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

[california boy]

CFR, please, that any of those courts actually cited Loving as the basis for their judgements.

On that, we agree.

Ever since the Guantanamo Bay scandal, I've come to realise that America has no principles, and its vaunted constitution can be interpreted by lawyers to mean whatever they want it to mean.

Perhaps, but you haven't come down to that yet. You still have plenty of other tools in your arsenal.

But when we actually look at your attempts to make an argument, they are usually appeals to emotion.

Like the appeal to Mildred Loving's gush.

You're being manipulative.

Again.

Or should I say, still.

If there is any degree of battle-weariness among those of us who are fighting the good fight, it probably stems from the sense that this is a lost battle. Not because we are on the wrong side, but because it seems likely that the wrong side will prevail.

Your attempts to put words in the mouths of people you do not and cannot understand is, as I already mentioned, manipulative.

But I realise there is no point in me asking you to stop doing it.

There never has been a valid legal argument against protecting the constitutional rights of gays to be treated equally under the law. Is all that those who wish to deny that equality has managed to present is religious prejudice Court case after court case has made that abundantly clear. How else could the Supreme Court possibly rule?

Make no mistake, the right side will prevail

And the church can continue to not recognize those marriages. While it has every right to not recognize those marriages, it never had the right to legally deny those marriages to others. At this point, even you should realize that fundamental fact.

[Daniel2]

But when we actually look at your attempts to make an argument, they are usually appeals to emotion.

Like the appeal to Mildred Loving's gush.

This made me chuckle, because from my perspective, "my side" (that is, the side advocating for equal civil marriage and non-discrimination rights for same-sex couples) has been winning through the courts specifically because of appeals based entirely on reason, logic, and a consistent equal application of constitutional principles. On the other hand,the anti-gay side has argured their case almost entirely based on either misinformation or appeals to emotion--specifically: fear, discomfort, disgust, or delusions of superiority. Incidentally, your side's emotional tactics were initially quite effective at the ballot box when the debate was new, but has been failing miserably in the courts, where the issue has been thoroughly examined ans vetted through a series of multiple cases, appeals, trials, lawyers, and judges.

My case that your side is the one that's appealing to emotion, and not mine, is simple and self-evident:

The reason and logic on the pro-LGBT-equality side: Court after court, ruling after ruling, time after time over the last ten years, multiple courts have consistently found that there is NO rational basis by which civil marriage rights should be denied to same-sex families, and that the constitutional principles of equal protection cannot be logically, fairly, or justly denied to same-sex couples and their families. In overturning state referendums prohibiting marriage for same sex couples, the courts have based their rulings squarely on law and reason--not emotion.

The fear-mongering, emotion-based appeals of the anti-gay side: Several rulings have specified that bans on marriage for same-sex couples enacted by referendum were done so based often on capitalizing on "animus" towards or irrational fear-mongering of gay people or a faceless "gay agenda." Ad campaigns targeted fear-based, pearl-clutching testimonials about kids being denied moms and dads, often depicting storm-clouds, lighting, and phrases like, "A gathering storm is coming... and I am afraid!" Dire predictions and warnings of provoking divine wrath... comparisons to Sodom and Gomorrah... images of the impending apocalypse and destruction by fire.... That's all emotion... and definitely emotional manipulation.

Now... are there also emotional stories to tell which will change hearts and minds of those that were previously closed to the idea of the inherent dignity, respect for LGBT families? Of course. In fact, here's a great example of that:

Now Is a Good Time to Feel Optimistic About Marriage Equality

http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/06/time-to-be-optimistic-about-marriage-equality.html

By Erica Schwiegershausen

The Supreme Court is expected to announce its ruling on Obergefell v. Hodges — the group of cases that could determine the constitutionality of marriage for same-sex couples — later this month. Most legal experts expect the court to rule in favor of same-sex couples’ rights — and, until the decision is announced, the case’s lead plaintiff, Jim Obergefell, will sit in court every day to hear the rulings. “Sitting in the courtroom on Monday was the first time since the Supreme Court accepted our case that I started getting nervous,” he told the Cut last night at a reception hosted by the New York Civil Liberties Union. “I’m still nervous, and I think I’m getting more nervous every minute.”

Obergefell’s story is a tragic one. He and his late husband, John Arthur, were together for more than 20 years, but didn’t decide to get married until 2013, after the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act. At the time, Arthur was terminally ill with ALS. The couple could not get married in their home state, Ohio, where marriage for same-sex couples is still not legal, but with the help of family and friends they were able to charter a medical jet to Baltimore, Maryland — where they were married in the plane, on the tarmac. When they arrived home in Cincinnati, however, they learned that Ohio would not recognize their marriage — meaning that, when Arthur died, Obergefell’s name would not be listed as his spouse on his death certificate.

The couple filed a lawsuit against the state, and a federal judge granted their motion; when Arthur died later that year, Obergefell was listed as his spouse on the death certificate. However, Ohio officials appealed the ruling — leading to a string of appeals that have landed in the Supreme Court. Ohio has said it will issue an amended death certificate if the SCOTUS rules in its favor.

Last night, honored by the ACLU and NYCLU LGBT and AIDS Project, Obergefell told his story in front of a room of New York lawyers, as well as Edie Windsor, the lead plaintiff from the 2013 Supreme Court DOMA ruling. The atmosphere in the room felt hopeful and historic, and, from the audience, Windsor delivered a message: “We have to stop using the term ‘same-sex marriage.’ It’s marriage. It’s about marriage. It’s about dignity. It’s about equality.”

The Cut spoke with Obergefell about how it feels to the man behind the landmark case.

What has your experience been like watching this case move forward?

The thing that I think of the most, that I will remember the most from this experience, is how much people across the country respond to our story. Our story resonates with people, and I’ve had so many people just come up to me and thank me, give me their condolences, hug me, tell me stories. It’s really been amazing to learn just how much people are behind us, and how many people believe in equality and want us to win.

What kinds of things have you heard from supporters?

A young man recently came up and introduced himself, and then told me that John's and my story, and watching the video of our wedding, gave him the courage to come out. A mother came up to me and told me that her daughter had just come out that morning, and they were at an event where I was speaking, and she thanked me, because listening to me speak, they both cried, but it made them feel hopeful. It’s just constant. People tell me about someone they love, and how they want that person to be able to marry, or people who’ve been together for 20, 30 years, and they’re engaged, but they’re not married yet because they want the same thing John and I wanted — to be respected, and to have our marriage recognized.

What does marriage, and the right to marry, mean to you personally?

To me personally, it means that my relationship with the person I love, the person I committed to, the person I would and did do everything and anything for, is a relationship that’s worthy of respect and recognition. And to know that it can’t simply be erased by my state, and that the state of Ohio can’t pretend that our 20 years together never existed. So for me, marriage is that commitment — the public commitment to each other, and to the government, that we love each other, and we’re committed to each other. To me, that’s what marriage is.

You’ve said before that you didn’t used to consider yourself an activist. Would you say that’s changed?

That has changed, absolutely. With this ruling coming out, and even if the ruling is what we’re hoping for, I know I’m not done. Even though my case will have ended, and there will be marriage equality coast to coast, there’s still so much more to do for the LGBT community. I mean, across the country, even being able to marry, couples will lose their jobs, lose their homes, because they’re gay or bisexual or transgender. And that isn’t right. I have discovered my internal activist, and I have to keep fighting. It’s too important to me now to say, Okay, marriage equality is done, I’m going to go back to my normal life. This has become my normal life.

What do you think the next steps for LGBT equality are?

I think it is at a local, state, and federal level, fighting for nondiscrimination policies and laws. That’s the next big step.

How have you seen attitudes toward the LGBT community change over the past ten, 20 years?

Oh, it’s dramatic. I’ll explain that just in the context of Cincinnati. In the mid-'90s, Cincinnati passed a charter amendment so that no laws could be passed to protect the LGBT community. So for about a decade after that, it was one of the most unfriendly places for the LGBT community. But since then, it’s been repealed, we have an openly gay councilmember, the city has passed laws and implemented policies to protect the LGBT community, and to provide benefits. The city of Cincinnati was named as a defendant when we filed our suit. The city solicitors stood up in court and said, “Your honor, the city of Cincinnati agrees with the plaintiffs. We will not fight that.” So for me that’s been the very dramatic, at-home example of how attitudes have changed. And everywhere I go across the country, people have been telling me how they’ve experienced changes in their communities. Friends have told me that knowing me, and watching my fight for my marriage, has changed their opinions. So, it happens all over the place.

How does it feel to be associated with such a landmark case?

It doesn’t seem possible. I mean, on one hand, it’s incredible to think that my name, John's and my story, is a landmark case that will be in history books. That’s an incredible thing, on an intellectual level. It’s the emotional level where I’m still catching up to that. It just doesn’t seem possible, and it doesn’t seem at all possible that I’m the person at the center of it. Knowing that I wasn’t an activist, and knowing that it all started just because John and I loved each other.

As exemplified above, sharing emotional stories and testimonials to demonstrate our shared humanity is a common condition found across every aspect of us, as people on planet earth--or even of humanity, as children of the same Father in Heaven, if you subscribe to that idea. Mormon messages and missionary efforts often appeal to the more emotional aspects of our nature.

There is nothing nefarious, shameful, or subversive about a class of people who wish to lay claim to the basic human rights found in the Constitution of the United States of America by attempting to share the stories of their struggles and realities, so long as the strengths of their arguments also withstand the test of rational, strict, or heightened scrutiny found through the court system, and persuasively compel the courts to grant their relief, if it is deemed just.

As great as Mr. Obergefell's story is, and as emotionally moving as it may be, make no mistake--the emotion behind it is NOT the central reason gays and lesbians are are winning the battle. We are winning in the courts because the courts burn away the emotional drivel and distill the arguments for or against the issue to their most rational, logical, non-emotional, and just core.

If there is any degree of battle-weariness among those of us who are fighting the good fight, it probably stems from the sense that this is a lost battle. Not because we are on the wrong side, but because it seems likely that the wrong side will prevail.

I agree that this statement also an accurate reflection of how many others feel, as well. My previous comments were not all-inclusive, but represented two aspects of what I have heard some say.

Your attempts to put words in the mouths of people you do not and cannot understand is

As I just mentioned, I wasn't putting words in anyone's mouths--my previous comments weren't all inclusive, nor meant to represent everyone else--just a selection of some of the Latter-day Saints' views that I've interacted with. Edited June 17, 2015 by Daniel2

[california boy]

[quote name="Russell C McGregor" post="1209504869" timestamp=

But when we actually look at your attempts to make an argument, they are usually appeals of emotion

[rockpond]

Coming soon... FamilySearch.org is working on the ability to record same sex relationships!  Good news for those of us who have married (gay) family members.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

.........................................................................................................................

I figured I'd start this today because today, an amicus brief was filed by several churches, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

.................................................................

The brief is also signed by Assemblies Of God, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, Wesleyan Church, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, the Church Of God, the National Association of Evangelicals, and a dozen others.

The full brief can be read here:

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/14-556_Major_Religious_Organizations.pdf?hc_location=ufi

This amicus brief correctly observes that “religious organizations” have a “capacity to build communities where their values are respected and their ways of life protected [which] depends on the pluralism that our democratic institutions foster and secure.”  This cultural pluralism is key to the entire issue of what constitutes a legal marriage(s), and the participants in this brief ought to have considered the broader implications of their contention that marriage is only between a man and a woman.  Does that mean that real marriage cannot be between one man and several women?  Perhaps all participants in this brief would agree to that latter contention, but where does that leave the historical LDS faith, or indeed the biblical faith of the rest of the participants?

 

For this amicus brief to say “We urge the Court to trust the people and their democratic institutions to resolve the marriage issue, as it has on other divisive issues so many times,” is to fundamentally misunderstand constitutionalism, which does not buy into any notion of majority rule or of one-man-one-vote, but rather is a guarantee to minorities that their basic rights will be protected from majority disapproval – a fundamental right denied to Mormons in the 19th century.

[Russell C McGregor]

Coming soon... FamilySearch.org is working on the ability to record same sex relationships!  Good news for those of us who have married (gay) family members.

Nobody has "married (gay) family members."

"Gay marriage" is an oxymoron.

In many places it's becoming a legal oxymoron; but an oxymoron none the less.

[Russell C McGregor]

This amicus brief correctly observes that “religious organizations” have a “capacity to build communities where their values are respected and their ways of life protected [which] depends on the pluralism that our democratic institutions foster and secure.”  This cultural pluralism is key to the entire issue of what constitutes a legal marriage(s), and the participants in this brief ought to have considered the broader implications of their contention that marriage is only between a man and a woman.  Does that mean that real marriage cannot be between one man and several women?

Yes. It means exactly that.

Perhaps all participants in this brief would agree to that latter contention, but where does that leave the historical LDS faith, or indeed the biblical faith of the rest of the participants?

It has no impact.

I don't know why this straw man keeps getting dragged out. Plural marriage means a plurality of marriages, not a plurality of spouses.

 

For this amicus brief to say “We urge the Court to trust the people and their democratic institutions to resolve the marriage issue, as it has on other divisive issues so many times,” is to fundamentally misunderstand constitutionalism, which does not buy into any notion of majority rule or of one-man-one-vote, but rather is a guarantee to minorities that their basic rights will be protected from majority disapproval – a fundamental right denied to Mormons in the 19th century.

Yes, but Mormons in the 19th century didn't demand that the secular state formally recognise their plural marriages; they simply wanted to be left alone.

The situations are not parallel at all, are they?

[Robert F. Smith]

..................................................................

Ever since the Guantanamo Bay scandal, I've come to realise that America has no principles, and its vaunted constitution can be interpreted by lawyers to mean whatever they want it to mean.

....................................................................   

Is this actually a true description of the American legal system?  Or are you just gushing with emotion?

[Robert F. Smith]

 

Robert F. Smith, on 18 Jun 2015 - 1:57 PM, said:

 This amicus brief correctly observes that “religious organizations” have a “capacity to build communities where their values are respected and their ways of life protected [which] depends on the pluralism that our democratic institutions foster and secure.”  This cultural pluralism is key to the entire issue of what constitutes a legal marriage(s), and the participants in this brief ought to have considered the broader implications of their contention that marriage is only between a man and a woman.  Does that mean that real marriage cannot be between one man and several women?

 

 

Yes. It means exactly that.

 

Perhaps all participants in this brief would agree to that latter contention, but where does that leave the historical LDS faith, or indeed the biblical faith of the rest of the participants?

It has no impact.

I don't know why this straw man keeps getting dragged out. Plural marriage means a plurality of marriages, not a plurality of spouses.

 

 

For this amicus brief to say “We urge the Court to trust the people and their democratic institutions to resolve the marriage issue, as it has on other divisive issues so many times,” is to fundamentally misunderstand constitutionalism, which does not buy into any notion of majority rule or of one-man-one-vote, but rather is a guarantee to minorities that their basic rights will be protected from majority disapproval – a fundamental right denied to Mormons in the 19th century.

Yes, but Mormons in the 19th century didn't demand that the secular state formally recognise their plural marriages; they simply wanted to be left alone.

The situations are not parallel at all, are they? 

 

I am glad that we agree at least on the first issue here, but, for the rest, you are pretty far out in left field.

 

For example, you say that "Plural marriage means a plurality of marriages, not a plurality of spouses."  That makes no coherent sense at all.  Especially since you use the term immediately above to describe Mormon marriage.  And, in any case, I did not use the phrase "plural marriage" -- which is normally defined in ways which depart from your odd claim here.  You seem to deliberately ignore the meaning of "plural marriage" qua polygyny in both a Mormon and in a biblical context.  Why are you afraid of that issue?  Why do you pretend that Reynolds v United States is a "straw man"?

 

Mormons from the time of Joseph Smith on have participated directly in the legal process.  To say that they did not, and that they only "wanted to be left alone" is hogwash.  Ignoring history is to rewrite it in invidious ways.  To falsely claim that these issues are not parallel is to ignore legal and historical reality.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[rockpond]

Nobody has "married (gay) family members."

 

I do.

[thesometimesaint]

 

This amicus brief correctly observes that “religious organizations” have a “capacity to build communities where their values are respected and their ways of life protected [which] depends on the pluralism that our democratic institutions foster and secure.”  This cultural pluralism is key to the entire issue of what constitutes a legal marriage(s), and the participants in this brief ought to have considered the broader implications of their contention that marriage is only between a man and a woman.  Does that mean that real marriage cannot be between one man and several women?  Perhaps all participants in this brief would agree to that latter contention, but where does that leave the historical LDS faith, or indeed the biblical faith of the rest of the participants?

 

For this amicus brief to say “We urge the Court to trust the people and their democratic institutions to resolve the marriage issue, as it has on other divisive issues so many times,” is to fundamentally misunderstand constitutionalism, which does not buy into any notion of majority rule or of one-man-one-vote, but rather is a guarantee to minorities that their basic rights will be protected from majority disapproval – a fundamental right denied to Mormons in the 19th century.

 

 

I think the role of Constitutionalism in the US is that it maintains majoritarian rule and one mam one vote AND guarantees of minority rights. As we are all minorities of one type or another. I agree that Mormons were denied their fundamental rights in the 19th century.

SEE http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/constitutionalism/

[Daniel2]

No word from SCOTUS today... reports I've read indicate that SCOTUS is likely to either call a session on Thursday, or wait until next Monday (the final day this month that SCOTUS would release rulings).

[Buckeye]

No word from SCOTUS today... reports I've read indicate that SCOTUS is likely to either call a session on Thursday, or wait until next Monday (the final day this month that SCOTUS would release rulings).

 

 

From a historical bent, I can't decide which day would be more appropriate.

 

 

June 25

• 1858 - Johnston's army marches through an almost deserted Salt Lake City.
• 1876 - General George A. Custer and over 260 men of the Seventh Cavalry are wiped out by Sioux and Cheyenne Indians at Little Big Horn in Montana.
• 1976 - Missouri's governor officially rescinds 1838 extermination order.
• 1962 - The U.S. Supreme Court bans official prayers in public schools.

 

 June 29

  

• 1842 - Joseph Smith marries Eliza R. Snow. Brigham Young performs the ceremony.
• 1967 - Israel removes barricades, re-unifying Jerusalem.

   

[carbon dioxide]

Mormons from the time of Joseph Smith on have participated directly in the legal process.  To say that they did not, and that they only "wanted to be left alone" is hogwash.  Ignoring history is to rewrite it in invidious ways.  To falsely claim that these issues are not parallel is to ignore legal and historical reality.

Are you saying that the Mormons wanted the government to recognize their marriages?  They may have participated in the legal process but it was it not more out of necessity to protect themselves rather than getting non-Mormons to recognize their polygamy?  I am sure the Mormons in Utah would have been just fine if the Feds just left them alone to practice polygamy without government sanction or recognition of those marriages. 

Edited June 23, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Daniel2]

Here's an unusual development in Utah regarding the pending SCOTUS case.  It smells of a political power play, to me...

 

Utah AG’s office criticizes Senator over same-sex marriage Facebook post

http://fox13now.com/2015/06/23/utah-ags-office-criticizes-senator-over-same-sex-marriage-facebook-post/

 

Posted 5:13 pm, June 23, 2015, by Ben Winslow, Updated at 06:07pm, June 23, 2015

 

SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah Attorney General’s Office criticized a state senator who claimed that if the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of state’s rights on same-sex marriage, it would seek to immediately halt gay nuptials.

 

On Facebook, Senator Jim Dabakis, D-Salt Lake City, posted this:

Guy who should know, tells me his best guess is that the marriage decision is coming this Thursday or Friday.  The Utah Attorney General, apperntly confident that the Court will end marriage equality, reportedly, has attorneys now working, getting documents ready to end Utah's same-sex marriages at the earliest possible moment! Like - Comment - Share

The post brought a harsh rebuke from Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes’ office.

 

“Senator Dabakis’ comments are irresponsible and not grounded in any fact. Our office is not preparing any litigation to undo marriages and the Attorney General has not made any statements guaranteeing or predicting a win for the states on the issue,” Reyes said in an emailed statement to FOX 13. “Our office has carefully and conscientiously approached the marriage issue during the entire legal process with the respect and dignity it deserves.  It is too bad the Senator continues to try to incite fear and use hate mongering on an issue so important to many people.”

 

“Hiding behind the device of a rumor from a ‘guy who should know,’ the Senator could have easily called our office in a minute to find out the truth. Clearly, he chose not to so he could generate anxiety and conjure doubts among those who believe, or may be led to believe, our office bears any ill will towards them. We most certainly do not.”

 

Reached by FOX 13 on Tuesday afternoon, Sen. Dabakis, who is the legislature’s only openly gay lawmaker, stood by his remarks and said Reyes was certainly working “to prevent future marriages.”

 

“The attorney general has attorneys in his office planning how to make that change as fast as possible and I’m surprised he doesn’t know about it,” Dabakis said. “Every step of the way, the attorney general has even gone the extra mile to try to stop this thing.”

 

Reyes spokeswoman Missy Larsen insisted Tuesday night the Utah Attorney General’s Office has no work going on to prevent marriages.

 

In 2013, a federal judge in Utah was the first to declare a ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act. The state appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case last year, making same-sex marriage legal in Utah. The state also fought a judge’s ruling to recognize existing same-sex marriages in Utah and lost.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court could rule any day now on same-sex marriage nationwide. The Utah Attorney General’s Office filed an amicus brief in support of states’ rights.

 

 

And some follow up:

 

Dabakis has responded on Facebook:

 

"On my blog, I told the truth. The Attorney General takes offense. Sorry you're offended by my post. Imagine, Mr AG, how offensive it is to thousands of Utah LGBT families--you trying to break them apart. Sorry your sore--but imagine the pain created if you get your way. Loads of happy Utah youngsters with same sex parents--children that will be, suddenly, legal strangers with one of their own parents. Imagine that pain."

 

RELATED: In April, Dabakis announced his intent to run for mayor of Salt Lake City. Dabakis, who is the co-founder of Equality Utah and the Utah Pride Center, married his husband in 2013 on the day that same-sex marriage became legal there. The ceremony was officiated by current Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker, a Democrat, who has already announced his plan to run for a third term. Dabakis is Utah's only openly gay state lawmaker.

 

While I don't have any more info than the above, by not sharing a source, leaking this on FB (of all places) and then the apparent potential political play here certainly seems to me to undermine Dabakis's credibility.  I definitely hope the AG isn't taking these steps....

Edited June 24, 2015 by Daniel2

[Buckeye]

Topping in hopes that we'll have something to discuss soon. SCOTUS just ruled on Obamacare.

 

ETA: No decision today. Either tomorrow or Monday.

Edited June 25, 2015 by Buckeye

[Daniel2]

Topping in hopes that we'll have something to discuss soon. SCOTUS just ruled on Obamacare.

 

ETA: No decision today. Either tomorrow or Monday.

 

Most sources I see indicate it will likely be Monday...  though it would sure be nice to have the ruling before the weekend!

[Avatar4321]

It will be Monday.

[Buckeye]

Most sources I see indicate it will likely be Monday...  though it would sure be nice to have the ruling before the weekend!

 

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

[Robert F. Smith]

Are you saying that the Mormons wanted the government to recognize their marriages?  They may have participated in the legal process but it was it not more out of necessity to protect themselves rather than getting non-Mormons to recognize their polygamy?  I am sure the Mormons in Utah would have been just fine if the Feds just left them alone to practice polygamy without government sanction or recognition of those marriages. 

Brother Brigham and the boys were certainly more realistic than that.  They wanted to spread Mormonism, and it certainly became an issue of the right to have polygynous marriages and not to go to prison for it.  The fortress mentality you describe seems rather unrealistic, not something I associate with Brother Brigham and his successors.

[Robert F. Smith]

I think the role of Constitutionalism in the US is that it maintains majoritarian rule and one mam one vote AND guarantees of minority rights. As we are all minorities of one type or another. I agree that Mormons were denied their fundamental rights in the 19th century.

SEE http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/constitutionalism/

Of course you are correct, but missed my intent, which I phrased poorly -- which is that Constitutionalism is not just about majority rule (or mobocracy), but specifically protects minorities.  Unfortunately, as in the old Soviet Union, our Constitution has frequently been ignored in order to allow horrific wrongs to go unchecked for generations.

[Buckeye]

Ruling just announced. SSM now legal nationwide.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/same-sex-marraige-legal-nationwide-supreme-court-rules-n375551

 

ETA: 5-4 decision, majority written by Kennedy.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Buckeye

[Ahab]

Big surprise. Not.

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

We call it free agency.

[sethpayne]

Ruling just announced. SSM now legal nationwide.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/same-sex-marraige-legal-nationwide-supreme-court-rules-n375551

 

ETA: 5-4 decision, majority written by Kennedy.

 

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?  

[Buckeye]

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

 

For the record, I'm wrong again! (on the date, not the ruling)