay marriage for decades, and it's not really had any negative effect on me personally, so I live and let live.

[dog]

Scalia's dissent is well worth reading (bracketed comments are his own)

Quote:

But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003.20 They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds— minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly— could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago,21 cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.

The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so.22 Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. “The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.”23 (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.) Rights, we are told, can “rise . . . from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.”24 (Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?)

edit:
pdf here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14p...6_3204.pdf

Dissents begin on page 40.

[Hedonistic Traveler]

Personally I don't really give a shit. If anything this will be a positive. Politicians have been basing their campaigns around gay marriage for decades, I'm happy they'll be forced to move on to issues that actually affect people.

[Phoenix]

The difference is that an interracial marriage is actually a marriage. No one ever said "that's not what marriage is" they said "we won't let it". This is calling two dudes sticking their dicks in each other's anuses a bit more frequently than other dudes, a 'marriage'. I'm happy for them to live and let live with each other, I'm not happy with anyone calling that a 'marriage', anymore than a woman sleeping with her pitbull can ever be a marriage.

Hedon, actually they'll just move on to the next most depraved thing.

[ColSpanker]

It was bound to happen. The rich and powerful have been pushing for it for years.

[YossariansRight]

There's a simple solution to this "Supreme" Court social activism: Have the Congress pass and a President sign a law that states the "Supreme" Court isn't the final arbiter. There's nothing that says my proposal can't be done.

Then when the tyrants in black robes pull shit like this, override it.

[Slim Shady]

People completely avoid the real issue here: gay/trans adoption.

They can bugger themselves all they want. Hell, in today's West marriage itself has lost a lot of its meaning. Have yourselves a legal contract that gives you tax benefits. But stay away from the children.

These people have a frighteningly high percentage of mental illnesses. They are not fit to rear children. Sorry about the pun.

And yes, I fully realize that there are mentally sick straight couples too that ruin the lives of their children.

[blacknwhitespade]

Great, now onto the next civil rights movement:

Men's Rights

[General Stalin]

(06-26-2015 10:15 AM)Hedonistic Traveler Wrote:  

Personally I don't really give a shit. If anything this will be a positive. Politicians have been basing their campaigns around gay marriage for decades, I'm happy they'll be forced to move on to issues that actually affect people.

I'm with HT on this. Another pointless issue taken off the table. Once the buzz cools off maybe people can finally shut the fuck up about it. In other news:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_of...ex_couples

Curious to see how the divorce rates pan out in years to come with the gay nuptuals about to sky rocket. Worth noting: Every nation shows that female gay marriage have double the divorce rate of male gay marriage, and female marriages tend to be shorter. Not surprising.

[TheWastelander]

(06-26-2015 10:27 AM)Slim Shady Wrote:  

People completely avoid the real issue here: gay/trans adoption.

They can bugger themselves all they want. Hell, in today's West marriage itself has lost a lot of its meaning. Have yourselves a legal contract that gives you tax benefits. But stay away from the children.

These people have a frighteningly high percentage of mental illnesses. They are not fit to rear children. Sorry about the pun.

And yes, I fully realize that there are mentally sick straight couples too that ruin the lives of their children.

They'll make more gays by abusing these kids, too.

[Phoenix]

Yossarian, that'd be unconstitutional and they'd just ignore it. The real solution would be an Article 5 convention. There should also be a mechanism whereby the states can petition for a case to be appealed to a court comprised of one judge from each state.

[Rang off the Pipe]

Intriguingly enough this was argued based on due process rather than equal protection. I don't think the legislators that created the 14th amendment could have imagined how powerful their work has been in the following 150 or so years.

[Socrates]

(06-26-2015 10:15 AM)Hedonistic Traveler Wrote:  

Personally I don't really give a shit. If anything this will be a positive. Politicians have been basing their campaigns around gay marriage for decades, I'm happy they'll be forced to move on to issues that actually affect people.

Yes, I'm sure that's what will happen.

[dog]

(06-26-2015 10:30 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 10:27 AM)Slim Shady Wrote:  

People completely avoid the real issue here: gay/trans adoption.

They can bugger themselves all they want. Hell, in today's West marriage itself has lost a lot of its meaning. Have yourselves a legal contract that gives you tax benefits. But stay away from the children.

These people have a frighteningly high percentage of mental illnesses. They are not fit to rear children. Sorry about the pun.

And yes, I fully realize that there are mentally sick straight couples too that ruin the lives of their children.

They'll make more gays by abusing these kids, too.

Yep, we are nowhere near peak faggot. The faggening has just begun.

The only brightside I can see out of all of this is that if homosexual behavior is pushed, more and more young men become gays, and this leaves younger women without mates. So maybe, just maybe, this will offset the declining birthrate and keep the pool of available younger women open 10-20 years from now.

[Aquiles_Baesta_Parada]

Some religious nut jobs think natural disasters are punishment for gay people...
It is kinda fun seeing them freak out on the (social)media.

[Dan Woolf]

Give women the right to vote, they said.
It will be fun, they said.

[kaotic]

Honestly I'm over this shit, I knew it was coming with the political climate we have. Let them be miserable "marriages" like everyone else and get divorce raped.

I don't give a fuck about who you love.

[Vitriol]

(06-26-2015 10:29 AM)General Stalin Wrote:  

(06-26-2015 10:15 AM)Hedonistic Traveler Wrote:  

Personally I don't really give a shit. If anything this will be a positive. Politicians have been basing their campaigns around gay marriage for decades, I'm happy they'll be forced to move on to issues that actually affect people.

I'm with HT on this. Another pointless issue taken off the table. Once the buzz cools off maybe people can finally shut the fuck up about it.

I agree for the following reasons:

1. Marriage as a whole is a dying institution. Most people who are teenagers and young adults today just aren't going to get married at any point in their lives, whether they're gay or straight.

2. The fact that gay couples who were already living together without formally being married can now do so legally is going to have little to no practical effect on the day to day lives of everyone who does not belong to this category. How many people in the U.S. were gay, waiting to get married, and couldn't be bothered to obtain a marriage license from one of the states where it is already legal? My guess would be maybe a few thousand people at most.

[YoungAngel1]

Our society can make anything legal we want to be legal. But we cannot make things right or just. Those qualities are absolute, and are not up for man to decide.