SCOTUS strikes down gay marriage bans, legalizing marriage equality nationwide

Status
Not open for further replies.
American Eskimo said:
I didnt see anyone post the running on the interns

runrunrun.0.gif
Click to expand...

What is happening here ? Are they running with the decision ?
 
Just realized that we're doing a rainbow themed first birthday party for my daughter on Sunday. Kinda funny after today.
 
AuthenticM said:
What is happening here ? Are they running with the decision ?
Click to expand...

Yep, there are no electronic recording devices permitted in the court room, so the interns get handed written press briefs covering the decision and then literally have to sprint to the TV reporters outside the building.

They call it "The Running of the Interns."
 
The Llama said:
Yeah, they get handed paper copies of the decisions then have to run to their news organizations so they can be read and analyzed.
Click to expand...

CrimzonSamurai said:
Yep, there are no electronic recording devices permitted in the court room, so the interns get handed written press briefs covering the decision and then literally have to sprint to the TV reporters outside the building.

They call it "The Running of the Interns."
Click to expand...

Wow, it's the first time I see this. Are there videos of this on the Internet ?
 
CrimzonSamurai said:
Alito and Scalia's dissents boil down to a strict reading of the 14th amendment that does not include broadening its scope to include marriage as a fundamental right. I suppose I was being a little sloppy in summary, but that is the gist of their dissents.

Thomas' argument that slavery isn't compromising of dignity or humanity is a little inexplicable to me, but I'm not well versed in his philosophy about due process, so fair enough.
Click to expand...

You're right that Scalia and Alito no doubt believe (and pretty much state) that marriage isn't a fundamental right protected by the 14th Amendment. Still, they spend the majority of their words protesting what they see as the Court exercising what is essentially legislative judgment better reserved to the people to declare marriage fundamental.

Well, the quoted Thomas passage is taken a little out of context because it flows from the paragraph before it. He is saying that "dignity" and "liberty" are inherent and immutable things to everyone, and that the state is therefore unable to either grant or deny them. It's equal parts archaic and laughable, but it at least resembles a cogent point.
 
hosannainexcelsis said:
I think a fairly rational reason, and certainly what forms the core of the belief in traditional marriage from most people I know who hold to it, is that men and women have been designed to be complimentary to each other, biologically, emotionally, sexually, in a way that people of the same gender are not. (Consider sexual organs, for instance.) That hence there is an inherent difference between same-sex relationships and different-sex relationships - that the genders aren't interchangable.
Click to expand...
Someone didn't pay attention during biology class. Humans aren't designed, but the product of evolution.

Secondly, a species is not an intrinsic, unchanging form. A bell curve of differing characteristics defines a population, and that changes over time.

Hell, in 1000 years, there will probably not even be "humans" as we know them today, but the immortal descendants of our a man-machine civilization.
 
CrimzonSamurai said:
there are no electronic recording devices permitted in the court room, so the interns get handed written press briefs covering the decision and then literally have to sprint to the TV reporters outside the building.

They call it "The Running of the Interns."
Click to expand...

Now you're reading this in David Attenborough's voice
 
In hindsight, seeing all this companies posting support for the outcome, i wonder if there was any company ready with one to celebrate should the outcome had been opposite.

Would be kinda...fucked up.
 
CrimzonSamurai said:
Well, not so much, because the 14th amendment doesn't really deal in fundamental rights, but equal protection under the law. If you're going to have state-sanctioned marriage, you can't be discriminatory about who you let sign that contract. I don't think the ruling establishes marriage - alone - as a fundamental right.
Click to expand...

Previous rulings had ruled marriage as a fundamental right, so this point had not to be made in this decision; the decision does mention a Turner v Safley case in which this was established by the scotus.

WRT fundamental rights vs equal protection, I don't think it is any stretch to say that gay couples moving to a state that don't recognize gay marriage are losing protection under the law compared to hetero couples.
 
hosannainexcelsis said:
No man is an island. It's short-sighted to think that people's personal decisions have no affect on other people's lives. And, whether you think it's good or bad, there's no doubt that the cultural acceptance of homosexuality, simply the latest step in the continual progress of the Sexual Revolution that places individual feelings as the ultimate authority and the person as open to unbounded self-definition and self-determination, has profoundly affected everyone living in the culture.

Here we get to the heart of the problem - what is marriage? Some people believe it is about procreation. Some people believe it is a sacrament ordained by God. Most people today, though, believe it is based on personal feelings of affection and those alone. I can certainly see why people who believe those feelings are the ultimate virtue resent anything they feel restricts their expression of those feelings, but I would hope some of them would at least try to understand why people who believe marriage is more than an arbitrary social construct believe that it is an institution which needs some limits placed on it.
Click to expand...
This has absolutely had a strong effect on our culture, but the effect that an individual's actions have on someone else, is entirely upon the other party. It is the individual's right to decide what they believe and how they want other people's lives to effect themselves.

All that has changed today in America as a society is that the government's definition of marriage has expanded to include two people of the same sex. An incredibly important part of America is the supposed "Separation of Church and State" which gives people the freedom to choose their religion and their beliefs. Obviously there are overlaps with government laws and regulations that most can agree on (laws against stealing and killing, etc.) and most religions agree on too and the fact that America was built on predominately Christian values. But government regulations on same sex marriage up to this point have existed purely because of religious reasons, which should not be the case for a law or regulation to exist in a supposedly free country.

Religiously, it is fine for people and religious organizations to have their own limits placed on things like what constitutes an official marriage in the eyes of the lord, but a government should not take into consideration what one (or many) religion's beliefs are, but rather the beliefs of the majority of its people and representatives (being that out government is a Democratic Republic and what not).

Today, just like yesterday, a person against same sex relationships is still going to be against them. The government can't tell you whether something is a "Sin" or not, that's still something you personally choose to believe or not believe.
 
Bedameister said:
So next up: Get rid of guns and then legalize weed?
Click to expand...

or maybe allowing tg types and other lgbt minorities proper housing and job rights. Marriage is great but there are plenty of other issues the community wants to have the opportunities most take for granted. I'd also say equal rights act but I remember the mess in the 80s.

I love gay rights but some of us still have legit fears about being outed, being evicted, or being fired at the mere mention we are in transistioning and even when it comes to cds that they even cross. I love freedom but nobody in this country would accept draconian rules applied to tgs if they were applied them.
 
Ahasverus said:
This is incredible. I don't know if there is a gay agenda, but damn if they do it right
Click to expand...

I'm sure books will written about it, but I think there's been a real snowball effect. As more accepting attitudes grew, more people were willing to be out with their sexuality-- and consequently more people knew gay people, and in turn were more accepting.

I "know" a fair number of people online who are conservative about almost everything, but are say "doesn't affect me, let 'em get married" on the topic.
 
Tagyhag said:
Part of me is like fuck yeah, but the cynic in me is like "I bet some of these are just doing it for the brownie points"

I gotta stop being so pessimistic.
Click to expand...

Of course some are in for the good press, but I don't think it matters. They are putting the right message out either way.
 
PSqueak said:
In hindsight, seeing all this companies posting support for the outcome, i wonder if there was any company ready with one to celebrate should the outcome had been opposite.

Would be kinda...fucked up.
Click to expand...

Chick-fil-A dumping tons of America Patties in the ocean as we speak.
 
Stumpokapow said:
it's true that the difference between gay relationships and straight relationships is that gay relationships are gay and straight relationships are straight (this is the argument being made when you strip away the linguistic obfuscation), but it's tautologically so, and so it doesn't answer the "ought" question at all.
Click to expand...

No, the argument being made in this case is that men and women fit together in a way that men and men, or women and women, don't, and it is that fitting together of the two opposite genders that defines the special relationship and intimacy of marriage. That two people of the same sex cannot compliment each other in that way. The argument is marriage is not just people who have strong feelings for each other, but it is the coming together of two people to make one person, and that that can only happen when two different genders are combined.

Arkeband said:
You're not going to like this, but there's this thing called evolution...
Click to expand...

One can believe in both the scientific theory of evolution and believe that that process of evolution was what a Creator used to design humanity (and all other living creatures).
 
Bedameister said:
So next up: Get rid of guns and then legalize weed?
Click to expand...

Lol, the second amendment is not going to be repealed in our lifetimes unless there's some kind of huge spike in gun violence (which has been declining). Like we did today, let's focus on granting freedoms and upholding our constitution rights, not strip them away from innocent people.

Weed will be legal in my state next Wednesday.
 
PSqueak said:
In hindsight, seeing all this companies posting support for the outcome, i wonder if there was any company ready with one to celebrate should the outcome had been opposite.

Would be kinda...fucked up.
Click to expand...

Chik Fil A and Hobby Lobby no doubt,

Anyways.. just got home.. dont really have anything else to say that hasnt already been said a thousand times. This, health care, and confederate flags in one week? Unbelievable.

Listened to Hannity on the way home. Was a good laugh. Fuck my ex-party,
 
ElFly said:
Previous rulings had ruled marriage as a fundamental right, so this point had not to be made in this decision; the decision does mention a Turner v Safley case in which this was established by the scotus.

WRT fundamental rights vs equal protection, I don't think it is any stretch to say that gay couples moving to a state that don't recognize gay marriage are losing protection under the law compared to hetero couples.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. I hadn't heard of Turner v Safley, but after looking it up apparently it following from Loving v. Virginia that marriage was a fundamental right. So LvV was actually the one that established its fundamental...ness.

And I totally agree on the second part, but looking at this decision in a vacuum I just didn't think it's scope covered the fundamentality of the right to marry, but of course that's what precedent is for and now I've got the whole story.
 
If we legalize weed quote me right the fuck now.

Violence on ALL fronts will drop down by massive numbers

Largely due to everybody being so high they're watching Kung Pow Enter the Fist and eating Taco Bell.
 
Pepiope said:
The good thing is that I really cannot see another Republican President in the near future. That party needs to get its shit together, it's dying.
Click to expand...

Good. Let it die. Then perhaps from the ashes of a party mired in stagnation we will get a more reasonable alternative to the Democrats which will help push, debate, compromise, and polish legislation according to their merits to society.

Today is a good day. And I can confirm as a straight married man that my marriage to my wife isn't affected by this ruling. If anything it helps makes marriage better for everyone.
 
hosannainexcelsis said:
No, the argument being made in this case is that men and women fit together in a way that men and men, or women and women, don't, and it is that fitting together of the two opposite genders that defines the special relationship and intimacy of marriage. That two people of the same sex cannot compliment each other in that way. The argument is marriage is not just people who have strong feelings for each other, but it is the coming together of two people to make one person, and that that can only happen when two different genders are combined.
Click to expand...

So, no marriage for gays and no marriage for the infertile then?
 
Oh man, this is great. These are some comments on a Facebook picture how Obama approves of the decision.

"I'm very unhappy with this communist government. The president is a Muslim and a Traitor. All Traitors to the constitution. To the freedom of all Americans. I think this just might be the tipping point for the country."

"We apparently haven't learned anything from the Greeks, Egyptian, or Romans. Once homosexuality was embraced, all of those societies fell. In the span of 1 week, freedom of speech (flags), freedom of choice (TPP, TPA), socialism (Obamacare), and now embracing homosexuality. Talk about throwing the country away quickly..God Help us."

"Out of the mouth of the biggest lying homo on the planet"
 
hosannainexcelsis said:
No man is an island. It's short-sighted to think that people's personal decisions have no affect on other people's lives. And, whether you think it's good or bad, there's no doubt that the cultural acceptance of homosexuality, simply the latest step in the continual progress of the Sexual Revolution that places individual feelings as the ultimate authority and the person as open to unbounded self-definition and self-determination, has profoundly affected everyone living in the culture.



Here we get to the heart of the problem - what is marriage? Some people believe it is about procreation. Some people believe it is a sacrament ordained by God. Most people today, though, believe it is based on personal feelings of affection and those alone. I can certainly see why people who believe those feelings are the ultimate virtue resent anything they feel restricts their expression of those feelings, but I would hope some of them would at least try to understand why people who believe marriage is more than an arbitrary social construct believe that it is an institution which needs some limits placed on it.
Click to expand...

You let any two consenting adults get married and do whatever the fuck they want.

There's your limit, boy was that easy.
 
Toxi said:
Finally. Good luck to all the new married couples. :-)

It's a sad day when Scalia is only the second biggest clown in the court. Thomas should be ashamed for this garbage.
Click to expand...

There is a way that Thomas' argument sort-of-makes sense - should the government be in the business of granting (and thus, taking away) someone's dignity? While normally slippery slope arguments are BS - the supreme court is the one place where it is of pretty paramount importance (since that's sort of the point of all of this). I'm assuming Thomas means that the Supreme Court and/or US Government does not have the ability to grant and/or take away anyone's "dignity".


A_Gorilla said:
After reading their dissenting opinions: No
Click to expand...

Psh, you didn't read their opinions carefully then. :-p

Balphon said:
You're being reductive and a little misleading.

The gist of the Alito and Scalia dissents is that same sex marriage is a policy issue that should be resolved legislatively. Scalia's has more jokes, but they're pretty close.

There's a bit of that in the Roberts dissent, but it's more concerned with attacking the legal framework of the Court's decision. His dissent boils down to an argument that marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, but the majority has altered the definition of marriage simply out of its own subjective beliefs in order to make its argument. I don't agree, but the dissent is pretty well thought out. He actually does make some points I agree with vis-a-vis the Court's Equal Protection argument as well as how the opinion would seem to compel constitutional protection for things like plural marriage.

Thomas's dissent is actually fairly typical of his jurisprudence in this area: he rejects the entire notion of substantive due process. In his view, "liberty" is a relatively narrow thing that does not encompass the broad panoply of things that judges have stretched it to cover since the passage of the 14th Amendment. He makes some other arguments about negative and positive liberty in support of this that are equally old-fashioned. He's still weird, but not inexplicably so.
Click to expand...

Roberts has a darn good point about the Supreme Court basically functioning as a legislative body right now; which is not its intention, as well as pointing out that they may have turned something that was inevitably going to pass across all states (gay marriage) over time into abortion 2.0 by allowing it from on high. I do think that's a reasonable fear, that people who would have eventually acceded to letting gays marry (or just passed away, as gay marriage was one of those issues that was harshly split amongst age, even on the conservative side) are now going to calcify their opinions even more so.

That said, the reason the SC is functioning like a legislative body recently is because congress is so deadlocked and useless that we are using the SC to actually get shit done. I understand Roberts' slippery slope argument, and remember that he actually worked pro bono for gay rights early in his career (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts#Early_legal_career) - so there's a lot of evidence he's actually is very happy about equal rights; just not the way it came about. But, to me, the second they started tying so many laws and rights to being married, you had to let gays get married. No way around it.

Congratulations to all, though. As a Christian, a big part of the teachings are that #LoveWins :D Always. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Dave Grohl announces daughter outside of his marriage
2 3
143
9K
Dr.Morris79 replied
20 injured after Mexican Navy training ship strikes Brooklyn Bridge
News  2
56
479
Major Insano replied
Tragic News: Destiny open marriage fails
2 3 4
171
36K
Deleted member 1159 replied
  • Poll
The pull-down ad bar thing
Community 
44
558
AgatonSax replied
Microsoft is finally shutting down Skype in May
41
2K
MakeMudosGreatAgain replied
Top Bottom