WATCH: 4 Takeaways from SCOTUS Gay Marriage Ruling

|

Originally published on June 26, 2015. Original text below:

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in a 5-4 ruling in favor of gay marriage. While the decision will be debated for years to come, watch some of our takeaways from the ruling. 

Written and produced by Paul Detrick

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to our YouTube Channel.

Advertisement

NEXT: Happy 4th of July! The Drafting of the Declaration of Independence

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

    1. and now I have an inexplicable desire to listen to The Black Crowes.

    2. Thanks a lot……now I don’t feel like getting gay married now!

      (slinks off to cancel the caterer and photographer)

  1. My patriot-boner is too hard right now to criticize any group of Americans – on the contrary, here is something from Walt Whitman (if you have to ask the relevance, look it up)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSAymj4hp7Y

    1. Because Lincoln was gay. It all comes together.

  2. It’s a shame on this Independence Day that the author refers to our nation’s highest court as “scrotum”. Or did my autocorrect screw up again?

  3. One of the takeaways is that it doesn’t matter how logical your arguments, the left will resort to red herrings and non sequiturs to defend their position, be it discrimination or entitlements.

    Discrimination should be illegal because “discrimination is bad. The left has NO problems imposing THEIR morality while at the same time admonishing those they feel are trying to impose theirs.

    There should be laws that forbid businesses from discriminating against people on the basis of gender, sexual orientation or skin color, because “public accommodation”. Never mind that a business is nothing more than an activity pursued by a person, exercising his or her property rights when by with others. Businesses cannot accommodate the public because, by definition, businesses do not trade with “the public” but with paying customers. Besides, who is “the public”? Is it “everyone”? how can a business trade with “everyone”? This is pure fantasy, considering the reality of scarcity. In essence, public accommodation is just a red herring, a bad justification for tampering with people’s property rights.

    1. The implication of “public accommodation” is that because they let you do biz, they get to interfere w the terms. Originally it was an exchange for a legal monopoly.

    2. “Discrimination should be illegal because “discrimination is bad””

      Ken @ Popehat plans to debate a SJW who thinks discrimination is *essential*… just, discrimination of Bad People Who Fail To Say The Right Things, so that Good People can have decent conversations.

      Basically, its being described as a ‘tolerance of intolerance’-debate… but that’s not quite accurate, as the SJW set seems to have given themselves the authority to determine that ‘intolerant’ people are merely those who associate with the wrong Twitter feeds.

      ie. if you subscribe to the musings of Godfrey Elfwick, or ever posted to the #Gamergate hashtag, or once snarked at Amanda Marcotte…well, you’re likely on her list of Bad People who aren’t allowed to talk to Good People anymore. Because *real debate can’t happen* when people with shitty opinions won’t shut the fuck up.

      1. This post would probably be OK if you managed to not fuck it up with the very first non-quoted word.

        1. Seriously…even Tony managed to get through one word before degenerating into idiocy.

          1. Ken, Clark…. its all pope to me.

            what exactly did you find so idiotic? share & enlighten.

    3. You would like to impose your morality, a stark and ridiculous handful of bullshit anarchist cliches, and you think it’s so great that people really ought not have a choice about it.

      You are defending segregation using the exact same arguments the Jim Crow segregationists used. They lost for a reason.

      You talk of property rights in all caps as if such a thing is even possible without government. Elsewhere you said they exist because you have a gun to defend your property, obviously because you can’t admit to an exception to your bullshit anarchist cliches. But that obviously implies that if I shoot you, the property is mine by right.

      Stop trying to impose your brutal hellhole on me then bitch about public accommodation laws that only negatively affect the action of excluding people from commerce based on how they were born–a cancer of societies recognized by all but the most cretinous.

      1. “Stop trying to impose your brutal hellhole on me”

        You really need a ‘dramatically collapsing into a weeping fetal-position’-emoticon, Tony

      2. You would like to impose your morality…

        Who is the person who wants to impose something on people? If some of us are defending anything that you find to be distasteful, it’s simply the right to say “No” without resulting in the imposition of government force. The only imposition here is on, not by, the person saying “No.” They’re not imposing a damn thing. You are.

        1. I’m sure you’ll respond with some nonsense about how the person why said “No” may have to call the cops if the disgruntled party refuses to leave when asked. What you fail to comprehend is that the only person imposing anything at that point was the person who felt offended by hearing the word “No.” They are imposing their presence on the property of the person who said “No” once they are asked to leave. They’re trespassing. An imposition has now occurred, and it wasn’t by the person who said “No.”

          Yet you want the offended person to be able to summon government agents to impose force on the person who said “No.”

          Who again would like to impose their morality?

      3. Ha has ha ha ha… (Wheeze, cough…) Ha ha ha!

        Where to start?

        How does one impose freedom on another? Even for the slave who has come to love his chains so much, how is freedom an imposition?

      4. Re: Tony,

        You would like to impose your morality, […] and you think it’s so great that people really ought not have a choice about it.

        You don’t even attempt to answer that argument, instead railing against my motivations.

        You are defending segregation using the exact same arguments the Jim Crow segregationists used.

        What did I tell you? Same argument: “If you defend private property then you defend slavery!”

        That is a crock, Tony. Jim Crow laws were government’s, not the people’s. Using your VERY SAME ARGUMENT you used to justify anti-discrimination laws two days ago: There had to be systematic NON-segregation that made obvious the necessity of these Jim Crow laws.

        Remember that argument? It was yours.

      5. Re: Tony,

        You talk of property rights in all caps as if such a thing is even possible without government.

        You always frame your ideas about your rights around what the government can provide to you, a major contradiction in logic, because a right is something you already have, not something that is given.

        […]public accommodation laws that only negatively affect the action of excluding people from commerce based on how they were born

        Again, you rely on a moralistic judgement to determine the validity of public accommodation laws. “They’re good because there are people who were handed a bad deal and so they deserve something.” One thing does not lead to the other. You can’t even argue for public accommodation with any sense of cogency. Notice how you relied on an insult the end? “Only cretins can’t see it!” Nice argument there, Aristoteles!

    4. Besides, who is “the public”? Is it “everyone”?

      “The Public” is everyone except you. “The Public” is who public servants serve. They serve “The Will Of The People,” who we just established is everyone but you. You could say that this “Will Of The People” gives them a…. divine right to rule. After all, who are you to question it? “The Public” that they serve is everyone except you.

  4. Property rights are a red herring themselves because they only exist because of government enforcement. Why would government enforce something that doesn’t exist? For what purpose? This is the very worst argument forwarded by Marxians, however their most favorite. If private property doesn’t exist, then there is no point in having government play such an elaborate charade. If they do exist, then the argument is simply a denial of reality.

    Here’s the most risible of arguments, forwarded by our dear village idiot, Tony:

    If you defend property rights, then you defend slavery because slave-owners claimed slaves were property

    There’s nothing to say about this except that it begs the question, as it assumes the slave-owners actually had a valid claim of property over human beings.

    1. That last one is like how extreme feminists make all heterosexual intercourse is rape.

    2. Yeah, progressives really don’t know how to handle slavery, but they do a good job trying to be loud and pretentious about it.

      If they start going the down the route of “people have a right to sell-ownership” then the smart ones can already tell where that road goes: if people own themselves, then they are responsible for their actions, leading to property rights pretty quickly, as an extension of self-ownership and responsibility for one’s actions.

      So they have to pretend that ending slavery was just some good idea that fell out of democracy, almost as if it has no justification beyond the subjective preferences of voters, and maybe feigning a few nods to utilitarianism. That way, they can avoid seeing the fairly obvious and important principle of the issue. It’s pretty sociopathic.

      Note that they’ll then turn around and smear property rights advocates with being pro-slavery, contradicting their own argument about where property rights come from: if property rights come from government, then so did the right to own slaves. At that point, the sociopathic contradiction in their thinking is pretty clear.

      1. Actually, it’s a pretty fun exercise if you find yourself surrounded by intellectual leftists whining about gay wedding cakes or whatever the stupid, insignificant issue of the day is.

        Ask them, “Do people own themselves?”

        See how quickly they start figuring out how to explain that issue away. Or how quickly the die hard sociopaths start explaining why people really don’t own themselves, and shouldn’t. It’s fairly amusing. They go defensive pretty fast. And, at least they stop talking about gay wedding cakes as if they even approach slavery.

        1. Owning other people is OK, as long as the owners are the right people (government).

          Principals, not principles.

    1. Thank you for that.

      *wipes tear from eye*

    2. That is one patriotic pussy! I wish my pussy was that patriotic…

  5. 4 Takeaways from SCOTUS Gay Marriage Ruling

    1) Gay weddings are gay
    2) Gay weddings deserve cake
    3) ???
    4) Teh Gaizzz!!!

    1. Not wanting to bake gay wedding cakes, but still bake cakes for others, costs $135K per unbaked gay wedding cake.

      1. That’s just gay.

    2. I am actually seriously contemplating (this is not a joke) opening a gay-inclined wedding catering business.

      I really think I will make gobs of fuckin’ bank. There have got to be hordes of repressed gay people here in SC just itching for a wedding with all the trim*.

      I know chefs. I know interior designers. I know fashionistas and artists. I even know some gay people. I could totally do it.

      *Itching Trim would be a great name for a rock band.
      **Trust me, ALL the trim goes to gay weddings.

      1. I smell a reality show. What would be a good name for the company and /or the show?

  6. OT: Katrina vandenHeuvel ?@KatrinaNation 3m3 minutes ago
    Tragic irony & amnesia: Austerity imposed on Greece by France & Germany,both of which benefited from debt cancellations after World War Two.

    Nice false equivalency ya got there. Be a shame if….you shared it with everyone, so they know what a moron you are.

    1. But having to buy yogurt with euros is exactly like being under Nazi rule!

  7. Even for the slave who has come to love his chains so much, how is freedom an imposition?

    The unchained must think. It is a burden.

  8. Re: Tejicano,

    (replying to Tony)

    Even for the slave who has come to love his chains so much, how is freedom an imposition?

    People like Tony believe that freedom means cocooned, or shielded, from life’s vicissitudes. Shielded, of course, by the state, no less.

    Obviously the error in their thinking resides in equivocating: they use the word “free” in the sense of being “saved from” instead of “unhindered by others.” The latter implies personal responsibility whereas the former implies someone else’s responsibility. You should realize the idea of having to be personally responsible for their own decisions can be frightening to Marxian spineless halfwits, who would cower in fear under their beds, holding on their blankies for dear life.

    There’s also an element of narcissism in their thinking. Whenever they perceive an injustice, they feel bad. They don’t want to feel bad, they want to feel good. And true to their nature, someone else has to provide that good feeling, be it the state or some other powerful actor. It’s not about righting wrongs for the sake of it, but for theirs.

    1. Rand addresses this.”The non-conceptual mentality seeks tribal protection.” It’s not that he feels bad, rather he feels fear.
      “This type of mentality has learned to speak, but has never grasped the process of conceptualization. Concepts, to him, are merely some sort of code signals employed by other people for some inexplicable reason, signals that have no relation to reality or to himself. He treats concepts as if they were percepts, and their meaning changes with any change of circumstance. Whatever he learns or happens to retain is treated, in his mind, as if it had always been there, as if it were an item of direct awareness, with no memory of how he acquired it-as a random store of unprocessed material that comes and goes at the mercy of chance. He does not seek knowledge-he “exposes himself”- to “experience,” hoping, in effect, that it will push something into his mind; if nothing happens, he feels self-righteous rancor that there is nothing he can do about it. Mental action, i.e., mental effort- any sort of processing, identifying, organizing, integrating, critical evaluation or control of his mental content-is in an alien realm.”

      1. Holy fuck. That bitch had some clear grasp of how the Others think. My experience has been that there’s like an untrampable chasm blockading any sort of understanding between the rational folk and the mindless drones. One could understaund how it could work one way, but it seems strange that rational folk usually can’t grasp that other people don’t think in anything vaguely akin to an analogous manner to themselves. They come up with all sorts of crasy theories and contortions to explain the actions of others as the result of something like thought, and seem astonished and incredulous whenever somebody suggests the others don’t actually think rational thoughts at any point in the train of consequences from stimulus to response. The others’ ability to speak seems to confuse them, as it would seem that coherent speech would have to arise from actual thought, but I’ve seen it demonstrated every time that this is not actually required. So they get in “arguments” where one side is arguing and the other is just carrying on a sort of reactionary charade of argument.

    2. “And true to their nature, someone else has to provide that good feeling, be it the state or some other powerful actor. It’s not about righting wrongs for the sake of it, but for theirs.”

      That’s how the whole gay wedding cake issue strikes me. it’s just about letting some legal team some where sue homophobes and extract symbolic revenge. No one wants to actually force someone to bake a wedding cake, for obvious health reasons, first and foremost. It would be better to let them openly admit their biased cake making, so gays could also avoid giving them business.

      Anyway, the whole “access to society” excuse is just self-righteous posturing and playing the victim. To hear them talk about it, you’d think this was necessary to keep them from being segregated from society. It’s just bullshit revenge justification.

  9. slightly off topic- They need to run a model on this- http://www.adn.com/article/201…..scientists

  10. I would like to get gay-married to “the cabin boy” who I have heard SOOO much about, but I cannot find him ANYWHERE… Can someone PLEASE hook me up?

    The cabin boy,
    The cabin boy,
    The dirty little nipper!
    He lined his ass
    With broken glass
    And circumcised the skipper!

    PS…
    Q: How do you tell a gay guy from a refridgerator?
    A: The fridge doesn’t fart when you pull your meat out

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.