America Reacts to Supreme Court Gay Marriage Ruling
It’s a SCOTUS-palooza…where do you stand?
Today’s ruling in the Obergefell same-sex marriage case sent shockwaves rolling across the nation.
Fox News correspondent Shannon Bream read the decision on the air as the crowd outside the Court cheered:
The scene outside the Supreme Court right now is kind of a circus:
The scene outside of the Supreme Court a second after the decision pic.twitter.com/FGIbIbKk3x
— Benny (@bennyjohnson) June 26, 2015
Because it’s 2015, activists, politicians, and pundits alike have stormed the internet with their concurring and dissenting opinions:
Many, of course, took to Twitter to celebrate the ruling:
Today is a big step in our march toward equality. Gay and lesbian couples now have the right to marry, just like anyone else. #LoveWins
— President Obama (@POTUS) June 26, 2015
#SCOTUS just confirmed officially that #LoveCantWait. pic.twitter.com/8mXSuASTny
— Luis V. Gutierrez (@RepGutierrez) June 26, 2015
BREAKING NEWS: #SCOTUS has ruled in favor of marriage equality nationwide! Proud MN already recognizes this right.
— Amy Klobuchar (@amyklobuchar) June 26, 2015
One day we will tell our kids and grandkids about a time that used to be when gays couldn't marry. Today is that day. #SCOTUS
— Abby Huntsman (@HuntsmanAbby) June 26, 2015
Big line from #SCOTUS Justice Anthony Kennedy in majority opinion: pic.twitter.com/NEykIskI6w
— Andy Kroll (@AndyKroll) June 26, 2015
Marriage equality for all! #SCOTUS
— Jim Messina (@Messina2012) June 26, 2015
Others expressed concerns not just over the ruling as it relates to marriage, but the implications for 10th Amendment sovereignty:
Ken Cuccinelli of the Senate Conservatives Fund calls on Congress to pass a constitutional amendment allowing states to ban gay marriage
— Manu Raju (@mkraju) June 26, 2015
You're beyond naive if you do not believe churches will be forced against their beliefs to fall in line.
— Kristina Ribali (@KristinaRibali) June 26, 2015
So, we don’t give a crap about states’ rights anymore, eh, #SCOTUS?
— Morgan Williamson (@morgslw) June 26, 2015
The SCOTUS ruling today sets up full restriction of religious rights. The statists are in their final match to rid America of God.
— Chris Loesch (@ChrisLoesch) June 26, 2015
After the lawless ACA ruling, the Supreme Court continues to take away each state's right to make its own decisions. #SCOTUSMarriage
— Star Parker (@StarParker) June 26, 2015
After #SCOTUS decision I'm more worried about churches retaining freedom to practice their faith & not perform marriages which violate that.
— Matthew Newman (@MDMRN) June 26, 2015
#SCOTUS confirms that the individual has no place in making decisions for themselves. Group think is now law.
— Scott (@retiredfirecapt) June 26, 2015
#SCOTUS redefined marriage for all States. We are no longer sovereign with a right of conscious. Religious freedom & Liberty are dead! #tcot
— Liberty! Lion (@DapperDSM) June 26, 2015
People made fun of me for putting polygamy in the <5 years window. Read Kennedy and you won’t. Also, far less radical than SSM, fwiw.
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) June 26, 2015
FANTASTIC comments by @RichardGrenell on FOX News earlier — Same sex marriage big win for conservatives: http://t.co/7WXk3yehkK
— Avi (@mrAvinash) June 26, 2015
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Jesus may be weeping, but it’s only tears of joy…
You left out Allah, Jehovah, Buddha, the gods of the Hindus, the gods of South American tribes, etc.
Your hatred of Christians is dripping from your posts.
Like Roe, this will turn out very, very badly, and not to your liking in the end.
Nah, I just know my audience, that’s all.
There’s only one audience that ultimately matters. anoNY will find that out. Eventually. When it’s too late.
Jesus knew this day was coming. It’s hard to get the drop on God.
You are sick.
What Ragspierre said.
Be careful what you wish for.
A person who says something like that needs to be careful lest they get struck by lightning the next time they go outdoors.
A person who says something like that had obviously spent too many long years perfecting the art of bitchiness. It worked for him (I’m using the pronoun “he” as a generic third person singular) so long as one has freedom of speech.
Gun trumps bitchiness and he has most to lose if the US seizes to be what the Founders created for us.
But according to Christianity, adversity (such as getting struck by lightning) is really just a way for the Lord to let us prove our grace. You should be praying that I will NOT get stuck by lightning…
If anoNY didn’t exist, we’d have to invent anoNY. You are my favorite troll. Anyone who still believes that it’s about LOVE and LOVE won should be required to read your posts. Gay marriage is not about marriage or love. It’s about sticking it to the straights and hate.
Since I am straight, I’m not sure why I would want to stick it to myself.
I never said you weren’t.
I’m not that good a Christian.
Gloating is unbecoming
All religious institutions will lose their tax free status……..other than African American churches, of course.
Yeh, no. That was stupid. African-American churches are some of the most stalwart against this travesty.
Yes, but they’ll keep their tax free status anyway, because racism.
To this day, some blacks are against interracial marriages. So what is your point? That anyone can be a bigot?
Like they lost their tax free status for refusing to marry people not in their congregation, practicing pre-marital cohabitation, committing fornication or adultery, or simply not going through whatever complicated hoops the church decides to impose on marriage applicants that week? Churches have imposed plenty of extra-legal requirements on couples since there were churches. Has nobody ever challenged them?
The answer to your question is, times have changed. This is not that, and never will be again. The past is the past. This is the Brave New World. We have already gone past the point where angels fear to tread. Take a case such as you have posited before this court and the result can not be determined based on what happened many years ago, ever since churches were churches, but what happened last week.
The interesting test is going to come when Muslims are involved. Are mosques in the U.S. going to be forced to host gay “weddings” even though Muslims believe homosexuality to be a grave sin?
Of course, first we have to find some gay Muslim couples brave enough to risk being murdered by making the demand of the mosque . . . .
In these days, when the law means literally whatever the Executive says it means, Muslims and all other protected classes are above even the chimera of the law. There will never be such a case brought.
First answer: Muslims will have special treatment because everyone is afraid of the violence. Second answer: A Muslim marriage is a contract between a man and the woman’s father. No mosque ceremony is needed at all, although the betrothal is often in the mosque meeting hall if there is one.
Time for state legislatures that haven’t lost their senses to declare that this decision was ultra vires, and instruct all state employees to ignore it or be fired. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and no legislature or court has the ability to change that, any more than King Canute could make the tide go back. As Lincoln said, if you call a tail a leg, a dog still has four legs.
As we enter the era of feces covered penises, this has to be the shityist decision the Court has ever rendered.
Is this something you regularly find yourself perseverating on? I mean, given that anal sex was already legal before today, that’s kind of a weird reaction.
slamming a hammer repeatedly into my hand is legal too, doesn’t make it right nor does it make it legally forced upon others.
Pretty sure the Supremes are not going to force you to engage in anal sex.
Nah, we’ll just be expected to kowtow to the groupthink that homosex is merely an “alternative lifestyle,” and glorify it accordingly. Can’t have any “bigoted” opinions if you want to keep your job, your business, etc.
The act may not be forced upon us, but acceptance of the act will – all in the name of “tolerance,” of course ~
Fascinating. I wonder what other fundamental rights exist we that we don’t know about yet.
Next year at this time the justices will be telling us that the words of the Constitutional Amendment prohibiting a president from serving more than two terms don’t actually mean what they say.
Obama first weaponized the DOJ and shortly thereafter the IRS. He also must have weaponized the NSA because he’s obviously holding a sword, largewr than the sword he held over David Petraeus head, over Chief Justice John Roberts.
It will be standing room only on the grassy knoll on that day my friend.
I am SO stealing that first sentence.
The first and second amendments will be twisted, religious freedom and freedom of speech imperiled. Then they will argue that the 2nd amendment doesn’t mean what it says. Obama has ushered in tyranny with a lot of help from the left and the Supreme Court.
Scalia was right. Words no longer have meaning.
It won’t be long before muslims will be allowed to marry their goats.
They upheld Obamacare to subsidize the increased AIDS treatment costs which will result from this decision.
One of the upsides to marriage is that it’s meant to lead to less promiscuity… you know, the “forsaking all others” bit. Of course, throw polygamy into the mix, and we start to lose that advantage. But still.
Not me. We follow Almighty God in my house.
The first and second amendments are next.
The first is already half gone by capriciously categorizing speech as a hate crime.
This ruling will have many unintended consequences. I’m wondering if it will propel the Constitutional Convention movement. Apparently 34 states have already called for one, but there’s no clear process for dealing with the requests (or withdrawn requests, either). http://www.newsmax.com/US/constitutional-convention-Boehner-balanced-budget/2014/04/11/id/565155/
I don’t believe it should be a government right at either the State or Fed level to decide to permit/deny a marriage, gay or straight, as long as the act itself is not criminal.
I’m tired of the government overreaching into the civil aspects of our lives and neglecting the criminal enforcements and updates to our law codes that they should be making and maintaining.
The reasons states define marriage is because so many other legal and social institutions are defined by marriage – property, inheritance, parenthood, etc.
Which are all also part of the endemic problem of civil government overreach.
Yeah, it stands to reason that a true small-government advocate wouldn’t be lobbying for more government regulation of marriage, but less.
True enough, but whether government should micromanage marriage, and whether government should override the English language by defining what marriage is, are really two distinct issues.
Marriage should be defined by society and religions, not government. The problem is government’s involvement in marriage gives a mistaken impression that it is empowered to define it.
As long as governmental institutions recognize the married state as distinct from the unmarried state for any purpose, the government has a right and a responsibility to define and delimit what may legally constitute a “marriage.”
“Two hundred twenty-four years after the Constitution was ratified, Anthony Kennedy and four loyal Democrats have discovered, hidden somewhere in its provisions, a right to gay marriage. This so-called right, deemed “fundamental” by the five-justice majority, was undreamed of until a few years ago.”
This is exactly right. The history of “discovered” new and unheard of “rights” in the Constitution has been very ugly. But it seems a powerful temptation to statists.
The smartest opinion on gay marriage was my late grandmother’s. It was “What will they think of next!” I suspect the Founding Fathers would have the same reaction.
Do you think that had the Founders considered gay marriage, that they would have taken care to authorize government to prevent it, or would they have considered such interference in the personal lives of the people beyond the authority of government? If they took care to prevent it, or to allow the states to do so, how could that decision be squared with the concept of “equal protection under the law”?
Historically speaking, the Founders didn’t consider same sex marriage. (I just checked the index of my copy of Madison’s Notes of the Debates in the Federal Convention. Nope, not there.) Because of this fact, I think it highly unlikely that you could identify an enumerated power that authorizes government to discriminate between couples, based on sex or sexual orientation. It’s not just about “rights,” it’s also about disabilities in the power of government. Even if it could be determined that a “right” didn’t exist, a constitutionally-enumerated authority must still be identified in order to admit a government power.
The founders took it for granted that buggery would forever remain a criminal offense; if they had known that their work would one day be invoked to establish it as a right, they would have reworded it to prevent such a result.
Buggery is no longer considered criminal in most jurisdictions (and is probably not enforced in any that still maintain the laws), so what the Founders may have considered unthinkable has in fact already come to pass.
Buggery doesn’t just refer to acts between homosexual men. Should government regulate conduct between heterosexual consenting adults? The Founders would have thought such regulation appropriate. But today, we generally don’t give a rat’s patootie about who does what with whom in the bedroom. At least not when it comes to heterosexual couples. Some are apparently still hung up on what gay people do in private.
Recognition of gay marriage doesn’t authorize buggery (“establish it as a right”), just like the recognition of straight marriage didn’t (when buggery laws were in effect, acts of buggery between married couples were still illegal). “Marriage” is a recognition of a partnership between people, and it gives them certain legal rights, social status, and other benefits. It doesn’t authorize any particular deviant sexual behavior, gay or straight. That behavior was and is going on outside of, and before, marriage anyway.
You’re missing, or deliberately ignoring, the crucial point: The “gay marriage” campaign was absolutely not a demand for non-interference in personal lives. On the contrary, it was a demand for governmental and societal action in support of your personal choices, and in some cases a demand for material benefits from you fellow citizens.
“You’re missing, or deliberately ignoring, the crucial point: The “gay marriage” campaign was absolutely not a demand for non-interference in personal lives. On the contrary, it was a demand for governmental and societal action in support of your personal choices, and in some cases a demand for material benefits from you fellow citizens.”
No different than straight marriage on any of these points.
They found it under a penumbra in the back hall.
I left my penumbra at home today, and got soaked in a thunder storm.
Rags, I’m disappointed in you. That statement is exactly wrong! The Constitution defines the limits of government, not the limits of liberty. People who look to the BOR (or elsewhere in the Constitution) to find or define their rights are looking in the wrong place. The denial or disparagement of unenumerated rights is exactly what opponents of a written bill of rights feared, and that objection was answered by the Ninth Amendment. The argument that a right not enumerated does not exist is not only logically unsound, but invalidated by the supreme law of the land.
Our natural rights, whatever they may be, existed before the Constitution, they do not exist because of it. The Constitution is not the source of our rights. I don’t know why anyone looks to it for them. We should look to the Constitution only for guarantees of our rights, and to identify lacunae in the authority of government in order to deny the government’s ability to infringe upon them.
Rags is a lawyer, he should have known that already. He lies regularly, so that is probably just another lie.
As always, I am happy to leave to the readers who lies and who is truthful.
You lying, trolling, Collectivist piece of shit.
Well, you’ve managed to state the problem without understanding the issue.
The FEDERAL government was not the author of our rights according to the Constitution and the thinking of the Founders.
Note the WAS.
Over time, FEDERAL “rights” came to be the superseding “rights”. The FEDERAL “right” to an abortion is nowhere to be found in our Founders’ thinking. Because, of course, any such notion would be inimical to them. All such matters would be considered to belong in the province of the individual states.
The “right” to vote is nowhere in the Constitution, either, it belonging to the states to decide.
But, of course, we NOW have a FEDERAL “right” to marry that usurps the states’ role in determining such matters.
In other words, the system of the Founders has been neatly inverted. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are completely vitiated by the Supremes in this decision.
Just like in Roe. This is part of the “positive rights” that the Collective is so fond of pretending should exist at the Federal level.
I enjoyed reading Scalia’s dissent. I don’t think I’ve ever read a legal decision that included the sentence, “Huh?”
If this was just a matter of two people living out their lives as they see fit, without bothering the rest of us, I would not care about this.
But we know that the Left never stops marching. Letting people of the same sex get together and call their union a “marriage” isn’t enough; non-believers in the progressive agenda must be made to participate in the mandatory fantasy that a “marriage” can be between two men or two women. This ruling doesn’t tell us to “live and let live”; it will be used as an excuse for the Left to ramp up their own efforts to force themselves and their beliefs into the lives of the rest of us.
One likely outcome: Higher GOP turnout in the next Presidential election. This is red meat for the base.
The base. How come we are taking down Confederate flags?
The problem is, the Republican Party is intent on forcing Jeb! or a Jeb! clone as the presidential candidate on the country. And history shows that 95%+ of the Congressional candidates will be the incumbents. The same incumbents who have collaborated with the Democrats since the day after the election.
There is no way to vote our way out of this.
I want to remind everyone that SCOTUS’ One Vote Majority Decisions on Gay Marriage & ObamaCare’s Wording were cast by Roberts on Obamacare & Kennedy on Gay Marriage. Both are GOP Bush appointees.
The problem is TransSocialist GOP Presidents winning office.
Rags? Will you marry me?
What does the Cherokee think about that…???
You screwed up my joke. You were supposed to say no. Then I was going to clarify I meant: ‘would you perform my wedding?’, not be my spouse, and then I was gonna go “hah! Gotcha!” and then I was gonna sue you for violamatin’ my rights by refusing to conduct a heterosexual marriage, and it was gonna be funny and take up 2-3 follow up posts, but no. You missed your cue.
I am heartened by the fact you were at least considering taking me as a spouse depending on what Pocahauntme felt about it. That was sweet. Thank you.
Henry, you picked a bad day to kick heroin. Quit posting, sit back, listen to Rush, and sip on your Mango Pineapple Smoothie.
Rags missed his cue!? I guess he doesn’t make a good “straight” man! Nyuk, nyuk.
That was sweet. +100
Going by the precedents set by the last two Supreme Court decisions, I think I deserve the right, first, to a government-subsidized pony; and then, the right to marry it.
Or something 😉
Little early for the vodka, ain’t it?
This is iced tea! I swear!
Iced tea… in a bong, right?
“This is iced tea! I swear!”
Of the long island variety?
Have the Supremes repealed the 5th Amendment yet…? 😉
What I think a state could do is stop authorizing its employees to perform any marriage. It would be hard even to allow any official performing marriages to opt out.
This happened, of course, because of 20 or 30 years of propaganda about human nature.
What’s so false about this is that this talks about people loving each other. That is not a condition for marriage.
It has been mentioned it would have helped if certain civil laws had been extended to other relationships, not just ones based on sex. Another thing they could have done is establish different conditions for same sex marriage and heterosexual marriage.
Heterosexual marriage might only require consent. Same sex marriage might require that they had been living togetehr already for a period of say, six months. Because after all, that was the argument. People who had demonstrated that they intended to be together.
Anotehr possibility could have been requiring prior disclosure of financial and medical records before any same sex marriage could take place – with the proviso that if this was deemed illegal, then the requirement should apply to ALL marriages contracted in that state.
And anothe thing: With heterosexual marriage in the ideal case they are both virgins at marriage. I don’t think anyone would approve of that for same sex marriage. That starkly illustrates the difference right away.
Had the idea of authorizing homosexual unions but attaching more stringent conditions to them, like a prier period of cohabitation or disclosure of financial and medical records been tried somewhere or at least used as an argument as to why the same word should not be used and the applicable laws should not be copied wholesale, the court might not have gone that way, because the fallacy that heterosexual marriage and same-sex marriage are, putting any differences in anatomy aside, exactly the same thing, would be obvious to Justice Kennedy..
Now that we have marriage equality, I want concealed carry equality. As per the 14th amendment, all states should have to recognize CCW licenses from other states.
Good thinking! Let’s find a Shaneen Allen and go for it!
I’ve been wondering out loud for a long time, “By what principle do states recognize each other’s driver licenses and marriages, and why doesn’t that principle extend to concealed carry permits?” I’ve never received what I consider a valid response.
Why hasn’t it been done?
Because guns are ‘icky’.
Because TPTB are scared $#!+less that the peons have access to so many of them.
They fear that one day the unwashed masses will finally get fed up enough and decide they’re in the mood to use them.
The quote attributed to Tytler comes to mind:
“The average age of the world’s greatest civilisations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”
I’d say we’re halfway between the apathy and dependence phase of “The Fatal Cycle”. I’m probably being optimistic.
I respectfully disagree.
We’re past dependence and well on our way to bondage.
(But that’s OK; it’s just another sexual practice and who has the right to criticize it, right?)
One of the Founders said (at the convention in Philly?) something to the effect that he would be surprised if the nation they were forming lasted for one hundred years; he believed disparate regional interests would eventually tear the Union apart. The Civil War did exactly that, and the Union that was put together after the war is not the same Union that existed before the war.
There could be a silver lining to all of this. It could undermine gay propaganda. (about the prevalence of homosexuality)
I once made a calculation, using AIDS death figures as of the end of 1991, as to the percentage of homosexuals. It isn’t 10% of course, but it isn’t 2% either or 1% or even half of one percent.
Theer were approxiomately 100,000 death from AIDS where it was contracted by homsexcual transmission. Now everyone acknowledges it killed a high percentage of homsexuals. Let us minimize it to 1/3. That would make the initial total around 300,000. With about 100 million adult makes around in 19890 that results in a figure of 3 per thousand males.
Given there are about half the number of lesbians as theree are male homosexuals, the percentage of gays and lesbians can also be calculated (except for the fact that lesbianism is a less permanent condition)
A similiar calculation can be made using gay marriage.
Gay marriage having been legalized throughout the United States, whoever wants to do that can do it – in fact many could already, but niw it is beyond a doubt.
We then get a total absolute number of gay marriages. Input then the percentage of gays who got married. That number is unknown but presumably it ranges from 25% to 75%. If it is really low you have to question why would this be any kind of an issue.
Divide the number of marriages by two to get the number of people in a marriage, and multiply by the reciprocral of the percentage you picked out. (for 2%, 4, for 75% 1.333)
You now have the absolute number of homosecuals in the United States in those age groups.
Then divide by the total number of people in the same age range and you get the percentage of homosexuals.
It will turn out to be very, very low.
Of course right now the number of samne sex marriage licenses is relatively high comoared to the number of neew marriage licenses issued because of the backlog. But after a year or two, we should have a number for the total number of people in such marriages and can make the calculation..
And this isn’t just a matter of numbers. If the numbers are klow, you then have to answer the question: how do they find each other?
This needs an answer not just for now, but for pre-1969 days.
I think the only conclusion possible is that many homosexuals are maade, not born. Otherwise they wouldn’t “find” each other.
“100 million adult makes around in 19890”
100 million adult males around in 1980.
I think there are people who would not like to make eitehr calculation.
“…everyone acknowledges it killed a high percentage of homsexuals.”
If you don’t know how many gays there are, you can’t make any valid statements concerning the percentage killed by AIDS.
I can’t stand bigotry against those who don’t support gay marriage, but I support gay marriage and I am glad gays and lesbians can marry and establish a family of their own under the color of law.
As you have already seen, the bigotry against bakers, florists, photographers, and others who wish to live according to their conscience is already here; with this ruling, things are only going to get worse.
It’s quite possible. And it will be sad, if it does.
When it does.
Gays and lesbians will never “establish families” in the commonly understood sense of those terms. When they create artificial “families,” they are play-acting at being straight, which means they are not accepting of their own sexuality.
Yes, there is truth to this. I have gay friends who refuse to participate in the institution of marriage because they see it as hetero-normative and reject hetero-normative constructs for their own relationships.
Nevertheless, gay and lesbians may adopt children, which is considered a better alternative to not being adopted, and lesbians can of course have their own children. Neither of these situations constitutes a traditional family and won’t be without problems, but it is what it is. We don’t live in a perfect world and we never will.
Selective exclusion masquerading as “equal”-ity. Progress, but it cannot be qualified as positive.
Our household voted for Prop 8 in CA. Didn’t matter. Only 5 men in robes matter any more in this country.
sorry – 5 men & women
You may have been right the first time.
Today gay marriage is permissible. Will it be mandatory Tomorrow?
Could this be beginning of another civil war. Similar battle among states’ rights?
Sad day for America. I knew this was coming. The leftists have timed this all just right for Pride Weekend in San Francisco.
That “emanations of penumbras” imp just doesn’t want to go back in his bottle.
The existential problem is then that the same imp who can make words and ideas and concepts appear magically in the Constitution can also make words and ideas and concepts disappear. There is a bit of legerdemain involved, to be sure; but that’s not hard, simply redefine annoying words to mean something more … convenient.
If five mere political appointees can read absolutely anything they want into the text of the Constitution, then as Law, the Constitution is approaching meaninglessness—for Liberals as well as for everyone else.
I agree, the opinion seems to be nonsense, although I think the decision correct. On the basic level of first principles, the Constitution limits the powers of government. Not found among its powers (in fact, denied by the principle of equal protection under the law) is the ability to discriminate between people based on their sex or sexual orientation. No need to identify a “right,” just a disability of the powers of government.
Our country has a long history of slowly sloughing off the belief that particular groups of people can be treated differently than others, even under the law. Over time, we have dispensed with that concept with regard to blacks, Jews, Roman Catholics, Asians (the Japanese were treated differently under the law in WW II, when they were interned without charge and without due process of law), and others. It shouldn’t be surprising to anyone that we’ve finally gotten around to gay people.
Every gay person has always had the same “right to marry” as any straight person, but they have not wanted to participate in such a relationship. Until very recently, they mostly rejected the whole concept as something undesirable.)
Gay people have not been demanding “marriage equality,” but rather a different kind of “marriage” for themselves.
Gay activists have argued that they are “second-class citizens” if they can’t have their own kind of marriage — the corollary of which is that every single person, everyone who just can’t find the right partner or who loses a spouse, is likewise a “second-class citizen”; or, in A. Kennedy’s terms, someone who’s deprived of “dignity.” And that is patent nonsense.
That is simply not true. Michael Medved uses that argument all the time and it’s intellectually dishonest. There are many reasons why people get married, and and among them are “mutual attraction” and “love.” When the state endorses only heterosexual unions, it prevents gays and lesbians from forming a marriage based on either. Heterosexuals are permitted to marry the people with whom they share a mutual attraction/who they love, and gays and lesbians are/were not. If you are heterosexual and married, you likely married the person you love/are attracted to. This is/was denied to gays and lesbians. The “right to marry” is not limited to marrying someone of the opposite sex. If that were true, you would have married any old broad and called it a day. But that’s not how it works. You exercised your right to find a particular woman (and not just any woman), and married the one you love (with her consent). It is this personal discrimination in partners that gays and lesbians were denied.
Christians in North Korea have the same religious rights as everyone else…
And Collectivists in N. Korea have the “right” to “change” reality via the power of their central government.
Just like here now.
The states just need to follow Alabama’s lead and stop issuing “Marriage Licenses”. Go to a flat tax, drop inheritance tax and most of these issues go away. Its all about the money.
Heh. The party of science doesn’t even know the anus is not a sexual organ.
Why is it that conservatives mention the anus way more than anyone else in this debate? Projection?
anoBoy…Maybe ‘cuz we’re drawn to your moniker, Dude. Or, to a bygone, pre-PC_Thought Police time when stating the factual, plain truth wasn’t a social hanging offense.
Read the Beat/Homosexual Poet Allen Ginsberg at nauseating length and get back to us on that very, very, very messy sex organ aka The A**hole, Bubba.
Time to get government out of marriage. Totally. No more marital anything. No tax filing status. No nothing.
It’s likely that most of the people who say it’s time to “get the government out of the marriage business” don’t have that result in mind. On the contrary, they usually seem to want “marriage” to be anything they want it to be — and then to get government (i.e. societal) endorsement and protection.
Richard Grenell appears to represent that thinking, as I suggest below.
Well, I can only speak for myself, and I mean “out” as in “out”. Delete all references to “marriage” from any government statute or article or amendment or regulation. Like it never existed. And forbid any preferences or penalties for groups of any kind, two of these, two of those, three or four of any, I don’t care what. Get out.
Alabama gets it right. My compliments!
Richard Grenell tweeted: “This is the consistent conservative position. That government doesn’t get to dictate your decisions.”
Well, Richard, that is disingenuous, or just irrational. The government was NOT dictating your decisions to love and live with the person of your choosing, share resources, pledge eternal devotion, even throw a party to celebrate your mutual commitment.
On the contrary, it’s you and the whole “gay marriage” lobby that have demanded that the government get involved in your personal decisions — by officially pronouncing that your chosen relationship is the same as “marriage” has been since time immemorial, and bestowing on it the same legal status and benefits (some at the expense of taxpayers and especially single individuals).
This is not a liberty issue. It’s a case of requiring the government, representing the whole society, to endorse and materially support your private decisions.
Family who fought and bled for America’s freedom are safely with the Lord now and don’t see what has happened to their beloved country.
The “rainbow” is notably lackluster. Another victory for pro-choice doctrine: selective exclusion.
Time for civil disobedience. Brush up on your Thoreau – hold your nose if you have to – and meet me at midnight in the Piggly Wiggly parking lot at Joyner’s Crossing and NC-97.
Time for the Church to stand up, rally believers, and fight.
In this ruling, the SCOTUS is saying that marriage is not for procreation, but they didn’t say why we still have marriage. I guess marriage is any two people who want to tie certain things together. For example, a father could marry a son in order to get around taxes. The whole incest prohibition surely doesn’t hold water when procreation is not possible. If marriage is not for the kids, why can’t three people marry? What is marriage supposed to accomplish? Why do we have it?
Right. In the progressive view of marriage there’s no explanation of why marriage even exists, except perhaps to “give dignity” to intimate relationships. But why is that important? Why doesn’t the State “give dignity” to Bridge partners or dance partners?
I can see why the State has an interest in heterosexual relationships, the great majority of which have procreative potential. But same-sex relationships create no bonds of any particular interest to the State, nor does the fraying of those bonds cause any particular damage of interest to the State.
To the extent that marriage “gives dignity” to same-sex relationships, it is a dignity bummed from heterosexual marriage — kind of like giving the Medal of Honor to someone whose heroism consists of helping an old lady cross the street.
Can someone tell me what dignity there is in any sexual activity involving faeces and strap-ons worn by people pretending to have something they don’t?
A lot of people apparently believe that society, represented by government, is obligated to celebrate, endorse and support your closest personal relationship — and that if it doesn’t do so, it’s depriving you of the right to “love” the person of your choosing.
Some dopey (lesbian) girl asserted that the Supreme Court decision meant that society was no longer reducing her “chance of finding love” by 50%. It’s completely irrational and silly — but irrational and silly statements have been the mainstay of arguments for deconstructing marriage — and are a substantial part of Kennedy’s weird opinion.
Justice Roberts got it absolutely correct in his dissent. Male-Female Monogamous Marriage has been the foundation building block of civilization(s)from the beginning of civilization(s).
God, how the “matrimonial” lawyers are rubbing their hands, licking their chops and hearing the cash register on steroids from the Queer Multiple Jump Around.
I believe you meant Scalia.
Nope…Roberts. His 20-something page dissent is brilliant.
Seems like everyone is missing the most basic thing here IE maybe Kennedy is a homosexual mimself latent or not.
“Marriage” consists of two tracks: licensing/registration and solemnization/ceremony.
Licensing/registration is clearly an interest of the state since it involves other state interests such as, tax rates, rights of visitation, etc.
Solemnization/ceremony is not an interest of the state, It is the choice of the licensees as to how they wish to solemnize/celebrate the union, i.e., civil ceremony or religious ceremony.
Once the license is issued, the state’s interest is satisfied. The solemnization/ceremony has nothing to do with a viable state interest.
Currently, the state requires that the officiant of the ceremony be licensed/approved by the state and the license document properly signed and timely submitted to the state. The licensing of marriage ceremony officiants is NOT necessary to the state’s interest since those have been satisfied already by the licensing/registration. So, licensing is really not required, get rid of it. This, clergy would not compelled to officiate at ceremonies that are contrary to their beliefs. Ministers, etc. could solemnize the marriage within the parameters of the religion without running afoul of any state interest or individual right. The marriage ceremony would return to a pure exchange of vows rather than a requirement of the state.
I am struck by Associate Justice Kennedy’s romantic (19th century context) view of marriage. He obviously takes the institution of marriage seriously, views it as important and places it within a classical liberal context. I can only imagine the difficulty the progressive ladies of the Court had signing on to a decision with which they agreed with the result but didn’t agree with the spirit at the foundation of the opinion.
A decision based on individual rights is a two-way street. Under the Kennedy decision it is clear that business owners have a First Amendment right to refuse to provide products or services that would violate their individual right to practice their religion. This could be formally enacted by statute or, ironically, judicial action based on Kennedy’s reinforcement of the Constitution’s protection of individual and religious rights that today include SSM.
All is not lost, just rearranged.
There’s a third track – consummation.