It's Finally Here: Equality for Marriage

[TheMusician]

I've just gotten a call from a long-distance friend who heard that yes, the Supreme Court ruled Same-sex marriage legal and constitutional in every state in our Union. I'd love to hear all of your thoughts, feelings, etc on this subject. Personally, since I have several friends who are part of the LGBT community, this is a huge victory. I actually just got off of skype with a very close friend who spent an hour hugging her girlfriend and crying.

So like I said, let me know what you think about this. Do you think it should have been done sooner? Do you think the timing was rather fair? Do you think they should have taken more time to make the decision? Let me know what you feel and think about this ruling.

[Lux12]

I'm honestly happy this happened, but what worries me is that there are people who may consider the sign that society is now truly equal. As far as symbolic victories this isn't half bad, but there is still so much work that needs to be done to secure true equality in this country. Not just LGBTQIA people, but P.O.C.s, women, and people who embody more than one marginalized identity. We cannot say this is the end when trans* people of color are getting butchered in the streets. We cannot say it's done when the pay gap between men and women is still a reality. We cannot say that true equality of all people in this country has been achieved when we have still have instances of homophobia. Nor can can we say true equality has been achieved here, or anywhere else when all these instances of anti-black violence are still coming to light. I am glad this has happened, but we cannot truly say we have achieved full equality in this nation for all groups of people when there is still so much work to be done. The rabbit hole of oppression no matter what form it takes goes deeper than we would like to imagine. It is a nightmare centuries in the making that cannot be undone over night.

[Oniya]

This is true.  It's not the end of the fight, but it is a major victory.

[Inkidu]

I wonder what politicians will complain about now, because very rarely is supreme court decision overturned (in point of fact it can't actually be overturned, they're the highest court in the nation... they just kind of change their minds).

While gay rights is important I feel politicians on both sides have been focusing on it in order to avoid working on other issues. Still, it's fantastic news.

[Lustful Bride]

I wonder what politicians will complain about now, because very rarely is supreme court decision overturned (in point of fact it can't actually be overturned, they're the highest court in the nation... they just kind of change their minds).

While gay rights is important I feel politicians on both sides have been focusing on it in order to avoid working on other issues. Still, it's fantastic news.

They will complain about whatever will get them in office and get their constituency to blindly follow them. Im glad im not the only one who thought they were plugging their ears on Gay rights just to that they didn't have to work on other big issues and could use it as an excuse.

[blue bunny sparkle]

I was ecstatic to hear the news!

And yes, there are a million things wrong with the world that need addressing. But this wasn't just another state saying okay, let's allow it. It was the Supreme Court saying... its allowable in ALL the states. And that is something I never thought I'd see. And I'm so very glad.

So for me, for today, I will not look to the next issue yet. Today I will celebrate this!

[Aethereal]

      I've not read the legal works yet, so I can't say whether there are any vague points (I am not too fond of my own country's legal works on that matter, just because it's a bit badly worded and feels ... rushed, in the lack of a better term), but overall it's good news. The world isn't entirely equal - and perhaps it will never fully be -, but that's certainly a step in the right direction. There is no objective reason to bar anyone from making their state of being together more official (especially with hospitals and such sometimes disregarding LPA's)...

[Cycle]

I get the sense that 10 years from now, I will look back at this point in time and see just how important today is--not just for the LGBTQ community, but for the United States as a whole.

President Obama is right.  Today, we should be proud.

We did the right thing.

[Sara Nilsson]

For me, it is funny coming from a country where gay marriage is .. really no big deal. The Swedish Church is ok with letting gays and lesbians marry, they wont force an individual priest to do the ceremony if they feel uncomfortable with it but they will supply one that is. In fact they must do so according to the Swedish law. But it is super rare for a priest to say that they wont marry anyone. And as far as I know, I haven't been home in a few years but Sweden hasn't been turned into pedo heaven where men marry their horses yet. so.. *shrugs*

When I saw the news today I cheered loudly! I am still a bit at a loss for words about how wonderful it is, we still have a long way to go yes but I think today we all deserve to stand up and be proud. Personally as a bisexual woman while I am happily married to my husband it is nice to know should the worst happen (I really hope not) but i now have more options if I so wish.

And it has been so nice to see all the tears from some people, specially the.. I am moving to Canada now.. I laughed when I saw that started to trend on twitter, shows how out of touch the haters are when they don't even realize it has been legal in Canada for 10 years. *giggles*

today.. we party! Tomorrow we continue our struggle, still many states where you can discriminate against gays and lesbians and I know I MUST keep fighting for my transgender brothers and sisters out there who still struggle.

[Oniya]

And it has been so nice to see all the tears from some people, specially the.. I am moving to Canada now.. I laughed when I saw that started to trend on twitter, shows how out of touch the haters are when they don't even realize it has been legal in Canada for 10 years. *giggles*

Little Oni just showed me those postings about an hour ago.  XD  (I also heard her listening to a YouTube video on the topic of gender identity.)

today.. we party! Tomorrow we continue our struggle, still many states where you can discriminate against gays and lesbians and I know I MUST keep fighting for my transgender brothers and sisters out there who still struggle.

So this.  And after all the years of struggle, a day of partying is definitely needed.

[DiscoveringEzra]

Both happy and sad/ angry at the moment.

Happy because were finally makeing progress after years of going down a perpetual black hole or hell. Happy that Lgbtq can finally get the rights and benefits of being married, including myself.

But Sad and a bit angry that my family thinks this a time for prayer, and that "God" didnt ask for this.  Yada yada, Sodom and Gammorah, so on and so on Amen. Im just baffled that a person can be outraged over people getting married ,yet you hear about civilians getting murdered in the middle east by The United States of America  and not bat an eyelash. No prayers for the grandmother picking vegetables, but prayers all around to overturn a ruling for people who love them...

I want my mom (who is pretty much my bestfriend) explain to me when ever I get married why she won't attend and do it to my face. But then again she doesn't really know me truly. )

Disheartening actually.  But im proud of the Supreme court for not being wusses and backing out or flip flopping  like most politicians  (Justice Scalia anyone?)

[Jag]

I'm very happy for this today. Despite some of the badness on my facebook feed about it (from both my LGBTQ and Non-LGBTQ friends/family)...I'm happy about it. It's an amazing step that I hope will mark the beginning of more and better changes in my country.

However, some friends and I were discussing in my fet group which state would be the first to try to fight it. The answer came fairly quick.

Bobby Jindal administration says Louisiana won't recognize gay marriage yet...

I like that it says 'yet'. They know they don't have a choice, but instead of acting like...you know...adults, they are choosing to behave like children. *eyeroll*

Anyway...like I said before, today marks what I hope will be the first of many great changes.

[Caela]

As someone that has a number of friends in the LGBTQ community, I was thrilled when this started filtering into my FB feed today! I wanted to dance and hug everyone! I had wondered if the Justices would try and waffle around the ban and try to say that the States could still ban marriage equality but would have to recognize marriages from other states where it was legal. That they just completely struck them down entirely made me grin like a fool!

Can't wait for some of my friends to start planning their weddings!

[Cycle]

I love this image.

[Ebb]

I'm very happy for this today. Despite some of the badness on my facebook feed about it (from both my LGBTQ and Non-LGBTQ friends/family)...I'm happy about it. It's an amazing step that I hope will mark the beginning of more and better changes in my country.

However, some friends and I were discussing in my fet group which state would be the first to try to fight it. The answer came fairly quick.

Bobby Jindal administration says Louisiana won't recognize gay marriage yet...

I like that it says 'yet'. They know they don't have a choice, but instead of acting like...you know...adults, they are choosing to behave like children. *eyeroll*

Anyway...like I said before, today marks what I hope will be the first of many great changes.

Bobby Jindal is running for president in a crowded field of Republicans while bringing almost no distinguishing qualities or even a high approval rating in his home state. Also, he is a goddamn fool. He's going to say or do anything he can to try to edge up to the level of being an also-ran in hopes that his endorsement of a more feasible candidate might earn him a place in a potential Republican administration, so he can get the hell out of Louisiana.

Also, he is a goddamn fool. Fuck that guy.

[Oniya]

Bobby Jindal is hinting that one of the things he'd do as a President is eliminate the SCOTUS.  Pretty sure that would fall afoul of 'upholding the Constitution', as that is provided for in Article III (not the Third Amendment - this predates the Bill of Rights.)

[Cycle]

Bobby Jindal is hinting that one of the things he'd do as a President is eliminate the SCOTUS.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Awesome.

Go, Bobby, go.  You keep on pushing your way into the Republican Primary.  I hope you win, buddy.  Really, I do.  I am completely serious here.  You, the Republican Nominee.  Perfect.

[Bloodied Porcelain]

I was there when they gave the ruling today. Surrounded by a ton of people I didn't know (and only a few I did). I posted this to facebook earlier when I finally managed to find words for how I felt on the day's events. It's not nearly enough to describe everything I felt and experienced, but it's the most succinct way I can put how I am (still) processing.

I know I've made my feelings on today's announcement clear already, but I wanted to say... I am deeply pleased to have been a part of what took place in DC today. I wasn't planning on going up there, but friends called and said they'd driven nearly four states to be there, so I raced up after dropping my son off at camp today. I'm extremely glad I did. It was a beautiful, emotional, intense moment. I've never felt such a huge swell of hope and joy and love all around me all at once like that before. It took me all day just to be able to breathe enough to put my thoughts on the day in order. I hugged strangers today. I held hands with people I didn't know and I saw two long time friends that have been waiting to be able to marry since before I met them almost ten years ago embrace each other and let out a breath of relief and look to the sky with light and hope in their eyes.

Today I am proud of my country. Today I am hopeful for our future. Today I have faith that the bigotry and closed mindedness that has dominated our laws and our culture in the past will soon be just that... the past.

To my fellow LGBT community members, I'm proud and happy for us. We have reason to celebrate. I'm looking forward to all the weddings I hope I get invited to.

To our straight allies: Thank you. This wouldn't have happened without your steadfast love and support. I would hug every last one of you hard if you were with me right now. I might end up doing just that if I run in to you in the coming weeks. You'll never really understand how much everything you all have done means.

[Oniya]

So, I just ended up defriending someone on Facebook.  On a day when most of my feed is celebrating love, this person - with whom I had never had a cross word - pops up with Leviticus 18:22 - and a 'Let's make this go viral' prayer that our country will heed God's will.  Now, I've got no beef with someone being Christian, Catholic, Protestant, whatever.  But the 'pick-and-choosy' folks (that, by the way, completely ignore the Second Covenant and various other bits of the New Testament when it's convenient for them), can make me irrationally peevish.  Probably doesn't help that I actually took a Biblical Studies course in college, and discussed things in the historical context of what the Eastern Mediterranean region was like during the times of Ramses, and through the first century C.E.  So.  Not only was there a defriending, but I posted a warning to anyone else on my feed that might be tempted to get pissy about something that probably won't impact them directly.

I'm waiting for the first person to respond as to why they shouldn't be confined to the house for 7 days out of the month.

[Hades]

There have been times over the past several years when I look at what my country is doing and I wonder just how the hell its ever going to get back on the right track again.  But every so often, there's little pockets of light that shines through and makes me proud to be an American.

No longer will my uncle and his partner of 30 years be treated as second class citizens simply because of who they love.  They traveled to another state to get married a few years ago but now the state where they live will have to honor that marriage just like they would a man and a woman moving across the state borders.  No longer will my friends offline and that I have made here on E, be put in a position of having the state insult their intelligence by dangling the carrot of a civil union in front of them in hopes it distracts them with its shiny "separate but equal" shininess of lies. 

Or in my own life, it means that as a bisexual I don't have to worry that in the future if I find that the person I want to marry and grow old with is another man that the state won't view that union as any less valid simply because of who my heart has given itself to.

There is a long road left to travel yet for true equality in this country, as others have said already.  But every road has a starting point in its journey, and this part of the trip is worth celebrating to the fullest.  To paraphrase a familiar phrase:   Tonight we eat, drink and be merry; for tomorrow we resume the fight.

[gaggedLouise]

Bobby Jindal is hinting that one of the things he'd do as a President is eliminate the SCOTUS.  Pretty sure that would fall afoul of 'upholding the Constitution', as that is provided for in Article III (not the Third Amendment - this predates the Bill of Rights.)

Perhaps he would try to argue that some of the justices are in hock to the gay lobby, and so they would need to be ousted. Those guys only, or else he'd remove the court itself and set up something new.   ::)

[Inkidu]

Perhaps he would try to argue that some of the justices are in hock to the gay lobby, and so they would need to be ousted. Those guys only, or else he'd remove the court itself and set up something new.   ::)

Can't do that. Supreme Court justices die or retire of their own volition, baring of course your standard physical and mental health requirements for any political job.

[Hades]

Or they do something that gets them impeached and removed from office in the same process that a presidential impeachment uses.   And that only happened once in the history of the country, back in 1805 when Associate Justice Samuel Chase was impeached, but not removed from office.

[Cassandra LeMay]

Can't do that. Supreme Court justices die or retire of their own volition, baring of course your standard physical and mental health requirements for any political job.

But the number of Supreme Court judges is not set out in the Constitution, far as I know, but set by an act of Congress. Get Congress to pass a statute that sets the number of judges at 0 and hey presto - they lose their job and you are rid of the Supreme Court.

[Hades]

Saw this while checking my webcomic feed and thought others would appreciate it, especially given the sizable group of Texans we seem to have on the site.

Welcome to the land of rainbows, America. :D

[Cycle]

Love it, Hades.

Here's one back:

[Lustful Bride]

Ugh the hardest thing since all this is arguing with so many people that not all Christians hate gays. And that there are a fair amount who are pro gay rights. *points to self and my old church*

It makes me sad that on so many sites that I enjoy I see cheers for people finally gaining Equality while at the same time mixing it in with so much "Religion should die" and "You religious people are the problem, when have you ever done anything good?"

@_@ Its terrible because it completely ignores all those who were ostracized by their own church for choosing to stand with what they believed was right.

But on happier notes this still doesn't fully take away from the achievement.  :-)

I think I heard somewhere that there are lines of people waiting to get married standing outside of the courts eagerly waiting their turn. Man the people who make wedding cakes are probably looking like this right now. XD

[Blythe]

Ugh the hardest thing since all this is arguing with so many people that not all Christians hate gays. And that there are a fair amount who are pro gay rights. *points to self and my old church*

It makes me sad that on so many sites that I enjoy I see cheers for people finally gaining Equality while at the same time mixing it in with so much "Religion should die" and "You religious people are the problem, when have you ever done anything good?"

@_@ Its terrible because it completely ignores all those who were ostracized by their own church for choosing to stand with what they believed was right.

My father is the member of a church that supports LGBT equality. While I'm not religious myself and can only speak for me, I've always been personally grateful for those who are religious who have supported same-sex marriage and rights. Allies are allies, whether they are Christian, pagan, atheist, etc. And I'm grateful for those allies. So long as they're good people, I'm cool with them.  ^^

[Lustful Bride]

My father is the member of a church that supports LGBT equality. While I'm not religious myself and can only speak for me, I've always been personally grateful for those who are religious who have supported same-sex marriage and rights. Allies are allies, whether they are Christian, pagan, atheist, etc. And I'm grateful for those allies. So long as they're good people, I'm cool with them.  ^^

Wish more people were like you elsewhere. But then again this is the internet and we always see the worst of Humanity on it by default. @_@

Edit: Except for E, it seems we see more of the good on here than the bad, maybe because E has standards.  8-)

[Oniya]

Yup.  One of my old gaming buddies - who is solidly Christian - did up her FB profile picture with the pride overlay thingy.  She stays on my list. 

The person who 'friended' me because of being in the same crochet group - and who posted passages from Leviticus yesterday - she got booted.  I'm not sure if that one still gets my public posts on her feed, but I posted my opinions of Leviti-citers just in case.  (Better be taking that bacon-wrapped shrimp off the barbie...)

[Lustful Bride]

Yup.  One of my old gaming buddies - who is solidly Christian - did up her FB profile picture with the pride overlay thingy.  She stays on my list. 

The person who 'friended' me because of being in the same crochet group - and who posted passages from Leviticus yesterday - she got booted.  I'm not sure if that one still gets my public posts on her feed, but I posted my opinions of Leviti-citers just in case.  (Better be taking that bacon-wrapped shrimp off the barbie...)

8-) Ooohhhh Sick burn.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPOqDShuE2M

[Jag]

My friends list is one person lighter today...which is sad. But it was a long time coming. Not going to discuss the full details here in public, but lets just leave it at that I have no clue how someone becomes so hateful and vicious.

[ReijiTabibito]

While I can agree that this is, as many people are saying, this generation's landmark ruling (much like Brown v Board of Education, which is the one I've heard invoked the most), I'm actually sitting in the camp that Chief Justice Roberts occupies - worrying that certain parties or persons might see this as an avenue of judicial overreach and, like Jindal, attempt to remove/abolish/whatever the SCOTUS in order to try and prevent similar circumstances that happen in the future.

Is this a day of great celebration, from sea to shining sea?  Yes.  Absolutely, people everywhere are.

I just worry about the price this victory may cost.

Oh, and Inki?  SCOTUS can actually be overruled.  The Dred Scott decision - which affirmed slavery - was eventually overruled by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which to me is Lincoln's truest legacy.  So it is possible to overrule SCOTUS - but it takes a big move in order to do so.  So expect to start hearing noises from the right-wing fundie nutjobs about adding another Amendment to the Constitution.


Back to my main line of inquiry: was this the right path to victory?

I recently watched an excellent program from Canada, called the Murdoch Mysteries (which broadcast here in the US as The Artful Detective).  For those of you not in the know, the show takes place in turn of the century Canada, Toronto to be specific, and deals with the strange cases investigated there by the titular Murdoch (the in-house Detective at the Fourth Precinct), his assistance Constable Crabtree, and his superior Inspector Brackenreid.

Being the period of history that it is, lots of things are happening in the West, and both situations that were going on at the time (one episode I watched dealt with the Irish Republican Brotherhood and an assassination attempt on the life of a visiting British royal), as well as famous people (such as Arthur Conan Doyle).

The pilot episode dealt with the electrocution of a young woman.  For those of you familiar with this period in history, this was when the War of the Currents was ongoing.  Naturally, the episode's guest star was the master of lightning, Nikola Tesla.  At one point, Tesla and Murdoch are talking, after evidence is discovered that some of Tesla's staff might have bribed someone to vote their way about the debate for Toronto to adopt AC or DC.  Tesla's response, while certainly controlled, is epic fury:

"I don't NEED to bribe ANYONE to convince them to adopt AC.  The forces of LOGIC and REASON will eventually COMPEL EVERYONE to, if they wish to remain competitive."

Now, that's a paraphrase, but the idea is basic - AC will triumph because people will eventually see the rightness of it.


As stated previously, the Supreme Court decision I've seen invoked most frequently as parallel to this one is Brown v Board of Education.  I agree...but only in the sense that it was instrumental in bringing equality to a new level.  But there is a key difference between the two decisions, from where I stand.  This one ends the debate.  For all time.  Gay marriage is legal.  There needs to be no more work done.  Brown, in comparison, required another decade of work, the decision being made in 1954, with the Civil Rights Act happening with LBJ in the 60s.

When the CRA was signed into law, it had to go through the whole process of becoming a law.  It had to pass the House.  The Senate.  Then be signed and granted the power of law by the Executive Branch.  And even then, Johnson knew that this would be world-turning for a lot of people - most notably the Deep South, and the 'Dixiecrats,' who were single-issue voters: segregation in this case.  Johnson told people that signing the CRA would cost the Democrats the South for a generation.  And it has - the Dixiecrats (who I personally believe should be separated from the mass of Republicans they claim to belong to) switched sides.  Despite the Republicans being, up to that point in history, the hated Party of Lincoln.  (Personally I think old AL would be tornado-spinning in his grave if he saw today's party.)

Even so!  It was law.  The elected representatives of two-thirds of the states, plus the elected executive of the US (and Johnson flattened his opponent, Barry Goldwater, in the election that put him in office for signing the CRA) all agreed that this should become law.  Brown made the way for it, but the eventual victory belonged to the states, who saw the rightness of the CRA.

Here, I fear there's very little of that.  I'm already hearing - "Five people can decide the course of an entire nation?  That ain't right!!"  (Add in your varying degrees of thick accent)

Yes, I can agree, if we had done things the way that Brown/the CRA had gone, it would have been more time.  But from where I was sitting, the tide was already going this way.  An animated map of the US from the website VOX.com showed that out of the 50 US states, 37 of them already have laws on their books allowing same-sex marriage.  That's almost 75% of states in the US.  And frankly, even though Texas is one of the states that is still holding out, there's enough voting power in the country that a law could have been passed through Congress (I think) that would have been the CRA for this issue.

If it had gone that way, voters and haters all around would have had to have blamed the government - though from my chair, that seems to be the grand strategy of those naysayers today; make sure government doesn't do anything and then say government is ineffective, which is like putting water in a freezer and then saying the water is now ice.

But it would have been a few hundred people, of varying ages and backgrounds, rather than "five against four."

We already know that though this fight is won - to use an analogy, though Richmond has fallen - the opposition refuses to see that it is so.  This fight has not had its Appomattox yet, for some.  They foolishly believe that victory is still possible, and that only if they hold to our conviction, can they resist the tide of 'immorality' that threatens to consume them.


Maybe it's just the cynic in me saying all this.  Maybe it is over and within a year all of this idiot talk will cease.  But I can't help but wonder until then: what price victory?

[Cycle]

Ask a same sex couple who wants to get married if the price paid is worth it.

[Inkidu]

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

While I can agree that this is, as many people are saying, this generation's landmark ruling (much like Brown v Board of Education, which is the one I've heard invoked the most), I'm actually sitting in the camp that Chief Justice Roberts occupies - worrying that certain parties or persons might see this as an avenue of judicial overreach and, like Jindal, attempt to remove/abolish/whatever the SCOTUS in order to try and prevent similar circumstances that happen in the future.

Is this a day of great celebration, from sea to shining sea?  Yes.  Absolutely, people everywhere are.

I just worry about the price this victory may cost.

Oh, and Inki?  SCOTUS can actually be overruled.  The Dred Scott decision - which affirmed slavery - was eventually overruled by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which to me is Lincoln's truest legacy.  So it is possible to overrule SCOTUS - but it takes a big move in order to do so.  So expect to start hearing noises from the right-wing fundie nutjobs about adding another Amendment to the Constitution.


Back to my main line of inquiry: was this the right path to victory?

I recently watched an excellent program from Canada, called the Murdoch Mysteries (which broadcast here in the US as The Artful Detective).  For those of you not in the know, the show takes place in turn of the century Canada, Toronto to be specific, and deals with the strange cases investigated there by the titular Murdoch (the in-house Detective at the Fourth Precinct), his assistance Constable Crabtree, and his superior Inspector Brackenreid.

Being the period of history that it is, lots of things are happening in the West, and both situations that were going on at the time (one episode I watched dealt with the Irish Republican Brotherhood and an assassination attempt on the life of a visiting British royal), as well as famous people (such as Arthur Conan Doyle).

The pilot episode dealt with the electrocution of a young woman.  For those of you familiar with this period in history, this was when the War of the Currents was ongoing.  Naturally, the episode's guest star was the master of lightning, Nikola Tesla.  At one point, Tesla and Murdoch are talking, after evidence is discovered that some of Tesla's staff might have bribed someone to vote their way about the debate for Toronto to adopt AC or DC.  Tesla's response, while certainly controlled, is epic fury:

"I don't NEED to bribe ANYONE to convince them to adopt AC.  The forces of LOGIC and REASON will eventually COMPEL EVERYONE to, if they wish to remain competitive."

Now, that's a paraphrase, but the idea is basic - AC will triumph because people will eventually see the rightness of it.


As stated previously, the Supreme Court decision I've seen invoked most frequently as parallel to this one is Brown v Board of Education.  I agree...but only in the sense that it was instrumental in bringing equality to a new level.  But there is a key difference between the two decisions, from where I stand.  This one ends the debate.  For all time.  Gay marriage is legal.  There needs to be no more work done.  Brown, in comparison, required another decade of work, the decision being made in 1954, with the Civil Rights Act happening with LBJ in the 60s.

When the CRA was signed into law, it had to go through the whole process of becoming a law.  It had to pass the House.  The Senate.  Then be signed and granted the power of law by the Executive Branch.  And even then, Johnson knew that this would be world-turning for a lot of people - most notably the Deep South, and the 'Dixiecrats,' who were single-issue voters: segregation in this case.  Johnson told people that signing the CRA would cost the Democrats the South for a generation.  And it has - the Dixiecrats (who I personally believe should be separated from the mass of Republicans they claim to belong to) switched sides.  Despite the Republicans being, up to that point in history, the hated Party of Lincoln.  (Personally I think old AL would be tornado-spinning in his grave if he saw today's party.)

Even so!  It was law.  The elected representatives of two-thirds of the states, plus the elected executive of the US (and Johnson flattened his opponent, Barry Goldwater, in the election that put him in office for signing the CRA) all agreed that this should become law.  Brown made the way for it, but the eventual victory belonged to the states, who saw the rightness of the CRA.

Here, I fear there's very little of that.  I'm already hearing - "Five people can decide the course of an entire nation?  That ain't right!!"  (Add in your varying degrees of thick accent)

Yes, I can agree, if we had done things the way that Brown/the CRA had gone, it would have been more time.  But from where I was sitting, the tide was already going this way.  An animated map of the US from the website VOX.com showed that out of the 50 US states, 37 of them already have laws on their books allowing same-sex marriage.  That's almost 75% of states in the US.  And frankly, even though Texas is one of the states that is still holding out, there's enough voting power in the country that a law could have been passed through Congress (I think) that would have been the CRA for this issue.

If it had gone that way, voters and haters all around would have had to have blamed the government - though from my chair, that seems to be the grand strategy of those naysayers today; make sure government doesn't do anything and then say government is ineffective, which is like putting water in a freezer and then saying the water is now ice.

But it would have been a few hundred people, of varying ages and backgrounds, rather than "five against four."

We already know that though this fight is won - to use an analogy, though Richmond has fallen - the opposition refuses to see that it is so.  This fight has not had its Appomattox yet, for some.  They foolishly believe that victory is still possible, and that only if they hold to our conviction, can they resist the tide of 'immorality' that threatens to consume them.


Maybe it's just the cynic in me saying all this.  Maybe it is over and within a year all of this idiot talk will cease.  But I can't help but wonder until then: what price victory?

Eh, not technically, remember that the SCOTUS determines whether the amendment itself is constitutional. I know what you're talking about and it involves a lot of sketchy legalese on Lincolon's camp's part, but the SCOTUS decided to uphold the 13th amendment just like they upheld slavery. It's a lot of political wheeling-dealing that equates to the court essentially changing its mind/position.

The same thing happened with separate but equal. The supreme court upheld that one too, but changed their minds on that as well.

To the point of this. Yes, there is going to be fallout, there was fallout with civil rights too. I think it's ultimately worth it. Generally when we talk about marriage in the modern world it's not that gay people can't be together and love one another, it's a legal benefit and protection. I totally expect the nation is going to take a bump as more couples are now taking the marriage tax break. I think the "up-front" cost is going to piss off a lot of people, and even maybe irk some who were supportive (and I know this is tangentially related--but for instance, I'm not sure how I feel about many states paying the totality of a person's HIV medications) when that cost hits.

I hardly think it's going to cause a civil war, it's going to be a little rough, but all I hope with these things is the pendulum sings a little less wildly. Moderation is a rare resource these days.

[ReijiTabibito]

Ask a same sex couple who wants to get married if the price paid is worth it.

They'll say yes.  I'm not doubting that.  But I don't think the full bill for this victory has come in yet.  It is already a long, long-ass bill - just look back in history - but something tells me that the costs are not all tallied yet.

To the point of this. Yes, there is going to be fallout, there was fallout with civil rights too. I think it's ultimately worth it. Generally when we talk about marriage in the modern world it's not that gay people can't be together and love one another, it's a legal benefit and protection. I totally expect the nation is going to take a bump as more couples are now taking the marriage tax break. I think the "up-front" cost is going to piss off a lot of people, and even maybe irk some who were supportive (and I know this is tangentially related--but for instance, I'm not sure how I feel about many states paying the totality of a person's HIV medications) when that cost hits.

Right.  The argument hasn't been that gay people can't be married for quite some time.  It's whether or not their marriage can be legally recognized by the state, for purposes like medical visits, wills, other legal benefits that are provided to spouses.  In that respect, it's similar to the slave marriages of the antebellum South - they happened, but nobody paid them any mind because they weren't "legal."

As for the cost, we'll see.  There are going to be bumps, as you said, I just wonder how big they'll be.

I hardly think it's going to cause a civil war, it's going to be a little rough, but all I hope with these things is the pendulum sings a little less wildly. Moderation is a rare resource these days.

Not in the sense that we understand civil war.  This isn't going to be people shooting each other in the streets, brother vs brother style.  A Second Civil War will be something totally different from what we have perceived.  It will be ideological, it'll be waged with bon mots instead of bullets; persuasion of minds rather than perforation of bodies.  But it will rip our country apart as badly as the first one.

[Cycle]

But I don't think the full bill for this victory has come in yet.  It is already a long, long-ass bill - just look back in history - but something tells me that the costs are not all tallied yet.

Agreed.  Its not over and there are more fights to come.  And whatever price is paid to win those will also be worth it.

[Drake Valentine]

So like I said, let me know what you think about this. Do you think it should have been done sooner? Do you think the timing was rather fair? Do you think they should have taken more time to make the decision? Let me know what you feel and think about this ruling.

Mainly, I'm indifferent to it as a whole. I never seen any real issue to it as to why it was never allowed in the first place, everyone should have their rights to do as they pleased(but there were those strong Christian areas that oppose it.) 

So I am just one of those on the fence about it, neither supporting or against it. The same can be said to my views of other marriages be they interracial, heterosexual, or whatever.

[Ephiral]

Reiji; it seems to me that the question here is: What's the greater harm? The hurt feelings and anger of bigots (who, as you point out, are already a waning minority), or treating a significant section of the population as less than human? If the former, your slow-burn approach might be the way to go. personally, I say it's the latter. Similarly, in the case of Brown and the CRA... I think it would've been much better if the CRA had been passed when Brown came down, because it would've meant a lot less black people being beaten and killed.

[ReijiTabibito]

Eph, nobody's doubting that it would have been much better if the CRA had been passed six months post-Brown rather than ten years after that.  It would have meant a lot less death and conflict and all the violence that happened in the South as a result of the Civil Rights Movement.

But this decision and Brown-CRA aren't to be equated with each other.  The former is a pure move on the part of SCOTUS, whereas the latter (and the Movement overall) was a combined action on the part of all three branches of the US government.  The Judiciary made an opening for the Legislative and Executive Branches to take action, and they did.

The analogy will hold if, after this, Congress and President Obama (or any President, really) pass a law like how LBJ passed the CRA - but until then, the two situations aren't the same.

[Inkidu]

What people don't seem to get, from where I'm looking at it, is that no church has to marry a gay couple. A gay couple cannot go into a church and demand to be married, but by the same token, a gay couple cannot be stopped by a religious group from going down to the local justice of the peace and having a wedding certificate signed.

Call it civil union, recognized domestic partnership, etc. No one has to be married under God in this nation to get the benefits of a legal marriage under US law. No church has to recognize any marriage as being one under God, but they can't deny the legal benefit either.

[Oniya]

What people don't seem to get, from where I'm looking at it, is that no church has to marry a gay couple. A gay couple cannot go into a church and demand to be married, but by the same token, a gay couple cannot be stopped by a religious group from going down to the local justice of the peace and having a wedding certificate signed.

Call it civil union, recognized domestic partnership, etc. No one has to be married under God in this nation to get the benefits of a legal marriage under US law. No church has to recognize any marriage as being one under God, but they can't deny the legal benefit either.

Exactly this.  I suspect that certain churches are already prepared to offer the ceremony, just like I'm sure certain florists, cake designers, formal-wear shops and catering services are prepared to do truckloads of business in providing for gay weddings.  Those who aren't, or don't want to - don't have to.

[Inkidu]

Exactly this.  I suspect that certain churches are already prepared to offer the ceremony, just like I'm sure certain florists, cake designers, formal-wear shops and catering services are prepared to do truckloads of business in providing for gay weddings.  Those who aren't, or don't want to - don't have to.

I myself support happiness. So many people in the world are far too miserable. I'm a Christian, but I take the golden rule seriously.

Also, Leviticus is a weird book, even for the Old Testament it's really... weird. My point being if God really does determine it a sin, I'm in no place to cast any stone, and that's between Him and them. Judge not lest ye be judged and all that.

Maybe I should go around pelting fire and brimstoners with beanbags with Rock printed on them.

[Mathim]

I'm embarrassed to say, I first heard about this on imdb.com. But this is awesome, finally this country wakes the fuck up and enters the modern age in a big way. Now for all the hundreds of other big ways we need to advance...

[ReijiTabibito]

Also, Leviticus is a weird book, even for the Old Testament it's really... weird. My point being if God really does determine it a sin, I'm in no place to cast any stone, and that's between Him and them. Judge not lest ye be judged and all that.

I will not openly derail the thread with this statement.  Therefore, I'm sticking this here, so you have to choose to read it.

That was kind of the whole point, Inki.  God made up all the insane, weird laws in the OT to show that if people were capable of perfection, they wouldn't need God/Jesus.  It was meant as a sign to point to the real plan.

[Oniya]

I will not openly derail the thread with this statement.  Therefore, I'm sticking this here, so you have to choose to read it.

That was kind of the whole point, Inki.  God made up all the insane, weird laws in the OT to show that if people were capable of perfection, they wouldn't need God/Jesus.  It was meant as a sign to point to the real plan.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Oddly enough, many of the laws make sense from the standpoint of 'small, nomadic population without modern cleaning and food-storage abilities'.  The proscribed foods were more likely to contain parasites.  The sex rules maximized potential conception rates.  Rules about infirmities being signs of disfavor would tend to weed those out of the population.  The thing is, humanity is no longer a small, nomadic population without modern cleaning and food-storage abilities in most of the world.  We don't need every possible birth to occur.  We can properly store pork and shellfish.  We can cure infirmities.  We'd do much better to listen to the commandment of 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'  (Which I'm hoping is the 'real plan'.)

[ReijiTabibito]

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

That's always been the plan.  Read Acts, when Peter speaks to the centurion Cornelius.  Or, more simply: "I am the new covenant."  If there's an old one and a newer one comes along, guess what you do with the old one?

[kylie]

      CNN had a link to this poll, which I thought was interesting (and hopeful for the long run, imo) on the question of how the religious demographic breaks down over business service and religious exemptions:

"Majority oppose 'religious freedom' laws that could discriminate."

(Though it's a thinner majority among younger Republicans, it's a start.)

In the CNN/ORC Poll, most Democrats (70%) and independents (60%) say wedding-related businesses should be required to provide services to same-sex couples as they would different-sex couples, while Republicans break broadly the other way, 67% say religious reasons are a valid justification for refusing service.

Looking at Republicans and independents who lean toward the Republican Party, 60% in that group say wedding-related businesses should be allowed to refuse services to same-sex couples, but there are sharp divides within that group by age and ideology. Moderate and liberal Republicans and Republican-leaners broadly say wedding-related businesses should be required to serve all couples the same way (58%) while three-quarters of conservative Republicans favor allowing a caterer or florist to refuse service for religious reasons (74%). Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents under age 50, 56% say wedding-related businesses should be required to serve same-sex and different-sex couples the same way while among those age 50 or older, 72% think they should not be required to do so.

[Inkidu]

Well, while one can't discriminate, you can't make someone provide their services if they don't want to do so. If Christian wedding service people are so offended I think it'd be best if the couple just looked elsewhere because you run into a religious freedom versus discrimination and well that's as sticky a wicket that was ever stuck. I think the service has the edge, because they can take the "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

All they need is one little petty non-illegal reason.

Easy answer is go find someone who wants your money.

[kylie]

      It's perhaps a little less sticky now that the Court has said states cannot refuse to certify marriages on the basis of orientation. 

      There was already the Elaine Photography case where the Court refused to undo the state rulings that photographers could not call refusal to provide service solely on the basis of orientation.  As I recall, the plaintiffs had attempted to shift their rationale from a language of freedom of religion to one of freedom of speech before sending it to the Supremes, but they didn't take it up at all. 

      Sure some people might pull off "mundane" excuses until it becomes an obvious pattern worthy of legal attention.  But there are also laws that one can't discriminate in the public provision of services.  That's what the New Mexico case was basically about.  With the addition of specific state non-discrimination laws, which are notably missing from some states however.  Now the Supreme Court opinion has placed sexual orientation a shade closer to a basic liberty, so that would be in play if it were to come again to a national question.  Once this is treated as a basic aspect of recognized identity classes, then I would expect it's easier to argue it's worthy of protection from other forms of discrimination like selective denial of service.

   

[Inkidu]

      It's perhaps a little less sticky now that the Court has said states cannot refuse to certify marriages on the basis of orientation. 

      There was already the Elaine Photography case where the Court refused to undo the state rulings that photographers could not call refusal to provide service solely on the basis of orientation.  As I recall, the plaintiffs had attempted to shift their rationale from a language of freedom of religion to one of freedom of speech before sending it to the Supremes, but they didn't take it up at all. 

      Sure some people might pull off "mundane" excuses until it becomes an obvious pattern worthy of legal attention.  But there are also laws that one can't discriminate in the public provision of services.  That's what the New Mexico case was basically about.  With the addition of specific state non-discrimination laws, which are notably missing from some states however.  Now the Supreme Court opinion has placed sexual orientation a shade closer to a basic liberty, so that would be in play if it were to come again to a national question.  Once this is treated as a basic aspect of recognized identity classes, then I would expect it's easier to argue it's worthy of protection from other forms of discrimination like selective denial of service.

No sadly, no less sticky. If you're forcing someone to go against their religious beliefs and stamping on one basic liberty with another basic liberty that's only going to cause resentment and hatred, and I bet the courts come down on the first amendment liberty before the newest one. I think the old adage of spend your money elsewhere is probably the best idea. I'm actually sure most wedding places will be happy for the business, so it's not worth antagonizing the ones that have religious reasoning, mainly because I think a lot of people would use that as, "See now that they can get married they're bullying people into blah blah blah."

I mean this isn't as clear as racial refusal because no one can say, "The Bible says thou shalt not sell a pastrami sandwich to a black man at the lunch counter."

There were a lot of people holding up the Bible with murky, sketchy, and outright lying manipulation to do stuff like that, but the Bible is a lot more clear on this.

Let's try to fabricate an example. Say the SCOTUS says all eating establishments have to serve pork (I know it's silly, go with it), even the Jewish and Muslim ones. Would you force an orthodox person of those faiths to handle pork because that's what the law says?

I just think the better thing would be find someone happy to host the wedding. Forcing someone (and since wedding services tend to be privately owned and can Hobby Lobby that kind of thing) with strong religious objections is the wrong way to go. On that gay rights has little gain, and a lot more to lose.

[consortium11]

No sadly, no less sticky. If you're forcing someone to go against their religious beliefs and stamping on one basic liberty with another basic liberty that's only going to cause resentment and hatred, and I bet the courts come down on the first amendment liberty before the newest one. I think the old adage of spend your money elsewhere is probably the best idea. I'm actually sure most wedding places will be happy for the business, so it's not worth antagonizing the ones that have religious reasoning, mainly because I think a lot of people would use that as, "See now that they can get married they're bullying people into blah blah blah."

Not so much.

Kylie's already linked to the most high-profile US case on matters related to this, Elaine Photography (full judgement here). In that case a wedding photographer declined to shoot a commitment ceremony (gay marriage was not legal at the time in New Mexico) for a gay couple and sued after they were fined by the state's humann rights commission under its human rights act (essentially their anti-discrimination one). The New Mexico supreme court took apart both the free speech and religious freedom arguments that were raised.

[kylie]

No sadly, no less sticky. If you're forcing someone to go against their religious beliefs and stamping on one basic liberty with another basic liberty that's only going to cause resentment and hatred, and I bet the courts come down on the first amendment liberty before the newest one.

Eh, the religious right has been saying pretty much the same thing about courts allowing same-sex marriage at all.  The courts aren't having it much longer, seems to be the trend of things.  Certainly not the Supreme Court.

I think the old adage of spend your money elsewhere is probably the best idea.

It may be more practical -- except in areas where there is just that much discrimination, or too few local businesses to turn to.  At the same time, businesses that are denying public business (not religious pews in a church) under an explicit rhetoric of discrimination, are kind of asking for more litigation too.  It isn't as if they are all generally making up plausible excuses as you suggested earlier.  Rather, they're saying front and center, "We don't approve of your kind so much that we're worried taking a photo or baking a cake would tarnish our souls."  But there are laws about providing services equally.

I mean this isn't as clear as racial refusal because no one can say, "The Bible says thou shalt not sell a pastrami sandwich to a black man at the lunch counter."

People can say the Bible means lots of things, and in fact, I don't believe it actually said most of the things the right has interpreted it to mean about same-sex relations.  People "could" say the Bible provides all sorts of racial metaphors too, if they were so inclined.  Just for one example:

One of the most popular biblical stories is also the one most often used to justify white racial superiority. After he disembarked from his 40-day cruise, Noah went a little wild in his celebrations, resulting in a bit of indecent exposure whilst passed out on the floor. Noah's son, Ham, walked in on him and saw the display. Rather than covering Noah, Ham went and blabbed all about it. When Noah recovered from his bender, he was not pleased with Ham and so he cursed Ham's son: “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers” (Genesis 9:25). Eventually the Canaanites did indeed become slaves to the Jews, so end of story, right? Nah...

Some claim that people with dark skin descended from Ham, while white folks came from Japheth and Asians came from Shem. Ham's name is thought to translate to 'black /dark,' and his descendants populated North-East Africa (Cush's descendants populated Sudan, Mizraim to Egypt, Phut to Libya, while Canaan's folks went to Israel). Again, the claim here is that both the skin, the curse, and the seedy disposition are heritable.

Let's try to fabricate an example. Say the SCOTUS says all eating establishments have to serve pork (I know it's silly, go with it), even the Jewish and Muslim ones. Would you force an orthodox person of those faiths to handle pork because that's what the law says?

It's an extraneous, slippery slope argument to me.  We aren't approaching this.  What we have is people arguing about whether delivering a cake, somehow makes them inextricably "approving" of a particular marriage.  While it's not the end of the world to me if people have to go to another county if they want a cake, setting a precedent that tangible services can be denied would be perhaps a bit dangerous.

[Cycle]

Question:  after the Supreme Court struck down the State bans on interracial marriage, did Congress thereafter pass a law "authorizing" interracial marriage?

[Cassandra LeMay]

Question:  after the Supreme Court struck down the State bans on interracial marriage, did Congress thereafter pass a law "authorizing" interracial marriage?

To the best of my knowledge - no. There was no reason to do so. When the Supreme Court ruled state restrictions on interracial marriage unconstitutional in Loving vs. Virginia, those state laws that barred interracial marriage became invalid and unenforceable. With no laws any longer in force restricting such marriages they were placed on the same level as other marriages allowed at the time pretty much by default.

As an aside, even if Congress had felt it necessary to pass such a law, I doubt it would have been valid, as marriage law is (as far as I can tell) the sole province of the states and beyond what can be ruled on by Congress.

[Dice]

Not touching the politics here. Just wanted to post this:

Congratulations too all gay people who can now be as miserable as the rest of us. Welcome to another step towards equality.

[gaggedLouise]

Mike Huckabee, a runner-up for the spresidency of course (even if he's not that likely to win) appeals for Christians to do what Martin Luther King did: civil disobedience and mass protests (on just what occasions should you show your disobedience to this law and still make it clear that ahem, you're against the law but *not* against the actual people, the couples who will be getting married and having their mutual love recognized?)  ::)

"Will you obey God and his sense of justice or this skewed law?"

Oh the irony.

[Lustful Bride]

Mike Huckabee, a runner-up for the spresidency of course (even if he's not that likely to win) appeals for Christians to do what Martin Luther King did: civil disobedience and mass protests (on just what occasions should you show your disobedience to this law and still make it clear that ahem, you're against the law but *not* against the actual people, the couples who will be getting married and having their mutual love recognized?)  ::)

"Will you obey God and his sense of justice or this skewed law?"

Oh the irony.

Just replace Barry with Mike :P

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1Imv4Jcnwg

[Mikem]

And to think, it only took the United States of America 239 years to realize this.

[Cassandra LeMay]

As the Supreme Court decision didn't exist in a vacuum I thought I'd drop a link here to the decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision the whole SC case was about:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1354856/6th-circuit.pdf

The majority decision that overturned the decisions of the lower courts (which all would have allowed same-sex marriage) is some thing I (as a layman and not a legal expert) certainly feel should have been ripped apart, as I feel the appeals court missed - or perhaps deliberately avoided - the equal protection point as much as it could.

What I found much more interesting is the dissenting opinion by judge Daughtrey (p. 43-64). Not only does it sum up the case in question (DeBoer vs. Snyder) very well, it is also fairly easy to follow and (in my layman's opinion) very well argued. It's a real goldmine of arguments why state bans on same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed to stand.

[kylie]

      I thought some of the dissenting opinions in that case actually said a lot more about law than Kennedy seems to have actually laid out in this latest decision.  Just one point that comes to mind right away: specifying whether fundamental rights demand strict scrutiny (p. 53).  I suppose one might think that should be obvious, but Kennedy has taken some flak for not stopping to spell it out anywhere.  And the majority in this Circuit case did some pretty odd things, like fussing about whether strict scrutiny should be applied to who can leave a marriage, when the case was actually about who could choose to enter one with who in the first place.

      That's quite a nice collection of arguments, yes.  Still working through some of it.  Cheers.

[Cognitive Brainfart]

I don't really understand why it's such a big deal that the U.S legalized same-sex marriage. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that same-sex couples can get legally married now (in the U.S). It's truly a great change for them, not only in terms of having the right to be treated as other couples in this regard, but also when it comes to practical everyday life.
But... many countries have had this even before the U.S and nobody made a big deal about those? There were no rainbow overlays on facebook when Sweden did it, so why now? Could it be that people are more aware of the issue of same-sex couples right now?
Also, the U.S might have legalized such marriage, but they still support countries in which one can get killed for their sexual orientation, so there's still a lot of change to go through in that regard.

[Iniquitous]

There was mention of same sex marriages being performed by county clerks and judges. Here in Tn., county clerks are refusing to perform any marriages to avoid performing same sex marriages... or flat out resigning to keep from doing them.

[Ryven]

There was mention of same sex marriages being performed by county clerks and judges. Here in Tn., county clerks are refusing to perform any marriages to avoid performing same sex marriages... or flat out resigning to keep from doing them.

I read an article that stated that they can refuse to perform marriages, but they must still issue the licenses.  The article was from a local Tn. news source.

[Iniquitous]

That is true, but as a form of protecting themselves so they don't have people trying to sue for discrimination, they are refusing to do any marriage - heterosexual or homosexual - or outright resigning to protest.

[Ryven]

That is true, but as a form of protecting themselves so they don't have people trying to sue for discrimination, they are refusing to do any marriage - heterosexual or homosexual - or outright resigning to protest.

I actually wouldn't expect them to.  That part should be optional.  If my boyfriend and I decided to get married, we could, if we wish, have an actual marriage ceremony elsewhere so long as the license is still able to be obtained.

[Cycle]

Quick Google search shows that the process in Tennessee is to (1) get the license from the Clerk, which is good for 30 days, and then (2) find someone to solemnize it.  Part 2 can be completed by a religious leader of any faith or numerous civil officials, not just the Clerk.



Stray thought:  Now that same sex marriage is legal in Indiana, can the Church of Cannabis marry people?  ;)

[Far eyes]

http://satwcomic.com/red-white-and-rainbow-stripes

Not sure if somebody posted this already, but that's about my feelings on it

[Cognitive Brainfart]

http://satwcomic.com/red-white-and-rainbow-stripes

Not sure if somebody posted this already, but that's about my feelings on it

If this were facebook, I would give you a like.

[DemonessOfDeathValley]

I'm extremely happy about this because it means no matter who I fall in love with, I can get married if we choose. I also feel very blessed to be part of a part of a Christian church who welcomes same sex couples.

[kylie]

     I don't know if much will come of it or not, but the right is still all upset (perhaps, naturally?).  I'm poking through a symposium of social conservative thinkers mentioned in a Guardian summary article here.  All  trying to imagine a bit, wherever the opposition is going...

     While I don't agree with the general trend, where many hint or claim the whole society is basically going to hell as a result of same-sex marriage expanding... I kinda have to appreciate the spunk of how much they wiggle and look for procedural loopholes.  At least a little.  And there are a few that actually are a bit revealing from what they seem to hint about Christian and more conservative communities themselves.

Some

The Court got marriage and the Constitution wrong today just like they got abortion and the Constitution wrong 42 years ago with Roe v. Wade. Five unelected judges do not have the power to change the truth about marriage or the truth about the Constitution.

---  Not that Roe v. Wade has gone away any time soon, so I have to wonder what they expect to get by bringing that up.  Hopefully not rather intimidation-oriented protests and bombings at same-sex marriages/clerks/churches to complement protests and bombings at abortion clinics (aargh). 

     But aside from such nastiness in historical tactics of opposition:  Granted, there's no point arguing that they should give up arguing simply because a court says so.

Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and woman are distinct and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father.

I wonder a little whose evidence they are referring to, as there are a good few books on gender around the world (from anthropology no less) that would unsettle this notion.  And there's no empirical case that children of same-sex couples are doing worse than those of different-sex couples, controlling for the predictable (external prejudice) effects of existing discrimination against same-sex couples generally.

       Another thing that's worrisome about this line is it suggests that the right may become more antagonistic toward Trans/Queer population in the future.  Much in the name of protecting the children of course...  Which was the same old line that's been used to smear gays (particularly gay men) for decades at least now.  The more things change, the more social conservativism doesn't.  Or is that in the definition of social conservativism too:  "Much keep up the same old smear lines forever?" 

       The only silver lining is, it obviously doesn't work in the Supreme Court.  They dropped the very same arguments the court had already rejected in Windsor.   

In the aftermath of the Dred Scott decision, Lincoln came forth with the most penetrating critique, and he proceeded to lead a national movement to counter and overturn that decision. He and his Congress would move through ordinary statutes, before raising the matter to the level of a constitutional amendment. All of these ingredients should be in place.

So he wants to compare animus against the Black population which clearly excluded them from citizenship to...  What?  To a decision which social conservatives don't like.  As if they are somehow completely excluded, or unable to function, in a society which has same-sex marriage.  Someone needs to come out in public and explain exactly what these people feel they are being denied.  Personally, I think it would have to reasonably start with 'being the only kind of people allowed to have marriage' -- but it's very tricky to say that and not be flagged as discriminatory.  Psychologically it makes a certain defensive sense (though no less than same-sex couples' wanting to get married!)...  But then, you run into the land where married people get material benefits and social approval and others don't.   

      If this is basically a demand that gender roles be strictly segregated and enforced -- which is more what Anderson seems to be approaching in the quote further above --  then well, if they actually expect any serious response then people need to hear all the details and evidence.  (If in fact there wasn't enough of this same argument in the circuit case that shot down Proposition 8?)  I don't believe this very reaching Dred Scott comparison, or a more rigid legislation of gender roles should be worthy of judicial approval.  But I also don't believe they have even bothered to do the work of enunciating just where that is all coming from.  That is if in fact, anyone has seriously done research to think through it.  Most of the scant academic writing coming down against same-sex couples parenting has since been discredited...  So I don't see either a threat to children, OR exclusion of hetero couples going on there. 

        But maybe there is some broader agenda about roles of men and women in society here that could be at least explicated.  However, I strongly suspect it's one that would involve something like returning to a 1950's family that rarely if ever quite existed at all in the actual history.  So, perhaps if they dared to upset still more women, especially, in the process.

It’s time for conservatives to apply principles to their purses. Coca-Cola, ESPN, and Walmart are prominent cases of corporate culture warfare, and every time a conservative buys a Coke, watches SportsCenter, or enters the megastore, he helps them do their damage.

Wow, I'm starting to believe the Republican Party must be much more fragmented than I realized!  Conservatives believe corporations are bad???  Whatever happened to the rhetoric of sacred, untouchable "job creators" who can be denied no tax break anywhere?  Is it really only the whiter-collar sorts voting more directly for that, and others are cobbled together on social issues and other particular fusses like gun control or race?  I wonder now.  Cause I sure hear Republican figures spewing out a lot of 'Anyone can be responsible and work harder and be successful in America (structural inequality? huh? where?! surely only Europe limits anyone!!)...  but job creators must never lose a dime to evil big government!'

      And conservatives are against sports culture and megastores?  Really?!  What have I been missing in the last few years, cause that isn't the image of key conservative voters which I have long understood to be out there (rural, often white, working class, often enough male, very invested in masculine spectacles like American football and always talking about who's beating on who or whoever's "tougher" or "owns" who).

Justice Alito’s dissent notes the rate of illegitimate birth, and nobody is shocked at the routine acceptance of marital infidelity and instability. All this is ominous for the sustainability of Western civilization. To outsiders, however, it appears inconsistent and selective to judge practicing homosexuals, for whom same-sex impulses are usually deep-seated, more strictly than wanton adulterers.

Aha?  Is this what some are really after here -- locking up those women in chastity belts when the hubby's away and making divorce unthinkable?  Well, at least someone is thinking somewhat about getting one's errrm, house "in order" before going on the offensive.   ::)  Gawd.

Some Christians aren’t convinced that the Bible prohibits homosexual acts. Let the Courts and the States go where they will. It’s absurd to urge the country to affirm Christian marriage until we’re united on the question. Given today’s disarray, that’s the work of a century or more.

Churches must take responsibility for marriages and families. The argument that we need to protect marriage for children is true in principle, laughable in practice. In sections of America, marriages aren’t steady enough to protect anyone. The best argument for traditional marriage is a thriving traditional marriage.

At least this one strikes me as more reasonable.  When Biblical scholars don't all agree, you need to do more research first or accept that there's no united front.  I don't think most of these people even know enough about the language and culture Paul (and probably many of the others!) wrote from.

      Agreed many marriages don't last.  But can anyone make them, in the society we have?  Umm.  ::)  It's actually many of those states that claim to value traditional heterosexual marriage most, that have higher teen pregnancy and domestic violence rates.

To continue to even use the same word “marriage” is to employ a homonym. Let Jewish and Christian clergy use the Hebrew term kiddushin for what they are now solemnizing, which is the virtual equivalent of the Latin term sacramentum. Traditional religious marriage is holy; this new revolutionary institution is, by contrast, profane.

I don't know quite what to make of this one yet...  It's rather amusing in the desperation to find distance and distinction, anywhere one can.  Which seems to be at the heart of the whole conservative upset actually, in my opinion...  This idea that 'we must be sanctified' not only religiously but socially, and only by having a different and apparently older word can one achieve that. 

      Except, what would they do when they realized that so many laws don't cover those terms, any more than they required inclusion for all the people who had only "civil unions"?!!

Marriage simply cannot and will not accommodate everyone. In 1960, one in ten adults had never been married. Today it is nearly one in five—with fifty percent of that number saying that they wish they were married. Marriage has declined the most among those who are the worst off. Men with only a high school degree or less are more likely than those with a further degree never to have married (25 percent v. 14 percent). A similar disparity exists between blacks (36 percent) and whites (16 percent). Those who do marry now marry later than ever.

We are moving toward a post-marriage future. While marriage will long continue to be the reality for a majority of Americans, its centrality to the culture and importance to individuals will only continue to ebb. How can the Court’s marriage idealism accommodate this reality? Where is the “nobility and dignity” for the Appalachian man without a high-school diploma, the single woman in Spanish Harlem, the twenty-something unpaid intern? Perhaps the justices forgot that not everyone was born in the 1950s and grew up to be an elite.

...  As more and more Americans live more and more of their lives outside of marriage, Christians must recover the forms of radical solidarity that gave St. Paul confidence when he said that it was good not to marry.

You know, I think he's basically right.  Even while it's awesome that same-sex couples can marry, it's also true that it's become difficult for many people to afford the commitments and often, the sort of ceremony that is expected of marriage in the US.  So either definitions of what marriage IS will have to keep changing radically (here I mean not what sex one can marry, but what one is supposed to do about having a ceremony or what one will do in terms of living together or which benefits it will actually include for anyone exactly). 

     And there is a whole slew of reasons that what benefits marriage gives, shouldn't only be limited to "couples" or "households" defined and regulated in the odd ways that marriage does today.  So those on the conservative end who are moving away from having marriage at all, even if they do so in response to the same-sex marriage decision etc., may actually dovetail with liberals who are skeptical of marriage as a central institution.  Not that either group is necessarily a sweeping majority or the "center" of either side as yet...  But there are real problems still pending with the larger picture of all marriage does in the society period, and this is getting at a piece of them.

[Ephiral]

I will never stop finding it funny how many people act like authorities on the Constitution and forget the Ninth Amendment. (Yes, this includes Scalia.)

[kylie]

     Oh, this is kinda fun.  Silliness alert.   8-)

Just a sample:

Governor Mike Huckabee pointed out that for the Supreme Court to legalise same-sex marriage is to overturn nature, which is impossible.

— Gov. Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee)
June 26, 2015
The Supreme Court can no more repeal the laws of nature and nature's God on marriage than it can the laws of gravity.

However, same-sex marriage is now legal, so clearly it is possible for humans to overturn nature. This opens up a wide variety of problems, given how nature is responsible for everything that keeps the planet running. Clearly LGBT people have the power to overrule nature to suit their own needs. While we can hope they restrict this ability to things like increasing the number of rainbows, there’s no guarantee of this. What if some careless homosexual is struggling with a heavy suitcase and decides to lower the mass of the planet to reduce the strength of gravity? We’d all be flung out of the atmosphere without warning.

[Ryven]

     Oh, this is kinda fun.  Silliness alert.   8-)

Just a sample:

I...I have super powers?!  OH MY GOD, THIS IS AMAZING!  WHY DIDN'T I KNOW THIS BEFORE?