SCOTUS strikes down gay marriage bans, legalizing marriage equality nationwide

Status
Not open for further replies.
The fireworks going on nearby here in NYC just scared the shit out of me, haha. Once I realized what it was, I started to tear up a little bit. So fucking happy.
 
linkboy said:
While it's the law, there's still a few weeks before the Supreme Court ruling will be 100% enforceable (basically to give states time to adjust to the new law).

Some states and counties are already going full steam ahead, others are digging their heels in and stalling.

It's not going to accomplish anything though, they're still going to have to issue those licenses.
Click to expand...

If anything, fighting the decision to the last inch = free political slogans for some candidates and incumbents, regardless of the inevitability. Hopefully it makes for some great campaign videos on the opposing side.
 
qnuOOa5.png
 
Really late to the party... Been following the news and this topic all day.But I'm finally posting!
I'm so, so, sooooo happy about this! It's absolutely fantastic!

HylianTom said:
CIeL_ITVEAAAsWi.jpg


Niagra Falls has joined in the celebration.

This night is magical.
Click to expand...

I hope they continue this over through tomorrow. REALLY want to check out the falls with Acerac tomorrow!

DrForester said:
qnuOOa5.png
Click to expand...

You're awesome, DrForester. Also, you really should talk in the pony IRC more often, yo.
 
Kolx said:
Just a question: can any state now decline this order? or is it final and not up for discussion?
Click to expand...

I think Justice Kennedy said it best when he said "It is so ordered."

Supreme Court rulings are binding, and must be followed by all states under the Union.

And yes, as a few pointed out they do have a few weeks to oblige but there's no good reason to not start now.
 
Kolx said:
Just a question: can any state now decline this order? or is it final and not up for discussion?
Click to expand...

It's legal in all 50 states, but I imagine we'll see some places try to get around it, just like they did with segregation. A lot will claim some sort of religious exemption for why they don't have to give out any licenses. I expect a court case about this to pop up soon.
 
plop said:
2015_06_26_21_21_55.jpg


Wrong side of history, etc.
Click to expand...

And that first picture wasn't all that long ago either. My wife and I are 45, and it's only been legal for us to marry for a bit longer than that. Our parents lived through that time as young adults. It's quite possible that someone could be in both of those pictures.

Some of the older couples getting married today witnessed it themselves. They've now seen two breakthrough Supreme Court rulings on marriage equality.

There's still a long way to go on so many fronts, but damn today's milestone feels so good. Congratulations to all the happy couples! :D
 
Mr_Antimatter said:
It's legal in all 50 states, but I imagine we'll see some places try to get around it, just like they did with segregation. A lot will claim some sort of religious exemption for why they don't have to give out any licenses. I expect a court case about this to pop up soon.
Click to expand...

watch they just up and stop issuing licenses period

titiklabingapat said:
I meant to post this earlier, but LA MTA has this!

11537234_10153384879821763_9190670636171760788_n.jpg
Click to expand...

I wish metro was that fast.
 
DrForester said:
There are apparently some counties stalling, probably to see if they have any options.
Click to expand...

Governor Greggy of my home state has stated he's using the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act to allow people to continue exercising their religious beliefs or something like that. Now, I'm no law expert, but I'm pretty sure that's still illegal, right? If someone could explain whether it is or not that'd be great.
 
More idiotic responses from Repub presidential candiates: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...supreme-court-gay-marriage-ruling-119466.html

Only Jeb was smart enough to kinda embrace it

Jeb Bush likewise struck a moderate tone, saying that the Supreme Court should have left marriage up to the states, but that Americans should “love our neighbor and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments.
Click to expand...

I wonder how this will affect some of their races. They are clearly going against the law and vast majority of the nation.
 
GiantEnemyGoomba said:
Governor Greggy of my home state has stated he's using the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act to allow people to continue exercising their religious beliefs or something like that. Now, I'm no law expert, but I'm pretty sure that's still illegal, right? If someone could explain whether it is or not that'd be great.
Click to expand...

It's illegal because of federal supremacy. What the federal courts say overrules what any individual state court or legislature says. Your governor is an idiot
 
GaimeGuy said:
It's illegal because of federal supremacy. What the federal courts say overrules what any individual state court or legislature says. Your governor is an idiot
Click to expand...

Yeah that's basically what I thought but thanks for confirming. Just imagine: Abbott continuing on this train and being impeached/indicted. Would be glorious after the Perry debacle.
 
Well, I just got done reading the majority opinion and Scalia's dissent and unfortunately I have to agree with Scalia. The majority's opinion is super weak from a legal point of view, Kennedy doesn't list a single legal test or standard he is applying but basically states that marriage is a fundamental right under the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause because we say so and thus banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. I'm actually kinda amazed he and the rest of the majority were okay with such shotty legal rationale. While the end effect, marriage quality, is great that opinion was just plain bad. Scalia was justified in tearing them apart.

This is the part of Scalia's opinion that kind of had me begrudgingly agree:

Scalia J. said:
The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic....The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational pop-philosophy; it demands them in the law.
Click to expand...

I'm going to have to look up some law blogs to get some law professors and other legal professional take on the opinion.
 
Stumpokapow said:
There is very clearly a tendency when progress is made for the pressure level to go down. For example, when the most obvious legal restrictions against people by gender and race were solved, the movements to address remaining deficiencies largely stalled out. This is generally accepted as true with respect to both the women's liberation movement and the civil rights movements--after the right to vote and late social acceptance of women working, subsequent issues lacked broader popular support and the most marginalized people stayed marginalized (the entire women of color third wave critique of second wave feminism is basically this kind of thing); after the end of miscegenation, forced school integration, the VRA, and housing laws, a broad tendency emerged to view racism as "solved" or "mostly gone" or "individual racists" rather than a systemic thing that required more work. Literally hundreds or thousands of books and accounts of these movements have come to these conclusions.

Certainly the language is hyperbolic and buzzkill-y and even seems a little selfish and callous to be dumping on a moment where a real victory was won, but the purported problem seems fairly reasonable. I suspect that for many Americans, the idea that gays occupy an unequal place in society ends with this issue, and subsequent issues like broader employment protections, for example, will have less gas in their engines. I think one of the reasons why trans activists over the last few years have increasingly tried to establish their voices as distinct from the general LBGT umbrella is in part the fear that this kind of scenario will occur.

I think we can best be served by listening to groups pleas for help rather than writing our own checklist of what people ought to expect and declaring the job done. If we approach issues with this kind of empathy, we help avoid this kind of problem.
Click to expand...
I agree, but that does require a cultural shift as well and I don't think it can end at just listening. At some point people do need to make commitments to take action in order to move things forward. If there's anything I've learned from working with unions it's that collective action only works if action is happening. When things stagnate or hit a wall, it can take a long time to get moving again.

I think it's a lack of awareness about how often such stagnation occurs (especially in politics), or maybe, a simple expectation that there will be a sticking point that prevents people from pushing more, when oftentimes just a small push can often create huge changes. Somewhat ironically, I think it's a lack of faith in our system's ability to do good that continues to empower those who are hateful, such as many of the politicians running Texas.
 
foxtrot3d said:
Well, I just got done reading the majority opinion and Scalia's dissent and unfortunately I have to agree with Scalia. The majority's opinion is super weak from a legal point of view, Kennedy doesn't list a single legal test or standard he is applying but basically states that marriage is a fundamental right under the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause because we say so and thus banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. I'm actually kinda amazed he and the rest of the majority were okay with such shotty legal rationale. While the end effect, marriage quality, is great that opinion was just plain bad. Scalia was justified in tearing them apart.

This is the part of Scalia's opinion that kind of had me begrudgingly agree:

I'm going to have to look up some law blogs to get some law professors and other legal professional take on the opinion.
Click to expand...

You might start by the 30-35 lower court opinions that affirmed this same holding, all of which exhaustively went through the same legal arguments :p
 
So I am very LTTP on this. I saw the OP, but I am reading up on this more right now. Is it just the 50 states, or every USA territory as well? If it is only the states, it's kinda not fair, so is it only the states? Territories sometimes get the short end of the stick unfortunately.
 
HUELEN10 said:
So I am very LTTP on this. I saw the OP, but I am reading up on this more right now. Is it just the 50 states, or every USA territory as well? If it is only the states, it's kinda not fair, so is it only the states? Territories sometimes get the short end of the stick unfortunately.
Click to expand...

This should fall over the territories as well, thank goodness!
 
HylianTom said:
This should fall over the territories as well, thank goodness!
Click to expand...

Wow, that is surprisingly progressive if so! Hopefully, this will also mark a new start for the territories not getting the short end of the stick anymore when it comes to important issues like this.
 
Its good they finished this now. The next president is likely going to get at least one Supreme Court nomination. And if a Republican president with a Republican Senate were to be in place we might get another Scalia.
 
foxtrot3d said:
I guess I will, any particular court's decision I should look at?
Click to expand...

All the opinions say the same thing in largely the same way, so literally just pick a state.

They all start with a lengthy pre-amble about the stories of the plaintiff couples (largely very sympathetic carefully chosen trial balloon cases like disabled veterans who adopted a gaggle of mentally disabled kids and who have been happily together for 785 years). They explain why Baker v. Nelson is not controlling, generally in light of US v. Windsor or Lawrence v. Texas. They move into equal protection and due process arguments. They decide to apply a particular level of scrutiny of the government's argument: some higher, some lower. Regardless of the level of scrutiny provided, the state's arguments don't meet it. They look at the procreation argument. They dismantle it easily. Some also examine quack testimony about how gays don't make good parents. They dismantle it easily. They find the laws are motivated by naked animus and as such are vacated. They have a little bit of soaring poetry. Several cite Scalia's bitter "IF YOU GIVE GAYS RIGHTS... THEY WILL WANT MARRIAGE!!!! AND THE ONLY CONSISTENT THING WILL BE TO GIVE IT TO THEM..." dissent as though he meant it in support of gay rights. Bada-bing bada-boom.

But honestly, if you really want to read an opinion, just reading Loving v. Virginia. All of the dissents today either don't address it or say it's different because race isn't the same as sexual orientation, as though people who analogize civil rights struggles literally can't remember if they're gay or black. *shrugs*
 
Yay, seeing people put the "Confederate flag" on their Facebook profile image or cover photo in response to this. With the irony completely missed on them.
 
Stumpokapow said:
All the opinions say the same thing in largely the same way, so literally just pick a state.

They all start with a lengthy pre-amble about the stories of the plaintiff couples (largely very sympathetic carefully chosen trial balloon cases like disabled veterans who adopted a gaggle of mentally disabled kids and who have been happily together for 785 years). They explain why Baker v. Nelson is not controlling, generally in light of US v. Windsor or Lawrence v. Texas. They move into equal protection and due process arguments. They decide to apply a particular level of scrutiny of the government's argument: some higher, some lower. Regardless of the level of scrutiny provided, the state's arguments don't meet it. They look at the procreation argument. They dismantle it easily. Some also examine quack testimony about how gays don't make good parents. They dismantle it easily. They find the laws are motivated by naked animus and as such are vacated. They have a little bit of soaring poetry. Several cite Scalia's bitter "IF YOU GIVE GAYS RIGHTS... THEY WILL WANT MARRIAGE!!!! AND THE ONLY CONSISTENT THING WILL BE TO GIVE IT TO THEM..." dissent as though he meant it in support of gay rights. Bada-bing bada-boom.

But honestly, if you really want to read an opinion, just reading Loving v. Virginia. All of the dissents today either don't address it or say it's different because race isn't the same as sexual orientation, as though people who analogize civil rights struggles literally can't remember if they're gay or black. *shrugs*
Click to expand...

I've read Loving and it's the best case supporting the majority's opinion, although oddly they don't rely on it too much. Although, I'd say that Loving had more support within the Fourteenth Amendment since the Amendment was designed specifically to ensure the protection and equality of rights of black people. Still, I do think it is the best support for the majority's decision and as you said it's pretty convenient for Scalia to just up and leave it out of his discussion.
 
HUELEN10 said:
Wow, that is surprisingly progressive if so! Hopefully, this will also mark a new start for the territories not getting the short end of the stick anymore when it comes to important issues like this.
Click to expand...

Apparently Puelto Rico, sorry, Puerto Rico is going to do it almost immediatly:

http://www.informador.com.mx/intern...ara-cambios-para-reconocer-matrimonio-gay.htm

SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO (26/JUN/2015).- El Gobierno de Puerto Rico anunció que adoptará de inmediato los cambios necesarios para hacer valer la decisión del Tribunal Supremo de EU de reconocer el derecho al matrimonio entre las personas del mismo sexo.

"Próximamente estaré firmando una orden ejecutiva para hacer efectiva de forma ordenada pero inmediata, y con todas las consecuencias legales que pueda acarrear, la decisión del Tribunal", anunció este viernes el gobernador de Puerto Rico, Alejandro García Padilla.

Aunque con un alto grado de autonomía en el ámbito interno, Puerto Rico es un Estado Libre Asociado a EU en el que rigen las leyes estadounidenses de ámbito federal.

Hace poco más de tres meses el Gobierno de García Padilla estaba defendiendo en los tribunales federales una disposición del Código Civil local que establecía que el matrimonio debía ser entre un hombre y una mujer, pero un cambio de criterio hizo que anunciara su intención de promover la legislación oportuna para reconocer la igualdad de derechos de las parejas del mismo sexo.

"Le he pedido al secretario de Justicia que se evalúen cualesquiera otros cambios que por legislación se deban promover para adecuar nuestro ordenamiento jurídico a esta nueva realidad", añadió hoy García Padilla.

Aprovecho para pedir "a todos los que como yo somos personas de fe, que comprendamos que a nadie le toca imponerle a otro su credo religioso", afirmó.

"Para que cada cual pueda adorar a Dios según su propia conciencia, nos corresponde defender las libertades democráticas de cada individuo, de tal forma que nunca se nos pueda coartar la nuestra", apuntó.

Puerto Rico es territorio estadounidense desde 1898 y se define como Estado Libre Asociado a ese país, con Constitución propia y con un importante grado de autonomía, aunque EU se reserva apartados como defensa, moneda, inmigración y aduanas, entre otros.
Click to expand...

Hastly google translated:

SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO (26 / JUL / 2015) .- The government of Puerto Rico announced it will adopt the necessary changes immediately to enforce the decision of the US Supreme Court recognized the right to marriage between persons of the same sex.

"Soon I'll be signing an executive order to effect an orderly but immediate, and with all the legal consequences that may entail, the Court's decision," said Friday the governor of Puerto Rico, Alejandro García Padilla.

But with a high degree of autonomy in internal matters, Puerto Rico is a US Commonwealth of the US law governing federal level.

Just over three months ago the Government of García Padilla was in federal court defending a provision of the Local Civil Code stating that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but a change of approach made it announced its intention to promote timely legislation to recognize the equal rights of same-sex couples.

"We have asked the Attorney General that any other changes that should promote legislation to adapt our legislation to evaluate this new reality," added García Padilla today.

He took the opportunity to ask "all those who like me are people of faith, we understand that no one touches another impose their religious beliefs," he said.

"So that everyone can you worship God according to their conscience, it behooves us to defend democratic freedoms of each individual, so that we can never stifle our" he said.

Puerto Rico is a US territory since 1898 and is defined as the Commonwealth to that country, with its own Constitution and a large degree of autonomy, although EU topics as defense, currency reserves immigration and customs, among others.
Click to expand...
 
foxtrot3d said:
..the Amendment was designed specifically to ensure the protection and equality of rights of black people..
Click to expand...

This is not quite true. While the 14th Amendment's creation and adoption did indeed occur in a post-slavery, post-Civil War context, the authors made a very deliberate decision when choosing the specific wording that it used.

Here's the originally-proposed wording for the Equal Protection Clause:
"No discrimination shall be made by any State, or by the United States, as to the civil rights of persons because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

That's a pretty narrow scope, only pertaining to race. If this wording had been adopted, I'd agree with you completely.

Instead, though, the authors made the decision to use much, much broader, more widely-applicable language:
“No State shall.. deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

They adopted this language knowing well that it applied to more than just race. They could have very easily specified that it only applied to issues of race, but they chose to go with this larger scope. "All persons born or naturalized."

A plain reading of the text makes it pretty clear.

There is no exception for gay people in that text. If folks want it there, it's not a judge's job to scribble in little asterisks that say " *except for the homos."

If folks want an exception to the "equal protection of the laws" bit, they can amend it to say something like, "equal protection of the laws - *except for civil marriage laws."

The deliberate decision of the 14th Amendment's authors to go with that language is, in large part, what made today's decision possible. The text of the amendment is pretty cut and dry.
 
The constitution is a living document. We decide how to interpret it. Deal with it, bigots.
 
I'm amazed at the reasoning of some states that are trying to delay the ruling.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/06/bobby_jindal_administration_sa_1.html

The Jindal administration has said Louisiana's state government won't recognize gay marriage until a lower court rules on the issue. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has taken up a gay marriage case, but was waiting on the Supreme Court ruling before moving forward with it. The Jindal administration is now delaying recognition of gay marriage in Louisiana until this appeals court decision is issued.

Lawyers said the delay will probably only last a few days. Attorneys representing seven Louisiana same-sex couples have already filed a motion seeking to enforce the ruling in the state. The appeals court ruling will largely be a formality, now that the Supreme Court has issued an opinion.

But since the Jindal administration is not recognizing gay marriage yet, the Department of Health and Hospitals would not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in New Orleans Friday.

"Until the mandate from the lower court is issued, this ruling is not yet in effect," Reed said in a written statement.
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court ruling affects more than just marriage licenses. Jindal, as the head of Louisiana's government, has control over other areas of same-sex couples lives too.

For example, same-sex couples won't be able to receive tax benefits enjoyed by other married couples and still won't be able to legally adopt children together in Louisiana, until the state complies with the Supreme Court ruling. State government workers who are in a same-sex relationship also won't be able to get benefits for their spouses until the ruling is implemented.

Louisiana's Department of Revenue Secretary Tim Barfield, who oversees tax policy for the state, said his agency will determine whether married same-sex couples can file state tax returns jointly in the next couple of weeks.

"We should have some guidance in the next couple of weeks," Barfield said, "These constitutional decisions are often very complex. It is really just way too premature."
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Dave Grohl announces daughter outside of his marriage
2 3
143
10K
Dr.Morris79 replied
If you are reading this you’re gay! LMAO!!!
Live  2 3
142
684
violence replied
UFO? Lets shoot it down
10
240
IAmRei replied
  • Locked
I think my dog might be gay
20
605
T8SC replied
School Phone Bans Spark Analog Revival: iPods Return
43
533
mitch1971 replied
Top Bottom