Supreme Court Recognizes a Constitutional Right to Gay Marriage

"The right of same-sex couples to marry...is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment."

Credit: C-SPAN

In a 5-4 decision issued today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that "the right of same-sex couples to marry…is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment."

Writing for the Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that state bans on same-sex marriage must be struck down because they violate the fundamental principles of liberty and equality secured by the Constitution. Kennedy writes:

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.

Kennedy's opinion was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito each filed a dissent.

The Supreme Court's opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges is available here. Stay tuned to Reason.com for much more news and analysis throughout the day.

Comments

[WoodchipperFocus(ed)]

Scalia actually has the sentence "Ask the nearest hippie." in his dissent.

[Woodchip-o-Matic 5000]

Chief Justice H. Dumpty bewails that we are becoming a government of men, and not a government of laws.

The utter lack of self-awareness would be hilarious if it were so terrifying.

[Irish Says Enough Woodchippers]

I know. Roberts has now re-written the Affordable Care Act on two separate occasions.

Then again, Scalia is also being a monstrous hypocrite given that he complains about the court refusing to adhere to the letter of the law when Scalia himself did cartwheels to justify the idea that intrastate commerce is somehow also interstate commerce so that he could find for the government in Gonzalez v. Raich.

[Woodchip-o-Matic 5000]

Oh, Justice Scalia is a rampant hypocrite. He's an originalist except when it goes against Republican orthodoxy, at which time he becomes an unabashed conservative.

[Catatafish & Woodchips]

For Scalia it's primarily the drug war. He loses his mind so much over narcotics you'd think he was on fucking acid.

[perlchpr]

Roberts has now re-written the Affordable Care Act on two separate occasions.

Three. Penaltax, Medicaid, and now the "Words mean whatever I say they do" ruling.

[Woodchip-o-Matic 5000]

Four, if you count his ruling that the Penaltax is NOT a tax for purposes of the Tax Anti-Injunction Act, which would have otherwise precluded jurisdiction in that case.

[Hamster of Doom]

Modern Demosthenes is delightful.

[A special place in JW's Hell]

Gets popcorn. Raises Yokel shields.

[Gilbert Martin]

"In a 5-4 decision issued today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that "the right of same-sex couples to marry...is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment."

So is freedom of contract.

But don't hold your breath waiting for the court to acknowledge that.

[Lee G]

Exactly

[ThomasD]

No, not exactly. More like "exactly," hence the very obvious "two people become..." formulation.

So, no such contract for polygamists of any sexual orientation.

[Auric Demonocles]

The references to two people jumped out at me as well.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

Don't be silly, that's different.

[Tituspullo]

Not according to Roberts. He almost invited the next case from polygamists.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

I was channeling my inner Kennedy. You see we can't have polygamy because marriage is between two people. Two being the smallest prime is clearly the right number. And we can't have a parent marrying an adult child because of the reproductive consequences, which is why, um, nevermind.

[ThomasD]

Next case explicitly not being covered within this case.

[Rt. Hon. Judge Woodrow Chipper]

Fuck. And I was about to put 150,000,000 dependents on my next tax return.

[ianthefish]

Unless I prepare my arrangement to marry to all of my spouses individually.

[Dark Lord of the wood chipper]

Its just an historical footnote now, but the right to contract was basically the entire reason for 14 A.

[Auric Demonocles]

I fully expect the court to ignore the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment by this time next year, if not sooner.

[VG Zaytsev]

Or Freedom of association - that one is just totally obsolete, and mean.

[PBR Streetgang]

Roberts mentioned Lochner in his dissent. Maybe....

[See Double You]

No help. He cited Holmes' dissent in Lochner, you know, the one who helped kill the idea that the Due Process Clause protects liberty of contract.

[Sudden]

Ya, Robert's didn;t merely reference it, his entire dissent was a dissent against Lochner, even while the majority never once relied upon that (as it actually should have).

Roberts manages to prove himself more contemptible with every case.

[A special place in JW's Hell]

Roberts mentioned...

That's the new "yes, but."

[MJGreen - Docile Citizen]

That was settled already! Do yo want to drag us back to the dark ages?

[Sudden]

So is freedom of contract.

Read through Roberts' dissent. It is pretty much a dissent against Lochner, which is odd because instead of resurrecting Lochner, the one actual case that would give berth to an appropriately legal rationale for SSM, the majority never once references it nor freedom of contract.

[Gilbert Martin]

"which is odd because instead of resurrecting Lochner, the one actual case that would give berth to an appropriately legal rationale for SSM, the majority never once references it nor freedom of contract.

No that is not odd at all.

If they bring up the principle of freedom of contract as applicable in this particular instance, then they have no rationale as to why it would not apply across the board to everything else in life. And they sure don't want to do that.

[SIV]

Reason can now turn their focus to the revival of Radical Reconstruction (Fer it)

[Grand Moff Serious Man]

From Roberts' dissent, joined by Scalia and Thomas:

Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sexcouples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex.

But this Court is not a legislature.

Bolded mark mine. Jesus Tap-dancing Christ, has this guy no shame?

[Auric Demonocles]

I'm going to choose to believe that when you said "no shame" you actually intended to say "no shame or a lifetime job with no reviews" and answer: yes.

[Rt. Hon. Judge Woodrow Chipper]

No reviews? Only if 2A excludes woodchippers.

[Remnant Psyche]

You wish. America cares more about socially signaling how progressive they are over a trans celebrity than they do about anything else.

In two or three generations, everyone in America will believe the "for hunting and target shooting" nonsense. Leftism is entropy.

[Almanian - Wood Chipper-ish]

No. No he does not have any shame whatsoever.

[MP]

How is that inconsistent?

[Auric Demonocles]

With the ruling he made yesterday on Obamacare, and rewriting legislation?

[wareagle]

apparently he only rewrites legislation he believes is flawed. Or something.

[wareagle]

apparently he only rewrites legislation he believes is flawed. Or something.

[wareagle]

apparently he only rewrites legislation he believes is flawed. Or something.

[wareagle]

or Roberts acts when squirrels get squirrely

[Auric Demonocles]

Does he rewrite legislation three times?

[wareagle]

if at first you don't succeed.....

[Rhywun]

I guess we'll find out in the next decision he writes about Obamacare.

[Jimothy]

I'll be surprised if there is another ObamaCare case before the SCOTUS, unless I'm mistaken and the Origination Clause challenge is already headed there.

The reason is that the Court has demonstrated twice now that they don't care what the legislation (the ACA) or the law (the whole body of law, including the Constitution) say. I can almost here Roberts' twisted justification for how, yes, the Origination Clause was violated, but it doesn't matter because Congress intended?something.

The rule of law is dead, and there are no checks or balances, only blank checks written to the executive and our expanding debt.

[Scarcity]

Does he rewrite legislation three times?

Actually, yes! Very clever use of squirrels, wareagle.

[perlchpr]

Well, actually...

[Tilting at Woodchippers]

"Thou shall count to three. Three shall be the number.Thou shall not count to two but that thou continue straight on to three..."

[MP]

He would argue that he interpreted to leave things as-is. "Legislating from the bench" generally involves change, not stasis.

[Irish Says Enough Woodchippers]

The Supreme Court rewrote Obamacare so that the phrase 'by the states' (which is clearly defined in the legislation to mean an exchange actually set up by states) now means 'by the states or the federal government.'

It was obvious legislating from the bench.

[Sevo]

The supremes also re-wrote it such that what was specifically not a tax became a tax. Thereby preempting the House responsibility twice, since the act began in the senate and was found to be a tax by the court.

[Overt]

He would argue that he interpreted to leave things as-is. "Legislating from the bench" generally involves change, not stasis.

I'm sure he would argue that, but it is a stupid argument.

In the worst case, the stasis- the law of the land- was that the Federal Exchange was not eligible for subsidies as that is what was written in the law. That the Executive Branch chose to ignore that law does not mean that was the law.

A more charitable reading is that the law was contradictory or flawed- that the statute as written was inconsistent or had a flaw that would have fatally damaged its implementation.

That he chose to say the relevant passage was a) not acceptable and b) his only recourse was to change the meaning of those words to mean the opposite, means that he legislated- changed the meaning of a statute to mean something else.

[Grand Moff Serious Man]

Leaving 'as-is' would have been throwing his hands up and saying Congress must make fixes to the law in order to resolve the ambiguities and inconsistencies.

This isn't a case of ACA conflicting with other laws on the books, it was a case of the law conflicting itself. Proper deference is demanding Congress do its job properly, political realities be damned.

[A special place in JW's Hell]

When Roberts rules over us with his giant judicial brain, he will punish those who scoffed at his psychic abilities, first.

[Je suis Woodchipper]

Because he wrote the opinions re-writing the ACA making it Constitutional. Mandate/penalty became a tax, state became state and federal, medicaid withheld became portions.

[Grand Moff Serious Man]

If the Court is not a legislature why is it obligated to discern Congress' intent in a poorly-worded law and make appropriate fixes to make it work?

That's exactly what he said yesterday in Burwell opinion.

[DJK]

Because Chevron. Except not in that case. For some reason.

[VG Zaytsev]

They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sexcouples.

Because love and commitment are irrelevant without a government stamp of approval.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Why do you think many people like their marriage ceremonies to be public ones?

[Je suis Woodchipper]

dunno but i blame ronnie fucking mervis for the whole diamond scam. that sonuvabitch.

[VG Zaytsev]

Maybe for the same reason that baptisms are public.

Are those only valid with a government stamp of approval?
Should the government force every organization that does them to do them for anyone that wants them to?

[Bo Cara Esq.]

It's public because it's seen as increasing the value because it's harder to back out of it when its done publicly. Similarly, it's harder to back out of a government recognized marriage. It's like you're autistic on this topic.

[wareagle]

bull-fucking-shit. People back out for reasons that have nothing to do with the size of the wedding held. It's public because it is seen by many as a celebration, like havng a big birthday bash or gathering for a significant anniversary. Never been married, have you?

[Crusty Juggler]

Single people know more about marriage than married people, you silly fool.

[C. Anacreon]

A lot of formerly single people are now going to learn about the living hell that marriage can be -- and won't be as simple any more as just packing up your stuff and driving away while your significant other is at work.

My boss here in CA married his boyfriend two years ago, to much hullabaloo and a week of parties. Now they're getting a divorce. Quoting my boss: "Who knew divorce would be such a shitstorm?" I refrained from answering "most of us".

Right now it's all going to be about putting together fabulous weddings. A few years down the road, when things aren't quite so easy, is when things should get interesting.

[Napoleon Bonoparte]

I would disagree with "a lot". Of the small percentage of people that are gay, it's an even smaller percentage that are interested in getting married. The number of people (other than journalists and SJWs) that are affected by this ruling is actually trivial, and the public impact will be virtually nil.

This issue has always been a lot more smoke than fire.

[Suicidy]

Like the DoMA, this ruling is unconstitutional. And it will be used as a basis to use civil rights laws to attack religious institutions who refuse to cater to homosexuals. Which is the REAL reason for all of this. Letting gays marry is just the delivery system for the anti-Christian poison.

A truly dark day for this country.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Than some, it seems.

[Sevo]

Bo knows more about everything than anyone else, too! If you don't believe me, ask Bo.

[DarrenM]

If single people knew all that much about marriage, they wouldn't become married people. 🙂

[Ivan Pike]

It's public because it is seen by many as a celebration, like havng a big birthday bash or gathering for a significant anniversary

Correct.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Of course that's one reason, but you don't think the public-ness has a tendency (at least hoped) to increase the commitment? You've never heard it said 'before God and these people' at a wedding when the vows are exchanged?

[Overt]

Of course that's one reason, but you don't think the public-ness has a tendency (at least hoped) to increase the commitment?

What does that have to do with the government?

What do you think is more likely to help a couple keep its commitments- a moderate amount of government red tape, or a supporting community of friends and families who live by example, give council in times of stress, offer help when the couple (triple, etc) need it, and apply negative pressure when the couple isn't living up to the community's standards?

Seriously, you act like a libertarian all the time on this site, but this argument is the stuff of progs and religious zealots. There is nothing about public spectacles or community support that requires a government certification. Indeed, I would argue that too many of our woes- from welfare to student loans and to marriage- are exacerbated precisely because the government has taken on these burdens and given members of our community reason to say "No longer my problem!"

[wareagle]

but you don't think the public-ness has a tendency (at least hoped) to increase the commitment?

no; why would it? No one gets married with an expiration date in mind, and people who have a judge do it with no one else around are not viewing it as marriage-lite.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

So wareagle, you're the expert on marriage. Why do so many ceremonies have the lines about 'in front of these people and God' in them then?

[Remnant Psyche]

Bo is not entirely wrong on this one. Weddings likely evolved as a closely-knit community's acknowledgement of a couple's pair bonding to raise children. The social statement that was the ceremony was, as it is today, partially to cement the husband-wife commitment by involving the community in the bond.

[VG Zaytsev]

It's public because it's seen as increasing the value because it's harder to back out of it when its done publicly.

Nope, it's more of a party and it's the government force that makes it harder to back out of, not the fact that the relationship is not secret.

Look, I think teh gayz should be able to live however they want. I'm just wandering where this train is going, but it is going somewhere.

[Don'tTreadOnMeChipper]

A gay friend was fearing this since he was married in New York and is in the process of splitting up with his partner in a state that previously did not recognize gay marriage. Divorce court win!

[VG Zaytsev]

But he's freer!

Especially if he gets forced to pay spousal support for years.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

VG, you've never heard of the idea of a public oath, and the oath being seen as stronger because it was made in front of others? Come on.

[VG Zaytsev]

What is this the 800s?

[Enough About Woodchippers]

Just STFU.

[Overt]

Similarly, it's harder to back out of a government recognized marriage.

So, just assuming you are right that this is an effect of government certification, you are saying that the government ought to be in the business of making it hard for people to break up?

There is a nice site called National Review Online that you might want to visit. Or a dozen other conservative websites that share this view. Maybe you will find some more like minded citizens over there.

I do agree that there is a strong anthropological foundation for public mariages. Not only to give peer pressure to make the commitment last, but also to glorify procreation and even serve as a community notification that the spouses are "off the market." But none of these require the government. Indeed if it is the government sanction that gives the "oomph" to these public ceremonies, doesn't that mean we ought to have the government managing the whole process? The invitees, the vows, the best man and woman, etc?

[VG Zaytsev]

It's only a matter of time.

After all, it's mean to exclude people from your marriage ceremony that want to be there.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

I've said several times that I don't think government should be involved in encouraging this or that type of relationship, but that doesn't mean that the idea that the government does encourage it via recognition is incorrect. You acknowledge peer pressure has this effect, why is it hard to see that having it certified legally (with the attendant legal obligations everyone knows comes with it) doesn't add to that?

Part of being a libertarian is being able to say 'yes, this idea or thing might be good for lots of people, but that doesn't mean government should be involved.'

[anon]

Bo, regarding your prior comments, most religious ceremonies contain the actual words "bear witness to God." The reason being I can make many oaths to God with myself, and only I will know of them; Were Marriage to be one of those, I could claim to be married to anyone with no witnesses but myself and God, and that person would be unable to refute the oath because nobody bore witness.

tl;dr, "bearing witness" means objective verification that a verbal contract exists between both parties. Nothing more.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

anon-many ceremonies specifically highlight the public bearing of the witness, whether to God or to the audience assembled. There's a long tradition and common sense of the idea that a publicly made oath or commitment is one that has more binding power.

[wareagle]

mostly because they like having a party. Govt stamp, sold separately.

[DJK]

I was going to say party as well. It's an opportunity to see family and friends and share in a time of joy. It has very little to do with the heightened sense of commitment due to the presence of others.

[Fist of Etiquette]

They like forcing me to waste a Saturday and give them gifts.

[DJK]

Eh. Every wedding I've attended has been a blast. Free booze and fun party.

[Half-Virtue, Half-Vice]

^This. I was just saving my cousins honor on the dance floor last weekend -- fucking Midwestern white people would rather bring shame on a new couple with an empty dance floor then chug one down and get sweaty.

[Certified Public Asshat]

Uh, mine was private. I only invited people I like. And family.

[Suicidy]

It isn't public. They just invite guests. You can't just wander into any marriage ceremony normally. My nephew is getting married next week and almost no one is invited.

Honestly, your the obtusification you display is profoundly monumental. I am in awe.

[Catatafish & Woodchips]

You have got to be fucking kidding me.

[Sunshine]

Roberts: Chief Hypocrite since 2005.

[Amused Observer]

It gets better: "Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what
the law is, not what it should be."

[Amused Observer]

Don't get me wrong - I think the government should stay out of the marriage debate all together. Just pointing out the (sad) hilarity of Robert's hypocrisy.

[DarrenM]

I thought the "judges have the power to say what the law is" was a result of Marbury vs. Madison. The SCOTUS delegated to itself that it has this power. It is not in the Constitution, but SCOTUS interpreted that is *is*. They can do this because they declared they have this power and no one objected (much). SCOTUS declared it has this power so it can say that is *is* in the Constitution, therefore it is. Somewhat circular logic, but generally accepted, so there you go. :\

[R C Dean]

Just as I suspected, Roberts' opinion in the gay marriage case is pretty much the exact opposite of his opinion in the OCare case.

The only surprise is that he is in dissent on this one. But, regardless of which side he took, I knew he was going to basically repudiate his opinion from the dim mists of . . . yesterday.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Do you really see it that way?

I'd pretty much like to see the ACA go down by hook or by crook, but thinking that the overall intent of a legislation can trump the literal meaning of a line in the statute is not necessarily inconsistent with taking a pass on invalidating legislation using substantive due process.

[Overt]

ut thinking that the overall intent of a legislation can trump the literal meaning of a line in the statute is not necessarily inconsistent with taking a pass on invalidating legislation using substantive due process.

Unfortunately, that is not what Roberts said in the ACA ruling. He didn't say "Obviously the intent was to allow subsidies, and this is a mistake." No, he said "We can't be sure what the intent was, but since it is vague we are going to re-write it because going as written would make the law fail."

There is a difference there- one is saying "I'm clarifying the intent of this passage" and the other is saying "This passage makes it harder to meet the law's intended goal, so I'm pulling it." That's not the judge's job. Judges are not there to say whether a law is effective or not at meeting its political purpose.

If it was contradictory, it should have been sent back to congress to fix.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

I haven't read the whole thing, just the syllabus. But it seemed all the world to me like examples of interpreting wills that one sees in law school. A cardinal rule in doing so is to try to give the will the intent of the deceased. A common example of a problematic will is one like this, a holographic from an elderly lady that reads: "All to my dear dog Trixie. My friend Jeeves to see to this."

Now, one way to interpret that is to say 'it literally says all is left to the dog, and since dogs can't inherit that means it all goes intestate.' But it's often argued courts should, instead, say 'hey, the second part there makes it seem like she wanted the estate to be used by the friend to take care of the dog, a trust (most states now allow pet trusts), so while it literally reads 'all *to* my dear dog' this lady's intent was to create a trust to take care of the pooch, so that's the better way to read it.

[See Double You]

But there are good arguments which pose that the intent was to deny subsidies to states which refused to set up their own exchanges.

Federal legislation, especially large pieces of legislation, often have separate policy goals in mind. To me it was clear that, as a sort of New Federalism tactic, the ACA's drafters designed it in such a way that would persuade the states to get more involved in the entire affair, so as to deflect criticisms that the ACA was some kind of federal overreach that came solely out of Washington D.C.

Their strategy backfired; many more states than the senators (mostly, if not entirely, Democrats) thought would call their bluff did just that. The Court, instead of refusing to "save the people (i.e., through their elected representatives) from themselves," gave them a second bite at the apple.

So no, the intent, as well as the plain language, of the statute all pointed to the lack of subsidies in federally-created exchanges.

[Overt]

Bo, I tend to agree with your analysis except that in this case, the legislature is not dead.

To me, the proper analogy would be a contract between two parties that has a conflict preventing the contract to be executed. For example a contract that says "All funds to be deposited in the 1st National Bank, Dallas TX" and in a separate section says "No funds may be housed in or passed through the state of TX."

There is a clear conflict there, and the appropriate relief is to say the contract is un-enforceable and to send the contract back to the parties to clarify. SCOTUS should have said "This legislation is contradictory, and indeed as written it will not meet the goals it set, therefore we remand this back to Congress to fix the contradiction."

As others have said in other threads yesterday, all sorts of laws are "intended" to fix problems that they will fail at due to mistakes made in writing that law. Certain Cap and Trade environmental laws are economically and mathematically flawed. Is it the responsibility of the courts to say "Our analysis indicates that the statutory emissions cap as stated will not meet the stated goal, therefore we will increase it by 32.5%." Or should their job be to say "It's broken, and up to congress to fix." ?

[Mark22]

People have intents, not laws, and the intent of the people behind ACA largely had nothing to do with health care and everything with elections.

[fieryscribe]

That's not the best part. This is:

Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise "neither force nor will but merely judgment."

Unbelievable.

[Ivoted4KODOS]

So the Proggies can go back to hating BUSHPIG Roberts today. Sold his soul for a day of praise.

From Libertarians, on the the other hand, he can count on an everflowing river of contempt as he consistently ignores his duties to act as a check against the Executive and Legislative branches.

[sarcasmic]

"Check" obviously means "rubber stamp."

/Roberts

[Almanian - Wood Chipper-ish]

"The check's in the mail."

[A special place in JW's Hell]

"Check" has been stricken from the language of republican government. The Court shall provide only "balances" from now on.

[C. Anacreon]

So the Proggies can go back to hating BUSHPIG Roberts today.

There was just a local politician on TV expressing his happiness that this decision "finally bringing tolerance" had occurred, then expressed his hatred for the four judges who voted no.

I don't think he even noticed that he endorsed tolerance for others and hatred for others in the same sentence.

[PapayaSF]

Leftists have it all worked out: they don't think it's contradictory to hate people for being haters, or to be intolerant of people they consider intolerant.

[Tituspullo]

Yep - that's about right. The dissents today have it about right as a Constitutional matter, but after these last opinions, the idea that the Court is not just a bunch of people picking winners and losers based on their own desires is officially dead. While I favor gay marriage, this decision is a kick to the head of the rule of law, which was already reeling, if not dead.

[Dark Lord of the wood chipper]

So according to the quoted part of the opinion, marriage is a constitutional right because feelz. Jesus, even Kennedy should be able to do better than that.

Also, is it even possible now for states to get out of marriage entirely?

[Woodchip-o-Matic 5000]

The "fundamental rights" talk is a lot of feelzy gobblety gook that has no basis the Constitution, but I think the "Equal Protection" bit and the Full Faith & Credit requirement of states to recognize marriages performed in other states are legit.

[Dark Lord of the wood chipper]

Will NJ honor my CCW issued in GA?

[Woodchip-o-Matic 5000]

Doubtful, but just because states trample the Second Amendment doesn't mean we should also allow them to trample the Fourteenth.

[R C Dean]

Well, there is a good point, there.

But, if we allow double standards for liberty and Constitutional rights, we're not going to wind up where we want.

Better in the long run, perhaps, to say that you can only have your freedoms if I can have mine.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

Hear! Hear!

[Woodchip-o-Matic 5000]

So we should insist on proper application of the Second and Fourteenth Amendment

[fish]

Only if you can produce proof that you're married to the firearm!

[Swiss Servator, Holzhacker]

Nicely done, fish.

[PBR Streetgang]

Agree entirely. It should be a straight equal protection case.

[Auric Demonocles]

Agreed.

[Dat Laffer Curve]

Alabama's trying to move towards contracts instead of licenses after their whole debacle with same sex marrige

[Auric Demonocles]

Really? A state actually moving in the correct direction on marriage licensing?

[Dark Lord of the wood chipper]

I know some states are trying, but will they be allowed to? In the 1950s the SCOTUS ruled against school segregation on 14A grounds. In the 70s, Virginia tried to abolish all government schools, but the SCOTUS ruled that to be unconstitutional too. I don't know exactly what their opinion says, but if the headline is correct and they found that marriage is a constitutional right, that means states must issue marriage licenses.

[Rt. Hon. Judge Woodrow Chipper]

Again, if 14A means "must issue" for marriage licenses, then 2A means "must issue" for CCW.

[ace_m82]

Please stop expecting logical consistency from them. It's like trying to argue with the tide.

[Enough About Woodchippers]

Please stop expecting logical consistency from them. It's like trying to argue with the tide Bo.

[ace_m82]

I was thinking "Hihn", but to each his own.

[Overt]

I don't know exactly what their opinion says, but if the headline is correct and they found that marriage is a constitutional right, that means states must issue marriage licenses.

I don't think that is accurate at all. I'm sure one of the asshat judges might make that argument, but there is nothing about a constitutional right that requires licensing.

We have the first amendment right to religiously associate, speak and write what we want. Does that compel the government to them license these activities, or does it just compel the government to not restrain them?

A state should easily be able to step out of the marriage certification business. What that requires is ensuring that all of their laws and benefits associated with marriage are abolished, and they merely recognize two (or more?) peoples rights to associate freely.

[Vincent Milburn]

If people have a right to marriage that doesn't mean a marriage license, gay people already had that. They could already have a relationship, then have a ceremony, pledge their lives to each other and call it whatever they want and then live together and have gay relations.

If marriage means a marriage license, then a marriage license is required.

[JFree]

That's funny. Alabama and the other Jim Crow states were the ones that got the federal government into requiring states to issue marriage licenses in the first place in 1923 - along with Catholics and progressives

[Arisuka]

"Also, is it even possible now for states to get out of marriage entirely?"

The divorce industry will not allow that. Have you seen the documentary Divorce Corp?

[Drake]

I'm not opposed to gay marriage but I am baffled by the Court's justification.

Here's the Fourteenth Amendment.

Somebody tell me how the fuck they squeezed gay marriage out of these words. Or, just another cases of words having no meaning and the Court giving their political opinion?

[Don'tTreadOnMeChipper]

Yes.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

It promises equal protection of the laws. We have these marriage laws, which one group can take advantage of but the other cannot. The argument is that's not equal protection.

Of course Kennedy muddies all this up with a lot of 'dignity' and 'nobility' stuff.

[VG Zaytsev]

There was never a sexual orientation test for marriage.

(Closeted)Gay people married opposite sex partners throughout history.

I believe that people should be able to arrange their lives how ever they see fit.
I'm meh on gay marriate however because of weak assed arguments like those above and the fact that it is being used to punish people for not celebrating gay marriage and further destroying freedom of association in the process.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

"(Closeted)Gay people married opposite sex partners throughout history."

And you don't see the problem with that response?

[VG Zaytsev]

In context, no. The condition for marriage was opposite sex and not already married.

No sexual orientation test there.

AFAIK there was no law against people living together calling themselves married (and there should not be one) or having a 'marriage' ceremony if the desired.

The limitation was on the government bestowing privileges and obligations on those people via a marriage license.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

But of course marriage to a different sex person is meaningless for a gay person.

[R C Dean]

Gosh, you sure know a lot about what has meaning for other people, Bo.

Tell me more about what your incredible mind-reading skills have uncovered!

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Really RC? Saying that gay people marrying a person of a different sex is generally less meaningful than a heterosexual doing the same requires Karnak like powers? Sheesh.

[VG Zaytsev]

Then why did the do it?

[Bo Cara Esq.]

To escape what through most of our history were criminal penalties or strong stigmatization?

[VG Zaytsev]

Then it wasn't meaningless was it.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Holy cow.

[Rt. Hon. Judge Woodrow Chipper]

But of course marriage to a different sex person is meaningless for a gay person./i

Why?

Why can't a gay man be married to a woman and spend most of his waking hours fucking men? Just because YOU think marriage is all about sex doesn't mean that has been the historical view or marriage, nor is it the entire meaning any states have attached to it. Just because sexual incompatibility is grounds for divorce doesn't mean sexual compatibility is necessary for a valid marriage.

Can't wait for more of that Tulparrific logic.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

This is straight up autism right here.

Sure, gay people who marry straight people because that's the only way certain benefits (including perhaps escaping social oppobrium or criminal sanctions in not to distant times) can generally be as meaningful as straight people who marry other straight people, because they can always just cheat like crazy with other gay people.

Again, holy cow.

[Marshall Gill]

No, Bo, you are not autistic, you just play one here on H&R.

[Mark22]

There is a sex test there though. And we like our laws and contacts to be neutral to sex

[Vincent Milburn]

Marriage is now built on "love" so I'm sure the judges will make absolutely sure a couple loves each other before issuing marriage licenses.

[Arisuka]

"We have these marriage laws, which one group can take advantage of but the other cannot."

There are two groups. Men and women. Both groups of people can marry.

[Marshall Gill]

But if someone doesn't want to do something, that is the same as denying them that thing!

[Woodchip-o-Matic 5000]

I have only had the chance to read the syllabus of the opinion (not a tax case, so I can't justify spending the day doing it at work, as I did yesterday with King) but "Equal Protection" and "Full Faith & Credit" seem to be the stronger bases for the decision.

[Ivan Pike]

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

I think this is where they get it.

[PM]

But they didn't invalidate all state marriage laws, and there are still plenty of people denied the ability to get married despite their wishes otherwise. Marriage is an intentionally and unchangeably discriminatory institution. The politically disfavored will be delighted to find out that everyone is equal now though, I'm sure.

Too bad this precedent won't apply to other types of state licenses. Like gun permits, or occupational licenses.

[Ivan Pike]

But they didn't invalidate all state marriage laws, and there are still plenty of people denied the ability to get married despite their wishes otherwise.

Which is a shame, they should have. IF a state is going to be involved in marriage, which they shouldn't be, the only check on marriage should be competency.

Too bad this precedent won't apply to other types of state licenses. Like gun permits, or occupational licenses.

This, which is why I am surprised they put the full faith and credit part in their ruling. If all 57 states have to issue and recognize gay marriage, why is that part necessary?

[PM]

No disagreement here, but (sadly) I won't be surprised if the court finds a "compelling state interest" in the other conditional restrictions on marriage, should they be challenged on the same grounds. The court contains multitudes.

[C. Anacreon]

I can't see how any laws against marrying first cousins, as exist in about half of the states, can survive after this decision. That should be the first case up next.

I also wonder, with so many of the trans community being unwilling to choose one sex or the other as their self-definition, will there be any requirement to declare whether you are male or female now when you get married? Or will it just be person-to-person from now on?

[Marshal]

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Maybe they can explain why that phrase doesn't preclude government agencies from giving race preferences.

[kinnath]

Maybe they can explain why that phrase doesn't preclude government agencies from giving race preferences.

It does preclude government agencies from giving race preferences.

It also preclude public schools from providing extra benefits to special-needs children.

The 14th says "one size fits all".

[Ivoted4KODOS]

I hate that times when our Government actually manages to "unfuck" a mistake or injustice they have been making come at the cost of a fair and principled process.

To me the 14th was always the clear obstruction to gay marriage bans. States cannot pass a law that grants legal protections for people entering into a consensual relationship contract and then cherry-pick which type of couples are OK and which are "icky". So great, the outcome was correct. HOWEVER, rather than just state this as the final and legal reasoning we get a novella saying it needs to be this way because majority opinion has changed, Tocqueville said some nice words, childrenz will FEELING BAD that their family is lesser and "love is wonderful" and "oh, by the way, due process or something". The court now makes decisions based on social signaling and because loneliness sucks, and if there is ink leftover they'll throw in some relevant legal justification.

So even in the few fucking moments that we are showered in less shit than normal, the stink does diminish.

[Akira]

What exactly do you mean by "social signaling"? I'm just curious. I've seen that term used quite a bit here, but I don't know the exact meaning.

[See Double You]

"Social signaling," at least in the way I think it is used here, means when a person supports or opposes some policy or cultural norm with an eye toward pleasing others instead of critically thinking about the issue.

In short, the point is to look cool, progressive, and with it, not to discover the truth.

[Half-Virtue, Half-Vice]

I'm not entirely positive but what I reckon is something like: One believes they are not a racist but this isn't good enough for some unless one proves it by 'signaling' one's position to the rest of us early and often, e.g., popular passions want to destroy the confederate flag because it's a symbol of racism - progressive claim: anyone who doesn't want to destroy the flag is a racist - we only know you want to destroy the Johnny Reb's battle standard if you says so i.e. signal - #black lives matter or we will do everything in our power to fucking destroy you along with the flag.

So idk, it's just hand raising, 'who's for gay rights?' *hands go up, look around the room, crush everyone with their hand down* smart people learn quickly that you just have to raise your hand (signal) for everything but it's just folly and a show, people go on doing and believing what they will -- just need to make sure you raise your hand whenever a question gets posed to you.

Even the courts have to signal they are with the SJW or they become enemies of them. I believe Ivoted4KODOS is saying that social signalling was a motivator for the courts in this case. Someone else probably has a better, more concise answer.

[Half-Virtue, Half-Vice]

Those dashes in paragraph one were supposed to be arrows ---- idk how auto correct works on this site yet.

[A Self-Identified $park?]

That dude said "The Constitution grants them that right". Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that's the way either rights or the Constitution are supposed to work.

[rts]

You're not wrong.

[LynchPin1477]

Drafting error.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Let's not get into how things are supposed to work.

[Drake]

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments grant the People and States all kinds of rights too. But nobody seems interested in them any more.

[ace_m82]

The Constitution grants no rights; it only recognizes those that already existed.

If the Constitution "grants" it, it isn't a right.

[MP]

There are FOUR dissents. Thomas shreds Substantive Due Process. I haven't read the rest. Much reading to do this weekend.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

"As a general matter, when the States act through their representative governments or by popular vote, the liberty of their residents is fully vindicated. "

Your fav part?

[MP]

"By straying from the text of the Constitution, substantive due process exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority"

[Bo Cara Esq.]

It's a valid concern. And his overall argument that the due process clause is the correct vehicle for thwarting democratic bodies is certainly correct. But for historical reasons it's become the vehicle for the kind of thinking behind the 9th Amendment. When he says ""As a general matter, when the States act through their representative governments or by popular vote, the liberty of their residents is fully vindicated" he sounds like an uber-judicial restraintist.

[Auric Demonocles]

If you aren't religious, what "fulfillment" would you get from being in a marriage, as opposed to a long term relationship? The governmentally-based perks I get, but not the fulfillment part.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

People value the heightened sense of commitment.

[PM]

And since the court doesn't recognize suicide pacts as legally valid, you have to settle for losing half your property.

[Don'tTreadOnMeChipper]

Hahaha. Good one.

[VG Zaytsev]

IOW, the threat of state force to keep the relationship together or allow it's dissolution on the state's terms.

Totally an advance of freedom.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

The entire idea that is supposed to separate marriage from other sexual/romantic relationships is the heightened sense of commitment. People value that because it makes it seem like a more important decision, a more important commitment. It's similar to how most people want their marriage ceremonies to be made in public with publicly stated vows or in a church with vows before God.

[VG Zaytsev]

Why should marriage be limited to sexual / romantic partners?

What is the rational basis for that?

Suppose to straight guys want to get married for the bennies - ala Chuck & Larry. Is the government going to impose a sexual activity test in those cases? Should it?

What if the guys are bi and have sex with each other but also with various women, is that a valid marriage according to the state?

[Bo Cara Esq.]

I wouldn't recognize any marriage as a government matter. But the argument from those who do goes something like this: romantic/sexual relationships are generally of a higher intensity and use for society than other relationships. People form the kind of bonds that leads them to take care of each other in sickness and all that, and that prevents the government from having to do so. Etc.

[VG Zaytsev]

romantic/sexual relationships are generally of a higher intensity and use for society than other relationships

So two people fucking like bunnies is more useful to society than people entering into a business partnership or other non sexual cooperative relationship?

Bull fucking shit.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Again, are you autistic? When people have sex it creates an intimacy which tends to tie them together, an intimacy which is potentially stronger than interacting in other ways. Is that really incomprehensible to you? You may not be doing it right then 😉

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Think about how many songs, movies, novels, etc., are about the power of romantic love and lust. Now, how many are about really good friendships and business relationships (btw, we do have governmental recognition of enduring business relationships too-partnerships, etc).

[VG Zaytsev]

Think about how many songs, movies, novels, etc., are about the power of romantic love and lust.

You've never actually been in a sexual relationship, have you.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Funny, I was thinking that about you, especially given your ideas expressed here. Do you just no express them to actual women or have you never been with one (long)?

[VG Zaytsev]

Yeah, I only get involved when the government gives its stamp of approval, because what's the point otherwise.

[VG Zaytsev]

When people have sex it creates an intimacy which tends to tie them together, an intimacy which is potentially stronger than interacting in other ways.

1) So the fuck what. Society has no interest in maintaining their relationship.

2) Which is the point of marriage - benefits and sticks to keep couples together.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

I agree, government shouldn't be in the business of saying 'ah, this relationship is good for society overall so let's encourage it.' But that's not to say the idea that some relationship's are in general more or less good for society is unreasonable.

[VG Zaytsev]

But that's not to say the idea that some relationship's are in general more or less good for society is unreasonable.

And you are an idiot if you think that a sexual relationship is 'more good' for society than a business relationship.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

The argument is that partners tied by sexual and/or romantic relationships are more likely to stick with each other during tough times for any one of the pair and mitigate the need for governmental assistance. You must have some really close business associates if you think the latter are more likely to do that.

[VG Zaytsev]

The argument is that partners tied by sexual and/or romantic relationships are more likely to stick with each other during tough times...

Then why marriage with its benefits for staying together and penalties for splitting.

Those argue against your assertion.

And they make sense if the rational basis for providing them is to keep nuclear families together to raise children. Absent that reason there is no rational reason why government force should be used to keep a romantic relationship together.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

VG, the argument is,

When people are married they tend to stick by each other through bad times more than if they are not
The government should encourage people sticking by each other in bad times because it mitigates the need for government to do so
Therefore the government should encourage marriage.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

For overt: my position is that I disagree with the second premise, but accept the first.

[anon]

Wow, Bo, that's a shitty argument. Try mine, I like it a lot more :
The government should stay out of peoples lives because meddling begets meddling. Also, fuck off, Slaver.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Like I said, there are lots of things that I think would be overall good for society but I don't think governments should encourage them the way they do marriage. For example, it would be a good thing if more people carried, but I'd be against tax breaks for those who do, etc.

Likewise, I think if more people got married it would be good for society, because married people tend to take care of each other in ways that mitigates the government thinking it should, because kids of married people tend to come out in ways less likely to have people suggest the government deal with them,etc. .

But government shouldn't get involved because meddling begets meddling, and liberty trumps utilitarianism.

[VG Zaytsev]

You must have some really close business associates if you think the latter are more likely to do that.

So lets see, on the one hand we have five guys that started apple computer as a business in the late 70s. On the other hand we have the people that those five guys were screwing at that time.

Yep, the sexual partners were definitely more important to society than the business that those guys started.

Idiot.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Look, first, we do recognize business partners legally.

But again, this is pretty incredible. You really can't see how sex and it's attendant intimacy can't tie a person to someone more powerfully than business relations? Wow. That's really the most autistic, lonely thing I've ever read. It's like Ebeneezer Scrooge wrote it. Most of human art is a testament to the power of love and lust my friend, it attests to that power even if, for some sad reason, you don't know about it...

[VG Zaytsev]

You really can't see how sex and it's attendant intimacy can't tie a person to someone more powerfully

Goal post moving.

You're original assertion was that sexual relationship had superior social utility which is why marriage existed as government policy.

Your moving on from that position is an inherent acknowledgement of its being a fallacy.

Secondly, I have a lot more sexual partners in my life than business partners. Maybe after you've had both (instead of neither) your understanding will grow, probably not but it is possible.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

First, I don't have to assert that it has *superior* value to something like business relationships, just different value, seeing as how we also legally recognize business relationships.

Secondly, I am and will argue that it is superior to business relationships in certain key respects, and that's all the justification necessary (for those who think government should get involved because of such effects, again, that's not me). Your business partner is much, much less likely to take care of you when you are ill until you die than a romantic partner is. That's one example of how romantic relationships, usually with a sexual component, bring something to the table that a business relationship doesn't.

[Marshall Gill]

Goal post moving

VG, meet Bo.

You post in this thread as if the Botard argues in good faith. He doesn't.

[DarrenM]

A sexual relationship, at least for a male and female, is better for society that a 'business' relationship in that it encourages the production of the next generation and the continuation of the human species. When all is said and done, this is all that matters.

[MJGreen - Docile Citizen]

So then don't get married. Committed partners aren't now required to go to the state for a license.

[DJK]

You know, I've asked that question of a (now former) girlfriend. It turns out that it's a great way to start the big fight that leads to her becoming a former girlfriend.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Yes, it's demonstrates a kind of romantic autism to ask the question seriously.

[PM]

And you're speaking to an expert on autism, so you can take that to bank.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

It's totally the kind of thing an autistic person would ask their girlfriend, had they one (because of such thinking).

[DJK]

Perhaps. We all fall somewhere on the spectrum, no? This topic came up in what started as a purely academic conversation about such matters.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

fulfillment? That implies that when one spouse stops finding it fulfilling, (s)he can walk out.

[Auric Demonocles]

That's possible, and in fact easier, in a generic long term relationship.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

We're discussing marriage, not generic long-term relationships.

[Auric Demonocles]

Seeing as how I started this line of conversation: no, we aren't. We are discussing what the difference is.

[lap83]

to get society's recognition

[Apatheist ?_??]

Um, I don't need validation from a god any more than I need it from the government to find fulfillment in my marriage.

[Auric Demonocles]

And you wouldn't get that same validation out of a non-marriage long term relationship with your spouse?

[Auric Demonocles]

Validation --- fulfillment.

EDIT BUTTON

[Apatheist ?_??]

No I wouldn't. Being married is different than a long term relationship.

[Auric Demonocles]

Yet you didn't give any non-religious or non-government benefit reasons why.

[space junk]

It's about time! Its ridiculous that it has taken this long to resolve this basic human issue.

[LynchPin1477]

So I guess marriages based solely on sex don't count? Shit.

[Bam!]

Gay marriage legalized; Gay couple "celebrates."

[MJGreen - Docile Citizen]

I was hoping for two dudes ass-fucking on some stranger's front lawn, but K&P is also good.

[Remnant Psyche]

Good luck arguing with anyone over the way this decision was reached. You'll automatically be labeled a bigot.

We're completely through the looking glass here, legally speaking. Just say words that sound like legalese in your final statement, and America will 'tard out shouting down anyone expressing technical issues with the law you pushed through.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Ooh, Scalia is in fine form today:

"...A system of government that makes the People
subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does
not deserve to be called a democracy.

"Judges are selected precisely for their skill as lawyers;
whether they reflect the policy views of a particular constituency
is not (or should not be) relevant. Not surprisingly
then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section
of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists
of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers18
who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four
of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them
grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails
from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner
or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner
(California does not count). Not a single evangelical
Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of
Americans19), or even a Protestant of any denomination.
...[The Court is] a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine..."

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in
today's judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose
today's majority are entirely comfortable concluding that
every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135
years between the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification
and Massachusetts' permitting of same-sex marriages in
2003.20 They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment
a "fundamental right" overlooked by every person
alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else
in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds?
minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver
Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis,
William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black,
Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly?
could not. They are certain that the People ratified the
Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to
remove questions from the democratic process when that
is called for by their "reasoned judgment." These Justices
know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is
contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as
government itself, and accepted by every nation in history
until 15 years ago,21 cannot possibly be supported by
anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are
willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with
that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the
unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies,
stands against the Constitution."

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"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."

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"The world does not expect
logic and precision in poetry or inspirational popphilosophy;
it demands them in the law. The stuff contained
in today's opinion has to diminish this Court's
reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis."

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"Hubris is sometimes defined as o'erweening pride; and
pride, we know, goeth before a fall. The Judiciary is the
"least dangerous" of the federal branches because it has
"neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must
ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm" and
the States, "even for the efficacy of its judgments."26 With
each decision of ours that takes from the People a question
properly left to them?with each decision that is unabashedly
based not on law, but on the "reasoned judgment" of a
bare majority of this Court?we move one step closer to
being reminded of our impotence."

[LynchPin1477]

The five Justices who compose
today's majority are entirely comfortable concluding that
every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135
years between the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification
and Massachusetts' permitting of same-sex marriages in
2003

That's not impossible.

[kinnath]

Shocking how simple concepts can have consequences reaching far beyond the initial context in which they were first expressed.

[MJGreen - Docile Citizen]

I'm entirely comfortable with that. I almost feel like saying, "Duh."

[Francisco d'Anconia]

The five Justices who compose
today's majority are entirely comfortable concluding that
every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135
years between the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification
and Massachusetts' permitting of same-sex marriages in
2003

They most certainly did. Finally, someone called them on it. Isn't that how it works? I'm no lawyer, but the way I understand it you don't just declare something unconstitutional unless someone is harmed and challenges it, no?

And a SC Justice doesn't understand this?

Blah, blah, blah...TEAM!

[PM]

Or possibly the issue was understood to be the purview of the states under the 9th and 10th until the federal government got involved in doling out benefits to couples based on their state marriage licenses and it became a "fundamental right".

[PM]

They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment
a "fundamental right" overlooked by every person
alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else
in the time since.

Not to split hairs, but wasn't it the court's finding vis-a-vis anti-miscegenation laws that marriage was a "fundamental right"? Don't think that's a new precedent.

[kbolino]

Indeed, the seeds of this decision were as much sown by Loving v. Virginia as by Lawrence v. Texas (and a host of other cases, to be fair).

[GILMORE, LVL20 Blowhard]

Whoo hoo East Coast in the house!!

[Bo Cara Esq.]

"A system of government that makes the People
subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does
not deserve to be called a democracy."

I imagine you thought differently about this when Hobby Lobby came down...

[Notorious G.K.C.]

I thought you were an imbecile.

And so you are.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Hobby Lobby was based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a law passed by Congress to counteract the bad effects of a Supreme Court decision (Smith). But I imagine you knew that already.

[R C Dean]

I wouldn't bet on, Notorious. That "Esq." after his name is purely decorative (if not fraudulent).

[Bo Cara Esq.]

So RC fell for the line that I think even Warty has since backed off on, that's fun.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

I'm sure all Bo means to say is that he is "a man belonging to the order of English gentry ranking next below a knight,"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/esquire

or that he's a photographer for *Esquire* magazine (or at least that's what he tells the coeds when they find him in the bushes with a camera).

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Now you're defending me? I thought you were starting a letter writing campaign to the SC bar! lol

[Notorious G.K.C.]

The SC bar can do what it pleases.

"Esquire" can mean a lot of things.

But bottom line, I was making fun of you and your grandiosity.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

And I simply do not have the obsessive interest in you which a letter-writing campaign would entail.

I'm sure you can be a good lawyer, so long as you don't behave in meatspace as you behave here.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

That's a fair point Eddie, I concede there (though they raised First Amendment challenges too). But I'm thinking it wouldn't be hard for me to find a case where you would side with the Justices over a federal or state legislature or local council, no?

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Did you throw your back out moving those goalposts?

If the people acknowledge limits on their own power, or the power of their representatives, then courts who enforce these limits are acting quite legitimately.

Scalia's point is that the people, when they approved the 14th Amendment, most assuredly did *not* acknowledge government-sponsored gay marriage.

But you knew *that,* too, I assume.

[anon]

GKC, the people that approved the 14th amendment acknowledged a premise that applies nigh universally. Just because it's applied to teh gayz doesn't make either any less legitimate.

The problem is with states assuming that they should be involved with Marriage. Period.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

This. And to borrow Eddie's line, I'm guessing he knew *that* too, but it's not Church approved, so, you know.

Eddie engages in question begging like it's a monastic duty (the entire question in this case is, of course, whether the text of the Fourteenth Amendment is indeed the kind of restriction the people have placed on themselves that Eddie, and Scalia, approve of when they agree that is what it is).

[Notorious G.K.C.]

I've already called you out as a liar about how I want to impose Church marriage doctrine on the U.S.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

"I've already called you out as a liar about how I want to impose Church marriage doctrine on the U.S."

Yeah, it was pretty hilarious too.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Your lies *are* hilarious.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

OK, but if you're operating on that level of generality you can use *any* part of the Constitution to impose gay marriage.

You can use the Bill of Attainder Clause, the 9th Amendment, the 8th Amendment, the 1st Amendment, even the clause forbidding the states to issue paper money.

Ignore the language, context and history, and you can turn *any* part of the Constitution into a same-sex marriage charter.

Go on, specify some part of the Constitution which *doesn't* support gay marriage under your interpretation. I'll give you the Commerce Clause and the requirement that there be two Senators - what else?

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Because all those clauses have something something Equal protection of the laws in them. Derp

[Notorious G.K.C.]

I saw a law-review article about what would happen if the Terminator went back in time to kill James Madison and John Bingham, thus preventing the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment from being adopted. The joke was the Supreme Court would have issued the exact same decisions, just relying on different clauses, like the Bill of Attainder clause.

I'd look up the citation, but I don't see the need to put myself to any inconvenience on your account.

[Auric Demonocles]

One day the Court is going to recognize my right to alt-text....

[Swiss Servator, Holzhacker]

And I will cry tears of joy on that day, Auric my friend.

[jjjjj]

The sheer irony of these lines from the Chief Justice's dissent after yesterday:

"The Court's accumulation of power does not occur in a vacuum. It comes at the expense of the people. And they know it.
[...]
But today the Court puts a stop to all that. By deciding this question under the Constitution, the Court removes it from the realm of democratic decision. There will be consequences to shutting down the political process on an issue of such profound public significance."

[GILMORE, LVL20 Blowhard]

Wow. What *can't* Obama do? He ends wars, cures racism, heals the poor....uhm, rightsifies the gays.... I just wonder why he has taken so long to stop climate change

[jmg09]

Stopping climate change is so easy, but they won't do it for some reason. Just put up signs around the globe stating that this is a "Climate Change Free Zone". There. Done. You're welcome.

[Half-Virtue, Half-Vice]

Every fireworks show needs a grand finale.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Calling it gay marriage seems very othering.

[GILMORE, LVL20 Blowhard]

LGBTQIO-mutual-pairing?

[Teve Torbes]

Beware of the second order effects.

[jmg09]

I've always wondered, why does government get to define marriage anyway?

And, what the hell Roberts? You oppose the freedom to marry who you want, and you support rewriting SCOTUScare..twice. You are the worst kind of "conservative".

[Woodchip-o-Matic 5000]

The government has no place in the marriage business whatsoever. To the extent that they do, all unions should be civil unions under the law. Marriage is a religious practice.

[jmg09]

Exactly how things should be. All the gov't should be concerned with is who gets my crap when I pass.

[Don'tTreadOnMeChipper]

But only after they take their share.

[jmg09]

You're right, I meant "who gets about 60% of my crap" (assuming I have a few million more than I have now.)

[Apatheist ?_??]

Marriage is a religious practice.

No its not, not that it should matter on the issue of whether the government should be involved at all.

[Ken Shultz]

I think they have a legitimate place in enforcing contracts.

From the perspective of the government, marriage should be a contract.

[Overt]

Exactly, and the good to come out of this ruling is that conservative states will be so frustrated by being forced to recognize something they detest that they will just abandon it all together.

Libertarians should be headed to Wyoming, Mississippi and Alabama today and whispering in politicians ears, "here is how you can save your pride!"

It would be a valuable lesson to conservatives if they realized that the best way to keep liberals from shoving their values down your throats is to remove the value-shoving powers from their government.

[kbolino]

But it is, actually. Making a commitment to somebody else is affirming a belief in something external to yourself. The problem is that most people have an overly narrow definition of what "religion" is. If you have a set of beliefs (and everybody does), then you have religion. That you may call it something else is irrelevant. Moreover, it does and should matter to the issue of government involvement, because the government can't make an establishment of religion. When the government defines marriage, it establishes a set of beliefs as superior to others. It is as much as anything else a violation of the First Amendment.

But such a view will never gain traction with the courts, as few people truly understand the implications of the free exercise and establishment clauses, and a good number of those who do are vehemently against the upholding of them.

[Apatheist ?_??]

If you have a set of beliefs (and everybody does), then you have religion.

This is an absurd definition of religion.

[kbolino]

Why?

It amazes me how often fundamentalists and atheists (I would respect your name more if you bothered to offer an argument for your case) converge on questions of belief.

Who gets to draw the line in the sand delineating religions from non-religions? According to GKC, it's the government. Do you agree?

I would not call my own set of beliefs a religion in polite company because most people would misunderstand what I said. Yet I hold them no less closely than a Catholic or a Muslim, so what is the material difference between their beliefs and mine that makes one set a religion and the other not?

[sarcasmic]

I've always wondered, why does government get to define marriage anyway?

So it can fuck over the masculine partner when the marriage ends.

[MJGreen - Docile Citizen]

Gays getting married is pretty icky, so Roberts is able to find legal reasons to bar it.

[Woodchip-o-Matic 5000]

Unless they're hot lesbians, and then the court will insist on clear and convincing proof that the marriage was consumated

[MJGreen - Docile Citizen]

Then they'll need to go on a, uh, fact-finding mission.

[ace_m82]

I've always wondered, why does government get to define marriage anyway?

Short answer: There is money in it.

Longer answer: In the English system, it's a holdover from when the "Church" and King we're basically the same thing. When the two were separated, people would have freaked out if anyone could do [whatever] and call it marriage, so government regulated it.

To Christians, this should be disgusting, as government will always eventually do it wrong, and then use force against you for doing it right. I've been telling other Christians this for years, but most won't listen.

(BTW, "marriage" is not for governmental purview. While Christ defined marriage, and was the originator of it, no one needs to use force of arms against people who do it wrong.)

[Overt]

I don't think this is the only reason marriage exists as a government construct.

Even in small tribes, marriage is recognized by their local governing rules.

The fact is that pair-bonding is a pretty strong human trait. We are wired for it, and there are a lot of moral questions that consider it- from property ownership to infidelity.

The answer is not that "money" drove government involvement, it is that for millennia, the public looked to "government" to answer these questions for them. Over time some have learned that government is a terrible way to answer many of these questions, but a vast majority of our population still feels that if we don't all come together and write a law to codify some practice, it isn't legitimate.

[ace_m82]

Even in small tribes, marriage is recognized by their local governing rules.

Partially true, yes, but government could have just let the voluntary contract happen without direct involvement and the same would have happened.

No, they get to regulate, tax, legislate, etc. this institution if they can control it. All organizations act to protect or increase their power.

[AlmightyJB]

Tomorrows headline: Millions of gay people suddenly lose interest in getting married.

[GILMORE, LVL20 Blowhard]

In some sense it really does pop the balloon of its political utility

Its just the law now.

[Grand Moff Serious Man]

More like hundreds of gay couples finally able to divorce.

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

True, it will no longer be a way to stick it to The Man. It will become ordinary.

[Ken Shultz]

I hope this means that the Republicans will no longer have this issue to shoot themselves with in the foot.

Now, if we can concentrate on important issues like taxes and spending, that would be great.

[Almanian - Wood Chipper-ish]

NO, FUCK YOU, CUT S.....

Wait. No - we're good. Thanks, Ken.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Are you a Republican Ken?

"I hope this means that the Republicans will no longer have this issue to shoot themselves with in the foot.

Now, if we"

[Ken Shultz]

I'm not a Republican.

I meant "we" as an American.

Are you an American, Bo?

Do you care about taxes and spending? Or is gay marriage the only thing you care about?

P.S. It's not like the Democrats are about to cut taxes or spending.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

That's an odd phrasing.

"I hope now that Murray is gone the Cowboys will focus less on offensive linemen good at blocking down field.

Now maybe we can focus on our passing game."

You wouldn't think that meant the speaker was a Cowboys fan?

[Ken Shultz]

I grew up a Redskins fan. And I'd just as soon see Cowboys (and their fans) crucified rather than win a game.

Yes, I would like to see we--as Americans--concentrate on something other than gay marriage, which is a silly issue. That the government would discriminate against people because of what they like to do with their wieners is ridiculous--and I've been saying that here for more than ten years.

I've also been saying that the Republicans are shooting themselves in the feet with this issue (and immigration), and that the important issues are about cutting spending and cutting taxes.

There's no reason to think the Democrats will ever support cutting taxes or spending--because the Democrats are so fucking stupid. Only the stupidest people in the world listen to what the Democrats say about the economy works and think to themselves, "Now there's somebody who knows what they're talking about".

Almost all of the traction the Democrats get, they get by painting the Republicans as homophobes, racists, etc., and when homophobia is no longer a major topic of conversation, then it will be good for Republicans, and it will be good for those of US AMERICANS that want to concentrated on taxing and spending issues.

If the last ten+ years of me saying the same thing hasn't sunken in yet, I hope this clears things up for you. No, I'm not a Republican. Yes, the Democrats are fucking retarded on economic issues, and yes, those are the issues I care most about.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Fair enough, it was some strange phrasing though.

[Ken Shultz]

The only thing strange about it was in your head.

And by the way, Democrats progressives are diametrically opposed to libertarianism in every way I can think of--except for immigration and gay rights--and one of those issues has probably gone bye-bye now forever.

Meanwhile, the most libertarian candidate in the two major parties is running as a Republican.

I can imagine voting for at least one Republican candidate.

Is there anyone with any kind of libertarian sensibilities running for President as a Democrat?

I have no problem pointing out that whatever support there is for lower spending and lower taxes in our government is coming from within the Republican Party.

No question I favor one party over the other, and there's no question that the Democrats are anti-libertarian in almost every way possible--especially in their hostility to individual rights and capitalism.

Fuck the Democrats!

And yeah, I'm as libertarian as anybody.

[Overt]

And by the way, Democrats progressives are diametrically opposed to libertarianism in every way I can think of--except for immigration and gay rights--and one of those issues has probably gone bye-bye now forever.

Sorry Ken. You are wrong on this.

Progs are not libertarian on gay rights. I guarantee you that they will not rest until people celebrate gays in their hearts and homes and the bigots who dislike gays are punished and humiliated. For a brief time, gay marriage was a place where Libertarians and Progs had intersecting interests. Now, emboldened by victory, the Progs will begin swinging the +5-4 Cudgel of Public Accommodation to get their vengeance on wrong-thinking.

And the Republicans are going to fall right into it. They will start agitating for religious-freedom protection, which the Progs will continue to paint as proof of their bigotry and link to racism. And this ruling almost GUARANTEES that the Primaries will have tons of talk time dedicated to a Constitutional Amendment.

Oh no, this isn't nearly over. The GOP has plenty of outraged people right now, and any Primary Candidate has all sorts of incentive to try and get those people into their camp.

[Ken Shultz]

Like I wrote below, I'm sure the gay rights movement's next move to try to force individual churches to perform gay marriages.

At first, the question will be about whether a church can refuse to perform a gay marriage and still maintain its tax exemption but eventually, the question will be whether a church can refuse to perform a gay marriage...

And then it won't be that the social conservatives have overreacted. It'll be that the gay rights movement has gone too far.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

For the Left this wasn't a question of equality. It was always about getting a new weapon. It's unlikely this issue goes away soon enough. There will be more wedding cakes and pizza in the years to come.

This only expands the entitlement state, so it makes any meaningful reform in that area even harder.

[Enough About Woodchippers]

Why do you folks even interact with it? I wouldn't be surprized if Bo were MNG. They have a very similar "debateing" style.

[VG Zaytsev]

Are you a Republican Ken?

"Are you now or have you ever been a SoConz, Ken" -

BoTardquemada in his tireless pursuit of heresy.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Actually, I commented because Ken doesn't seem to be a Republican in other conversations. But around here, it never hurts to ask, especially after that phrasing.

[VG Zaytsev]

You never know when you'll find and expose a crypto-con, eh?

[Bo Cara Esq.]

There are so many straight out explicit ones why waste time on cryptos?

[VG Zaytsev]

Good question, why do you?

[Bo Cara Esq.]

I tend to do that when someone 1. says something indicating they are Republican or 2. they are attacking my libertarian bona fides but seem curiously to have views that track the GOP more than the LP themselves.

But you know that, you're just trying to deflect it because, for obvious reasons, it makes you uncomfortable here. This is an ostensibly libertarian site, and when people point out how much closer people here are to the established positions of Republican organizations than to the same for libertarian organizations, it kind of spoils the party by making those people look like rather anomalous squatters.

[Ken Shultz]

They are attacking my libertarian bona fides but seem curiously to have views that track the GOP more than the LP themselves.

Your libertarian bona fides?

You sound like a partisan shill.

P.S. Obama's ideas about how the economy works are dumber than creationism.

[VG Zaytsev]

Ken, don't you realize that Bo's the pope of libertarianism and you can't call yourself libertarian if you disagree with him in any way?

[Bo Cara Esq.]

A partisan for the LP, perhaps. If you've ever heard me contradict their platform let me know here.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

Chickens are people too.

[VG Zaytsev]

But you know that, you're just trying to deflect it because, for obvious reasons, it makes you uncomfortable here.

No Bo, you don't actually read my mind and you don't make me feel uncomfortable.

Unlike a lot of the regulars here I enjoy your pathetic thrashing around trying to put a libertarian spin on your progressive positions.

[PM]

McCarthyism: 50% of the time, it works every time.

[Don'tTreadOnMeChipper]

Who fucking cares? Oh, yeah, TEAM!

[Woodchip-o-Matic 5000]

Oh, don't worry. I fully anticipate both sides to take this way too far, and in short order, no less.

Just look at the Confederate flag issue. Everyone agrees that it had no place flying over the SC Capitol building. Now we are talking about erasing all evidence of the Civil War because RACEISM IS TEH EVILZ or something.

We'll go from zero to derp by the end of the weekend.

[Remnant Psyche]

Not everyone. I never had a position on the flag's position. Now I'm thinking it should definitely stay where it is just to show the perpetually offended that their feelings about symbols don't mean shit and won't get them anything.

In a perfect world, the prog-minded would be offended at every turn and given a FYTW as a justification. Of course, we know what's actually going to happen: peak derp.

[jmg09]

And another thing, isn't sex the main reason for conservatives opposition to gay marriage? What better way to stop gay sex than to homosexuals get married! That will put an end to it!

[AlmightyJB]

Lol. Gay marriage legal! Conservatives rejoice end of gay sex. Gay couples now free to resent each other

[AFSlade]

You win the internet for today.

[Almanian - Wood Chipper-ish]

"At least he died for a good cause."

Really? What was that?"

"....freedom?,,,,"

"If I'm gonna die for a word, my word is POONTANG...."

But now Animal Mother could also die for teh Gaiz Marruj! Yay!

/FMJ

[Fizban]

Well I got a joke for you. I'm gonna tear you a new asshole.

- Animal Mother

This was actually a proposal to Joker.

[Je suis Woodchipper]

I'm actually angry by your liberal paraphrasing.

You'd better flush out your head, new guy. This isn't about freedom; this is a slaughter. If I'm gonna get my balls blown off for a word, my word is "poontang".

[Brian]

I don't understand why the court didn't go with judicial deference on this one.

I mean, yeah, gay people being prevented from getting married like straight people seems unequal.

On the other hand, gay people can get married like straight people: gay people can marry members of the opposite sex, just like everyone else.

See? There's doubt. So, the law wins.

And now, instead of getting the judicial deference we deserve, we have to deal with judicial activism. Damn those activist judges.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

"gay people can get married like straight people: gay people can marry members of the opposite sex, just like everyone else."

That's not quite like straight marriages though, is it?

[Brian]

It's exactly like straight marriages: gay men can marry women, and lesbians can marry men. Just like straight people. It's equal.

If the idea is that gay people don't want to marry members of the opposite sex, and we insist that laws aren't allowed to effect people unequally, then this implies that lots of laws should be struck from the books. Lots of laws effect lots of people unequally, when equally applied to everyone.

So, there's doubt. So, the law should win.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

It's nothing like straight marriage because they're shams of what marriage is for. It totally mitigates what the law is for. It would be like giving corporate licenses to devout observers of the Sabbath, but with the condition the corporation would have to operate on the Sabbath.

[Brian]

Of course that's not what the law is for. The law is for only allowing straight people to get married. The point is that it's being applied equally to everyone, just like a lot of laws. Gay people can get married, they just have to marry members of the opposite sex. The point is, they have to do it the straight way, just like everyone else.

Similar to Hobby Lobby: proponents of the law insisted that Hobby Lobby, if it wants to be a corporation, has to obey the law like everyone else, even if it means providing health benefits that violate their beliefs. The idea was, they're a corporation, like all other corporations, and they can be a corporation like everyone else, as long as they do it in a manner that gives women contraception, like everyone else.

The point wasn't that they can form a corporation in a manner consistent with their principles, just like everyone else. Just like insisting that marriage is between a man and a woman isn't law so that gay people can marry whoever they want, just like everyone else.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

So you think Hobby Lobby was incorrectly decided?

[Brian]

So, you're out of arguments, and now it's all about me?

[Bo Cara Esq.]

No, if your argument is going to be an analogy to Hobby Lobby then it's kind of pertinent if Hobby Lobby is correct, no?

[Brian]

In consistence with judicial deference, Hobby Lobby was not correct: Hobby Lobby is free to practice their religion, just like everyone else, but if they want to be a corporation (a legal fiction just like marriage), then they have to do so the way the government says they do, just like everyone else. They are free to practice their religion and not be a corporation, if they so desire, and the law applies equally to everyone.

So, since there's room for doubt, the law wins.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

I appreciate the answer.

I think that when a law allows two parties one option apiece and the option is generally meaningless for one but not the other then they've treated them unequally, especially when the thing in question is valued largely for the meaning it bestows.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

For example, let's say the state decided to recognize participation in a bar mitzvah (but not bat mitzvahs) as conferring legal adulthood on the participant. Could such a law escape the EPC challenge by a young woman on the grounds that, hey, she can have a bar mitzvah too if she wants?

[Brian]

Laws banning murder don't effect decent people, and are meaningless to them, since they don't want to commit murder. But, murder laws restrict professional hit men access to their livelihood.

Do we strike them down because that's unequal?

[Brian]

When it's valued for its meaning? Where is this special caveat for equal protection specified in the law?

[sarcasmic]

The court does what the king tells them to do.

[Tonio]

Wow, Brian, even Eddie isn't that intellectually dishonest. Although you are giving him a run for his money in the whiny butt-hurt department.

[Brian]

I'm missing my sarc tags.

[Apatheist ?_??]

On the other hand, gay people can get married like straight people: gay people can marry members of the opposite sex, just like everyone else.

The best part of this decision will be not having to hear this retarded argument any more.

[NoVAHockey]

Thomas' dissent -- As a philosophical matter, liberty is only freedom from governmental action, not an entitlement to governmental benefits.

what he said.

[Auric Demonocles]

Direct quote? Good stuff.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Exactly!

"The Court's decision today is at odds not only with the
Constitution, but with the principles upon which our
Nation was built. Since well before 1787, liberty has been
understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement
to government benefits. The Framers created our
Constitution to preserve that understanding of liberty.
Yet the majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a
"liberty" that the Framers would not have recognized, to
the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect. Along
the way, it rejects the idea?captured in our Declaration of
Independence?that human dignity is innate and suggests
instead that it comes from the Government. This distortion
of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts
the relationship between the individual and the state in
our Republic. I cannot agree with it."

[Irish Says Enough Woodchippers]

Thomas' dissent is incorrect because what the fourteenth amendment actually says is that you must have equal protection under the law and that would clearly include laws regarding benefits or entitlements.

It would be illegal, for example, for the state to say 'oh, Social Security still exists, black people just aren't allowed to receive it.' That would break the equal protection clause and it's exactly the sort of 'right to an entitlement' that Thomas is saying does not exist under American jurisprudence.

[Auric Demonocles]

But no state is saying that you can't get marriage benefits for being gay. It's the same distinction as that pizza place that will sell gay people food, but isn't going to go cater a gay wedding.

[Auric Demonocles]

Though you could make the argument that this whole gay vs straight angle is completely wrong, and the equal protection issue is actually men vs women. I would agree with that.

[Irish Says Enough Woodchippers]

"But no state is saying that you can't get marriage benefits for being gay. It's the same distinction as that pizza place that will sell gay people food, but isn't going to go cater a gay wedding."

How so? First of all, the pizza place was engaged in what should be their right to freedom of association which, unfortunately, no longer actually exists in the United States of America. How on Earth is a state banning gay marriage the same thing as private actors engaging in freedom of association?

There are multiple instances, even in the last 2 years or so, of people being denied visitation rights to their same-sex partners because they are not married and therefore do not have hospital visitation rights or the right to make medical decisions on behalf of their disabled partner. Explain to me how states are not denying an individual marriage benefits when they remove them from the bedside of a dying partner on the grounds that they don't have a state sanctioned marriage license.

Moreover, many states do not allow co-parent adoption for unmarried couples meaning that if gay couples want to adopt, only one of them will actually have a legal relationship to their child. If you live in a state that does not allow co-parent adoption, how is it not an instance of discrimination against gay couples if both parents are legally precluded from having a legal relationship to their adopted kid?

[PM]

Federal law already mandates that a hospital patient can select anyone they wish as a visitor, and you have always had the ability to make a power of attorney with a non-married partner or non-family associate for medical decisions.

99% of those problems would vanish anyway if the government didn't have its regulatory tentacles where they didn't belong. Visitation should be a matter of hospital policy. POA should be a matter of contract. Adoption should be a matter of agency policy.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

"Federal law already mandates that a hospital patient can select anyone they wish as a visitor, and you have always had the ability to make a power of attorney with a non-married partner or non-family associate for medical decisions."

That's non-responsive, because the benefit is the automatic default that kicks in when people haven't taken that step. That default allows the hetero who hasn't taken the steps to have his loved one visit but the homosexual, no such luck.

[PM]

the benefit is the automatic default that kicks in when people haven't taken that step.

WRT hospital visitation, that's not how the law works. In any hospital that accepts Medicaid or Medicare patients (so, every hospital in the country for all practical purposes), "family only" visitation policies are not permitted - there is no "default" option. For medical power of attorney, it does default to the spouse, which may or may not be a "benefit" - many people choose to appoint someone other than their spouse as their medical proxy.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Honest question, do you have a cite for your first claim there about visitation? Is that a recent thing?

[PM]

Went into effect in 2011. Here's a synopsis, here's the White House press release.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Thanks. I'm not sure this disposes of the argument though, it's one of several benefits that occur by default for married people that can, by taken certain affirmative steps, be established in other ways, but which does not now occur (in part because of sensitivity to these matters in question). But I do appreciate you citing it for me, good for me to know.

[PM]

It would be illegal, for example, for the state to say 'oh, Social Security still exists, black people just aren't allowed to receive it.'

Explain in what way discrimination based on age or ability is different from race, or find a better example, because Social Security already imposes limitations on those bases.

[See Double You]

Thomas was addressing the DPC, not the EPC, in his dissent. In fact, I don't think he touched on the EPC at all (probably because that's where his argument against the States being required to recognize gay marriage, or at least to confer the same benefits, is weakest).

Thomas has always disliked substantive due process. While I don't entirely agree with his disdain for it, he has a (broad) point: why do gay-marriage supporters get their pony from the "liberty" in the DPC, but I don't get mine in freedom of contract or forced recognition of CC permits?

[Bo Cara Esq.]

In fairness to Thomas he was right to square up with substantive due process because Kennedy seems to have founded his decision in a kind of hybrid of that and the EPC.

[See Double You]

As much as I like Kennedy's, erm, tenderness and appreciation for "human dignity," I believe they muddy his legal reasoning at times. I haven't fully read his opinion yet, but the above is what I've come to expect

In reality, the strongest argument for gay-marriage supporters is equal protection, not the word "Liberty" in the DPC. Thomas is right in that the majority wrongfully interprets what that word really means (or at least what it should mean), which is freedom from government coercion, not to be affirmatively provided with government benefits.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

You're being generous using the word 'muddy.' I too like many of his results, but his reasoning is a real mess so often...

[LynchPin1477]

Thomas is being dishonest. He likes the benefits that state-sanctioned marriage confer upon heterosexual couples, but wants to deny those benefits to gay couples.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

+1

[MJGreen - Docile Citizen]

What is the "liberty" that the Framers would not have recognized, and how is it a detriment?

[LynchPin1477]

The problem is, if he believed that, he would have ruled that state intervention in all marriage is unconstitutional. Of course, he won't do that. No one on the court has the balls for that level of consistency.

[Irish Says Enough Woodchippers]

^ Exactly. Current American law clearly holds that you cannot withhold a benefit from someone on the basis of their minority status. You can't say everyone gets welfare unless you're gay, so how can you say everyone gets marriage benefits unless you're gay?

This is about interpreting the law as it is rather than as we would like it to be. The people criticizing this are arguing in favor of the exact sort of interpretive jiggery-buggery they were complaining about during the Obamacare decision yesterday.

[MJGreen - Docile Citizen]

Yep. I'll buy the supposedly libertarian response that this was decided incorrectly, if the critics say that the correct decision would be to strike down marriage laws in general. But saying they should have denied gay marriage, while upholding everything else, doesn't fly.

This is a second-best outcome. It's not perfect or even great from a libertarian POV, but keeping the status quo (or at least status quo before 2003) is worse.

[See Double You]

Actually, I think he IS implying that very thing, and not unintentionally.

Despite his imperfections, Thomas does have some libertarian tendencies.

[sarcasmic]

Nah. Liberty means asking permission and obeying orders. "May we get married?" That's liberty.

[Ken Shultz]

What do y'all think this does to the race for the Republican nomination?

I don't think it helps the social conservatives at all. Quite the opposite.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this is the new Roe v. Wade. But I don't think so.

[Fist of Etiquette]

They will make money off it if nothing else.

[Auric Demonocles]

I don't know if it helps them at all short term, but I think it may in a few years. If Dems lose the ability to distract people with fears of sexism, racism, or homophobia (by convincingly winning the fight to the point that it's over), the Republicans will be a lot better off politically.

[Rhywun]

Maybe this is the new Roe v. Wade. But I don't think so.

No, because gay marriage is simply not as divisive as abortion and probably never will be again. Despite all the doomsayers, this will eventually become a non-issue.

[Ken Shultz]

That's what I think.

Whatever else gay marriage is that offends them, it doesn't involve the killing of babies.

I think this becomes like Civil Rights Act of 1964. Very few people will speak out against it a year from now, and when they do, it will only be in the principled terms of principled arguments.

Best thing that could happen to the Republicans over the long term.

We might even see the Republican Party start to reemerge in California.

[Overt]

As I said above, there is no reason to think the Republicans are going to move past this. A large contingent of the GOP Base is outraged right now, and wants relief. So I see two things happening:

1) The GOP will double down on the Marriage Amendment. This will be pure showmanship since it is unlikely that an amendment will ever pass. Activists and loons in the base will never let it drop, and the Media will be happy to continue bringing it up in every debate/press conference.

2) The more substantive debate will move to Public Accommodation laws. The GOP will make the principled stand for Freedom of Association, but they will be painted as no different than segregationist racists.

We have years more of this to go. Progs will be happy to continue it because it isn't the law of the land they care about- it is about forcing people to think correctly.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Call me petty, but I want the Obama Administration to take a hit on something today. When do they rule on the EPA?

[Ken Shultz]

Well, if they're going to be consistent, don't they have to rule that the law says whatever the fuck the EPA says it says?

[Fist of Etiquette]

Darn it.

[MJGreen - Docile Citizen]

Besides, how could the Justices doubt the expertise of the EPA?

[WTFrontyardAmerica]

Now that guy who has 12 wives is legit.

[Irish Says Enough Woodchippers]

I think this is the right decision. After all:

"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."

There are laws regarding marriage which grant married people certain privileges. Under the fourteenth amendment, that seems to imply gay people need equal protection under the law which would include laws regulating marriage.

The state should get out of marriage entirely and the terms of marriage should be set forth in individual contracts, but the law seems to clearly imply that gay marriage must be recognized.

[LynchPin1477]

Yep

[Woodchip-o-Matic 5000]

^This

[Catatafish & Woodchips]

That's a bingo.

[Ken Shultz]

I have no problem with this decision.

Right now, I have a problem with giving the Court any kind of respect at all.

They're abdicated their responsibility to protect the rights of individuals in so many ways in regards to the ACA...

Now I'm supposed to be happy because they were right twice a day?

I'm on board with the equal protection of the laws--I just thought that somehow translated into equal protection by the Supreme Court, too.

First they decided the feds could make me eat broccoli, and now they've decided that my taxation doesn't entitle me to representation--and I'm supposed to be happy that they made the right call on gay rights?

Gay people's rights not to be forced to eat broccoli and to have representation on taxation issues through Congress are being violated, too. I've been standing up for gay people's rights for years--even though I'm not gay. It's about time gay people started standing up for their own damn rights in terms of the ACA.

Seems like the least they could do.

[PM]

Under the fourteenth amendment, that seems to imply gay people need equal protection under the law which would include laws regulating marriage.

Under such an interpretation of the 14th amendment, the only correct decision would have been to invalidate all state marriage laws, or remove all conditions from receiving marriage benefits (which would accomplish the same thing since marriage is inherently discriminatory and can't exist by definition if everyone has access to its government privileges), neither of which happened. Gay couples got their pony. That's it.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

Yes, you fix a problem. You don't make everyone equally worse off.

[kbolino]

No justice, not even Scalia I think, would overturn Loving. It's not going to happen. Tactically, this decision is pretty minor in isolation from a libertarian perspective, but unfortunately the application of this decision with other decisions (re: protected classes, public accommodation, etc.) is going to result in a net loss of liberty. When you separate the rulers from the consequences of their rulings, this is the inevitable result.

[Teve Torbes]

Since marriage is now an issue of federal law, are we supposed to start filing petitions for divorce in federal court?

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Oh, and I totally called this yesterday. I said Kennedy would join the liberals to impose government-sponsored gay marriage on the country.

I said Kennedy doesn't want to be snubbed at the legal conferences he goes to in this country and in Europe. Now, he'll never have to pay for his meals at those conferences again.

[Rhywun]

You're losing this battle in the court of public opinion either way. Sorry.

[MJGreen - Docile Citizen]

Are you really sorry?

I feel it deserves a celebratory drink.

[Rhywun]

Are you really sorry?

No, of course not.

[sarcasmic]

Since when did libertarians care what the mob says? Oh yeah. Since they wanted to hang out with the cool kids who feel that it's the duty of the government to define marriage by force.

[Tony]

The court issued a ruling for constitutional rights trumping democratic choice. What do you want exactly?

[See Double You]

You should be upset, then, since you always like to remind us that the only rights we have are the ones we get to vote on.

[Tony.]

I am very happy, you miserable twerp.

[See Double You]

You are so happy that you come on here to tell us how much you hate us.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"You're losing this battle in the court of public opinion either way. Sorry."

I thought you were talking about the Supreme Court, not the "court of public opinion."

And if courts can be this casual with the 10th Amendment, imagine what they can do with the 1st!

In fact, you don't have to imagine, because they're persecuting you for exercising your 1st Amendment rights.

So you can see what judicial distortion of the law means in practice.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

"join the liberals to impose government-sponsored gay marriage on the country."

Eddie just wants his Church's preferred marriages to be sponsored, and that's it.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

This is demonstrably false, but since I've already mentioned this elsewhere, andyou'll keep returning to that talking point no matter how often you're refuted.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

...then it's pointless.

I specifically said that secular countries like the U.S. should *not* recognize divorces granted by the Church under the Pauline Privilege, but explaining nuances to retards is pretty much a lost cause.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

"I specifically said that secular countries like the U.S. should *not* recognize divorces granted by the Church under the Pauline Privilege"

Thanks for the belly laugh there, Eddie (or should I say, Martin Luther!)

[Notorious G.K.C.]

You're caught in an outright lie and try to laugh it off?

[Bo Cara Esq.]

First Eddie, a person can be incorrect about something without lying about it.

Secondly, the laughter can perhaps (and I say perhaps regarding you) be understood by this analogous answer you could have given: "I don't think the government should just recognize marriages my Church approves of, I'd be OK with recognizing marriages that occur between Catholics and non-Catholics!"

[Notorious G.K.C.]

And...you relapse into total incoherence.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"First Eddie, a person can be incorrect about something without lying about it."

Fair enough, I admit the possibility that you're not dishonest, but instead that you're a drooling imbecile who doesn't have the faintest idea what he's talking about.

[Tonio]

Oh, your tears are so delicious and plentiful, Eddie.

[SugarFree]

And since he's a cowardly Conservative Justice Keyboard Warrior, all he will do is whine about it.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Oh, don't get your rape-tentacles in a twist, SugarFree.

Perhaps you could offer constructive suggestions on ways I could support true marriage?

Because I'm running out of ideas.

[Sevo]

I expect Roberts to show up in SF to do a victory lap.

[Catatafish & Woodchips]

John Roberts is truly a 99th level mage of the wizarding school of cognitive dissonance.

[Ken Shultz]

Yeah, but his alignment is Lawful Evil.

[Catatafish & Woodchips]

Nice. You could certainly make an argument that the consistency of his judicial holdings are determined by a roll of 1d20.

[(??o?)???]????]

A d20 is too consistent for him. More like a percentile, as if he's randomly awarding loot or determining the effects of a spell.

[Overt]

I originally thought he was Lawful Neutral- completely beholden to the whims of what is necessary to keep "balance".

Now, given the absolute sclerosis of his opinions I must break the alignment system and see him as Chaotic Lawful. Is it oxymoronic? Yes, but so is he.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

I would rejoice and rub certain people's noses in it if I thought the SCOTUS had an ounce of credibility.

It's the right decision, but it's likely based on feelz rather than principle. So, I'm happy for liberty and the gays. Eddie, John, sarc...I don't have a leg to stand on as far as rubbing it in. Coulda gone either way depending upon the feelingz of the Nazgul when they woke up this morning...so meh.

[Thymirus]

The Supreme Court has stripped itself of integrity. Its fair-weather Constitutionalism will weaken with time.

[sarcasmic]

My problem has always been purely semantic. I don't consider a civil union between two members of the same sex to be a marriage, while a civil union between two people of the opposite sex is. Call them all civil unions and I'll shut my trap. An apple is not an orange, but they're both fruit. I agree with the decision in that contracts need to be recognized between states. My only objection is to calling a civil union contract between two people of the same sex a marriage.

[Tony]

So get over it. Words are not infused with definitions by the universe. They mean what we say they mean. Now marriage in this country means a legal union of two consenting adults regardless of sex.

[sarcasmic]

When I want your opinion I'll go take a shit.

[Ken Shultz]

"Now marriage in this country means a legal union of two consenting adults regardless of sex."

To the courts, Tony.

People can still think what they want to think--whether you and the government likes it or not.

[Tony]

Clearly.

[Ken Shultz]

Really? Now it's clear!

A moment ago you were telling sarcasmic that marriage has to mean to him whatever the Court says it means.

Do you ever think about what you write before you write it?

[sarcasmic]

Do you ever think about what you write before you write it?

Tony doesn't "think" anything at all. He emotes. And right now he's busy emoting smug glee.

[Ken Shultz]

He's been here for how many years now?

I still don't think he's gotten it through his head that libertarians aren't social conservatives.

http://www.flamewarriorsguide......cranus.htm

[Tony]

Could have fooled me. A real libertarian community shouldn't be in such turmoil over this basic question of equal liberty.

[Free ?Woodchippers! Society]

Could have fooled me. A real libertarian community shouldn't be in such turmoil over this basic question of equal liberty.

Tony knows what a real libertarian community is. It's apparently one that accepts prima facie that marriage means getting permission from the government and the "turmoil" should be restricted to getting more protected classes on the permission list.

[Tony]

Could you try cramming in more euphemisms for "fag" perhaps?

[Free ?Woodchippers! Society]

?

[See Double You]

I second your "?".

[Free ?Woodchippers! Society]

Fucking good faith arguments, how do they work?

[See Double You]

We need to send Tony an instruction manual.

[Ken Shultz]

He's arguing with voices in his head.

He still thinks that libertarian is some kind of extreme social conservative!

[Swiss Servator, Holzhacker]

It is how they get there, Tony. But you don't care about the means, merely the ends.

This Court is so jumbled in its thinking, so inconstant in its reasoning, there is no solid basis of protection for liberty - and this small expansion won't be extended to any other realm or right.

That matters. Liberty does not advance or even stay put when it is left to the intellectual swerving of a handful of nags in black mumus.

[Tony]

Everyone only cares about the ends.

It is more than plausible that the 14th amendment requires recognition of same-sex marriages. Happily, such a judgment doesn't hurt anybody and only expands liberty and equality.

[Ken Shultz]

"Everyone only cares about the ends."

You don't speak for anyone but yourself, Tony. And what you say is often stupid.

You know who else only cared about the ends?

[Tony]

Everyone.

[Free ?Woodchippers! Society]

Everyone.

The only people who think that the ends justify the means within the scope of human interaction are called "sociopaths".

I get tired of reading your stupidity on this site and although finding you and murdering you would satisfy the ends, I abhor violence and would thus prefer the Socratic method to hold you up as an example of stupidity and sociopathy. (both of which you displayed in this discussion)

I want the money in your pocket. But I would sooner get it through voluntary trade rather than theft. Similarly, I want to fuck Avril Lavigne, but I'd sooner convince her to take mustache ride voluntarily rather than rape her.

The means do not necessarily justify the ends when it comes to human interactions. Though sociopaths may disagree.

[Tony]

What an example you are for humanity.

[Tony.]

I wonder why my ass hurts?

[See Double You]

They mean what we say they mean.

"We" being the pertinent term.

So, Tony, is sarcasmic not a part of this "we"? Because he says marriage means X, while you say it means Y.

Knowing you, of course, "we" means "everyone who believes what I believe, and fuck everyone else who doesn't."

[Tony]

"We" means United States law in this case.

[See Double You]

Convenient.

[sarcasmic]

The only principle that Tony recognizes is "might makes right," with might being the government.

[See Double You]

Hence the use of the royal "we."

[Tony.]

"We" could be the crafty butcher society.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

So a parent can marry their adult child? Try again.

[Rhywun]

I don't consider a civil union between two members of the same sex to be a marriage

I know gay couples who are every bit as married as any M/F pair you could care to name. I don't understand this hang-up on a word.

[sarcasmic]

The hang-up goes both ways, being that no compromise that didn't include redefining 'marriage' was ever considered to be acceptable. That alone tells me that the issue has never been about legal rights, but about a word.

[Tony]

Still trying to prop up the corpse of separate-but-equal?

[Rhywun]

Not as long as some states were free to continue to treat 'unions' as a lesser form of marriage, no.

[sarcasmic]

I support civil unions for everyone. That includes myself.

[Rhywun]

There are still "rights" that no civil union that I'm aware of grants. I always bring up the right for your foreign-born spouse to reside with you in America, because that is the one that nearly impacted me until my guy was visa-ed out of the country. So in at least that sense, words do matter.

[MJGreen - Docile Citizen]

Why?

[sarcasmic]

Because words matter.

[Tony]

You lost. Be a man about it.

[See Double You]

Be sure to refer to corporations as people, Tony, and don't complain!

[sarcasmic]

Be sure to refer to corporations as people, Tony, and don't complain!

nice

[Tony]

I'm already going steady with Apple.

[Tony.]

I am an interior decorator.

[Apatheist ?_??]

No one can make you think they are married sarcasmic. I don't give two fucks that the Catholic Church I was raised in doesn't consider my dirty atheist marriage valid. And I will continue to call it a marriage and not a civil union, because words matter.

[sarcasmic]

And if the contract was called "civil union" by the government, and same sex couples wanted to call themselves "married," I could care less. There is no force behind their words. But that wasn't good enough. They want government force behind their words, and apparently most self-described libertarians do as well. I don't get it.

[MJGreen - Docile Citizen]

The government is not forcing you to use the word marriage. It's not going into dictionary companies and forcing new definitions to be implemented. It is forcing governments and courts to not deny some civil unions the label of marriage. It is, at worst as I can see, forcing "you" (if you are, say, a business owner) to not treat some civil unions differently than others by insisting that one is a marriage and the other is not. Perhaps that it is an affront to liberty, but the problem is with overzealous accommodation laws and blah blah blah.

[sarcasmic]

The government is not forcing you to use the word marriage.

Not yet. Give it time.

[Free ?Woodchippers! Society]

Sounds like your problem is the monopoly of ultimate dispute resolution forcing integration and association.

I shouldn't be forced to recognize or not recognize your parents' marriage. Nor the marriage between Bob and Jim. But if they want to call it a marriage, sure. If they want anyone else to recognize it and call it a marriage, whether it's an insurance company, an arbitration firm, employers, juries or their neighbors across the street, they'll have to gain that recognition voluntarily. i.e. through the market and the gradual cultural shift towards universal recognition, if applicable. Like everyone should.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

"I don't give two fucks that the Catholic Church I was raised in doesn't consider my dirty atheist marriage valid."

Could you be more specific? What did the Church authorities tell you, and what was the basis for their ruling?

[MJGreen - Docile Citizen]

Has marriage always meant a civil union between one man + one woman? I think that's simply been assumed because people didn't think about civil unions between people of the same gender.

What about polygamy? Are those marriages? Are the same sexes in that marriage married to each other or not? (I don't know about this and now I'm curious)

But most importantly: words do change. More and more people see marriage as a union between two adults, regardless of their sex. So what's the problem? Sooner or later, marriage is going to mean man + man as well as man + woman.

[sarcasmic]

Like I have said many times, I supported SSM when I naively thought it was about equality under the law. When I realized that there would be absolutely no acceptable compromise that did not involve the word "marriage," I realized that it wasn't about equality under the law. It was about using government force on anyone who didn't agree. That is what I oppose.

[Free ?Woodchippers! Society]

My only objection is to calling a civil union contract between two people of the same sex a marriage.

Why exactly? Why should a marriage contract be restricted to only opposite sex entrants? And how would it be restricted?

[sarcasmic]

Call the government contract a civil union, and leave marriage to society.

[Free ?Woodchippers! Society]

And if same-sex members of society want to call themselves married?

[sarcasmic]

I have no problem with that. They can call themselves fish for all I care.

[Free ?Woodchippers! Society]

And your insurance companies, your utility companies your neighbors and fellow commentarians similarly should be allowed to withhold recognition of the validity of your marriage?

[anon]

I'll answer for Sarc, because I know already he doesn't give a fuck who recognizes his marriage.

[sarcasmic]

I support equality under the law and recognition of contracts, which is why I would support renaming the contract from marriage to civil union to include same sex couples. I do not support using government to redefine the word marriage. I don't see how I can make it any clearer than that.

[Free ?Woodchippers! Society]

I support equality under the law and recognition of contracts, which is why I would support renaming the contract from marriage to civil union to include same sex couples.

I'm just trying to understand. It's not as clear as you seem to think. Who would do the renaming? The same institution you would not want to 'redefine' marriage in the first place? Who defines 'marriage' ideally?

So you're saying the insurance company et al would be forced to recognize you and your wife's public civil union contract but not your private marriage contract?

[Overt]

The big problem here is that by sanctioning marriage for so long, government has created an environment where multiple private and public institutions rely on the definition of marriage as inextricable parts of their business. Just as businesses have the assumptions of Roads, Police, Social Security Numbers, etc etc built into their business model.

I agree with most libertarians that the meddling is the root of the problem. To that extent, I sympathize with Sarc's point.

What I see sarc as saying is that if government wasn't so intrusive in this area that businesses could solve this themselves. If they want to provide "spousal benefits" to person man-man or man-man-woman-dog couples, then that should be their right. You don't need a definition of marriage in order to resolve all sorts of questions around dealing with people who live together and operate with life long joint concerns.

[Swiss Servator, Holzhacker]

Something about freedom of association or contract?

If some company wants to limit itself by worrying about marriages or such, go ahead, hurt your own ability to do business.

[MJGreen - Docile Citizen]

As should have been clear yesterday, this is the best you can ever hope for from government. It will not adhere to strict definitions and careful analysis. There is no real rule of law; it's always the rule of men. Even in my anarcho-utopia, it's ultimately the rule of men (though I think there are stronger institutions and incentives to secure liberties). Nor is the reasoning or precedent here all that twisted, so I see even less reason to grumble.

I have no problem rejoicing.

[Win Bear]

Even in my anarcho-utopia, it's ultimately the rule of men (though I think there are stronger institutions and incentives to secure liberties)

Anarcho-utopias don't necessarily promise better government, they promise that you can choose the government (and the supreme court) you want to live under, but you also need to deal with the consequences.

[Win Bear]

It's the right decision, but it's likely based on feelz rather than principle.

It's "the right decision" in the sense that if the government hands out special favors and privileges to people it deems worthy of such favors, it better do it in a way that's independent of their sex.

However, the real problem is that a bunch of old farts sit around in judgment of whose unions are sufficiently loving to warrant government handouts.

The right decision would have been to have the government get out of the marriage business altogether. The areas where marital status makes a legal difference, taxes, child care, immigration, medical care, should be defined in a way that is independent of marital status.

[AlmightyJB]

Does this mean I can marry my woodchipper now?

[LynchPin1477]

That's not going to be a pleasant wedding night.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Have a nut.

[sarcasmic]

Can it sign a contract?

[AlmightyJB]

"Can it sign a contract?"

In blood. Other peoples of course.

[AlmightyJB]

Did I say that out loud? I meant in wood chips.

[Win Bear]

Probably not yet. Judge Roberts needs to do more research to determine whether your union with your woodchipper is sufficiently loving, and the feminist SJWs need to determine whether there might be rape involved and whether your woodchipper's yes actually means yes.

[Mark22]

I suppose a wood chipper is no worse than a vagina dentata. So, yes, you probably can.

[CSFive]

I can't believe Roberts thinks the problem with Dred Scott was that it made up the fundamental right to own property, and not that it ignored a fundamental right to not be owned.

[Free ?Woodchippers! Society]

The fundamental right to own property is self-evident.

[Swiss Servator, Holzhacker]

Not to any court in this country since the mid 1930s.

[Free ?Woodchippers! Society]

Of course expropriating institutions like governments, would disagree with this particular self-evident claim.

[sarcasmic]

Yesterday Roberts said it's not the job of the courts to undo the work of legislators, and then today he does just that. Principles shminciples.

[SugarFree]

There's a whole lot of guys out there that no longer have the "I won't get married until everyone can get married" excuse any longer. Poor bastards.

[Catatafish & Woodchips]

Fuck. I hadn't even used that one with my family yet.

[Drake]

The polygamists are still out there...

[MJGreen - Docile Citizen]

Can 12 year olds still marry their 9 year old siblings?

Well until then!

[MJGreen - Docile Citizen]

Also, reminds me of the joke from the late Harris Wittels:

I've decided I'm not going to get married until gay people can get married. Because I'm gay.

[Joshua]

I'm very happy that gays can now get gay married in every state in the union. I'm very unhappy that the court has now decided to interpret positive rights as "liberty".

The beauty of the American system, as flawed as it is, has always been when government protects our freedom to determine our own destiny, rather than our freedom to have more stuff given to us.

[NoVAHockey]

that's where i'm at.

[Alice Bowie]

Maybe Justice Anthony Kennedy is Gay ?

[lap83]

so if this is a constitutional right, now we can safely ignore it like good progressive-thinking people?

[Swiss Servator, Holzhacker]

Heh.

[Stormy Dragon]

Oh yes *nom* *nom* the salty ham tears *nom* *nom* OH GOD, THEY'RE EVEN BETTER RAW!!

[The Late P Brooks]

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.

But none of those things are true absent recognition by some government flunky?

[VG Zaytsev]

Bammy talking about the decision now and all I can think of is what a pompous ass the douchebag is.

Shut
The
Fuck
Up

Already for Christ's Gaia's sake.

[piperTom]

I am glad that this will now be the law of the land. It's necessary.

Still, I have to wonder about these folk, who -- just yesterday -- peered at some words and intuited what the authors MEANT to write. The people who wrote the Fourteenth would be appalled, I'm certain.

[Grand Moff Serious Man]

I just really hope Rand Paul avoids going full retard when he gives his comment on the decision.

[Lord Humungus]

Damn faggots getting homo-married in Fagland, USA.

[GILMORE, LVL20 Blowhard]

And that's just a paraphrase of Rand Paul!

[Napoleon Bonoparte]

Foseti on Roberts

[Tituspullo]

Since same sex marriage is now a federally guaranteed right, is a state even free to get out of the marriage business? I don't think it could....

[The Late P Brooks]

Thank goodness the Supreme Court is impervious to the transitory whims of political expedience.

[Pl?ya Manhattan.]

IT'S ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE

[PM]

Yeah, but it's Cain and Abel, not Cain and Mabel.

[AlmightyJB]

I thought it was Caitlyn and Rachael?

[AlmightyJB]

Some reality show producer just got a hard on.

[Swiss Servator, Holzhacker]

I larfed.

[Enough About Woodchippers]

ITS ADAM AND EVE, NOT WALLY AND THE BEVE

[Rt. Hon. Judge Woodrow Chipper]

It's pretty clear that Roberts is just a sadistic asshole.

Don't want Obamacare? FUCK YOU, YOU'RE GETTING IT.
Want gay marriage? FUCK YOU, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT.

[anon]

Mr Roberts, I really don't want millions of dollars.

[Swiss Servator, Holzhacker]

And a really big house, definitely not that either!

[PM]

And you may tell yourself, this is not my beautiful house...

[Swiss Servator, Holzhacker]

+1

[PM]

Want gay marriage? FUCK YOU, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT.

I don't think his ruling would have invalidated gay marriage in places where it has won by ballot initiative (i.e., where a majority of people voted that they actually did want it). It would have deferred to the legislatures or ballot initiatives in places where it is not currently legal (i.e., where a majority of people voted that they actually didn't want it). His reasoning in both cases was actually capitulation to the legislature, but in the Obamacare case, he deferred to what he determined the legislature actually meant rather than what it plainly said.

[KerryW]

^ This!

[Michael Ejercito]

What is to stop the states from enacting reasonable regulations on same-sex marriage, like states do with abortion and guns?

[anon]

"Reasonable:" Define, please.

I have a suspicious feeling that you're using the wrong word.

[Rt. Hon. Judge Woodrow Chipper]

I could see a state now strengthening their sodomy laws.

[anon]

Kinda my point. I can also see a lot of legislators finding such totally "reasonable."

[PM]

Lawrence v. Texas. The southern states might as well strengthen their fugitive slave laws - they're equally valid.

[kbolino]

Has the court ruled on adultery in any meaningful way yet? While the states can't ban sodomy per se, they could certainly go after married people who sleep around.

[Ken Shultz]

If the gay rights movement doesn't just die and go away for lack of an issue now, what's their next move?

They go after churches to force them to perform gay marriages, don't they?

Can a church refuse to perform a gay marriage and still maintain its tax exemption?

We probably shouldn't bother with any laws on the subject. Just ask Chief Justice Roberts 'cause I guess we'll all have to live by his whims anyway.

[PM]

If the gay rights movement doesn't just die and go away for lack of an issue now, what's their next move?

ENDA in the short term, full CRA protected class status for sexual orientation in the longer term. Then it breaks down into the most trivial of minutia on things like gender-specific bathrooms.

[See Double You]

And even then it won't end. See, e.g., the NAACP.

[Tituspullo]

There was an interesting discussion by Roberts (I think) of the contrast between this implied right to same sex marriage and the express, enumerated right to the free exercise of religion (exercise, as he pointed out, being the key).

In any case, it would be fun to see them go after the mosques first. That would have the left in a twist.

[Arthur45]

A dopey decision - marriage was never a Constitutional right so how can a same-sex marriage be a Constitutional right? The 14th Amendment has no relevance to this case.

[Ken Shultz]

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

----Ninth Amendment

It's my favorite amendment.

It's the one that basically says our rights don't originate from government.

The framers, in their great wisdom, didn't want posterity to think that our rights were only limited to what was granted us in the Constitution.

If the First Amendment or the Second Amendment weren't in the Bill of Rights, we'd still have those rights anyway.

I have a right to wear green socks on Wednesdays, and the government has no business interfering with my right to wear green socks on Wednesdays either.

[some-yahoo]

This is my favorite amendment too, for those very same reasons.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights didn't grant any rights to We The People. It recognized the rights we already had, most of which we retained.

[REMant]

Some say Roberts is inconsistent, rewriting the flawed healthcare law, then against ordering states to stop discriminating in marriage, but it's not. IMHO both indicate a man of will - a Catholic - who, despite disclaimer, is a socialist, just a national socialist. He does believe govt should issue entitlements, not defend inherent rights; he just doesn't want to do it in this case, as the others do. Not sure Kennedy understands the difference. It's the same with disparate impact, where testing, supposed to eliminate discrimination, is, itself considered discriminate. Homosexuals will sue a church next. The only other explanation for Roberts' behavior is that he wants to give the widest latitude to acts of legislation as he wrote yesterday, but prevent legislating from the bench, as he said in his dissent today, but I don't buy it. Roberts have sent Obamacare back to the Congress. But there's a simple fix for both issues: 1. Pass a flat-tax nullifying the penalty "tax"; and 2. Refuse to perform marriages.

[MillennialsSuck]

If the court doesn't care about the laws as written, why should we?

When people have had enough and start murdering liberals why should the majority simply vote not-guilty if you are on a jury?

Its no different than the court just deciding what it wants and juries have more power than the supreme court as its actual enforcement.

[MillennialsSuck]

If the court doesn't care about the laws as written, why should we?

When people have had enough and start murdering liberals why should the majority simply vote not-guilty if you are on a jury?

Its no different than the court just deciding what it wants and juries have more power than the supreme court as its actual enforcement.

[GMF]

The most bizarre part of the majority opinion is the following:

"Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there."

Ironically, Justice Kennedy has stated the reality of at least half the people who are married.

This banal assertion may be appropriate in a self-help or Mitch Albom book, but when it frames the argument for a Constitutional right, it scares the shit out of me - universal fear or not.

Do I have a Constitutional right not to be lonely? I demand the State to cure my loneliness! Preferably with someone who resembles Sherilyn Fenn c. 1987.

[some-yahoo]

No one is surprised by this, are they? Especially to anyone following the trend over the last ten years.

And as predicted, Kennedy was the deciding vote!

Kind of reminds me of the DC vs Heller, when the SCOTUS affirmed the 2nd Amendment. Kennedy was the deciding vote in that case, too.

Freedom-loving people everywhere are celebrating these two decisions.

[Butler T. Reynolds]

A lot of Republican governors in conservative states just breathed a sigh of relief. They're off the hook.

[bassjoe]

In all honesty, Scalia's opinions are getting tiring. I don't care if he's pissed at what the majority is saying. His sarcasm, zingers, etc. -- while fun to read if he's on "your" side (which he is maybe 50% of the time) -- are an affront to his office. He doesn't necessarily limit them to dissents, either; he occasionally peppers some of his majority opinions with derision of the other side.

Nobody ever taught him to be gracious in defeat and humble in victory, apparently. His tantrums only make it that much harder for him to cobble together majorities in future cases.

[dpbisme]

Federalism is a continued slide... soon we will have the Stong Centrialzed Givernment that the Left has always wanted..

Total control of our lives... how much longer before we are living in s facist state?

I mean the LEFT passes laws that weaken small business and strengthing latge coperations and then they pass laws to contol those corperations.

A five year plan,, coming to a twon near you.

[Tony.]

My husband is libertarian. That is why I hate all of you!

[ddonna30]

Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...
http://www.jobnet10.com

[Arthur45]

If this is true, then human-animal marriages are also legal, also polygamous marriages have to be legal. They argument is threadbare - the fourteenth amendment cannot guaranteee a right that never existed.