Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage Nationwide

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage Nationwide

    Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage Nationwide

    WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Friday that it is legal for all Americans, no matter their gender or sexual orientation, to marry the people they love.

    The decision is a historic victory for gay rights activists who have fought for years in the lower courts. Thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia already recognize marriage equality. The remaining 13 states ban these unions, even as public support has reached record levels nationwide.

    The justices found that under the 14th Amendment, states must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and recognize same-sex unions that were legally performed in other states. Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

    The lead plaintiff in Obergefell v. Hodges is Ohio resident Jim Obergefell, who wanted to be listed as the surviving spouse on his husband's death certificate. In 2013, Obergefell married his partner of two decades, John Arthur, who suffered from ALS. Arthur passed away in October of that year, three months after the couple filed their lawsuit.

    Obergefell was joined by several dozen other gay plaintiffs from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee who were fighting both to be able to marry and to have their marriage recognized in every state in the country.

    In the majority opinion, the justices outlined several reasons marriage rights should be extended to same-sex couples. They wrote that the right to marriage is an inherent aspect of individual autonomy, since “decisions about marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make.” They also said gay Americans have a right to “intimate association” beyond merely freedom from laws that ban homosexuality.

    The majority determined that extending the right to marry protects families and “without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser.”

    The majority concluded that the right for same-sex couples to marry is protected under the 14th Amendment, citing the clauses that guarantee equal protection and due process.

    The country's views of same-sex marriage have transformed since 2004, when Massachusetts became the first state to allow gay couples to wed. In 2013, the Supreme Court began chipping away at the country's legacy of discrimination against same-sex couples when it struck down part of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which prevented same-sex couples whose marriages were recognized by their home state from receiving the hundreds of benefits available to other married couples under federal law.

    President Barack Obama became the first sitting president to support marriage equality when he came out in favor of it in 2012, the same year that the Democratic Party made it part of its platform for the first time. The Republican Party and its slate of 2016 presidential aspirants, however, remain opposed to same-sex marriage. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) support a constitutional amendment protecting states that want to ban marriage equality.

    Some conservatives have advocated for a civil disobedience effort against a Supreme Court decision in favor of same-sex marriage. However, officials in red states told The Huffington Post recently that they are prepared to implement the decision, going so far as to ready gender-neutral marriage licenses and set later office hours. Gerard Rickhoff, who oversees marriage licenses in Bexar County, Texas, said that if same-sex couples are discriminated against elsewhere in the state, "Just get in your car and come on down the highway. You'll be embraced here."
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...tml?1435327358

    And its over. Congratulations America, very proud of you today.

  • #2

    Comment


    • #3
      From the dissenting opinion:
      As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?


      Who better to define our social institutions than the Aztecs?

      Click image for larger version

Name:	humansacrifice8.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	589.7 KB
ID:	9101716

      Comment


      • #4
        ****ing a. Never thought I'd see the day.
        "My nation is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine
        "The subject of onanism is inexhaustable." --Sigmund Freud

        Comment


        • #5
          Cool
          Did the Westboro Baptist Church already issue their intent to secede from the united states?
          Tamsin (Lost Girl): "I am the Harbinger of Death. I arrive on winds of blessed air. Air that you no longer deserve."
          Tamsin (Lost Girl): "He has fallen in battle and I must take him to the Einherjar in Valhalla"

          Comment


          • #6
            I know it's only the first day, but so far my own marriage seems strangely unaffected.

            The dissenting judges basically seem to be saying, to varying degrees, that this ruling comprises judicial activism and takes democracy out of the hands of the American people. Which does kind of beg the question of why the court agreed to hear the case. I see Scalia went nuclear again. Poor guy is going to have an aneurysm if he doesn't calm down.
            Apolyton's Grim Reaper 2008, 2010 & 2011
            RIP lest we forget... SG (2) and LaFayette -- Civ2 Succession Games Brothers-in-Arms

            Comment


            • #7
              Scalia totally lost his shit!

              WASHINGTON -- Justice Antonin Scalia has really had it.

              Scalia's dissent in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, which officially made marriage equality the law of the land, runs for eight pages, but amounts largely to a big, arms-crossed "harumph."

              "I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy," he begins.

              "The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me," he offers. "It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best."

              "But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law," he opines. "Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its 'reasoned judgment,' thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect."

              Scalia even offered what may the first legal cite of a hippie.

              "'The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality,'" he quoted from the majority opinion before adding, "Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie."

              He also bemoans the tone.

              "The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic," he writes. "If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: 'The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,' I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

              "And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation," he writes. "But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch."

              Each of the four opponents of the ruling wrote their own dissent but Scalia, opposing for every reason anybody could come up with, joined the three he didn't write.
              http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...p_ref=politics

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by -Jrabbit View Post
                Which does kind of beg the question of why the court agreed to hear the case.
                IIRC, it only takes a minority of justices to grant a writ of certiorari.
                I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
                For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

                Comment


                • #9
                  To revisit the dissent's choice of examples of how marriage has been defined over the course of history:

                  Aztecs - allowed polygamy, matches were made by parents (oh, and human sacrifices to keep the sun alive ...)
                  Bushmen - allow polygamy
                  Han Chinese - didn't allow polygamy, but had concubines that for all intents and purposes are just lesser wives.
                  Carthaginians - probably allowed polygamy (certainly their ancestors did)

                  Is Scalia trying to make a case for polygamy?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I assumed that this was an Onion article
                    <p style="font-size:1024px">HTML is disabled in signatures </p>

                    Comment


                    • #11

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        About ****ing time.

                        And like JR, I don't feel anything has changed in my Catholic Marriage.
                        And the world didn't come to an end either.
                        Keep on Civin'
                        RIP rah, Tony Bogey & Baron O

                        Comment


                        • #13


                          EDIT: wrong image
                          "My nation is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine
                          "The subject of onanism is inexhaustable." --Sigmund Freud

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Han Chinese - concubines were only for those rich enough to afford them, so pretty much like Republicans today.
                            “It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.”

                            ― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I feel so sorry for those poor Republicans you guise!
                              Order of the Fly
                              Those that cannot curse, cannot heal.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X