Supreme Court: Same-sex couples can marry in all 50 states

[Gfted1]

Supreme Court: Same-sex couples can marry in all 50 states.

 

Huzzah!

[ShadySands]

Woot!

[Leferd]

Cool.

[Malcador]

Busy week for the US Supreme Court.

[BruceVC]

Supreme Court: Same-sex couples can marry in all 50 states.

 

Huzzah!

Well done for posting this monumental political and social development 

 

This is a really positive step for true equality and recognition in the eyes of the  law for same-couples in the USA

 

Another reason why this is important for me personally is I often get into debates about the appalling rise of homophobia in some African countries and one of the spurious counter-arguments some people use who try to defend this homophobia in Africa is points like " but even in America they don't allow gay marriage in some states, so if America can discriminate why can't Africa " 

 

This argument now becomes moot 

[Gromnir]

this were the job o' legislators and not judges.  is not good law even though we agree that marriage should be a right granted to all regardless o' sexual preference.

 

applaud the result, but lament the failure o' the process.

[BruceVC]

this were the job o' legislators and not judges.  is not good law even though we agree that marriage should be a right granted to all regardless o' sexual preference.

 

applaud the result, but lament the failure o' the process.

Can you explain why this is not a good law? Please go into details if required around the failure of process 

[kgambit]

 

this were the job o' legislators and not judges.  is not good law even though we agree that marriage should be a right granted to all regardless o' sexual preference.

 

applaud the result, but lament the failure o' the process.

Can you explain why this is not a good law? Please go into details if required around the failure of process 

 

 

Read the dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Roberts

 

I'll really make it easy for you, here's a link to the complete court opinion including the majority opinion, the case precedents, and all three dissenting opinions from Roberts, Scalia and Thomas 

 

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2111845-14-556-3204.html#document/p1

Edited June 26, 2015 by kgambit

[Meshugger]

Excellent. Now do the same with drugs.

[Gromnir]

 

this were the job o' legislators and not judges.  is not good law even though we agree that marriage should be a right granted to all regardless o' sexual preference.

 

applaud the result, but lament the failure o' the process.

Can you explain why this is not a good law? Please go into details if required around the failure of process 

 

you can read J. Robert's dissent if you wish. like it or not, the question that came before the Court is not a new one.  marriage is a right, but the legal definition o' marriage has been established and settled for a long time and currently more than half o' States in the US do not recognize same-sex marriage. it is o' course, perfectly reasonable that as society changes, the People may change such definitions, but that is the role of legislators and not Justices.   

 

"The majority today neglects that restrained

conception of the judicial role. It seizes for itself a question

the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when

the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question.

And it answers that question based not on neutral

principles of constitutional law, but on its own “understanding

of what freedom is and must become.

 

"Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not

about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage

should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is

instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that

decision should rest with the people acting through their

elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen

to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal

disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no

doubt about the answer."

 

the Justices of the Court decided that their will and wisdom were greater than that o' The People.  perhaps the wisdom o' 5 Justices is more admirable than that o' the people o' the United States of America, but the Constitution does not grant the Court the power to subvert the will o' the people in a case such as this.  there were no Constitutional right to same-sex marriage before today.  5 Justices thought that there should be such a right so now there is such a right.  the process were subverted.  

 

 

[Namutree]

I never thought such an outcome would be as bitter as it is sweet. Oh well...

[Gorgon]

Congrats.

[ktchong]

Biggest surprise for me... oh wait, the US has fifty states?  Oh yeah, yeah, fifty state.  

Edited June 26, 2015 by ktchong

[BruceVC]

 

 

this were the job o' legislators and not judges.  is not good law even though we agree that marriage should be a right granted to all regardless o' sexual preference.

 

applaud the result, but lament the failure o' the process.

Can you explain why this is not a good law? Please go into details if required around the failure of process 

 

 

Read the dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Roberts

 

I'll really make it easy for you, here's a link to the complete court opinion including the majority opinion, the case precedents, and all three dissenting opinions from Roberts, Scalia and Thomas 

 

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2111845-14-556-3204.html#document/p1

 

 

 

 

 

this were the job o' legislators and not judges.  is not good law even though we agree that marriage should be a right granted to all regardless o' sexual preference.

 

applaud the result, but lament the failure o' the process.

Can you explain why this is not a good law? Please go into details if required around the failure of process 

 

you can read J. Robert's dissent if you wish. like it or not, the question that came before the Court is not a new one.  marriage is a right, but the legal definition o' marriage has been established and settled for a long time and currently more than half o' States in the US do not recognize same-sex marriage. it is o' course, perfectly reasonable that as society changes, the People may change such definitions, but that is the role of legislators and not Justices.   

 

"The majority today neglects that restrained

conception of the judicial role. It seizes for itself a question

the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when

the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question.

And it answers that question based not on neutral

principles of constitutional law, but on its own “understanding

of what freedom is and must become.

 

"Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not

about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage

should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is

instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that

decision should rest with the people acting through their

elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen

to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal

disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no

doubt about the answer."

 

the Justices of the Court decided that their will and wisdom were greater than that o' The People.  perhaps the wisdom o' 5 Justices is more admirable than that o' the people o' the United States of America, but the Constitution does not grant the Court the power to subvert the will o' the people in a case such as this.  there were no Constitutional right to same-sex marriage before today.  5 Justices thought that there should be such a right so now there is such a right.  the process were subverted.  

 

 

 

I understand both of you have  a very good understanding of the American legal system. I have very little practical knowledge or how something like the Supreme Court should interpret decisions apart from what I read or see on channels like CNN and there assessment 

 

But I think I understand Gromnirs objection, you are saying that basically the 5 judges who voted in favor of this law are speaking on behalf of the American public and possibly are undermining what the American public really want. I have two points in response

 

1. The majority of Americans now support same sex marriage

• http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-53-of-americans-support-same-sex-marriage/ ( 53 % support it and 39 % are opposed
• http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

I can produce other links but they all say the same thing, most Americans support same-sex marriage. How is this subverting the will of the American people if they are in favor of it? Just because certain intransigent states and there legislators refuse to accept this it doesn't mean this is what the American people want  

 

2. In the states where there laws refuse to accept same sex marriage how would you suggest this change gets implemented without the decision of a body like the Supreme Court, do you think people will just wake up one day and decide to do the right thing? Sometimes legislation is needed to enforce change ...history tells us this in other examples of discrimination....because surly you guys agree that not allowing same-sex marriage is a form of discrimination?

Edited June 26, 2015 by BruceVC

[Volourn]

"do you think people will just wake up one day and decide to do the right thing? Sometimes legislation is needed to enforce change ...history tells us this in other examples of discrimination....because surly you guys agree that not allowing same-sex marriage is a form of discrimination?"

 

Just wake up one day randomly? No, of coruse not. Don't be suilly. Like all change it is a progress.

 

The issue here  is that the judges aren't voted in by people but the political leaders are. The people should be deciding this through voting.

 

\

That said, I have no issue with gays marrying. Doesn't effect me and I have one rule: If you aren't hurting anyone  (and not in that styupid FEELS way that stupid SJWs whine about) do what the hell you want.

 

It won't change the fact that I'm too ugly to get married.\

 

R00fles!

[luzarius]

I was going to argue against this, but there are too many dead beat straight couples out there who abandon their kids or make horrible parents. Because of them, I can't formulate a proper argument.

 

I will say this though. I was fortunate enough to have a mom and a dad who loved me and stayed together for lfie.  I believe that having your biological mom (female) and biological dad (male) is the best way to be raised if you're lucky enough to have strong parents like that.  The reality is not everyone is going to be fortunate like me, if a same sex couple can give this kind of love and care to child out there who needs it, then so be it.

I believe marriage should be between a man(real) and woman(real) who want to come together to make and raise a child proper for the betterment of society.  But you know what? The world isn't a perfect place, so I guess for now I'm neutral on the issue.

Grats on the victory, just watch out for the tax laws, make sure marriage is what you want because I've seen friends go through a divorce, IT SUCKS and it's expensive.  You can't just walk away, lol.

Edited June 26, 2015 by luzarius

[BruceVC]

"do you think people will just wake up one day and decide to do the right thing? Sometimes legislation is needed to enforce change ...history tells us this in other examples of discrimination....because surly you guys agree that not allowing same-sex marriage is a form of discrimination?"

 

Just wake up one day randomly? No, of coruse not. Don't be suilly. Like all change it is a progress.

 

The issue here  is that the judges aren't voted in by people but the political leaders are. The people should be deciding this through voting.

 

\

That said, I have no issue with gays marrying. Doesn't effect me and I have one rule: If you aren't hurting anyone  (and not in that styupid FEELS way that stupid SJWs whine about) do what the hell you want.s

 

It won't change the fact that I'm too ugly to get married.\

 

R00fles!

 

Yes and considering the fact the majority of American people now support same-sex marriage a vote would produce the same result, as  you can see from the links I posted. The second one being a comprehensive one that actually covers several polls 

[Bartimaeus]

 Sometimes legislation is needed to enforce change...

 

Yes...legislation...I'm glad we are in agreement for once, Bruce: I, too, think it should be up to our elected legislators - not a very few judicial appointees - to legislate and revise our laws.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[BruceVC]

I was going to argue against this, but there are too many dead beat straight couples out there who abandon their kids or make horrible parents. Because of them, I can't formulate a proper argument.

 

I will say this though. I was fortunate enough to have a mom and a dad who loved me and stayed together for lfie.  I believe that having your biological mom (female) and biological dad (male) is the best way to be raised if you're lucky enough to have strong parents like that.  The reality is not everyone is going to be fortunate like me, if a same sex couple can give this kind of love and care to child out there who needs it, then so be it.

 

I believe marriage should be between a man(real) and woman(real) who want to come together to make and raise a child proper for the betterment of society.  But you know what? The world isn't a perfect place, so I guess for now I'm neutral on the issue.

 

Grats on the victory, just watch out for the tax laws, make sure marriage is what you want because I've seen friends go through a divorce, IT SUCKS and it's expensive.  You can't just walk away, lol.

 

Well this is the first time you have made some points that I agree with, the main one being " if a same sex couple can give this kind of love and care to child out there who needs it, then so be it. "

 

And also you are correct in your view that  having a straight married couple as parents doesn't necessarily mean that the children will be raised in a happy and healthy environment for a variety of reasons 

[Namutree]

Gromnir pretty much laid out my position.

 

Gay marriage = Good

The way it became law = Objectionable

[BruceVC]

 

 Sometimes legislation is needed to enforce change...

 

Yes...legislation...I'm glad we are in agreement for once, Bruce: I, too, think it should be up to our elected legislators - not a very few judicial appointees - to legislate and revise our laws.

 

 

 

 Sometimes legislation is needed to enforce change...

 

Yes...legislation...I'm glad we are in agreement for once, Bruce: I, too, think it should be up to our elected legislators - not a very few judicial appointees - to legislate and revise our laws.

 

 

And for some reason Barti my darling you seem to be another person who is ignoring the fact that the majority of Americans support same sex marriage nowadays. So all the judicial appointees are doing is implementing the will of the majority of the American people

 

You would have a stronger argument if the polls were against same-sex marriage like they were a few years ago

[Bartimaeus]

I'm (we're?) ignoring it because your point has absolutely nothing to do with my point (that is, though yours is a point in general for the legalization of gay marriage, it does not at all deal specifically with the problem of the judicial branch overstepping its boundaries and doing the jobs of our legislators). It's very well for you to have the ends justify the means, but clearly, some of us place some value in the latter, too, particularly when there are alternative means that should've been used to begin with before it ever reached this point.

 

"So all the judicial appointees are doing is implementing the will of the majority of the American people"

 

This is not the judicial branch's job. This is the exact problem we're complaining about: it is our legislators' - our representatives, you might say - jobs.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[Hurlshort]

Yay!  I was travelling and I'm a bit jealous Gifted beat me to posting this great news.  

 

 

 

As for the fact that we got there through the Supreme Court instead of legislation, I will repeat my mantra about the courts protecting the minority against a tyranny of the majority.  When it comes to civil rights, I am more concerned with equality than the opinion of the masses.   

[Volourn]

"Yes and considering the fact the majority of American people now support same-sex marriage a vote would produce the same result, as  you can see from the links I posted. The second one being a comprehensive one that actually covers several polls "

 

\Not enccessarily true. A full fledge official poll might have different results. It might end up being 60%+ or lower than 40%. Randomly polling people isn't the same. Elections prove this where polling never 100% predicts outcome.

[Bartimaeus]

Yay!  I was travelling and I'm a bit jealous Gifted beat me to posting this great news.  

 

 

 

As for the fact that we got there through the Supreme Court instead of legislation, I will repeat my mantra about the courts protecting the minority against a tyranny of the majority.  When it comes to civil rights, I am more concerned with equality than the opinion of the masses.   

 

Though I disagree with Bruce's..."logic", perhaps so. Nevertheless, the state of our legislative branch's inability to resolve these issues - and the Supreme Court going outside its intended purpose and redefining the law according to the whims of nine semi-politically-motivated appointees (who, by the way, could've very easily decided the opposite way, Bruce!) - is something still very much worth bemoaning.

 

(e): actual english, like usual

Edited June 26, 2015 by Bartimaeus