Gay marriage ruling about to come down

[*Nately120*]

(06-26-2015, 11:34 AM)michaelsean Wrote: How many gay men just went...."Crap. Now what's my excuse?"  

How many straight men just gained the excuse "Gee, I'd LOVE to marry you but now that gay marriage is legal traditional marriage has become a farce so I can't do it!"

[*michaelsean*]

(06-26-2015, 11:38 AM)Nately120 Wrote: How many straight men just gained the excuse "Gee, I'd LOVE to marry you but now that gay marriage is legal traditional marriage has become a farce so I can't do it!"

Too late for me.

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-26-2015, 11:26 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would like to point out to anyone here that Kennedy makes it clear in the majority opinion that religious institutions have the right to define marriage within their purview, meaning they will maintain the right to deny performing these marriages. Also, they make clear the First Amendment guarantees the right to disagree with SSM by anyone, and the right to advocate against it.

I don't see how this was ever a concern anyway.  Churches have always had the right to discriminate.  

[Belsnickel]

From the majority:

Quote:For that reason, just as a couple vows to support eachother, so does society pledge to support the couple, offeringsymbolic recognition and material benefits to protect and nourish the union. Indeed, while the States are in generalfree to vary the benefits they confer on all married couples, they have throughout our history made marriage the basis for an expanding list of governmental rights, benefits, and responsibilities. These aspects of marital status include: taxation; inheritance and property rights; rules of intestate succession; spousal privilege in the law of evidence; hospital access; medical decisionmaking authority;adoption rights; the rights and benefits of survivors; birthand death certificates; professional ethics rules; campaignfinance restrictions; workers’ compensation benefits; health insurance; and child custody, support, and visitation rules.

Quote:The States have contributed to the fundamental character of the marriage right by placing that institution at the centerof so many facets of the legal and social order.

There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle. Yet by virtue oftheir exclusion from that institution, same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage. This harm results in more than just material burdens. Same-sex couples are consigned to aninstability many opposite-sex couples would deem intolerable in their own lives. As the State itself makes marriageall the more precious by the significance it attaches to it,exclusion from that status has the effect of teaching thatgays and lesbians are unequal in important respects. It demeans gays and lesbians for the State to lock them outof a central institution of the Nation’s society. Same-sex couples, too, may aspire to the transcendent purposes ofmarriage and seek fulfillment in its highest meaning.

The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right tomarry is now manifest. With that knowledge must come the recognition that laws excluding same-sex couples fromthe marriage right impose stigma and injury of the kindprohibited by our basic charter.

[Belsnickel]

(06-26-2015, 11:49 AM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: I don't see how this was ever a concern anyway.  Churches have always had the right to discriminate.  

I agree. But those on the opposition side of this argument often brought it up as a concern.

[BmorePat87]

I thought Roberts might have gone the other way (there's a freebie for someone for the bumper sticker thread lol), but I'm not surprised.

Historic day for this country. I am so incredibly proud of this country.

[BmorePat87]

I need to read these opinions when I get home. I imagine Roberts would be more reasonable like his dissent for the DOMA case.

[Belsnickel]

(06-26-2015, 11:54 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I need to read these opinions when I get home. I imagine Roberts would be more reasonable like his dissent for the DOMA case.

He was very reasoned in his approach. Scalia, not so much. Anyway, the CJ's dissent is more about concerns regarding the court defining marriage and the court making the decision rather than the people. In reading his dissent it is pretty clear that he is in favor of SSM, but doesn't think SCOTUS was the place to make it happen. His dissent is 29 pages long and he read it from the bench. This is the first time he has ever read a dissent from the bench.

[BmorePat87]

My 79 year old Republican Catholic grandmother on the ruling "people need to mind their own business and leave other people alone. My philosophy is live and let live."

[Au165]

Surprised there are no trolls. Thought for sure someone would be in here going nuts. Not sure why something that really had no effect on anyone but the two people getting married was such a big deal to people it had zero impact on.

[*Nately120*]

(06-26-2015, 12:15 PM)Au165 Wrote: Surprised there are no trolls. Thought for sure someone would be in here going nuts. Not sure why something that really had no effect on anyone but the two people getting married was such a big deal to people it had zero impact on.

The right-wingers are all too busy trying to marry horses, because that's the next step...or something.

[Belsnickel]

(06-26-2015, 12:15 PM)Au165 Wrote: Surprised there are no trolls. Thought for sure someone would be in here going nuts. Not sure why something that really had no effect on anyone but the two people getting married was such a big deal to people it had zero impact on.

In the minds of many it impacted more people than just them. In the minds of many of those in opposition SSM represented a degradation of the institution of marriage. To those in favor, many are excited about it for their friends and family that can now marry legally. While the direct influence is only on the couples involved, the indirect influences ripple out into society on a grand scale.

[GMDino]

While I discuss this with my very evangelical friend over on Facebook one of my high school classmates, in a committed gay relationship, posted this:



Sums it up better than I could.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

I'm happy for all of the people that gained the right that was unjustly denied to them until today, and I'm proud of the United States for making it happen.

5-4 though? We have a long way to go.

[fredtoast]

(06-26-2015, 12:15 PM)Au165 Wrote: Surprised there are no trolls. Thought for sure someone would be in here going nuts. Not sure why something that really had no effect on anyone but the two people getting married was such a big deal to people it had zero impact on.

Even though they opposed it I think most of them deep down knew that equal protection under the law would prevail.

They had already accepted that it was going to happen.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-26-2015, 12:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: He was very reasoned in his approach. Scalia, not so much. Anyway, the CJ's dissent is more about concerns regarding the court defining marriage and the court making the decision rather than the people. In reading his dissent it is pretty clear that he is in favor of SSM, but doesn't think SCOTUS was the place to make it happen. His dissent is 29 pages long and he read it from the bench. This is the first time he has ever read a dissent from the bench.

Scalia looks more like a crazy person with each decision that doesn't go his way.  I've always viewed him as the George Wallace of the Supreme Court, an anachronism that we'll all be better off without.

[Au165]

(06-26-2015, 12:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In the minds of many it impacted more people than just them. In the minds of many of those in opposition SSM represented a degradation of the institution of marriage. To those in favor, many are excited about it for their friends and family that can now marry legally. While the direct influence is only on the couples involved, the indirect influences ripple out into society on a grand scale.

The problem with this logic is I can literally claim everything has an impact on me in an indirect way. The reality is it doesn't effect most people, trying to act like someone else and who they marry effects yours in any way is more hubris than anything. If a 50%+ divorce rate doesn't degrade the institution of marriage then nothing can.

[CKwi88]

(06-26-2015, 11:37 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I had a law professor once tell me if the ruling comes down in favor, then SCOTUS would be stating that the Constituion is unConstitutional. I really didn't/can't grasp the concept he was eluding to and he didn't say this in spite as he was pro SSM.

As to the ruling: si la vie

If life what?

[SteelCitySouth]

(06-26-2015, 12:46 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: If life what?

LOL

http://www.answers.com/Q/What_does_si_la_vie

[XenoMorph]

(06-26-2015, 12:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In the minds of many it impacted more people than just them. In the minds of many of those in opposition SSM represented a degradation of the institution of marriage. To those in favor, many are excited about it for their friends and family that can now marry legally. While the direct influence is only on the couples involved, the indirect influences ripple out into society on a grand scale.

Please explain what the ripples will be? Hetro couples put marriage to shame as is now anyways.