SCOTUS rules: gay marriage approved

[waggy]

How will gay marriage drive humanity to the brink of extinction?

because now everyone needs to get gay married. duh!

 

[Pneumothorax]

BTW - for all of you out there who are married how does it feel to have your marriage invalidated? Since that's what we were told would happen.

Since conservatives are so worried about saving traditional marriage will they introduce a bill outlawing divorce??

Nope, they should introduce a bill where the government no longer recognizes marriage at all. Every 'marriage' should just be a civil union under the eyes of the law.

 

[fskimospy]

I once wrote a case note article on Scalia's dissent in Romer v. Evans, a seminal case on gay rights in the 1990's. His dissent in that case frothed at the mouth no less. This is obviously an emotional issue for him. He's probably been struggling with it on a personal level his entire life. :biggrin:

Haha, I've always wondered. He seems to have a really special amount of hate in his heart for gay people. There was an interview with him a year or two back where he said he wasn't friends with a single person who was openly gay.

In 2013.

In Washington DC legal circles.

This is a guy who lives in a very weird world.

 

[First]

Good News. now we can finally put this behind us and move on.

lol

 

[cabri]

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

You should have picked up some female off the street and paid her to be a wife. Instituted a pre-nup.()

Poor planning on your part.:\

 

[Pneumothorax]

Haha, I've always wondered. He seems to have a really special amount of hate in his heart for gay people. There was an interview with him a year or two back where he said he wasn't friends with a single person who was openly gay.

In 2013.

In Washington DC legal circles.

This is a guy who lives in a very weird world.

He's most likely gay then, it's too often most anti-gay people to be closet gays themselves.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Nope, they should introduce a bill where the government no longer recognizes marriage at all. Every 'marriage' should just be a civil union under the eyes of the law.

How would that change anything at all? Then we would just have been arguing about who can be in a civil union. SCOTUS can not change the working definition of Marriage that any given group uses, only the definition the law uses. It matters not one bit what word we use legally, we would still be having the same arguments.

 

[werepossum]

As opposed to spreading to polygamy. There is no case for gay marriage that doesn't equally support group marriage. The difference is their degree of acceptance, and as we saw with gay marriage, that can change in the space of 10 years.

Granted it's the same principle, but hugely different in scope. Group marriage has historic power issues (cults with adults marrying children) and potential legal entanglements (i.e. custody and property disputes for divorce or death) that simply don't existing with gay marriage, which is still two consenting, competent adults just with different fiddly bits. (Or without different fiddly bits I suppose, depending on how one looks at it.)

All slopes are slippery, but that doesn't mean an adult or a nation should stand still forever.

 

[Remobz]

bwaaa hahahahahaha, holy fuck that website is WAY off the deep end. Great point of reference

There are tons of other references. The point is that it is true.

 

[ivwshane]

How would that change anything at all? Then we would just have been arguing about who can be in a civil union. SCOTUS can not change the working definition of Marriage that any given group uses, only the definition the law uses. It matters not one bit what word we use legally, we would still be having the same arguments.

I don't think anti SSM folks understand the argument for SSM. I think they only see it in terms of religious beliefs and not about equal rights which isn't just about the right to be married but the right to the benefits afforded to married couples.

 

[woolfe9998]

Haha, I've always wondered. He seems to have a really special amount of hate in his heart for gay people. There was an interview with him a year or two back where he said he wasn't friends with a single person who was openly gay.

In 2013.

In Washington DC legal circles.

This is a guy who lives in a very weird world.

In Romer, the issue was whether to uphold a law passed narrowly by popular vote in Colorado which amended the state Constitution to prohibit any legislation protecting gays from discrimination. Scalia's reasoning was that since the prior case of Bowers v. Hardwick, which upheld the constitutionality of criminalizing sodomy, said that it was OK to criminalize certain sexual conduct, that it was therefore OK to discriminate against gays because "gay" is not a status or preference, but is really just sodomy. This is the old world conception of it, where there was no such thing as homosexuality as a preference. There were only "sodomites."

Thankfully, Bowers was overturned in 2003 by Lawrence v. Texas, thus depriving Scalia of his favorite legal precedent with which to bludgeon gays. Needless to say, Scalia wrote another frothing at the mouth, butt hurt dissent in that case as well.

That should tell you all you need to know about Scalia.

 

[Brainonska511]

Nope, they should introduce a bill where the government no longer recognizes marriage at all. Every 'marriage' should just be a civil union under the eyes of the law.

Are you advocating a scorched earth policy?

Will they also fix all the references in all the laws to "civil unions"? Marriage is as much a civil, secular institution as it is a religious one.

 

[Jimzz]

There are tons of other references. The point is that it is true.

Ahhh no, no its not.

 

[zinfamous]

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?

No, they aren't.

 

[zinfamous]

By the way, I'm now scouring eBay and BigLots for a shiny new toaster, something with great value and mileage.

Just patiently waiting my turn...

:wub:

...:hmm: say, will I have to wait for a decision regarding polyamory if I choose this model?

 

[waggy]

By the way, I'm now scouring eBay and BigLots for a shiny new toaster, something with great value and mileage.

Just patiently waiting my turn...

:wub:

...:hmm: say, will I have to wait for a decision regarding polyamory if I choose this model?

that is a multi wedding. sorry you have to wait.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Nope, they should introduce a bill where the government no longer recognizes marriage at all. Every 'marriage' should just be a civil union under the eyes of the law.

How would that change anything at all? Then we would just have been arguing about who can be in a civil union. SCOTUS can not change the working definition of Marriage that any given group uses, only the definition the law uses. It matters not one bit what word we use legally, we would still be having the same arguments.

To save the Village you have to burn the Village......Duh!

and may I question we'll change everything to civil unions, guess what there are still ministers that will perform the ceremony to same sex couples. What do you propose Pneumothorax when people still call it marriage?

 

[Exterous]

Maybe, but if so their presidential contenders are completely out of sync with mainline repubs. I expect they will be similarly railing against this ruling.

IMO a big part of the problem is that it is very easy to pander to a certain group of Republicans because they will always vote for you if you hit a few key talking points. There is another group that would require some level of effort to appeal to in the hope of getting their vote. I have no idea how big that other group is because it gets drowned out by the frothing fanaticism of the first group but I hope its gaining in size and the fanatics go by the wayside.

well yeah... the sucking is the whole reason I need to lock it down and put a ring on him.

Into a little S&M/chastity are we?

 

[Pneumothorax]

By the way, I'm now scouring eBay and BigLots for a shiny new toaster, something with great value and mileage.

Just patiently waiting my turn...

:wub:

...:hmm: say, will I have to wait for a decision regarding polyamory if I choose this model?

That's a hot toaster.

 

[Jaskalas]

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.

I'll also submit that I haven't spent much, if any, time on the 14th amendment. I'm now curious as to the apparent precedent Kennedy cites from other cases, whose outcomes are something I also approve of - but the means are worrisome.

 

[MovingTarget]

wait, does this mean states are forced to recognize gay marriage all over the US?

Now that's a quick change.
I guess it's a new south africa-like change, 70% of people in SA still think gay sex (not just marriage!) is wrong, and yet the court legalised everything for gays because of their post-apartheid constitution. Law-makers would have never done that.

I don't know how it works in the US, but in my country if the federal constitution says something, states have to comply.

My understanding about how the states/cantons in Switzerland work is that it is somewhat similar to the US, insofar as the federal government has supremacy over state governments. However, that supremacy is a bit weaker over here, as not every issue is one that the federal government has jurisdiction over. However in this case, since SCOTUS ruled on it, then it is the law of the land uniformly across all states.

What you will see over the course of the next few weeks is that some states will deliberately slow the process of implementing the ruling, to outright resistance. These actions will end up in federal court and the states will lose every time due to this ruling. Our state governments can be quite stubborn, but they will fall in line.

 

[JSt0rm]

lol. I was coming to lay my claim to the toaster.

 

[Anubis]

As opposed to spreading to polygamy. There is no case for gay marriage that doesn't equally support group marriage. The difference is their degree of acceptance, and as we saw with gay marriage, that can change in the space of 10 years.

there really is nothing wrong with group marriage, the only issue is some legal BS if 1/n wants out

 

[blankslate]

Actually, it's now very easy to understand CJ Roberts. He's a fucking bigot, just like Scalia, Alito, and Thomas. History should remember him like the bigots that sat on the bench in the 19th century. Nothing more.

He also removed it as an issue republican party candidates can lose to democratic candidates on. Now there are no anti-gay marriage propositions that can pull out voters who will vote against conservatives.
What used to be a wedge issue that worked for conservatives very recently became one that works against them and now it is a non-issue since a conservative candidate can point to the SCOTUS and say "I can't do anything about it. but let's talk about taxes."

One could see a similar calculation in Chief Justice Robert's mind when that decision came down. Conservative politicians won't have to face voters in their states who lost their subsidies to help them afford health care.

Also take a look at what happened to health related stocks after the recent SCOTUS decision on the ACA.



.....

 

[Drako]

Huge win for divorce lawyers.