Gay Marriage

Unelected Judges, Constitutional Amendments, and Judicial Tyranny: The GOP's Angry Reactions Toward Today's Supreme Court Ruling on Same Sex Marriage

If Jeb Bush is any indication, they may not be angry for much longer.


The Supreme Court ruled this morning that same sex marriage is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

Not surprisingly, Democrats are celebrating: Hillary Clinton's Twitter feed has undergone a Google-doodle-like conversion, with her H-arrow logo converted into a rainbow flag and the word HISTORY spelled out in a rainbow-colored version of her campaign's signature font. President Obama Tweeted out that: "Today is a big step in our march toward equality. Gay and lesbian couples now have the right to marry, just like anyone else. #LoveWins"

Hillary Clinton/Twitter

But Republicans aren't so pleased. In fact, a few of them are hopping mad.

GOP presidential hopeful and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee issued a fist-shaking battle-cry of response, saying, "I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat." Huckabee declared the ruling unconstitutional, and insisted that "the Supreme Court can no more repeal the laws of nature and nature's God on marriage than it can the law of gravity."

And he warned against acceptance of the decision in the federal government's elected branches. "The only outcome worse than this flawed, failed decision would be for the President and Congress, two co-equal branches of government, to surrender in the face of this out-of-control act of unconstitutional, judicial tyranny."

Huckabee will be doing his part in the fight against judicial tyranny by holding sure-to-be-thrilling three town halls in Iowa, including one at Minerva's Restaurant in the Sioux City Marketplace Shopping Center, which he hopes you'll attend.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal struck a similar note in his reaction, saying that the ruling "tramples on states' rights" and warning that the "decision will pave the way for an all out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision."

Another GOP presidential contender, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, reacted more or less like you'd expect Rick Santorum to react, harrumphing on Twitter that "Today, 5 unelected judges redefined the foundational unit of society. Now it is the people's turn to speak." Donate now to restore the American Dream!

In a statement emailed to media, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who has yet to officially announce a presidential bid but is currently running near the top of the pack in many polls, called the Court's decision "a grave mistake" by "five unelected judges," and further calling on Americans "to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage."

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, meanwhile, described himself as "disappointed," and promised that he "would appoint strict Constitutional conservatives who will apply the law as written." 

Other Republican candidates, however, were less apocalyptic in their responses. Ben Carson sent out a statement saying that while he "strongly" disagrees with the ruling, it "is now the law of the land," and the focus should turn to protecting religious liberties. South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham weighed in as a "proud defender of traditional marriage" who believes in the rights of states to set their own marriage policies, but also said that he would "respet the Court's decision."

But the most interesting—and perhaps telling—GOP reaction so far came from the presidential field's current front-runner, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who voiced his objection, and then called for a respectful disagreement between the two camps. Bush's statement is essentially a call to note opposition and then move on. Here it is in full:

Gage Skidmore/Foter

"Guided by my faith, I believe in traditional marriage. I believe the Supreme Court should have allowed the states to make this decision. I also believe that we should love our neighbor and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments. In a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side. It is now crucial that as a country we protect religious freedom and the right of conscience and also not discriminate."

Bush is undoubtedly a weaker front-runner than he'd like to be, but he is, at this moment, the party's front-runner for the 2016 presidential nomination. What's more, Bush's strategy is heavily built around the idea that if he acts like the front-runner, that's what he'll be. And this is what he thinks a GOP front-runner's position on the Supreme Court's decision to legalize gay marriage across the states should look like: a nod to personal opposition, and an invocation to the party faithful to, essentially, accept it, respect those who disagree, and move on. 

What this suggests, then, is that Bush and his team believe that there's not much mileage for a GOP candidate in aggressive posturing and grandstanding against this ruling and all that it portends. If that's the case, then it means that the GOP's current fiery opposition may not burn all that hot for much longer.

Update: I see that Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, another top-tier Republican candidate, is also in the respect-the-decision camp, saying that while he "[disagrees]  with this decision, we live in a republic and must abide by the law."

NEXT: The 4 Principles Guiding Kennedy's Majority Opinion Supporting Gay Marriage Recognition

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

  1. The stupid party really knows how to take the side of the opposite side of the issue the majority of the public agrees with.

    1. Good thing they do that on gun control and campaign finance reform

      1. They are usually on the right side about gun control, this is true.

        1. Really? How come Toomey shits on gun owners at every opportunity?

          1. You’re drooling on yourself, retard.

  2. Just. Don’t. Care.


      1. I made the mistake of saying this was a good thing, but government shouldn’t be involved in marriage at all. Apparently that was a bad thing to say.

        1. My cow-workers are now seething in confused anger over my voicing the opinion “I don’t support any form of Government sanctioned marriage.”

          They don’t know what it means – but they know they don’t like it (whatever it is).

          1. It might be coming from the mindset of asking for permission first and basically requiring everything in life be sanctioned.

        2. Saying you want the government out of marriage is a good way to piss off the left and right. It’s a good sign you’re on the right track.

          1. This. Be delighted by their anger and confusion. It’s when they agree with you that concern is warranted.

          2. This. Be delighted by their anger and confusion. It’s when they agree with you that concern is warranted.

            1. Squirrel of Doom agrees.

        3. But… but… ROADZ! How can you have marriage without ROADZ to the chapel!

        4. marriages are SOCIETY’s business. it’s a societal construct.
          since society delegates power to it’s government,it rightfully becomes government’s concern and area of authority.

          marriage is a societal institution,ever since the first tribe joined a man and woman.
          Said ceremony generally being done by the tribal chief; their “government”.
          Religions merely ADOPTED the practice,regularized it and kept better records,because they recognized the benefits to everyone.

          marriage isn’t any “right”,people have always had to meet some criteria to get married. No close relatives,no “underage” mates(varies state-state,country-country),man-woman. In other societies,you had to get permission from the parents,from the lord or master,the church,witch doctor,shaman,etc.
          Marriage has always been a privilege,in every society.

          But Government,and that includes the courts,is supposed to uphold the will of the People,and they did NOT do that.

          the US is now ruled by a majority of 9 unelected people who serve life terms.
          the US Ruling Junta,aka “SCOTUS”

          1. “But Government,and that includes the courts,is supposed to uphold the will of the People,and they did NOT do that.”

            Hate to break it to you but that’s not the case. The government should not enforce the will of the majority if that will comes at the expense of a minority. A government should protect the rights of all it’s citizens. The best and easiest way to do that is to let people live as they choose so long as they don’t harm others and not try to level the playing field, decide what is best for society or support one group at another’s expense.

            Besides, religious marriage and legal marriage are two entirely different things. The latter might be within the government’s authority to define, though they should just get the hell out of the way, but the former clearly is not.

    2. Aren’t you at least secretly happy for Lindsey Graham?

    3. Same here. I’m annoyed that half the sites I visit now have no gone into full-blown (sic) celebration/taunt-the-squares mode for the day. Like Slate hasn’t posted a non-ruling article in a couple hours.

  3. Isn’t Jindal the governor of Louisiana, or was that a drafting error?

    1. Just because the law uses the word “Louisiana” doesn’t mean we should interpret it literally. Social justice requires that we interpret the word to mean “Arkansas.”

      You Arkansas-hating bigot.

    2. “Arkansas Gov. Bobby Jindal”

      Ah, his transfer orders went through!

      1. We’ve got enough fucking problems here in Arkansas. We don’t need that one.

    3. “Reasonable mistake of law.”

  4. I’m pro gay marriage but this decision makes me uneasy. For once I think I agree with Roberts – this may be a good thing, but lets not pretend it has something to do with the constitution

    1. Yep. All the fair-weather Federalists celebrating this one will be pissed at the next decision the Court pulls out of it’s ass with no basis on the Constitution.

    2. Roe was a penumbra decision. This one is a Hallmark card one.

      1. Well stated.

    3. I haven’t read much about the decision. If I had to rule on it, I would say that equal protection under the 14th amendment means that if a state recognizes some marriages, it should have to recognize them all, including same sex ones.

      I don’t think it is a fundamental right at all. If a state wanted to stop recognizing any marriages, that would be fine. It’s entirely an equal protection issue.

      1. Would the federal government (e.g., the IRS) still have to recognize the marriages of couples in states which recognize no marriages? If not, it seems like it’d be denying privileges afforded to one group to another. If so, would that set up disparate state/federal marriage structures?

        Really, unmarried people should get the same privileges as married people, so the whole thing should be moot (no need to restate what EdWuncler said below, as he did a fine job of it).

      2. Isn’t legal marriage just a special kind of contract anyway? Don’t the state government’s have the authority to regulate contracts and pass contract law? I mean they can’t violate the Constitution, say letting whites establish a corporation while saying no to Asians, for instance. But they can deny their citizens the ability to establish a corporation and certain types as long as it’s applied equally. So why can’t they deny all citizens the privilege of marriage contracts?

        Marriage is not a right but if you allow it for some, you should allow it for all…equal protection and all that.

  5. I really wished one of them would have said,” I don’t believe that the government should be in the business of defining marriage or handing out marriage licenses, but saying that though, since the government grants a certain group of people benefits with concern to marriage, it should not deny another group those same benefits simply because of their sexual orientation.”


    1. No word from Rand, yet…
      Unfortunately, I don’t suspect he’ll say that.

      1. My bet is that he will say exactly that.

        1. It’s really his best bet.

      I am sick of repeating this and now I am demonstrably more intelligent than 9 SC justices. FUCKIN A!

      Once you allow “rights” to be defined by majority votes it is fucking over.

      1. Amen. I told this to a friend and they flipped out at me.

        1. Tell him to look up the work ‘inalienable’…

      2. And states don’t have them, either. They have [limited] powers.

        1. That is also correct. There is no argument for marriage licenses. None. It is not a construct subject to government oversight. Contract disputes are but not the creation of contracts. END OF FUCKING STORY! There should be no Gay marriage there is not Poly marriage and there is no man+woman marriage in the eyes of government. How hard is this to understand?

          Kennedy actually said the constitution grants rights…UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!!

      3. Well, there are rights and there are Rights. By the same token, there is no right to vote, no right to representation in court, no right to due process, etc. Those rights all just exist on paper and people aren’t going to stop calling them rights. I think a distinction between natural rights and political rights would be better here than just saying that political rights aren’t really rights. Or do whatever you want, it’s no skin off my nose. But using a word differently from some other people doesn’t make you smarter than they are.

        I do think that it is a mistake to say there is a positive right to get married. I think the outcome is correct, but the argument should be on equal protection grounds.

        1. You conflate Natural and Civil rights. I was referencing Natural. in the future I will be more specific for the pedantic sort.

          1. Well, no, I was making the distinction between natural and civil rights. if anything you were conflating them by declaring absolutely that rights don’t come from a piece of paper, when the rights being discussed are exactly the sort that do come from a piece of paper.

            I do also believe that natural rights are the real ones. But one has to acknowledge that other people use the word a bit more loosely.

        2. How about fishing out some old Robert Heinlein and Robert Rimmer novels? I have no problem with people living in sin with–or even marrying–several wives or husbands. And the debate could cause early aneurysms in some of the more obnoxious of the Landover Baptist politicos and judges. Heck, with any luck the Texas Mormons will throw their weight and Jesus’ behind the idea. And Bob! We could have a Bob revival, hippie communes! That would distract conservatives from having the militarized police go around killing everyone (and their dog).

      4. I’d on up you – they don’t even “come” or are “given” at all – they are objective moral principals that are derived from basic, individual human nature and necessary conditions for life, for an individual to take life-promoting actions.

    3. Yeah, that pretty much nails it.

    4. This. I also I think NRO reported that Lindsey Graham says it’s nuts to believe a constitutional amendment would ever pass.

    5. Yep. If Pat is free to marry Pat, then Sam should be free to marry Sam.

    6. Which is *exactly* what Rep Justin Amash said on his Facebook page. And quite eloquently, too.

  6. Look, folks rally for politicians and judges that act in their favor. They don’t think of liberty, and even the violence against others that their desires require.

    At one moment folks are praising Scalia. The next moment they are attacking him for his bullshot that violates the liberty of those who wish to be gay, lesbian, etc.

    Gov’t and the courts and bureaucracies that surround them cannot protect the rights of individuals. Something so simple as someone choosing a lifestyle and engaging in a mutual marriage becomes dragged out for many many years.

    Woman’s rights took from 1848 until the 1920’s to be taken care of. Woman had more rights in ancient Ireland than they did in the U.S. WTF!! Who would entrust others to protect them, but they must pay now and wait 70 years later????? No one. Oh but look over here, government gave women their rights!!!! They are the heroes!!!!

    Bullshit!!!! The military discriminates also. Before it was because of someone’s skin color, which didn’t end in WW2. Individuals were sent to Vietnam disproportionately based upon the color of their skin and even religion.

    Folks don’t want to learn, and keep the failed experiment of gov’t going by whatever violence necessary because it could never survive on its own voluntarily.

  7. Jeb’s is basically the same as Graham’s and Rubio’s statement.

  8. Don’t worry, folks, most of these candidates are basically saying they’ll lean back and enjoy the ruling. And the ones who say they support a constitutional amendment are basically telegraphing their indifference to the issue. “I’ll support a proposal which will never pass, and I hope that the voters will then forget about it.”

    An iron fist in a rainbow vagina.
    Let’s make America even more specialer!

    1. *** pumps fist ***

    2. Since Hillary doesn’t have a shred of integrity, I can only imagine that she couldn’t care less about gays yet still feels that “appealing” to us will have some positive effect on her warchest.

      1. “… her warchest”

        Appalling imagery.

        1. I almost wrote “war chest” but thought better of it.

      2. She is the platonic ideal of a politician. Utterly craven, will do anything to get more support, adulation, influence and money.

    3. HILLARY!
      An iron fist in a rainbow vagina.


      Why does the form all of a sudden stink like rotten fish?

  10. Why do I get the feeling that Mitt and Co. wouldn’t be ranting so loudly about “judicial tyranny” and “legislating from the bench” if it had been Roe v. Wade that had been overturned………….

    1. The judicial tyranny of the court saying “wait, turns out we don’t have authority to rule here”?

  11. I’m not sure people realize that the same kind og judicial activism that writes the 10th Amendment out of the Constitution, and substitutes the whims of judges for the decisions of the states, can also be used to carve huge holes in the 1st Amendment.

    Just to take one example at random – the courts can allow people to be subpoenaed and subject to legal fees and the fear of imprisonment, simply for making Internet comments which are fully within the First Amendment’s protection, but happen to be critical of the judicial system.

    Because if the wishes and whims of judges are the measure of our constitutional rights, then guess what judges will decide about the rights of their critics? Yes – they will have no rights which judges are bound to respect.

    1. If they can toss out the 10th on a whim and up a new Federal requirement, they can do it to any of the others.

    2. The pro-judicial activists WANT the 1st amendment gutted. Can’t have Hillary’s rainbow fist of justice criticized during an election cycle.

    3. Well, the 14th does give the federal government some power over the states. It could be seen as weakening the 10th amendment in some ways. Explicitly it takes the states’ power to determine who is a citizen of the state, for example.

      You are right about the courts, of course. But what are you going to do? The courts are the ones who make those decisions. And until we get some robot justices, they will rule based on their whims and wishes.

  12. I live near Lakeview in Chicago and that’s where they are having the gay pride parade this Sunday. I’m happy that they get to celebrate their love but that parade gets pretty fucking crazy.

  13. Semi-OT:

    This just appeared in my FB feed:…..gnity.html

    Am I missing something? What exactly is so “brutal” about this passage? It seems to me like a simple statement of fact, although I also wonder what Thomas meant by it in his dissent* as this seems somewhat contradictory to it.

    *(I haven’t had a chance to read any of the opinions yet.)

    1. You are missing feelings.

    2. My “diginity” is defined by low-level government employees?
      That’s taking delicate snowflake-ness to a new a even more delicate level!

    3. Those are the people who believe that rights are in fact granted by the government.

    4. These people simply believe dignity is something given or reflected on you by others (usually authority figures) and that it can be alienated. It’s the same reason a job that does not pay you the right amount is an attack on your human dignity. I personally think it’s a repellant way to view dignity and virtue, but I think this is how a lot of people look at it.

      You can’t simply be happy or proud of who and what you are; everyone else must love and respect you as well. If they don’t, they are questioning your dignity.

    5. Do we even dare wade into the comments?

  14. I realize we’re meant to single-mindedly obsess over the most superficial elements of the political process, and in that case Obergefell is without a doubt the most significant, far-reaching correction to the civil inadequacies of our society in recent years, perhaps of all time, and same-sex couples long languishing under the boots of their oppressors can finally arise in massed throngs to throw off their shackles and enjoy the full privileges as first-class citizens. So, there’s that. But a nagging part of my horribly regressive reptilian brain can’t help but wonder at the wisdom of allowing SCOTUS to invent a class of decisions simply “too important, too big to let fail” in legislature.

    Oh well. WOO! Gay marriage, y’all! It only took further fracturing our system of political devolution, but we did it!

  15. I have the worst Facebook friends acquaintances:

    Might as well join in. Very happy today that finally the entire nation is forced to uphold and recognize same sex marriage, even if they don’t like it. It’s not about anyone except the couple getting married, who deserve the right to make that personal commitment like any other couple.

    1. Wait, what?

      1. She’s happy for force!

    2. “It’s not about anyone except the couple getting married”

      Bridezillas everywhere agree

      1. Oh, no they don’t. This is what the bridezillas believe:

        Its not about anyone except the woman getting married.

  16. There is a very vocal majority of Republicans and more than a handful of Conservatives that oppose same sex marriage but they don’t speak for the majority of ‘true’ Conservatives (by my definition) who hold that government should not pick winners and losers and keep to that belief regardless of their feelings for or against a particular subject. I think that much of the hoopla today is based on the fear that this ruling will be used to force people to violate their deeply held beliefs and from what I’ve seen there is validity to that fear. My hope is that people who really do value diversity and tolerance will respect those who disagree on this subject and allow them to practice their beliefs as they see fit.

    I would ask, beg, that we not, regardless of what any poll might say, refer to Jeb Bush as a ‘frontrunner’. I have an ulcer and the mere thought that there are people who support Jeb is just too painful. Let me have my alternate reality.

  17. Sort of OT:

    It’s pretty galling to see Clinton and Obama giving themselves pats on the back about this issue considering they both said that marriage is between a man and a woman.

    I hate politics so much.

    1. What’s galling for me is watching the sheeple accept without question the pandering flip-flopping evolution of Obama, HRC, and their ilk.

    2. Racist! Misogynist!

      /modern-day politics

    3. Yep, that’s why I hate politics too. Both politicians and followers have little to no concept of logic or principles…’s only “heads I win tails you lose.”

  18. I can’t wait to see the SJW crowd force the local mosque to marry gay couples.

    Good times ahead!

  19. Hillary Clinton’s supporters have conveniently forgotten the history that she opposed marriage equality not all that long ago as a US senator and presidential candidate, and that her husband signed DOMA into law.

    1. OMG why do you hate women?

      /only response you will hear from a Clinton supporter. Also, the reason she will win.

    2. Now, now, Dread.

      You know women are flighty things, and change their minds on a whim. Its only to be expected, and shouldn’t be held against her.

  20. “End times a-comin’!!!!!” Prepare to hear that from people like Pat Robertson, John Hagee, or Jack Van Impe. Maybe something related to something like this is the thing Hagee can point to with his blood moons. I don’t think this is really “world-shaking” though.

  21. …saying that while he “[disagrees] with this decision, we live in a republic and must abide by the law.”

    That goes for yesterday’s decision as well?

  22. The court now has the power to define what marriage means. It has the power to take an issue that has always been left to the states and take away the ability of the states to decide it. And Libertarians are besides themselves with glee. Who gives a shit about gay marriage? Gays are 1% of the population. Let them all get fucking married. The actual issue is no consequence. I honestly could not care less how many states want to recognize gay marriage. I do, however care deeply about the rule of law and the proper role of the courts. This decision represents a further expansion of judicial power and sets another precedent for its arbitrary use. Hey, but don’t let that worry your pretty little heads. I am sure the court will only use this power for cool things like gay marriage. They are top men after all.

    1. “Gays are 1% of the population.”

      I part company with you here – the same logic could be used with Jews and their 2% – the issue is what specific demands are being made on behalf of this specific minority?

      If the Jewish community suddenly decided they wanted the right to blow the shofar at an eardrum-shattering volume at 2 AM in religiously-mixed residential neighborhoods, it would be fine to say no to them, indeed to oppose them vigorously. Of course, they don’t make such a ridiculous demand.

      But the gay minority *does* make ridiculous demands – that if two men or two women play house, they should get to be recognized as a married couple by the state.

      “The actual issue is no consequence. I honestly could not care less how many states want to recognize gay marriage.”

      I *do* care, but I cheerfully admit that under the 10th Amendment, the federal government has no authority to overrule those states which decide to have gay marriage.

      That’s because I think that preserving the 10th Amendment is an important priority, even more important than getting what I want on a particular issue.

      1. If the Jewish community suddenly decided they wanted the right to blow the shofar at an eardrum-shattering volume at 2 AM in religiously-mixed residential neighborhoods, it would be fine to say no to them, indeed to oppose them vigorously. Of course, they don’t make such a ridiculous demand.

        But the gay minority *does* make ridiculous demands – that if two men or two women play house, they should get to be recognized as a married couple by the state.

        Fuck you.

      2. “the gay minority *does* make ridiculous demands – that if two men or two women play house, they should get to be recognized as a married couple by the state.”

        Equal treatment under the law isn’t a ridiculous demand you raging asshole. Why don’t you travel back to the 1100 AD so you can live in your Theological paradise?

      3. Is it a ridiculous demand when two divorced people play house and think they should be recognized as a married couple by the state?

        If not, what’s the difference?

        1. He doesn’t think divorced people should be allowed to marry, Nikki.

        2. It is not ridiculous at all. The question is who decides if the government should do that, the courts or the legislatures? If they don’t get the answer they want, is the solution to give up our sovereignty to judges?

          If gay marriage had been done politically and every state decided they wanted it this way, unlike GKC, I wouldn’t care. I only care because the courts are doing it and giving them that power is not good.

          1. Well, I was asking GKC, since he sometimes acts like he wants the state to respect only some religions, but doesn’t really like to talk about how many married people wouldn’t be married under such a regime.

            1. “but doesn’t really like to talk about how many married people wouldn’t be married under such a regime.”

              Seriously, Nikki, I never seriously believed that you were the worse…until you made this claim.

              1. Well, Eddie, you almost never talk about it, and pretty much never unless I ask. Your opposition to gay marriage seems to be based on religion; if that’s the case, I just want to know how far that extends. If that’s not the case, and your opposition to gay marriage is based on something else, I’d like to know what.

                I’m fine with whatever you want to believe, but I don’t see why you don’t complain more about other marriages your religion wouldn’t recognize. Why is there not an equal problem with all non-RC-married people claiming to be married? Do you want the state to recognize only a single religion, or something else, and if the latter, what? Or do you advocate no state recognition of any marriage, and in that case, who falls under the “ridiculous house-playing” mantle?

                1. I don’t want the state to recognize any of it. I find the most reprehensible aspect of this decision the statement by a sitting SC justice that “the constitution grants rights”.

                  EVEN taking into account the difference between civil and natural rights I mentioned elsewhere (ad nausium on this site) the US Constitution is a LIMITING DOCUMENT designed to limit the powers of the Federal Government. Not grant “rights” to individuals. The whole document doesn’t apply to approx 300,000,000 Americans. It only applies to those operating in a government capacity (for the record I see HOAs as governments).

                  Two (three, seven) people have the inherent natural right to enter into whatever contract they wish. The government exists to arbitrate disputes in those contracts if the parties can’t come to an agreement (since its duty is to protect rights). The government was never given the authority to hand out special favors to anyone. That shit was fucked on on June 22,1788. So this isn’t new just annoying.

                  1. EVEN taking into account the difference between civil and natural rights I mentioned elsewhere (ad nausium on this site) the US Constitution is a LIMITING DOCUMENT designed to limit the powers of the Federal Government

                    My Con Law professor in response to me saying something similar: Welllllll, that ONE interpretation.

                  2. Lovely….No special rights. This is really about IRS, retirement, death choices, if we are being honest. I care less who marries, so does the constitution. Its about stuff as always, to make my work owned by what some slaver wants. Look at that document…. its about what the damn government can’t do. NOT about stuff. We own ourselves and what we create… who gets it is up to us.

                    I wrote the damn thing! Stop fucking with it unless you want to be fucked.

                2. “Why is there not an equal problem with all non-RC-married people claiming to be married?”

                  *sigh*…I’ve already explained that I don’t want the U.S. to recognize Catholic divorces under the Pauline Privilege…which is a fairly key part of the Catholic faith…but since it’s religiously based I cannot consistently ask a secular state to recognize it.

                  I’m not sure how many time I need to emphasize this point…it probably makes no difference because you’ve already made up your mind and don’t want to be confused with the facts.

                  1. And if you’re interested, the Catholic Church recognizes the marriages of non-Catholics…it’s when Catholics try to marry outside the Church that problems begin to arise…

                    1. I’m talking about the marriages of non-Catholics. Why is it okay for the state to recognize any marriage performed outside your tradition? Or why is it okay for the state to recognize most of them, but not SSM ones?

                      I don’t know what I’ve “made up my mind” about; I have no idea what you actually think on this. As to my mind on SSM, it’s neither here nor there, but I think the decision today was piss-poor.

                    2. And if you’re interested, the Catholic Church recognizes the marriages of non-Catholics

                      My experience is that they recognize the marriages, but not the divorces. Granted, it wasn’t “run up the flagpole” to see what the “official” church stance was, but my Catholic friend (actually involved in the leadership of the church, not just a parishioner) declined to be in my wedding because my wife was previously divorced (in a fairly simple Pauline Privilege scenario), but the divorce wasn’t handled by the Catholic church (she’s Southern Baptist, and her ex was atheist).

                    3. I’m afraid I can’t speak to Trshmstr’s specific situation. If someone gets a divorce under the Pauline privilege, they can remarry, even while former spouse was alive.


    2. “The court now has the power to define what marriage means. ”

      Preventing other branches of government from defining marriage =/= defining marriage.

      First you lost Loving now this; must hurt.

      1. Yeah, call anyone who objects a racist. God you are a fucking troll. You are too stupid and dishonest to even understand the arguments much less respond to them. You have what amounts to an animal level of reasoning. You wanted gay marriage and you got it. That is all you know about this and all you need to know.

        Preventing other branches of government from defining marriage =/= defining marriage.

        They are not preventing other branches from defining it you fucking half wit. They just defined it and said that is the definition all states will use. As long as we have government sanctioned marriage, there will be a definition of marriage. The issue is who gets to say what that is. And now it is the Court.

        I shouldn’t pick on you. You are not so much stupid as fucking nuts. But you do shit like call anyone who disagrees with you racist, so frankly, you deserve it.

      2. Preventing other branches of government from defining marriage =/= defining marriage.

        That’s not what they did. There is still a legal definition of marriage.

        It used to be what the states said it was. Now, its what SCOTUS says it is. All SCOTUS did was prevent any other branch of government from defining marriage.

  23. Politics and ideology are so complicated that it gives me a headache sometimes. I have two problems with this decision.

    1) I agree with the dissenters that this has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment. Absolutely zero of the people who wrote and passed it thought that it meant the right to same-sex marriage. Zero. Along with Burwell, this is another “We know the outcome we want, so we’ll willfully misread the law” decision. So while this may be a short-term victory for the libertarian view, it’s a strategic disaster. There’s little chance that laws can be written in such a way as to prevent such willful misreadings. “Hey, the Constitution says ‘person,’ and we now define cats and dogs as ‘persons,’ so….” Mark my words, this sort of thing will come back to bite libertarians.

    2) I cringe when this sort of major social issue is decided by nine people. I think a great deal of the animosity about abortion exists because the Supreme Court took it out of the hands of the states. (By the way, about 30% of the population lived in states in which abortion was legal, before Roe.) Ironically, the Court declined to enforce the ACA as written because it would be “disruptive,” but they have no problem disrupting things with this decision.

    1. 1) There’s no misreading. You are applying the same nonsense gun control activists use when they say there was no AR-15 back when the 2A was drafted. No there wasn’t and no it doesn’t matter. That’s not how you constitution.

      Mark my words, this sort of thing will come back to bite libertarians.

      I know you want this to be true, but that doesn’t mean it will be.

      2) Too bad. It worked out in Canada. Gay marriage had NONE of the negative side effects that SoCons hyperventilated about.

      1. No I don’t want it to be true. And in a sense with someone liek you can’t be. What most of us would consider “coming back to bite Libertarians”, you will think is great. In one sense, you are a bit better than many Libertarians in that you make no secret of your love of the use arbitrary government power. So in fairness I can’t see how this decision will ever come back to by you Cytoxic. If anything the tyrannical nature of it just makes it better in your opinion.

      2. It’s already bitten libertarians in the ass. Most of them just don’t realize it yet. The SCOTUS determined that people have a right to get married, and that states have a duty to issue marriage licenses. The most libertarian marriage policy has, for all practical purposes, been taken off the table for every level of government in the entire country.

      3. No, the AR-15 analogy fails. The 2A is about arms, and the AR-15 clearly qualifies. If you had asked the Founders: “What if there is an improvement in rifle design? Would those improved rifles still count?” they’d have said “Of course.” But nobody who wrote or approved the 14A ever dreamed it meant a right to same-sex marriage.

    2. I don’t know on what basis it was decided, so this is purely my argument. If it was decided on the basis of equal protection under the law, I think it is an excellent application of the 14th. recognizing some marriages and not others is a pretty clear case of unequal protection of the law.
      If they actually are saying that there is a fundamental right to marry, i.e. so that all states have to offer marriage licenses at all and can’t just abolish them, then they got that wrong.

      It doesn’t matter if the writers of the 14th thought about gay marriage. Equal protection means what it says.

    3. Time will tell, but right now it IS entertaining to see that many pulpit-thumping mystical bigots so crushingly demoralized. And from the standpoint of population biology there is not a damn thing wrong with the senile court’s decision. Heck, even the socialized medicine ruling looks a little better when you look at it as a population control measure.

  24. I’d celebrate if yesterday’s decision didn’t take a giant shit on the Rule of Law. I guess I’ll take what we get.

    The GOP is going to move on from this a lot faster than Roe vs Wade. It will be like MJ legalization: ‘we don’t like it but we also don’t care’. The SoCons infesting the GOP base are (thankfully) mostly dying off. The next generation doesn’t care.

  25. GOP learned their lessons from 2012. We’ll see if DEM learned theirs from 2014 and drop gun control in time for 2016

  26. According to the logic of the Court, I can now marry Fido, my dog.

    1. And the problem is?

    2. If you beg the question of your dog having constitutionally protected rights, I’d agree with you. However, your dog doesn’t, so you’re wrong.

      I have no problems with you organizing a ceremony whereby you marry your dog and you henceforth go about you life under the assumption that you are married to it. I’d refrain from consummating that marriage, however, as they government will not recognize your marriage and would prosecute you for bestiality, you sick bastard.

  27. Now it will dawn on gays that a scrap of paper ain’t gonna solve their relationship problems, which are enormous.

    1. But they get to have the government put a boot on people’s faces and make them recognize their relationships. And that was what this always was about. It was never about solving anyone’s problems.

      But yeah, government marriage isn’t so great. I for one am going to thoroughly enjoy watching gays totally fuck one another in divorce court. It makes me want to go start a gay specific divorce practice. It would be a lot of fun going out every day and screwing over gays who so wanted to get married. Take their retirements, half their belongings, stick them with paying alimony. Drag their sex lives and marital indiscretions into open court. Let their angry aggrieved spouses exact their revenge. Give them a full adult dose of marriage good and hard.

    2. As are most people’s.

    3. Unless of course their relationship problem is that their a binational couple.


      1. Ugh, they’re

        My relationship problem with Reason is the lack of edit button!

    4. Lucky thing divorce is still legal–at least in some places…

  28. I don’t care who you want to marry…marry a turd for all I care. Government shouldn’t be involved in this imo.
    My question is- why didn’t we let the voters decide in each State? Could it be that the democratic way to do it didn’t turn out the way the minority wanted? Boo hoo.

    1. Who is “we”? I didn’t have an opportunity to let voters in each state decide.

  29. I keep hearing “Gov’t should not be involved in marriage” and “the States should have been permitted to decide”.

    Does the Constitution permit the voters–at the State or Federal level–to pass a law that says there is only 1 God so Hinduism is not a legal religion? Does the Constitution permit the voters to pass a law that says the KJV is the correct bible and all others are legally inferior? Does the Constitution allow voters to pass a law that says “There is not God but Alah”? So why does the Constitution allow the voters to pass a law that says only the Baptist and Southern Baptist view on marriage–1 man + 1 woman–is legally allowed?

    1. Scilia was right in yesterday’s dissent. The words used in the crafting of our laws have no meaning.

    2. Nowhere in the United States is it illegal to claim you are married to a person of the same sex. Twhat has been done today is to extend the PRIVILEGES of heteromarried couples to homomarried couples. This does not affect that neither should be afforded any privileges from any form of government.

      Quite simple really.

    3. Does the Constitution permit the voters to pass a law that says the KJV is the correct bible and all others are legally inferior?

      That was a hot question in 1872 (Cincinnati Bible Wars)

  30. When did Hillary become pro-gay marriage? Oh right, the instant it became politically expedient. I guess she’s “evolved” on the issue too.

  31. Amusing to watch Hillary and Barry act as though they’ve been leading the gay marriage parade all along.

    And that ridiculous rainbow logo just reinforces my certainty that Hillary’s awesomely awful campaign has to feature an Andy Kaufman appearance at some point.

  32. “5 unelected judges” – Yeah, pretty sure that’s how it works under the Constitution. But no, I should be able to lobby the President and Congress to get what I want. WAH!!!

  33. Am I the only one that thinks Hillary just “Came Out”?

  34. June 26, 2015: Quite an emotional news day as the latest SCOTUS decision came rolling across the fruited planes. I suppose we all had something to celebrate. Gay marriage is now the law of the land; but, at least, the Court didn’t mandate that the Gay Pride flag fly atop every State Capitol building.

  35. If Bush gets the R nomination,then the DemocRATs will have another 8 years in the Oval Office,and America -will- be destroyed.

    I will NOT vote for him,I will do a write-in.

  36. SCOTUS ,nine UNELECTED people who serve for life,are now the ruling oligarchy of the US.
    Their very word is LAW.

  37. Fucking Bush. Two horrible terms of W and one mediocre term of Sr. and this is what the republicans are going to have to offer? Depressing.

    1. It is still marginally legal to vote libertarian in some states. I never pass up the chance to get ten times the law-changing bang per vote. The whole case for voting libertarian is that it forces the looters to change the laws so none of us even have to turn into lynch-worthy politicians and listen to their damn speeches. We are witnessing evolution in action toward less initiation of force.

  38. “the Supreme Court can no more repeal the laws of nature and nature’s God on marriage than it can the law of gravity.”

    there’s something rather ironic about that statement given the church’s history on scientific matters.

    jeb was smart. politically speaking, this is a blessing for the gop.

    1. I agree with the last part and Reason’s assessment. The old guard of the GOP will sound old and tired while the new, more libertarian factions will gain a foothold.

      I, however, don’t believe Jeb is the answer.

  39. And this is why I left the Republican Party. I heard reasoned, calm arguments before the ruling from many of these guys, not that I agreed with them. Today, from some of those same supposedly level-headed politicians that supposedly didn’t judge the LGBT community, I heard a lot of anger, hate and vitriol. They are no better than liberals. They want government to force their beliefs on everyone else, Constitution be damned. They are statists, pure and simple.

    1. True, but I’m sure their intentions are altruistic.

  40. I want to marry my Corgi. We love each other and there should be no impediment to our married bliss.

  41. That was sarcasm incidently.

  42. That haunting fear that someone, somewhere, might be happy must really be bothering prohibitionist Republicans these days. GHW Bush wanted a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning and the death sentence for victimless lighting of joints, and look where they are now! Jeb Clampitt Bush prolly can’t even remember Daddy vowing to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.