Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

America Reacts to Supreme Court Gay Marriage Ruling

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:

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:

Others expressed concerns not just over the ruling as it relates to marriage, but the implications for 10th Amendment sovereignty:

UPDATE:

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Jesus may be weeping, but it’s only tears of joy…

All religious institutions will lose their tax free status……..other than African American churches, of course.

    Ragspierre in reply to LEEJAN. | June 26, 2015 at 10:50 am

    Yeh, no. That was stupid. African-American churches are some of the most stalwart against this travesty.

    Immolate in reply to LEEJAN. | June 26, 2015 at 12:02 pm

    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?

      userpen in reply to Immolate. | June 26, 2015 at 12:34 pm

      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.

    Observer in reply to LEEJAN. | June 26, 2015 at 1:03 pm

    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 . . . .

      Subotai Bahadur in reply to Observer. | June 26, 2015 at 1:38 pm

      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.

      tarheelkate in reply to Observer. | June 26, 2015 at 3:45 pm

      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.

    Radegunda in reply to LEEJAN. | June 26, 2015 at 6:54 pm

    and mosques.

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.

          nordic_prince in reply to Amy in FL. | June 27, 2015 at 12:00 am

          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 ~

Humphrey's Executor | June 26, 2015 at 11:05 am

Fascinating. I wonder what other fundamental rights exist we that we don’t know about yet.

Bitterlyclinging | June 26, 2015 at 11:09 am

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.

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to Bitterlyclinging. | June 26, 2015 at 1:40 pm

    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/

healthguyfsu | June 26, 2015 at 11:50 am

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.

    billdyszel in reply to healthguyfsu. | June 26, 2015 at 11:54 am

    The reasons states define marriage is because so many other legal and social institutions are defined by marriage – property, inheritance, parenthood, etc.

    tom swift in reply to healthguyfsu. | June 26, 2015 at 3:55 pm

    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.

      DaveGinOly in reply to tom swift. | June 26, 2015 at 6:26 pm

      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.

        Radegunda in reply to DaveGinOly. | June 26, 2015 at 6:59 pm

        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.”
—PowerLine blog

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.

      DaveGinOly in reply to edgeofthesandbox. | June 26, 2015 at 4:52 pm

      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.

        Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | June 26, 2015 at 5:01 pm

        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.

          DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | June 26, 2015 at 5:58 pm

          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.

        Radegunda in reply to DaveGinOly. | June 26, 2015 at 7:07 pm

        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.

          anoNY in reply to Radegunda. | June 27, 2015 at 6:58 am

          “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.

    tarheelkate in reply to Ragspierre. | June 26, 2015 at 3:47 pm

    They found it under a penumbra in the back hall.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Ragspierre. | June 26, 2015 at 5:23 pm

    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.

      anoNY in reply to DaveGinOly. | June 27, 2015 at 6:59 am

      Rags is a lawyer, he should have known that already. He lies regularly, so that is probably just another lie.

        Ragspierre in reply to anoNY. | June 29, 2015 at 8:22 am

        As always, I am happy to leave to the readers who lies and who is truthful.

        You lying, trolling, Collectivist piece of shit.

      Ragspierre in reply to DaveGinOly. | June 29, 2015 at 8:18 am

      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?

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to billdyszel. | June 26, 2015 at 1:49 pm

    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.

Henry Hawkins | June 26, 2015 at 12:51 pm

Rags? Will you marry me?

    Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | June 26, 2015 at 12:55 pm

    What does the Cherokee think about that…???

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Ragspierre. | June 26, 2015 at 2:06 pm

      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.

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 😉

Sammy Finkelman | June 26, 2015 at 1:00 pm

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.

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.

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.

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!

    DaveGinOly in reply to jhkrischel. | June 26, 2015 at 6:34 pm

    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.

      Miles in reply to DaveGinOly. | June 27, 2015 at 1:34 am

      Why hasn’t it been done?
      Because guns are ‘icky’.
      And
      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.

walkercolt44 | June 26, 2015 at 1:15 pm

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.

    mariner in reply to walkercolt44. | June 26, 2015 at 7:42 pm

    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?)

    DaveGinOly in reply to walkercolt44. | June 26, 2015 at 9:34 pm

    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.

Sammy Finkelman | June 26, 2015 at 1:18 pm

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.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | June 26, 2015 at 1:19 pm

    “100 million adult makes around in 19890”

    Should be:

    100 million adult males around in 1980.

    I think there are people who would not like to make eitehr calculation.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | June 26, 2015 at 10:34 pm

    “…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.

Fluffy Foo Foo | June 26, 2015 at 1:29 pm

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.

    walkercolt44 in reply to Fluffy Foo Foo. | June 26, 2015 at 1:35 pm

    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.

    Radegunda in reply to Fluffy Foo Foo. | June 26, 2015 at 7:15 pm

    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.

      Fluffy Foo Foo in reply to Radegunda. | June 27, 2015 at 11:17 am

      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.

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.

    DaveGinOly in reply to tom swift. | June 26, 2015 at 4:30 pm

    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.

      Radegunda in reply to DaveGinOly. | June 26, 2015 at 7:25 pm

      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.

        DaveGinOly in reply to Radegunda. | June 26, 2015 at 10:25 pm

        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.

        anoNY in reply to Radegunda. | June 27, 2015 at 7:02 am

        Christians in North Korea have the same religious rights as everyone else…

          Ragspierre in reply to anoNY. | June 29, 2015 at 8:44 am

          And Collectivists in N. Korea have the “right” to “change” reality via the power of their central government.

          Just like here now.

          Yea, you.

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.

    anoNY in reply to Mark. | June 27, 2015 at 6:52 am

    Why is it that conservatives mention the anus way more than anyone else in this debate? Projection?

      NeoConScum in reply to anoNY. | June 28, 2015 at 6:59 pm

      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.

FrankNatoli | June 26, 2015 at 6:02 pm

Time to get government out of marriage. Totally. No more marital anything. No tax filing status. No nothing.

    Radegunda in reply to FrankNatoli. | June 26, 2015 at 6:15 pm

    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.

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.

Henry Hawkins | June 26, 2015 at 7:28 pm

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.

Juba Doobai! | June 26, 2015 at 7:55 pm

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?

    siguiriya in reply to InEssence. | June 27, 2015 at 1:46 am

    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.

      Juba Doobai! in reply to siguiriya. | June 27, 2015 at 1:25 pm

      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?

    Radegunda in reply to InEssence. | June 27, 2015 at 3:39 pm

    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.

bobinreverse | June 26, 2015 at 9:28 pm

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.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend