SCOTUS rules: gay marriage approved

[Blackjack200]

Me, too. I expected Roberts to also go with the majority. Yet his dissent was super-vehement. Go figure.

I'm kind of stunned. He has to know how he will be remembered now. I think that's why his dissent was so caustic. I think it was a cynical decision that was a nod to his inner circle, and the people that have elevated him over the years.

I thought all along that this was going to be 6-3 or even 7-2 (I had hopes for Thomas). But not I think it acutally was hangning in the balance. I bet CJR and the rest pushed Kennedy as hard as they could, and he refused, realizing how this would be remembered. That's why it's his decision, and the dissents are resentful.

 

[actuarial]

As opposed to spreading to polygamy. There is no case for gay marriage that doesn't equally support group marriage. The difference is their degree of acceptance, and as we saw with gay marriage, that can change in the space of 10 years.

I disagree. Gay marriage can be framed as discrimination based on sexual preference or based on gender (A man can marry a woman but a woman can't marry that same woman). Gender is specifically a protected class.

With polygamy, it is discrimination based on whether you are currently married. The law already treats married and single individuals differently, so this type of discrimination is already accepted throughout the law.

That's not to say I think it should be illegal, just that I do not believe that the argument for gay marriage match those for polygamy. They are separate issues.

 

[Mai72]

Ah...

Love hitting Fox News comment section. It's like going to a southerners convention full of rednecks, and white hooded supremacist.

My sister is gay. What's the big frekin deal. Let the gay/lesbian community be happy. Also, the whole gay/ lesbian issue is stupid. The people who have an issue with this community are Christian wackos, and old people. Young people have better things to worry about like the environment and the job market.

 

[zinfamous]

All true conservatives should rejoice with this ruling, as the principle that says the government should have no power over behavior between consenting adults and over who consenting adults may marry is greater than any personal feelings of homosexuality.

That the principle allows others freedoms you may not agree with is the whole point, and whether you agree or not is of no importance frankly.

I know, right?

What a country, tho!

 

[piasabird]

This is interesting since there is no federal law which defines marriage. There was one but SCOTUS declared that unconstitutional (DOMA). My guess is now Marriage means nothing.

 

[soulcougher73]

Man this sucks. Next thing you know were going to be allowing people to marry their toasters and other house hold appliances. When will it end?

 

[JSt0rm]

This is interesting since there is no federal law which defines marriage. There was one but SCOTUS declared that unconstitutional (DOMA). My guess is now Marriage means nothing.

Oh shut up. Marriage means visitation rights, tax status, medical benefits and a host of other things. If you want your religion to dictate what something is in the eyes of government then go to a country that doesn't separate religion and state.

 

[soulcougher73]

So here's a serious question, absolutely no troll intended. I'd like serious replies to this. Given the decision, what should happen if a gay couple goes to a minister, priest, etc to have said clergy perform their nuptials and said clergy refuses on religious grounds?

Go find a more accepting church/minister?

 

[waggy]

Oh shut up. Marriage means visitation rights, tax status, medical benefits and a host of other things. If you want your religion to dictate what something is in the eyes of government then go to a country that doesn't separate religion and state.

sadly jstorm is right on something.

 

[Murloc]

This is interesting since there is no federal law which defines marriage. There was one but SCOTUS declared that unconstitutional (DOMA). My guess is now Marriage means nothing.

huh no, the states will still be able to define it as long as their definition complies with the federal constitution, as currently interpreted by the supreme court?

 

[JSt0rm]

sadly jstorm is right on something.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Lesbian divorce is going to be really hard on the court as they end up awarding alimony to both parties.

Not to mention splitting up all the cats, dogs, gerbils, rabbits, maybe some exotic animal. Lets be honest Lesbians keep a lot of pets.

 

[Ns1]

the tears are so delicious

American Family Radio host Bryan Fischer was outraged by the Supreme Court's decision Friday that gay marriage bans were unconstitutional, legalizing same-sex marriage in all 50 states.

"From a moral standpoint, 6/26 is now our 9/11," Fischer tweeted. He called the Supreme Court justices who supported gay marriage "moral jihadists" and said he saw "Satan dancing with delight."

"June 26, 2015: the day the twin towers of truth and righteousness were blown up by moral jihadists," he posted, calling on governors to "defy the Supreme Court" and refuse to issue "sodomy-based licenses" in their states.

 

[Screech]

I'm waiting for news of any self-immolation about to happen but I haven't heard any updates:

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...l_self_himself_on_fire_in_protest_of_equality

 

[brycejones]

the tears are so delicious

Conservative Christian radio networks are like conservative PACs. Whatever the name is you know it has to mean the opposite.

 

[Jaskalas]

This is interesting since there is no federal law which defines marriage. There was one but SCOTUS declared that unconstitutional (DOMA). My guess is now Marriage means nothing.

They have taken the 14th Amendment and used it to pick and choose State laws to apply nationally.

 

[MovingTarget]

As one of our more prominent local political cartoonists has said,

Between the champagne corks popping and the heads exploding, its awfully noisy in Alabama today.

Unfortunately, two counties have stomped their feet and declared that they "are out of the marriage business altogether". Both Pike and Geneva counties have a combined population of 50,000. I hope they enjoy using what little revenue they have defending their positions in court.

 

[xBiffx]

They have taken the 14th Amendment and used it to pick and choose State laws to apply nationally.

I would agree.

I mentioned it earlier but I would be interested to see how this plays into the pot debate. Some states allow it, some states don't. The difference is that it is still against federal law. Would be interested to see how this decision could apply to that, if at all.

 

[nageov3t]

They have taken the 14th Amendment and used it to pick and choose State laws to apply nationally.

how do you figure?

I don't see it as anything more than saying it's a violation of equal rights that a woman can marry a man but a man can't (and vice versa)

 

[waggy]

I would agree.

I mentioned it earlier but I would be interested to see how this plays into the pot debate. Some states allow it, some states don't. The difference is that it is still against federal law. Would be interested to see how this decision could apply to that, if at all.

I don't see the comparison to pot. this was about denying someone the same rights that others have. Gays were denied the right to a marriage. this is not a religious issue this is a law issue. they just can't get married for no reason then law.

it has been changed.

 

[Jaskalas]

how do you figure?

I don't see it as anything more than saying it's a violation of equal rights that a woman can marry a man but a man can't (and vice versa)

Where is this right written into law? What law are they applying equal protection under? I am told there's no federal definition of marriage.

Which leaves us with them taking a State law and applying it nationally, a power apparently granted by the 14th.

 

[Brainonska511]

Where is this right written into law? What law are they applying equal protection under? I am told there's no federal definition of marriage.

Which leaves us with them taking a State law and applying it nationally, a power apparently granted by the 14th.

State laws must also abide by the US Constitution. Banning same-sex individuals from marrying for no reason other than gender was a violation of equal protection afforded by the 14th Amendment.

 

[nageov3t]

Where is this right written into law? What law are they applying equal protection under? I am told there's no federal definition of marriage.

Which leaves us with them taking a State law and applying it nationally, a power apparently granted by the 14th.

I assume a state would still have the power to ban marriages altogether if it was applied equally to everyone, but at present, all 50 states have laws regarding the right to marriage.

how does the Supreme Court not have a place at ensuring those laws don't violate the Federal constitution?

 

[Sonikku]

How long until you have states trying to dance around the decision? I mean sure you have rulings like Roe vs Wade, but that doesn't stop red states like Texas from pulling strings in such a way that words laws and closes clinics and hamstrings rights in a way that effectively cripples such supreme court cases. I'm curious to see just what "Ok it's the law-BUT..." hi-jinx we're going to see over the coming years.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Not to mention splitting up all the cats, dogs, gerbils, rabbits, maybe some exotic animal. Lets be honest Lesbians keep a lot of pets.

Won't someone please think of the rabbits!

(I know a lot of lesbians, and not one of them has any exotic pets. They are about an even mix between cats, dogs, and no pets)