• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

SCOTUS strikes down gay marriage bans, legalizing marriage equality nationwide

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Lamonster said:
Can I get a gif of the new GAF logo?

Site won't let me save image as...
Click to expand...

I made these and put them in the other thread.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1071257


CDX said:
Made animated PNGs For FIREFOX users or if you have the apng Chrome plugin



4EcUZK6.png
pBMo0to.png


JXNGQEx.png
Xt5JjVT.png









Edit

Made .gifs too

64LPoXK.gif
zveB3LT.gif



DfRwuPi.gif
tCD7QMb.gif
Click to expand...

Someone also in that thread made .gifs of just the spinning part of the logo
 
I'm just going to post this whole thing here:

Barney Frank: Justice Scalia Is a Homophobe

Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people won two victories in the Supreme Court today. We expected the big one: the fourth in a series of opinions by Justice Anthony Kennedy—one of the last sitting Reagan appointees—vindicating our right to legal equality. The unexpected one was smaller in public impact but also significant: Justice Antonin Scalia’s disclaimer that he is not personally troubled by the fact that we can marry each other. After a series of opinions, speeches and public comments expressing his strong disapproval of us, vigorously defending society’s right to express this attitude in discriminatory public policies, Scalia begins his characteristically vitriolic dissent by protesting that “the substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me.”

Yeah, right. This strikes me as the least sincere disavowal of homophobia I have encountered since former Majority Leader Dick Armey tried to argue that his reference to me as “Barney Fag” was just a mispronunciation of my last name. What we have here instead marks a tactical shift.

Apparently, Justice Scalia has come to realize that since public opinion in America has moved away from anti-LGBT prejudice, heavily salting his writings with a personal distaste for the idea that we should enjoy the same rights as our heterosexual brothers and sisters weakens the appeal of his legal reasoning. (Compare his angry screed in the sodomy case, essentially justifying the criminalization of private sexual conduct between consenting adults, with Justice Clarence Thomas’s terse statement that while he would have voted against the “silly” Texas statute in question, he believed it was a deeply flawed judgment that the Legislature was constitutionally permitted to make.) So in an unexplained abandonment of his vigorously anti-LGBT prior stance, Justice Scalia asks that his pronouncement that the Court’s opinion calls our democracy into question be judged not on the substantive issue, but as an expression of his view that “allow[ing] the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”

The inconsistency between this dissent and several of Scalia’s prior opinions deepens my skepticism about his newfound tolerant stance. Even before reaching this, there is the question of how many people Scalia thinks were on the Court when it ordered a much further-reaching social transformation in its decisions on race—including, of course, on who could marry whom.

Second, of very contemporary relevance, is he arguing that while the elite nine should never initiate social transformations, they should be free to undo those they don’t like, even when they were the product of action by the popularly elected branches? Scalia enthusiastically voted to invalidate the key part of the transformational Voting Rights Act—only a few years after it had been readopted by large non-elite Congressional majorities. And he was about as contemptuous yesterday of Chief Justice John Roberts for his judicial restraint in declining to undo the major transformation of health care policy as he is today of Justice Kennedy's activism on behalf of equality.

This is not simply an example of ideologically-driven inconsistency, of invoking the principle of democracy undiluted to denounce the Court when it invalidates one policy on Constitutional grounds and hailing it as a defender of our basic rights when its strikes down another. In the case of same-sex marriage, the debate which Scalia praises as “American democracy at its best” was frozen until the unelected Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court—in this case only seven “select etc” -initiated a social transformation in our state.

Only nineteen years ago, I helped lead the fight in Congress against the Defense of Marriage Act. We lost big. Every Republican but one in the House and Senate combined joined with heavy Democratic majorities in both bodies to vote yes. Only twelve senators and 67 representatives stood in opposition. I could not deny that, at the time, this accurately represented prevailing public opinion. In recognition of this, and in the interest of keeping this from being the issue that drove a deep wedge between LGBT voters and those politicians who supported us most of the time, I campaigned in 1996 for some in that category who had agreed to DOMA—including, most notably, Bill Clinton and Sen. Paul Wellstone.

We made little progress over the next seven years in winning over public opinion or public officials. While the country was becoming less prejudiced against us in general, tens of millions who were not personally biased were being told that allowing us to marry would be socially destabilizing. The very novelty of same sex marriage made it hard to refute this, especially in the absence of any countervailing experience. Even people generally disposed to treat us fairly were resistant to a social experiment with so fundamental an institution.

Then came Chief Justice Margaret Marshall and her three brave colleagues. Same-sex marriage came to Massachusetts, and we begin to accumulate the factual ammunition that ultimately allowed us to disprove the predictions of gloom and doom, and build the support nationwide that led finally to our winning all four state referenda in 2012 and seeing national public opinion become supportive.

This did not happen automatically. Most importantly, and most difficultly, it required painful self-restraint. I argued strongly, not to everyone’s happiness, that proclaiming the right to same-sex marriage everywhere, in the absence of a strong local legal basis, would allow our opponents to enact the anti-marriage constitutional amendment George W. Bush was proposing—an amendment that Karl Rove anticipated would severely damage Democrats in 2004. I needed to be able to persuade sympathetic colleagues whose local electorates were strongly opposed to our cause that protecting our right to marry in Massachusetts had no spill-over effect in their states, allowing them to defend voting against the Bush-Rove ploy. Our ability to win nation-wide—obviously our common goal—required beginning by focusing our efforts in Massachusetts and any other specific state where we had a concrete victory. And we did. Led by the very effective Mass. Equality organization, we concentrated on defeating Mitt Romney’s crusade to become the right wing’s favorite Republican by reversing the Massachusetts decision.

When we won, I became confident that we would ultimately succeed—although as in other cases of LGBT rights, I underestimated the speed with which we would progress. Massachusetts became the solid beachhead from which we could go forward, joined shortly by New Hampshire, Iowa and a handful of others.

What is important here in refuting Scalia is not just that unelected judges started this process, but that if we had been unpersuasive in arguing that same-sex marriage enhanced our lives without in any way hurting anyone else—or their marriages—Romney’s assault on us would have prevailed. What Chief Justice Marshall and her fellow and sister patricians did would not have been sustainable if Massachusetts voters, having observed same-sex marriage in operation, agreed that it somehow injured them. This model—of a court setting down a rule which is initially unpopular but that will ultimately survive intact only if it gains public acceptance as it is applied in practice—is the justification in democratic terms for judicial intervention on behalf of minorities. Before the Massachusetts decision, we were blocked. We could not marry because the heterosexual majority believed that it would unsettle their lives, and we could not expose this as a myth until we could marry. What Scalia’s “highly unrepresentative panel” shattered in Massachusetts in 2003 was not the ultimate rule by the people, but the vicious cycle that entrapped us.

Returning to Scalia’s profession of unconcern about our marrying, while I doubt that he means it, I am very glad that he said it. In what I acknowledge is a somewhat ironic invocation of the specific words, it is an example of the guidance provided by La Rochefoucauld for analyzing arguments: “Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.” When a debater unconvincingly seeks to dissociate himself from something he has long advocated, he is acknowledging that he recognizes the unpopularity of what he believes, and he is prepared to sacrifice it to win the point.

Some of those who interviewed me after this decision was announced asked me if I fear an anti-LGBT backlash in consequence. I don’t—not when the business communities in Indiana, Arkansas and Louisiana tell the bigots to keep their prejudices to themselves. And not when Antonin Scalia feels compelled to volunteer, unusual in a Supreme Court opinion in my reading, that he really isn’t bothered by us.
Click to expand...
 
I'm still laughing at tweets from Americans saying they'll move to Canada because of this. Sorry that our genderless dystopia was so understated that you didn't know it happened 10 years ago, but ya dun fuck'd up, bigots.
And then it reminded me of this part of Stuff White People Like and I laughed even harder.

And I finally kept a promise to myself that when Americans got marriage equality, I would celebrate in honour of the ceremonial Penny GIF by finally sitting down to watch Happy Endings.
 
As a Canadian who is proud to live in a country where men and women have the ability to marry people of their same gender, its great to see the United States go the same way. This is great step on the path for marriage equality worldwide.

Also, I was wondering if somebody could rainbowfy my avatar. I'm really liking some of the more subtle and clever ones, so I was thinking maybe changing the colours of the night behind Nimrod to a muted out rainbow, just so that it doesn't clash too much with his black suit.
 
I like the volleyball atop the neogaf page. There were several times where I'd be on my phone and I saw it saying "neogaf gold" and I have no idea what it means
 
So what happened to all of the people who said they would set themselves on fire or get divorced or even moved? They are just dickheads lol.
 
I'm so happy, I hope things get improving even more to minorities ^^
I dream of a day where people wont look weird at me because I'm kissing my boyfriend in public, what a beautiful day that will be.
 
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/...nmnRZ/?ecmp=statesman_social_twitter_2014_sfp

County clerks can refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples based on religious objections to gay marriage, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said Sunday.

Paxton noted that clerks who refuse to issue licenses can expect to be sued, but added that “numerous lawyers stand ready to assist clerks defending their religious beliefs,” in many cases without charge.

The formal opinion did not specify what constitutes a sincerely held religious belief, noting that “the strength of any such claim depends on the particular facts of each case.”

Paxton’s opinion also noted that judges and justices of the peace can also refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

“Judges and justices of the peace have no mandatory duty to conduct any wedding ceremony,” the opinion said, adding that couples cannot be refused on the basis of race, religion or national origin.
Click to expand...

If this continues, what is the process? Court case that gets fought to the SCOTUS?
 
Macho Madness said:
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/...nmnRZ/?ecmp=statesman_social_twitter_2014_sfp



If this continues, what is the process? Court case that gets fought to the SCOTUS?
Click to expand...

Yep, these are going to be the cases that end up deciding whether or not sexual orientation constitutes a federally protected class, as with race. A private business would be a bigger challenged for rights advocates, but if government employees are getting sued, that means that the default argument is that the government has a vested interest in performing its civil functions, which would meet the "compelling interest" standard for voiding 1st Amendment religious protections.
 
CrimzonSamurai said:
Yep, these are going to be the cases that end up deciding whether or not sexual orientation constitutes a federally protected class, as with race. A private business would be a bigger challenged for rights advocates, but if government employees are getting sued, that means that the default argument is that the government has a vested interest in performing its civil functions, which would meet the "compelling interest" standard for voiding 1st Amendment religious protections.
Click to expand...

So they may end up making it even harder to object to the gays marrying via a court decision. That's something.
 
Macho Madness said:
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/...nmnRZ/?ecmp=statesman_social_twitter_2014_sfp



If this continues, what is the process? Court case that gets fought to the SCOTUS?
Click to expand...
I didn't know government employees had the ability to cite religious reasons for not performing their jobs. They swear an oath to uphold the law. The law says they must treat consenting adults equally.

Send in the troops at this point and force them to carry out the Supreme Court's ruling.
 
I've been out of town this past weekend and haven't had the chance to post, but I cannot begin to express how jazzed I am by this outcome. Such a huge step forward for this country. :D
 
The Llama said:
Here's what happens: They'll file a lawsuit asserting some religious freedom BS. They lose in the district court. They lose again in the Court of Appeal. They file a writ to have SCOTUS hear the case. SCOTUS basically says "fuck off" and doesn't hear the case.
Click to expand...

Government workers cannot refuse to enforce the law of the land, for sure.

But religious freedom is a real issue, and I hope a sensible balance is struck between gay rights and religious conscience.
 
I love that pic! *right-click,save*

The Llama said:
Here's what happens: They'll file a lawsuit asserting some religious freedom BS. They lose in the district court. They lose again in the Court of Appeal. They file a writ to have SCOTUS hear the case. SCOTUS basically says "fuck off" and doesn't hear the case.
Click to expand...

The great thing about this:

- they file a lawsuit asserting religious freedom BS
- media coverage ensues. GOP candidates are forced to face questions on this topic.
- they lose in district court
- media coverage ensues. GOP candidates face more questions.
- appeal. GOP candidates face more questions.
- lose at appeals level. GOP candidates face, yep, more questions.
- appeal to SCOTUS.
- SCOTUS denies cert. GOP candidates face more questions.

If they really want to touch the hot gay stove, they should beware that they'll get burned. Keeping this issue alive into Election 2016 means that voters are forces to consider this as things proceed. The GOP's room for error in reaching 269 electoral votes is pretty damn narrow, given the country's creeping demographic change. If young voters turn out, it's game over for them.

And if they lose 2016, there's a damn good chance that they lose the Supreme Court. Which means 20+ years of more rulings that they'll hate.

They could resist touching the hot gay stove, thus helping the image of the national party.. but they can't help themselves. And it could well end-up costing them dearly in a close election.
 
TheHeretic said:
Government workers cannot refuse to enforce the law of the land, for sure.

But religious freedom is a real issue, and I hope a sensible balance is struck between gay rights and religious conscience.
Click to expand...
I don't mean to be crass because you're probably well meaning, but it's a nonsense slippery slope. You don't get to discriminate because you claim your religion says so.
 
Stumpokapow said:
RE: People inexplicably talking about Obama being nominated for the Supreme Court (which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, sorry for continuing what might be construed as a derail)
Click to expand...

FWIW, I only brought it up because it was a discussion on SCOTUSblog prior to the opinions being released on Thursday. It was purely hypothetical there, and perhaps I didn't go far enough to underline that when I mentioned it.
 
DOWN said:
Probably posted, but this GIF which shows both the rise of the bans and the fall is great

eLH8uP9.gif
Click to expand...

Two questions here:

Exactly what's the difference between a constitutional and a statutory ban? I though constitutional = federal? Or do states also have constitutions that they can choose to put this kind of legislation in?

And, am I reading this right in that it wasn't banned pretty much anywhere until the mid nineties and then states started banning it as a response to when the LGBT movement started picking up steam in demanding same sex marriages?
 
Shrike_Priest said:
Two questions here:

Exactly what's the difference between a constitutional and a statutory ban? I though constitutional = federal? Or do states also have constitutions that they can choose to put this kind of legislation in?

And, am I reading this right in that it wasn't banned pretty much anywhere until the mid nineties and then states started banning it as a response to when the LGBT movement started picking up steam in demanding same sex marriages?
Click to expand...

States have their own constitutions as well as their own legislatures.

And yes, much like the Confederate flag didn't become popular until the Civil Rights Movement, same-sex marriage bans didn't become popular until the significant advancement of gay rights.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Wtf, Pakistan Has 61% Consanguineous Marriage Rate
9
306
Cyberpunkd replied
  • Locked
SCOTUS rules Trump tariffs illegal
15
168
Smiggs replied
  • Locked
Air Strikes in Nuuk?
2
249
RagnarokIV replied
  • Locked
Air Strikes in Caracas
54 55 56 57 58
3K
5K
Baemono replied
YouTube Down?
10
193
AJUMP23 replied
Top Bottom