SCOTUS

Impromptu Celebration Outside SCOTUS After Gay-Marriage Ruling

Supporters of the Court's decision outnumbered opponents.

|

Libertarians join the celebration outside SCOTUS
Brenna Butler / Reason

Throngs of revelers crowded the sidewalk outside the Supreme Court to celebrate this morning's gay-marriage ruling.

Ikeita Cantú stood beaming, a sign raised above her head that read, "Not Just Gay… Ecstatic!!!"  She married her spouse, Carmen Guzmán, in Canada back in 2009.

The biggest sign in support of gay marriage—around five feet tall—was held by Lorence Wenke, a former Republican Michigan state representative. Wenke's sign, shaped like a giant shield, read, "Our Constitution is our shield against Bible based discrimination toward our gay friends & neighbors."

Wenke says he was one of three Republican representatives to vote against the Marriage Protection Amendment in 2004, which, he argues, "put discrimination in Michigan's Constitution."

Some conservatives worry the GOP is getting "more libertarian," and as Reason's Peter Suderman has pointed out, that means "Republican candidates are likely to have a harder time generating support by opposing gay marriage, because there are likely to be fewer and fewer Republican voters who oppose it." But his party's evolution hasn't come quickly enough for Wenke. In 2014, he left the GOP for the Libertarian Party, due in part to the former's stance on same-sex marriage.

The Republican Party may finally be in the last throes of opposition to gay marriage, though, per Suderman's piece:

For the last decade, the arguments on both sides have been aired over and over again, and, in the court of public, it seems pretty clear that opponents of gay marriage lost. 

Most Republicans know this, even if they won't always acknowledge it. And that's why my guess is that 2016 will be the last hurrah for significant national political opposition to gay marriage—a final opportunity for some of the candidates to give voice to those who still reject it and still want their rejection to be part of the nation's political identity.

If the crowd outside the Supreme Court this morning was any indication, he's right that opponents of same-sex marriage are dwindling. Amid the dozens of rainbow flags and equality banners, there were only a few signs representing the other side.

Advertisement

NEXT: Waco Police Continue Campaign to Keep Us From Knowing What Happened During Waco Biker Gang Massacre

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I like pie.

    1. More of a cake guy honestly

      1. Gotta have ice cream on the side.

        1. And you forgot the waffles with that ice cream!!!

    2. Jong,

      I was informed that the movie was quite odd in a non-enjoyable fashion, and therefore did not watch it.

  2. If the crowd outside the Supreme Court this morning was any indication, he’s right that opponents of same-sex marriage are dwindling.

    Hmm.. I dunno, based on some of the comments in today’s threads…

    1. You can support gay marriage and still think the court fucked this one up. I haven’t read the opinion and don’t really know.

      It’s kind of like how you can be pro choice and still regard Roe as a bad decision.

      1. You can support gay marriage and still think the court fucked this one up.

        About as credible as Danton complaining about being lead to the guillotine.

  3. “Our Constitution is our shield against Bible based discrimination toward our gay friends & neighbors.”

    So who gives a shit about King vs. Burwell?

    For the last decade, the arguments on both sides have been aired over and over again, and, in the court of public, it seems pretty clear that opponents of gay marriage lost.

    When did libertarians care about public opinion?

    1. Go the fuck away you tedious cocksucker.

      1. cocksucker.

        Homophobe

  4. Some conservatives worry the GOP is getting “more libertarian,”

    Something that should tell you in no uncertain terms that Conservatives are in reality right-wing Socialists, with no higher moral standing than Marxian socialists which populate the Demo-rat party.

    1. That was made pretty obvious back in Eisenhower’s time?

    2. There’s also the fact that libertarians use the exact same arguments as the Progs who regard opposition to the welfare state or gun control as just as backwards and reactionary as opposition to gay marriage.

      1. Go the fuck away you stupid mendacious cunt.

      2. Go the fuck away you stupid mendacious cunt.

    1. Do you WANT me to kill myself? Sheesh!

    2. I think that whatshisname twitter guy beat everyone to this idea

      i was prepared to read a whole article about “why your children should start gender studies NOW” but it was really just a paragraph

    3. “You Won’t Believe How This Cat Lady Destroys Fascism”

      1. “She (Miriam Silverberg) is a hero who is also choosing to save the planet by not having children.”

        Would that some of you could be such a hero as Ms. Silverberg.

        /Woody Guthrie’s guitar

        1. Well, if that makes her a hero, I can think of one more action that would be positively Saint-like of her, if she’s interested.

          /I mean, using their logic.

  5. YEAH MOTHERFUCKER NOW I GET EVERYONES PIZZA

  6. Did they pass out sample complaint forms? Just think how many people they are going to get to sue over this!!

    1. Point to me where in the decision the Court expanded anti-discrimination and public accommodation statutes?

      Federal law continues to say nothing on the matter, and the state and local laws that do were already enforceable before this decision.

      The only people who will get sued are any state/county clerks who refuse to abide by the ruling, and rightfully so.

      1. John Red Tony doesn’t care. Red Tony WANTS an explosion in anti-discrimination suits because then he has something to hang his irrational opposition to gay marriage onto.

  7. Supporters of the Court’s decision outnumbered opponents.

    Dog bites man. News at 11.

  8. What else would you expect from five men in black dresses?

    1. Showtunes.

  9. It would be nice if more people cared about the legal reasoning employed to reach a result than the result itself, but whatevs.

    1. Principals instead of principles. At least Reason would never say that…oh wait!

  10. “Amid the dozens of rainbow flags and equality banners, there were only a few signs representing the other side.”

    Just out of curiosity, how many of the demonstrators held up banners calling for the government to get out of the marriage business? How may of their signs said, “keep the government out of my bedroom and my neighbor’s bakery”?

    1. Just out of curiosity, how many of the demonstrators held up banners calling for the government to get out of the marriage business? How may of their signs said, “keep the government out of my bedroom and my neighbor’s bakery”?

      Reason now has as much credibility on those issues as Trotsky had on complaining about Stalin repression.

      1. I’ll take insanely histrionic analogies for five hundred, Alex.

        1. I know, that implies that Reason has ever had any political influence. 😛

      2. Your blubbery tears are delicious. That is the only thing you are good for btw.

        1. Alberta has gay marriage, is Rachel Notley turning libertarian?

          1. Ah Winston, you truly have an understanding of the complex nature of Canadian politics. That’s why you brilliantly argue about a province in regards to federal legislation.

  11. If the opponents of gay marriage lost, why did they have to go to the courts to enforce it on the country? Shouldn’t they have been able to win an election? Since when is “five robed overlords agreed with us” some kind of definitive statement of the truth?

    1. Since when is “five robed overlords agreed with us” some kind of definitive statement of the truth?

      Only when libertarians agree with them. Not when they disagree like King vs. Burwell or Wickard.

    2. That was precisely the point I was going to make. Hell, Tony made such an observation on the big thread today.

    3. Since when is the will of the majority considered the source of legitimacy by libertarians?

      Not much is going to make me feel good about the Supreme Court. I won’t argue there is consistency in the courts, or that this ruling doesn’t fly in the face of the rationale used yesterday. We aren’t going to get legal consistency. The best anyone can hope for is to get the most libertarian result.

      Was that achieved today? Damned if I know. I’m skeptical. Kennedy’s reasoning was mostly bullshit.

      We aren’t getting the government out of marriage, and I didn’t see a whole lot of libertarians making an issue out of it until gay marriage became a realistic threat to ‘traditional marriage.’

      1. Since when is the will of the majority considered the source of legitimacy by libertarians?

        When it suits them?

        1. No, but I’m sure you’ll claim they do, because you’re an idiot.

      2. We aren’t getting the government out of marriages?

        The same could be said about a lot of things. So the difference between a libertarian and a progressive is…?

        1. Moronic. You would never find questioning of a court decision progs agreed with on Slate. They would simply bob their heads as they stuff themselves with cake.

          Libertarians have had very little influence on policy in America, and we aren’t going to wake up in libertopia tomorrow. Nor are the majority of Americans about to come around to our point of view. We are stuck with an arbitrary power structure whether we like it or not. And the progressives have more to do with that than any other group. The progressives helped actively shape the current system where libertarians have been on the outside looking in, and you ask the difference as if its a legitimate question.

          What you want is to hold libertarians to a standard you don’t bother holding progressives to. Prog troll or conservative?

          John talks about ideologically purity out of one side of his mouth while advocating for voting for Republicans out of the other. I’ll continue to advocate for libertarian ideological positions while taking what I can get from our current political system in terms of full or partial victories.

          1. I just don’t like the whole “we can’t get *insert whatever* out of the government” line of thinking. We cant’ get the government out of healthcare so why socialized medicince and try to make it *work*? When the left used it helped kill classical liberalism and is one reason why we have the progs who don’t even seem to pretend to oppose government anymore. And then we have the Right which resulted in the current gang of Republicans who at best want to cut spending increases slightly and will create new programs that aren’t as big as what the progs want.

        2. Well progs and libertarians are both smarter and eat less cake than you do Winston. Some of them can even STFU once in a while.

        3. Freedom, Liberty and the NAP.

          Progressive wish to engage in their own form of theft and social engineering. Just like “conservatives”

    4. We could have it just would have taken longer and we should not have to. Rights are absolute.

  12. Never underestimate America’s ability to come to the right conclusion but for all the wrong reasons.

  13. I’m still hoping for the dissolution of state sponsored marriage, but I know its a pipe dream. I do think we may see some states attempt to get out of the licensing game now, but the courts will bitch slap them and do away with that. It’s not even close to a mainstream idea.

    And I’m not convinced this will even lead to less arbitrary definition of marriage in society, either. I don’t see polygamy getting through the courts. It will never get the support of the intellectual frauds on the left. Feminists are completely opposed to the idea. Most women will be, I suspect.

    So, did we get a more libertarian result today?

    1. We will get polygamy when the elites and the public supports it. The courts clamped down on gay marriage back in the 1970s since they didn’t like gays but now they do so we have it.

    2. “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society.”

      Ending discrimination against two consenting adults is a positive outcome, however the underlying problems surrounding this issue remain untouched. I find it highly offensive that gay couples had to seek official permission for their personal choices to be recognized by law in the first place. This decision changes nothing in respect to government deeming what is acceptable and rewarded behavior and it’s continuing force to create society rather than protect individual liberty.

      1. Fair enough. But was there a politically viable alternative?

        1. Unfortunately, the reality is we don’t have a politically viable alternative. Our rights will be determined by majority rule and elitest political decree. We will soon do the same thing with marijuana, make it “legal” and declare victory without ever asking why our system ever had the right to criminalize it in the first place?

    3. To answer your question: yes.

  14. Can 3 gay guys get married?

    Can a father marry his two sons, or just one?

    May a mother marry her 3 daughters?

    Can 2 straight guys marry 1 gay female, or can the female be straight?

    If not, why not?

    1. Not until the government fucks something up big time and the social media apparatus needs a new moral crusade to distract the simpleminded. One week that will be weird and creepy, the next week every news outlet will be finding mothers who want to marry multiple daughters so that the morally fashionable can shit all over everyone whose beliefs are sooooo last year.

  15. Sometimes dude you jsut have to roll with it.

    http://www.Goin-Anon.tk

  16. I started with my online business I earn $58 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out. http://www.Workweb40.com

  17. Ikeita Cant? stood beaming, a sign raised above her head that read, “Not Just Gay? Ecstatic!!!”

    For myself, I can honestly say that, today, I am proud to have been born a gay American.
    Now, with a sense of almost certainty, I can look forward to my gay children being not only tolerated but treated with the same level of respect and having the same rights as straight children. #ProudtoLove

  18. If the crowd outside the Supreme Court this morning was any indication, he’s right that opponents of same-sex marriage are dwindling. Amid the dozens of rainbow flags and equality banners, there were only a few signs representing the other side.

    The news media, the entertainment media, the sports media, academia, and most of the internet have pounded the message home for decades: the other side doesn’t deserve a say. Big fucking surprise that few people would stand up to mainstream culture on this.

    1. Conservative Persecution Complex is as reliable as it is pathetic.

      1. Predictably missing the point.

  19. Anybody catch the opinion piece in Politico Magazine “It’s Time to “It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy“?

    Wasting no time…

    1. Sigh… at least I didn’t SF the link.

    2. Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals?

      Do people still believe that legalized gay marriage was about love and devotion to family?

    3. Thinking about this particular issue at hand, here’s the interesting question:

      Before legalized gay marriage, if I’m a gay cop in a long-lasting, committed relationship, and I’m killed when I wrap my car around a tree, my partner is denied the lifetime pension benefits the spouse in a straight marriage is entitled to.

      In a polygamy, would that single pension be divided between all partner equally, or would it be multiplied by the number of partners?

      1. Well, if you let the unions decide, we know what the answer will be.

        The cop was only entitled to one pension *spits after saying that*. So, I don’t think any legal basis exists for every former spouse to get their own full benefit package.

        If people found marriage to be such a great entitlement, we would see more gaming of it. Like in the military. You get paid more and are allowed to live off post if you’re married, so there is an incentive that soldiers try to exploit despite the risks. I haven’t heard of that outside immigration issues.

        1. So, if polygamy is ever legalized, I guess it could wreak havoc on our immigration system.

          The more people who exploit marriage entitlements, the better I say. Might be the best way to get rid of state involvement.

  20. Impromptu?

    Words have no meaning.
    Scalia was right!

  21. Re: the sign in the pic.

    That’s nice, ’cause the constitution isn’t a shield against much else these days.

  22. “Our Constitution is our shield against Bible-based discrimination against our gay friends & neighbors”

    Ehh…I wouldn’t be to reliant on that “shield”; not anymore. The people who are supposed to enforce the protections supposedly afforded by that piece of paper lust after your liberty more than a sailor on shore leave lusts after a porn star.

  23. more than a sailor on shore leave lusts after a porn star.

    Ha! Sailors aren’t that picky.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.