Gay Marriage At Scotus: One Wedding Ring Thread To Rule Them All...

[Buckeye]

This is fantastic news!  Prop 8 was the best thing that could have happened for LGBT people in America!  Who could have imagined that it would propel this issue to national resolution *in favor* of basic rights and liberties?  I don't think we would have seen such a massive social turnaround so quickly if not for the Prop 8 demonstrating the intellectual inconsistency of opposing everyone's right to marry whom they choose (irony was a nice touch too...).

 

But the sad part, of course, is that this board will now need to simply shut down.  Since 2008 this topic has dominated conversation and now, is there anything left to talk about?  

 

Interesting observation. I've had the same thought at church. In the last year or so, whenever the subject of SSM or LGBT has come up in my ward (or extended family's wards) there's been a palpable discomfort with the subject and the discussion moves elsewhere. I can easily see the subject become taboo for church discussion now that the big political issues are settled. 

[Buckeye]

Big surprise. Not.

Yes we all have the constitutional right to [do anything, even if it is a sin].

We call it free agency.

 

Murder, stealing and false witness are still crimes. 

[Daniel2]

I'll predict Monday since I'm usually wrong on these things.

 

Congrats on your first inclination being right (that the ruling could come today)....   I'm a glass-half-full kinda guy... lol

 

I just called my husband and expressed how grateful I am to him for his love, support, and the blessing of our relationship.

 

This is a historic day and I have never been prouder to be both married and an American.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

I've just started reading the ruling (see here), and it is breathtaking... from it's opening "Syllabus" pages:

 

Four principles and traditions demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples. The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. This abiding connection between marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause. See 388 U.S., at 12. Decisions about marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make. See Lawrence, supra, at 574. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation.

 

A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to Griswold v. Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception, 381 U. S., at 485, and was acknowledged in Turner, supra, at 95. Same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association, a right extending beyond mere freedom from laws making same-sex intimacy a criminal offense. See Lawrence, supra, at 567.

 

A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. See Windsor. This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.

 

Finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order. See Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211. States have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order. There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle, yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would find intolerable. It is demeaning to lock same-sex couples out of a central institution of the Nation’s society, for they too may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage.

 

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 to marry is now manifest.  (pgs 3-4)

 

And here:

 

The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way. Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always coextensive, yet each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other. This dynamic is reflected in Loving, where the Court invoked both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause; and in Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374, where the Court invalidated a law barring fathers delinquent on child-support payments from marrying. Indeed, recognizing that new insights and societal understandings can reveal unjustified inequality within fundamental institutions that once passed unnoticed and unchallenged, this Court has invoked equal protection principles to invalidate laws imposing sex-based inequality on marriage, see, e.g., Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U.S. 455, 460–461, and confirmed the relation between liberty and equality, see, e.g., M. L. B. v. S. L. J., 519 U. S. 102, 120–121.

 

And more....

 

 

The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. Baker v. Nelson is overruled. The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. Pp. 22–23.

 

Really, the entire thing is amazing to read... hit the link and read it for yourself....

Edited June 26, 2015 by Daniel2

[Ahab]

Murder, stealing and false witness are still crimes.

For now, and that's good. There was once a time when acts that are not crimes now were crimes, though.

But still we have and have always had the "constitutional right" to do whatever we want, just as we have and have always had free agency.

[sunstoned]

This is fantastic news!  Prop 8 was the best thing that could have happened for LGBT people in America!  Who could have imagined that it would propel this issue to national resolution *in favor* of basic rights and liberties?  I don't think we would have seen such a massive social turnaround so quickly if not for the Prop 8 demonstrating the intellectual inconsistency of opposing everyone's right to marry whom they choose (irony was a nice touch too...).

 

But the sad part, of course, is that this board will now need to simply shut down.  Since 2008 this topic has dominated conversation and now, is there anything left to talk about?  

I just saw the headline report come in on my new feed.  This is indeed a day to celibate equal rights! 

[Buckeye]

Congrats on your first inclination being right (that the ruling could come today)....   I'm a glass-half-full kinda guy... lol

 

I just called my husband and expressed how grateful I am to him for his love, support, and the blessing of our relationship.

 

This is a historic day and I have never been prouder to be both married and an American.

 

Very happy for your Daniel2. And your family. The newsroom thread you created to track the legal developments since Utah's ruling presents a telling snapshot of this important time. If historians in the future are looking for sources regarding LDS views during this changing time, they'll be able to find quite a lot of valuable stuff from your postings here.

[Mystery Meat]

Congratulations to all those who can find joy, relief and comfort in the ruling. I truly mean it.

 

As for me, I am torn. As a lawyer, I can understand the reasons behind the decision. I get that there are/were inequities built into the system and I am happy to see those removed. Yet, as a Christian I can find no peace here (except that the Second Coming is probably a whole lot closer). I stand by the Church in its repudiation of wickedness and same sex intercourse is wickedness. SSM is nothing more than a cheap counterfeit to the Lord's divinely appointed institution of marriage. I think it is important to say that. Man cannot make right by changing laws what God has deemed to be sin. This decision also causes me discomfort because I see no way this doesn't come back to harm the Church (more than the whole issue already has). This wave will not end here. Soon, BYU will lose tax exempt status in all likelihood and the Church may not be too far behind. Weddings will be performed outside of the Temple prior to sealings. Bishops will no longer be performing marriages either would be my guess. Persecution to those members who refuse to give heed to those in the great and spacious building will increase.

 

I have many gay and lesbians friends (six counts as many, right?). I find a measure of happiness for them. I truly do love them and hope the best for them. But my allegiance is first to the Kingdom of God and Jesus Christ and this ruling and its consequences stand in direct conflict to God's work and glory.

 

I think I will bow out. 

[Senator]

 I can easily see the subject become taboo for church discussion now that the big political issues are settled. 

No,no,no

 

A new stage of rhetoric has just begun.

[Buckeye]

For now, and that's good. There was once a time when acts that are not crimes now were crimes, though.

But still we have and have always had the "constitutional right" to do whatever we want, just as we have and have always had free agency.

 

No, there is no "constitutional right" to murder, steal, or bear false witness.

[Buckeye]

This may merit its own thread, the church just released a statement on the decision.

 

 

 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints acknowledges that following today's ruling by the Supreme Court, same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States. The Court's decision does not alter the Lord's doctrine that marriage is a union between a man and a woman ordained by God. While showing respect for those who think differently, the Church will continue to teach and promote marriage between a man and a woman as a central part of our doctrine and practice."

The Church has outlined its doctrine and position on marriage in the document The Divine Institution of Marriage. 

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/supreme-court-decision-will-not-alter-doctrine-on-marriage

[Gray]

This is amazing, joyful news! So grateful right now

[sunstoned]

For now, and that's good. There was once a time when acts that are not crimes now were crimes, though.

But still we have and have always had the "constitutional right" to do whatever we want, just as we have and have always had free agency.

I am not sure what you are getting at here, but the right to marry has noting to do with the crimes that you have listed.

[Duncan]

I just something in my FB feed about the Church's position. Did the US Court of the Supreme already give their thingy on it? it's like not even 10am yet! No wonder the roads in the US are better than ours!

Edited June 26, 2015 by Duncan

[rockpond]

For me, today goes down in U.S. history as a pivotal point in the positive progress of both human rights and religious freedoms.

 

I love this quote from the decision:

 

Finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order. See Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211. States have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order. There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle, yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would find intolerable. It is demeaning to lock same-sex couples out of a central institution of the Nation’s society, for they too may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage.

Edited June 26, 2015 by rockpond

[Daniel2]

This is fantastic news!  Prop 8 was the best thing that could have happened for LGBT people in America!  Who could have imagined that it would propel this issue to national resolution *in favor* of basic rights and liberties?  I don't think we would have seen such a massive social turnaround so quickly if not for the Prop 8 demonstrating the intellectual inconsistency of opposing everyone's right to marry whom they choose (irony was a nice touch too...).

 

The ruling actually specifies that your observation that Prop 8 (and other ballot initiatives) actually sped up the process:

 

There may be an initial inclination to await further legislation, litigation, and debate, but referenda, legislative debates, and grassroots campaigns; studies and other writings; and extensive litigation in state and federal courts have led to an enhanced understanding of the issue.

 

Thank goodness for those dark days of Prop 8, indeed!

[JLHPROF]

This may merit its own thread, the church just released a statement on the decision.

 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints acknowledges that following today's ruling by the Supreme Court, same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States. The Court's decision does not alter the Lord's doctrine that marriage is a union between a man and a woman ordained by God. While showing respect for those who think differently, the Church will continue to teach and promote marriage between a man and a woman as a central part of our doctrine and practice."

The Church has outlined its doctrine and position on marriage in the document The Divine Institution of Marriage.

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/supreme-court-decision-will-not-alter-doctrine-on-marriage

 

 

Now the big question for us here is will the Church be required to make any adjustments/tweaks to its administrative practices as a result.

 

I am NOT suggesting that the Church will knee-jerk change things to account for this, but since "following the laws of the land" has become such a catchphrase in the Church it will be interesting to see if they change anything.  Even the law of chastity as currently worded could continue to be argued for SSM.

[sunstoned]

For me, today goes down in U.S. history as a pivotal point in the positive progress of both human rights and religious freedoms.

 

I love this quote from the decision:

 

Finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order. See Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211. States have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order. There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle, yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would find intolerable. It is demeaning to lock same-sex couples out of a central institution of the Nation’s society, for they too may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage.

+1000 This is an Historic day!

[california boy]

the Supreme Court and virtually every other court in the country did exactly what they were designed to do; protected the fundamental rights of its citizens against those who sought to take away those rights

History will look back on this day in the same way it looks back at Loving vs Virginia when prejudice was also overcome I wonder how history will remember the role the church played in fighting equalty

Edited June 26, 2015 by california boy

[HappyJackWagon]

This is wonderful news. I'm not excited to hear and read the historionic responses at church or on facebook but that will be a small price to pay for outstanding advance. Now we'll have to sit around and see how long it takes the church to change the marriage policies in the temple (ie - do sealings only instead of marriage)

 

Bruce Willis should star in a new Apocalyptic movie about this momentous day in US history.

[Buckeye]

Here is the concluding paragraph of the majority opinion. It's quite beautiful. I can see it being quoted in marriage ceremonies in the future - both straight and SSM. 

 

 

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

 

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

 

It is so ordered.

 

As a citizen living in the 6th Circuit I find it personally fulfilling too.

 

The bolded section really stood out to me. I can't help but think the majority is address the LDS church here. May we continue to work to the day that none are left in loneliness. For it is not right for man or woman to be alone.

[JLHPROF]

Up next: Reintroducing polygamy.

 

To quote the Huffington Post article - "it is legal for all Americans, no matter their gender or sexual orientation, to marry the people they love."

 

So if you love two women or two men...or one of each I suppose.

[JLHPROF]

Bruce Willis should star in a new Apocalyptic movie about this momentous day in US history.

 

Apocalyptic may be the most accurate term yet.

[Mystery Meat]

The ruling actually specifies that your observation that Prop 8 (and other ballot initiatives) actually sped up the process:

 

 

 

Thank goodness for those dark days of Prop 8, indeed!

 

I know I said I would withdraw, but one quick comment. There is little doubt that Prop 8 sped things up. Looking back, however, I think the Church was wise to take the position it did, not so the world at large would take note, but so that members of the Church would have no excuses to be ignorant of the Lord's position when they openly and actively rebelled against and rejected it.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Mystery Meat

[Buckeye]

Now the big question for us here is will the Church be required to make any adjustments/tweaks to its administrative practices as a result.

 

I am NOT suggesting that the Church will knee-jerk change things to account for this, but since "following the laws of the land" has become such a catchphrase in the Church it will be interesting to see if they change anything.  Even the law of chastity as currently worded could continue to be argued for SSM.

 

I fully expect that church definitions of marriage, including in the temple, will be adjusted to make clear the church's view that gay marriage is not acceptable even if lawful.