SCOTUS rules: gay marriage approved

[Atomic Playboy]

Hooray! That took a lot longer than it should have, but better late than never.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Kinda makes you wonder why people on here keep telling you and others they don't watch or read Fox News, huh? If the dipshit lefties and Fox haters in here would actually listen there wouldn't be anything really talking about that place.

But haters gonna hate and ragers gonnna rage. :|

I just poked my head in, I was curious as to how their news team would portray the story, and to their credit, it was pretty much straight reporting of the facts.
The comment section though, goddamn, their fanbase is a frightening lot.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Sucks.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

hmm. one guy on TV said this changes NOTHING> it just says the FEDERAL govenment can't ban same sex marriage. the states still can

lol /facepalm

Well - there were those issues in Alabama or wherever - The judges were ignoring the state supreme court ruling in favor of gay marriage and denying gay marriage.

 

[Mxylplyx]

So Cruz and others are already calling for a constitutional amendment.

Do social conservatives ever pick battles they can win anymore? It's almost as if the conflict is the point rather than the result, because obviously these guys know that this is an issue they CANNOT win. I guess the large portion of their base who have never been outside the confines of their trailer park don't understand this.

 

[xBiffx]

I just poked my head in, I was curious as to how their news team would portray the story, and to their credit, it was pretty much straight reporting of the facts.
The comment section though, goddamn, their fanbase is a frightening lot.

Look at the comments section for any news on any site. I wouldn't be equating the comments section to a fanbase. Trolls don't really follow much except trolling.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

So Cruz and others are already calling for a constitutional amendment.

Do social conservatives ever pick battles they can win anymore? It's almost as if the conflict is the point rather than the result, because obviously these guys know that this is an issue they CANNOT win. I guess the large portion of their base who have never been outside the confines of their trailer park don't understand this.

They said it from the start, did you think they were honestly going to give up and go home after the supreme court decision?

I mean sure, any logical person would, but we're talking about Ted Cruz here... He is still looking for the nut job voters.

 

[crownjules]

So Cruz and others are already calling for a constitutional amendment.

Do social conservatives ever pick battles they can win anymore? It's almost as if the conflict is the point rather than the result, because obviously these guys know that this is an issue they CANNOT win. I guess the large portion of their base who have never been outside the confines of their trailer park don't understand this.

It's not about actually passing it to them in most cases. It's making their position well known and loud so that their constituents continue to vote for them.

 

[Jaskalas]

Not my fight. Could care less except for wanting to ensure equal treatment under the law, but I don't see how it applies here. Reading the majority opinion this is all based on the 14th amendment.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
​

Their argument appears to be that if one state passes a law, grants "persons" any sort of right or legal status - then the precedent is now set that ALL states MUST treat that law as if it is their own.

This is highly dangerous and widely open to abuse. If CA or anyone else permitted illegals to vote, ALL states would then be required to permit illegals to vote. Under the same precedent that they must now all allow gay marriage simply become some states redefined it. "Persons" and "equal protection" is extremely vague when we're using it to apply some state laws to all states.

 

[Blackjack200]

My FB status:

Thanks AJs Sotomayor, Kagen, Ginsberg, Breyer, Kennedy. Congrats to CJ Roberts, AJ Thomas, AJ Alito, and AJ Scalia who will go down in history as bigots who would deny civil rights and equal protection to our beloved families and friends.

I almost never post FB status.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

My FB status:

Thanks AJs Sotomayor, Kagen, Ginsberg, Breyer, Kennedy. Congrats to CJ Roberts, AJ Thomas, AJ Alito, and AJ Scalia who will go down in history as bigots who would deny civil rights and equal protection to our beloved families and friends.

I almost never post FB status.

:thumbsup:

 

[Blackjack200]

nm

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Not my fight. Could care less except for wanting to ensure equal treatment under the law, but I don't see how it applies here. Reading the majority opinion this is all based on the 14th amendment.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
​

Their argument appears to be that if one state passes a law, grants "persons" any sort of right or legal status - then the precedent is now set that ALL states MUST treat that law as if it is their own.

This is highly dangerous and widely open to abuse. If CA or anyone else permitted illegals to vote, ALL states would then be required to permit illegals to vote. Under the same precedent that they must now all allow gay marriage simply become some states redefined it. "Persons" and "equal protection" is extremely vague when we're using it to apply some state laws to all states.

You're missing out on the crucial point; gays aren't (or weren't) getting equal protection of the laws in states where heterosexual marriage is currently legal. Which, by my count, is every single state. It's not just "oh, crazy Vermont has passed a law, so Alabama has to comply." It's "you disallow a specific group access to equal protection under a law that already exists in your own state and you can't do that."

 

[Pneumothorax]

I don't see people clamoring to have a same-sex marriage in an unwilling church or performed by an objecting religious leader. People just want the secular state to recognize their marriage and give them access to the same legal benefits that other married couples enjoined. Frankly, the argument seems like a strawman that anti-SSM people like to bring up in defense of their untenable position.

What makes a church so different than a flower shop, photographer, and a pizza joint refusing to facilitate a gay wedding? Gay Marriage is now a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, RIGHT?!

Your local minister Joe Preacher is basically acting as a representative of the government when marrying a couple, so it's discrimination when they refuse to marry a gay couple. It's just the same as a white minister refusing to marry a black or interracial couple isn't it?

I know the Justice who wrote the majority opinion tried to address it, but it was basically a half-assed response and this question will be coming back to the Supreme court again in a few years.

 

[MetalMat]

Good, long overdue. I don't understand why some people are so against this. Can we all just please put this issue behind us and focus on other things?

 

[Strk]

My FB status:

Thanks AJs Sotomayor, Kagen, Ginsberg, Breyer, Kennedy. Congrats to CJ Roberts, AJ Thomas, AJ Alito, and AJ Scalia who will go down in history as bigots who would deny civil rights and equal protection to our beloved families and friends.

I almost never post FB status.

I usually don't do much of FB either, but popped on there today and the GoT feed has a Funko pop of Renly Baratheon saying way to go (fairly apropos if you watch the show).

 

[K1052]

Not my fight. Could care less except for wanting to ensure equal treatment under the law, but I don't see how it applies here. Reading the majority opinion this is all based on the 14th amendment.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
​

Their argument appears to be that if one state passes a law, grants "persons" any sort of right or legal status - then the precedent is now set that ALL states MUST treat that law as if it is their own.

This is highly dangerous and widely open to abuse. If CA or anyone else permitted illegals to vote, ALL states would then be required to permit illegals to vote. Under the same precedent that they must now all allow gay marriage simply become some states redefined it. "Persons" and "equal protection" is extremely vague when we're using it to apply some state laws to all states.

Kennedy perched the opinion on top of Loving v. Virginia, another marriage decision with national reach that hinged on the 14th Amendment. I do not see the slippery slope that you see.

 

[nageov3t]

What makes a church so different than a flower shop, photographer, and a pizza joint refusing to facilitate a gay wedding? Gay Marriage is now a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, RIGHT?!

religious institutions have special rights that regular people don't have.

Your local minister Joe Preacher is basically acting as a representative of the government when marrying a couple, so it's discrimination when they refuse to marry a gay couple

it's not, and this is pretty much settled law that you're attempting to be obtuse about. Churches already refuse to perform marriages on a wide variety of religious grounds, and it's perfectly legal... what's not legal is the government denying a couple a marriage license.

 

[ivwshane]

Only two bigots so far in this thread, not bad.

 

[fskimospy]

What makes a church so different than a flower shop, photographer, and a pizza joint refusing to facilitate a gay wedding? Gay Marriage is now a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, RIGHT?!

Your local minister Joe Preacher is basically acting as a representative of the government when marrying a couple, so it's discrimination when they refuse to marry a gay couple. It's just the same as a white minister refusing to marry a black or interracial couple isn't it?

I know the Justice who wrote the majority opinion tried to address it, but it was basically a half-assed response and this question will be coming back to the Supreme court again in a few years.

Can you point me to a single case ever in the nearly half century since Loving v. Virginia where a pastor or whoever has been forced to marry an interracial couple?

 

[abj13]

Their argument appears to be that if one state passes a law, grants "persons" any sort of right or legal status - then the precedent is now set that ALL states MUST treat that law as if it is their own.

This is highly dangerous and widely open to abuse. If CA or anyone else permitted illegals to vote, ALL states would then be required to permit illegals to vote. Under the same precedent that they must now all allow gay marriage simply become some states redefined it. "Persons" and "equal protection" is extremely vague when we're using it to apply some state laws to all states.

I suggest you actually read the ruling. The decision clearly delineates how marriage has been a longstanding federal and constitutional issue. Because of that case history that is why a "slippery slope" style logic doesn't apply. This decision is about marriage.

 

[Pneumothorax]

Too bad this didn't come out 15 years ago, could've 'married' my roommate and we could've saved close to a $100,000 between the two of us over the 5 years we lived together lol. The marriage license cost and the cheap divorce is much cheaper than the $50,000+ more in taxes I had to pay as a single male. (AMT hits really hard when you're single and earn $200,000 as it negates large amounts of deductions instantly)

PS we also weren't in a 'civil union' type of state lol

 

[Remobz]

This is terrible news and a slippery slope for America.

 

[Atreus21]

Just announced, SCOTUS rules there is a constitutional right for gays to marry. It was a 5-4 decision. Again, no links yet.

Huge news. I can only imagine the shock waves this is going to send.


Edit: Here's a link: http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-ruling/index.html

Link to the ruling (thanks, Brainonska511): http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

I just hope it stops here.

 

[abj13]

Too bad this didn't come out 15 years ago, could've 'married' my roommate and we could've saved close to a $100,000 between the two of us over the 5 years we lived together lol. The marriage license cost and the cheap divorce is much cheaper than the $50,000+ more in taxes I had to pay as a single male. (AMT hits really hard when you're single and earn $200,000 as it negates large amounts of deductions instantly)

PS we also weren't in a 'civil union' type of state lol

15 years ago you could have done that with a woman. Why, you didn't have any female friends that would willingly enter in an union with you back then? Too bad.