Marriage Equality!

[Oreo Cookie]

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed. It is so ordered.

Complete ruling here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

 

[fantasmicfantastic]

Marriage equality regardless of sexual orientation

 

[Patch'sD]

Good news, yet somehow depressing that the vote was only 5-4. I can't imagine being Scalia, knowing that in 50 years this fight will be seen through the same lens as civil rights before it, and simply saying "OK, I'm comfortable with being remembered as a villain in future textbooks. Put my picture next to the one of Wallace blocking the schoolhouse door."

I would much rather have a Supreme Court Justice who makes a judgement based upon his understanding of the law rather than how he will be remembered.

 

[BillBrasky]

We don't have any of those. SCOTUS has been a political entity for years now.

 

[chicagodisneyfan]

HORRIBLE ruling! NOT because I am against gay marriage - I am a big supporter.
But after just spending time reading the dissenting opinions, I agree with Chief Roberts (wow never thought that would ever come out of my mouth!)

"Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same sex couple may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring an extension are not. The fun-
damental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage... In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage."

Additionally I think that the opinions of people were changing overwhelming on this issue and it was a matter of time before all states accepted gay marriage. However now opponents will always be able to point to this ruling and say the gay community did not have support but had to have the Court make a bad decision.

In closing I think the Court overstepped and acted like a legislature.

 

[JimmyBean42]

HORRIBLE ruling! NOT because I am against gay marriage - I am a big supporter.
But after just spending time reading the dissenting opinions, I agree with Chief Roberts (wow never thought that would ever come out of my mouth!)

"Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same *** couple may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring an extension are not. The fun-
damental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage... In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage."

While I understand your point, some states would refuse to change their law and if you look over the history of laws within states there are still some ridiculous ones on the books. If we allowed the states to still govern themselves things like women not being allowed to vote and slavery still would be in place even today.

 

[Patch'sD]

We don't have any of those. SCOTUS has been a political entity for years now.

After Yesterday's ACA ruling, how could you say that.

 

[delyrium]

While I understand your point, some states would refuse to change their law and if you look over the history of laws within states there are still some ridiculous ones on the books. If we allowed the states to still govern themselves things like women not being allowed to vote and slavery still would be in place even today.

Yes, without Supreme Court intervention, I wonder how long anti-miscegenation laws would been been enforced.

 

[DisneyLvr55]

So happy! I just hope there's no loop hole to reverse it ever!!!!

 

[mnrose]

Yes, without Supreme Court intervention, I wonder how long anti-miscegenation laws would been been enforced.

I'm betting some states would STILL have them if they could. The equal protection laws apply to all, regardless of the states they live in. There is no way, as the majority held, to allow states to continue with the anti-gay marriage laws once they decide the constitution protects it. Individual states cannot undo what the constitution protects.

 

[mnrose]

There IS a loophole, but hard to undo. We would need a constitutional amendment (with 2/3 rds of states agreeing...if my hazy recollection of constitutional law is correct) that specifically says no to gay marriage. Given the current thinking of the clear majority of states, this seems very, very doubtful. I expect there to be an effort, however, led by the 14 states with so-called "marriage protection" laws on the books.

Ooops. I was wrong. Takes 3/4th of the states, or 38 states.

 

[BillBrasky]

It was 6-3 yesterday. 4 staunch liberals, 3 staunch conservatives, swing vote Kennedy, and wildcard Roberts. If 9 of the greatest legal minds are reviewing the same cases and at least 7 of the 9 are in lock step with party lines 95% of the time, that's politics. I think most people agree the idea of judicial non partisanship is long gone. There's a reason presidents pick justices who are "on their side"

 

[FlightlessDuck]

"same-*** couples"

Gotta love the filter.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

There IS a loophole, but hard to undo. We would need a constitutional amendment (with 2/3 rds of states agreeing...if my hazy recollection of constitutional law is correct) that specifically says no to gay marriage. Given the current thinking of the clear majority of states, this seems very, very doubtful. I expect there to be an effort, however, led by the 14 states with so-called "marriage protection" laws on the books.

Ooops. I was wrong. Takes 3/4th of the states, or 38 states.

And the last time the Constitution was amended to disallow something, it didn't really end well.

 

[NFLDERS]

Love won.

Congrats! USA

May Love, and Peace prevail.

 

[lustergirl]

YEA

 

[TheDisneyNurse]

In closing I think the Court overstepped and acted like a legislature.

I don't believe you understand the point of the Supreme Court.

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

I'm waiting for my brother (who's been divorced twice and married 3 times), his first wife (divorced 3 times and married 4), and one of their daughters (divorced twice and married 3 times, all before 40) start expressing their dismay on FB about this challenge to the sanctity of marriage.

 

[delyrium]

I'm waiting for my brother (who's been divorced twice and married 3 times), his first wife (divorced 3 times and married 4), and one of their daughters (divorced twice and married 3 times, all before 40) start expressing their dismay on FB about this challenge to the sanctity of marriage.

Doesn't that always seem to be the way of things.

 

[chicagodisneyfan]

I don't believe you understand the point of the Supreme Court.

No, I believe it is you who is ignoring the facts. But I am not going to spat with someone not willing to listen. Enjoy your celebration.