SCOTUS Rules on Gay Marriage

Jetmech_63

So the Supreme Court rules on Gay Marriage making it legal in all 50 states.  This is a pretty in depth conversation at work this morning and wanted to get everyone thoughts.  Long time coming or invasion of states rights?  I'm curious as to how the Supreme Court defined "Marriage".

raisindot

Long time coming. It's been quite clear that state restrictions against gay marriage weren't going to stand, since over and over federal appeals courts had invalidated them and the SC had refused to hear appeals from states advocating these restrictions. 

As far as how the SC defines marriage, here is what Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, said:

“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. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage.“ In challenging state restrictions on gay marriages, gay couples' "...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.”

Beyond this particular decision, what I'm finding truly fascinating about this current SC session is how these recent blockbuster decisions have countered what was a long period of decisions that favored states' rights and repudiation of federal laws. Within the past week, the Supreme Court has:

• Rejected states' attempts to weaken the Affordable Care Act by turning down the challenge of the "subsidy" 
• Affirmed that the Federal Housing Act allows people to sue state and local authorities whose zoning and development practices result in discrimination against minorities without having to "prove" through documentation that these policies were intentional
• Essentially preventing states from outlawing gay marriage.

Justices Roberts and Kennedy appear to be the "swing voters" in these decisions, which is remarkable because both were considered to be "conservative" justices who were appointed by George W. Bush (Roberts) and Reagan (Kennedy). 

peter4jc

Apart from my opinion on the SC ruling...  if gender has become arbitrary to the legality and definition of marriage, why does the number two (as in "between two people") have significance?  The number "two" has importance now, but that's only until it doesn't.  So accept polygamy now, because there's no logical reason to stop at two if there's no logical reason to differentiate gender.

Along those lines, but admittedly a bit silly, what happens if a good chunk of the US decides they love their pets and farm animals, and think they should be allowed to marry?  Sounds stupid, I know.  But what's going on now, seemed impossibly far-fetched 150 years ago too.

I'm not even saying that I do or don't like the ruling, just saying when things start changing, who will decide how much they change and how far will they let things change?

Jetmech_63

peter4jc said:

Apart from my opinion on the SC ruling...  if gender has become arbitrary to the legality and definition of marriage, why does the number two (as in "between two people") have significance?  The number "two" has importance now, but that's only until it doesn't.  So accept polygamy now, because there's no logical reason to stop at two if there's no logical reason to differentiate gender.

...when things start changing, who will decide how much they change and how far will they let things change?

That's a damn good point.... never thought of it that way.

ExpendableYouth

I am glad the courts are now affording the same rights and protections to everyone in regards to marriage.

SM0K3Y

1.Are you American?
2.Do you PAY TAXES?
3.Do you obey the law?
THEN YOU GET WHAT I GET!! (yay)  
'nuff said

Good for them, Im glad for my LGBT friends and family, if your day is ruined I'm sorry

jd50ae

SM0K3Y said:

1.Are you American?
2.Do you PAY TAXES?
3.Do you obey the law?
THEN YOU GET WHAT I GET!! (yay)  
'nuff said

Good for them, Im glad for my LGBT friends and family, if your day is ruined I'm sorry

Most excellent point. @SM0K3Y genius pointer of the year.

Now, if would would only apply that to everyone in this country.

SleevePlz

peter4jc said:

Apart from my opinion on the SC ruling...  if gender has become arbitrary to the legality and definition of marriage, why does the number two (as in "between two people") have significance?  The number "two" has importance now, but that's only until it doesn't.  So accept polygamy now, because there's no logical reason to stop at two if there's no logical reason to differentiate gender.

Along those lines, but admittedly a bit silly, what happens if a good chunk of the US decides they love their pets and farm animals, and think they should be allowed to marry?  Sounds stupid, I know.  But what's going on now, seemed impossibly far-fetched 150 years ago too.

I'm not even saying that I do or don't like the ruling, just saying when things start changing, who will decide how much they change and how far will they let things change?

Gimme a break. Since women and blacks can vote, how long until dogs can vote? We can play this game with every law if you want.

Jetmech_63

I'm sure 30 years ago there were many that were saying that about gay marriage.  What really irks me is that this Supreme court ruling circumvents the political process. They have stripped the states role and the citizens role in defining marriage through democratic process.  The same democratic process that passed Proposition 8 here in CA by a majority popular vote banning same sex marriage.  There is nothing "specifically" in the Constitution in regard to same sex...or even marriage to that effect.  If it's not in the constitution, it's left to the states.  Don't like the constitution, amend it, but the people get a say in that as well.  Everyone seems to confuse the pursuit of happiness with the right to happiness. 

Lee.mcglynn

I'm all for it...why not? Really why not? As for state vs fed well there are to many arguments I have before gay marriage so really I'm not thinking of it that way. As for the right of happiness vs pursuit well why pursue it if you don't have the right? I know it's illegal to be gay in other countries but it's also illegal for a woman to show her body and face so should we go that way? I say move forward! I mean when the wrote the constitution and all of that do you think they thought we would have smart phones,cars and airplanes? So we may as well ban those as well

Jetmech_63

Time out.  This, for me, wasn't really about the topic they ruled on, it's the process at which they arrived at their conclusion.  I have not and will not state my position on the matter, it's a non issue.  I continually see the democratic process breakdown in contrast to how I understand the constitution and was applying that frustration to this.

Dark_Roast

Regardless of which process they used. The divorce attorneys are ecstatic!

bert873

SM0K3Y said:

1.Are you American?
2.Do you PAY TAXES?
3.Do you obey the law?
THEN YOU GET WHAT I GET!! (yay)  
'nuff said

Good for them, Im glad for my LGBT friends and family, if your day is ruined I'm sorry

My thoughts exactly. At the end of the day who someone else wants to marry has ZERO effect on me and my life so what's the big deal! I'm tired of everyone telling everyone else how to live their lives. If you follow the above 3 things then who gives a ****.

Lee.mcglynn

Jetmech_63 said:

Time out.  This, for me, wasn't really about the topic they ruled on, it's the process at which they arrived at their conclusion.  I have not and will not state my position on the matter, it's a non issue.  I continually see the democratic process breakdown in contrast to how I understand the constitution and was applying that frustration to this.

Vinny I wasn't going after you at all! I just am sick of too much well hate against forward improvement. I just quoted some thoughts as I feel but really in my head is well the far right are **** each other and nobody sees eye to eye. Your post just made me add to it oh and here's a thought to every right wing guy out there though...America or the U.S.A is the only country where illertaracy is a choice

First_Warrior

During my tenure for the past forty years as a artist I have come to know and become friends with several gay and lesbian couples. Herb and Jose who are in their late seventys have been together for forty five years. I don't know if they will bother to get married now but if they do I will be honored to be at their wedding. 

jd50ae

The only thing I have about the ruling that causes me any problem is procedure. But what the hell, The Constitution is almost a defunct document anyway and I am too old to care. We are a media run country and they are run by, God only knows.

"the court is increasingly creating policy rather than serving as a neutral arbiter".

jd50ae

First_Warrior said:

During my tenure for the past forty years as a artist I have come to know and become friends with several gay and lesbian couples. Herb and Jose who are in their late seventys have been together for forty five years. I don't know if they will bother to get married now but if they do I will be honored to be at their wedding. 

If there is any SS or retirement plan they may want to give it some serious thought.