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

[Buckeye]

I entirely agree with the above.  Well said.

 

In a nutshell, if the fruit is good, all opposition based on authority will eventually ring hollow and we'll find different (better) ways to understand the authority.

[Daniel2]

I think that parts also clearly directed at the church. Good move. Continued acceptance of SSM will depend heavily on supporters treating the opposition with kindness and allowing them to come around on their own terms.

 

Here's another portion that touches on that same point, Buckeye, showing that SCOTUS is going out of it's way to let us know that they are not branding religious folk as bigots in any sense:

 

 

Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes en- acted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied. Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.  (pg. 19)

 

The more I read, the more I am amazed and in love with this ruling.  Truly well thought out, well reasoned, and respectful of all sides...

Edited June 26, 2015 by Daniel2

[bluebell]

 

 

 

Just be glad that you are not a UHawaii alumnus. Those guys are really steamed.

 

 

 

 

Ha, seriously!  

[Buckeye]

 

Here's another portion that touches on that same point, Buckeye, showing that SCOTUS is going out of it's way to let us know that they are not branding religious folk as bigots in any sense:

 

I'm frankly very pleasantly surprised. Typically, amicus briefs are not even considered, much less directly addressed by a court. Here the church's brief (which was joined by many other churches) is given significant attention and explanation. Really great move by the Court.

[Daniel2]

I recall that Smac resisted the idea that Loving set any legal precedents which would or should be applicable to the Obergefell case.

 

Yet today's ruling is replete with references to Loving, such as this passage: 

 

In Loving the Court invalidated a prohibition on interracial marriage under both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause. The Court first declared the prohibition invalid because of its unequal treatment of interracial couples. It stated: “There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.” 388 U. S., at 12. With this link to equal protection the Court proceeded to hold the prohibition offended central precepts of liberty: “To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.” Ibid. The reasons why marriage is a fundamental right became more clear and compelling from a full awareness and understanding of the hurt that resulted from laws barring interracial unions.

 

The synergy between the two protections is illustrated further in Zablocki. There the Court invoked the Equal Protection Clause as its basis for invalidating the challenged law, which, as already noted, barred fathers who were behind on child-support payments from marrying without judicial approval. The equal protection analysis depended in central part on the Court’s holding that the law burdened a right “of fundamental importance.” 434

 

U. S., at 383. It was the essential nature of the marriage right, discussed at length in Zablocki, see id., at 383–387, that made apparent the law’s incompatibility with requirements of equality. Each concept—liberty and equal protection—leads to a stronger understanding of the other.

 

(pgs. 19-21)

[bluebell]

I recall that Smac resisted the idea that Loving set any legal precedents which would or should be applicable to the Obergefell case.

 

Yet today's ruling is replete with references to Loving, such as this passage: 

 

Honest question:  Did this ruling come as a 5/4 spilt by the justices (i thought i had read that somewhere but i can't remember).  If it did, then doesn't that mean that 4 justices agreed with Smac?

[Mystery Meat]

I am not making this up. The Washington Post just reported that a double rainbow appeared over the Whitehouse about 25 minutes ago

I guess that is two thumbs up from God

 

The double rainbow was last week.

[Stone holm]

And now the battle line moves to wedding cakes...Onward Christian Soldiers Marching as to...RFRA...and other bizarre approaches...

[ERayR]

I am not making this up. The Washington Post just reported that a double rainbow appeared over the Whitehouse about 25 minutes ago

I guess that is two thumbs up from God

 

And other miraculous apparitions will be noted in the coming days and years. 

[Stone holm]

Honest question:  Did this ruling come as a 5/4 spilt by the justices (i thought i had read that somewhere but i can't remember).  If it did, then doesn't that mean that 4 justices agreed with Smac?

Yeah, but close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

[ERayR]

Honest question:  Did this ruling come as a 5/4 spilt by the justices (i thought i had read that somewhere but i can't remember).  If it did, then doesn't that mean that 4 justices agreed with Smac?

 

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/26/read-the-highlights-from-antonin-scalias-face-melting-dissent-on-gay-marriage/

[Ahab]

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.

My point was thay the SCOTUS ruling on SSM was based on the principle of free agency. That regardless of sex every person has the constitutional right to marriage, and that their idea of a constitutional right appears to be whatever a citizen feels inclined to do as an expression of who they are and what they want to do. They said something about how they are not a legislative body and were not speaking as to what a citizen should or should not do. They were only saying that any citizen has the constitutional right to marriage and that marriage should be considered a dignified relationship regardless of the sex of the people in that marriage, with no lesser or greater form of marriage.

Go through their opinion and see how what said is basically meant to uphold the principle of free agency. What people should or should not do with their agency was not considered, as they considered that to be not their role in this issue. They were only answering the question of whether every citizen has the constitutional right to marriage, and their idea of marriage was not based on a person's sex.

[sethpayne]

And other miraculous apparitions will be noted in the coming days and years. 

 

I've heard similar sentiments before....

 

 

Still waiting for the communists to take over since that was, apparently, the entire point of the civil rights movement -- at least according to Elder Ezra Taft Benson.

[Gray]

I am not making this up. The Washington Post just reported that a double rainbow appeared over the Whitehouse about 25 minutes ago

I guess that is two thumbs up from God

 

I only regret that I've already used my quota of upvotes! 

 

Edit: for those saying the photo was from a week ago, God is not bound by our notions of time and knows the end from the beginning!

 

Edited June 26, 2015 by Gray

[bluebell]

Yeah, but close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

 

I realize that.  I just meant that obviously even some of the top legal and constitutional experts in the country disagreed on this issue.  This ruling is basically just personal interpretation of law, only at the highest level possible in this country.  It's a vote where the majority wins.  It doesn't mean the majority is 'right', it just means there were more opinions in favor on that side.

 

We all know that the supreme court has equally upheld some truly atrocious things as being constitutional, including slavery, in the past.  It's good to keep this decision in perspective as to what it actually is-not an answer to any grand moral question about marriage, but the majority legally binding opinions of 5 people on marriage equality according to their understanding of the law and constitution.  

 

The opinions of the four who disagreed are not more right or wrong.  They are just less, and that is what makes the difference.  That's nothing to complain about and i'm certainly not.  Congrats to all those who supported SSM on this win.  They have a right to celebrate and I'm happy for them.  

Edited June 26, 2015 by bluebell

[ERayR]

I've heard similar sentiments before....

 

 

Still waiting for the communists to take over since that was, apparently, the entire point of the civil rights movement -- at least according to Elder Ezra Taft Benson.

 

It wasn't me reporting the divine apparition of a rainbow over the capital.  Just noting such things are a common phenomena to those who wish to sanctify their position.

[Daniel2]

Honest question:  Did this ruling come as a 5/4 spilt by the justices (i thought i had read that somewhere but i can't remember).  If it did, then doesn't that mean that 4 justices agreed with Smac?

 

Yes, it came as a 5/4 decision.  I haven't read the dissent yet, so I can't say whether or not they would agree with Smac on that point.

[Buckeye]

I recall that Smac resisted the idea that Loving set any legal precedents which would or should be applicable to the Obergefell case.

 

Yet today's ruling is replete with references to Loving, such as this passage: 

 

Unfortunately, there were no references to Reynolds. That's be the next decision. 

[sethpayne]

It wasn't me reporting the divine apparition of a rainbow over the capital.  Just noting such things are a common phenomena to those who wish to sanctify their position.

 

Ah.  I thought you were alluding to the inevitable (according to some) destruction this ruling will bring about.

[The Nehor]

I only regret that I've already used my quota of upvotes!

Edit: for those saying the photo was from a week ago, God is not bound by our notions of time and knows the end from the beginning!

Then it was obviously celebrating the armistice that will end World War 3.

I got my first gay marriage proposal today. I suspect it was not solely based on love and affection as I was just showing photos of my family lake Powell trips and when he asked to come I said only family is allowed and then he pointed out the groundbreaking change this morning and said we can solve that with a trip to the courthouse. Do we have to get his wife's permission?

Edited June 26, 2015 by The Nehor

[Daniel2]

Yeah, but close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

 

I realize that.  I just meant that obviously even some of the top legal and constitutional experts in the country disagreed on this issue.  This ruling is basically just personal interpretation of law, only at the highest level possible in this country.  It's a vote where the majority wins.  It doesn't mean the majority is 'right', it just means there were more opinions in favor on that side.

 

We all know that the supreme court has equally upheld some truly atrocious things as being constitutional, including slavery, in the past.  It's good to keep this decision in perspective as to what it actually is-not an answer to any grand moral question about marriage, but the majority legally binding opinions of 5 people on marriage equality according to their understanding of the law and constitution.  

 

The opinions of the four who disagreed are not more right or wrong.  They are just less, and that is what makes the difference.  That's nothing to complain about and i'm certainly not.  Congrats to all those who supported SSM on this win.  They have a right to celebrate and I'm happy for them.  

 

I guess my response to you would be the along the same lines as Stonehelm.

 

Regardless of the four who dissented, as far as the law is concerned, the precedent set by Loving was actually considered and is actually quoted in the majority opinion.

 

So, it was entirely accurate when I've consistently asserted that Loving's precedent was, would be, and (and now is) applicable and relevant to the legal argument allowing marriage for same-sex couples, and it would be entirely inaccurate to say the precedent set by Loving was not applicable or relevant.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Daniel2

[Duncan]

I think the course of mankind is going along exactly as it always was going to.

I lived in Canada for a decade too, and SSM never caused the Church there any issues.

 

But SSM is a violation of God's law, and sooner or later the end times are going to happen.  Not really anything to argue about.

 

they are going to happen anyways! the end times that is so SSM or no SSM, does it make a diff.? I thought the end of the Beachcombers would bring on the Second Coming but apparently I was wrong

[Daniel2]

Regarding those who argued that the courts should have stayed out of it and let the issue be decided among the legislature or the democratic process; as well as in response to those who criticized the concept of judicial review of the constitutionality of the marriage bans for same-sex couples, I think SCOTUS did an eloquently thorough job explaining why those former approaches are and would have continued to be unconstitutional and therefore inappropriate, as well as explaining how the courts acted well within their scope to decide whether or not the bans were just:

 

 

There may be an initial inclination in these cases to proceed with caution—to await further legislation, litigation, and debate. The respondents warn there has been insufficient democratic discourse before deciding an issue so basic as the definition of marriage. In its ruling on the cases now before this Court, the majority opinion for the Court of Appeals made a cogent argument that it would be appropriate for the respondents’ States to await further public discussion and political measures before licensing same-sex marriages. See DeBoer, 772 F. 3d, at 409. Yet there has been far more deliberation than this argument acknowledges. There have been referenda, legislative debates, and grassroots campaigns, as well as countless studies, papers, books, and other popular and scholarly writings. There has been extensive litigation instate and federal courts. See Appendix A, infra. Judicial opinions addressing the issue have been informed by the contentions of parties and counsel, which, in turn, reflect the more general, societal discussion of same-sex marriage and its meaning that has occurred over the past decades. As more than 100 amici make clear in their filings, many of the central institutions in American life—state and local governments, the military, large and small businesses, labor unions, religious organizations, law enforcement, civic groups, professional organizations, and universities—have devoted substantial attention to the question. This has led to an enhanced understanding of the issue—an understanding reflected in the arguments now presented for resolution as a matter of constitutional law.

 

Of course, the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, so long as that process does not abridge fundamental rights. Last Term, a plurality of this Court reaffirmed the importance of the democratic principle in Schuette v. BAMN, 572 U. S. ___ (2014), noting the “right of citizens to debate so they can learn and decide and then, through the political process, act in concert to try to shape the course of their own times.” Id., at ___ – ___ (slip op., at 15–16). Indeed, it is most often through democracy that liberty is preserved and protected in our lives. But as Schuette also said, “[t]he freedom secured by the Constitution consists, in one of its essential dimensions, of the right of the individual not to be injured by the unlawful exercise of governmental power.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 15). Thus, when the rights of persons are violated, “the Constitution requires redress by the courts,” notwithstanding the more general value of democratic decision making. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 17).This holds true even when protecting individual rights affects issues of the utmost importance and sensitivity.

 

The dynamic of our constitutional system is that individuals need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. The Nation’s courts are open to injured individuals who come to them to vindicate their own direct, personal stake in our basic charter. An individual can invoke a right to constitutional protection when he or she is harmed, even if the broader public disagrees and even if the legislature refuses to act. The idea of the Constitution “was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.” West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 638 (1943).This is why “fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” Ibid. 25 Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015)

 

Opinion of the Court

 

It is of no moment whether advocates of same-sex marriage now enjoy or lack momentum in the democratic process. The issue before the Court here is the legal question whether the Constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to marry.

 

This is not the first time the Court has been asked to adopt a cautious approach to recognizing and protecting fundamental rights. In Bowers, a bare majority upheld a law criminalizing same-sex intimacy. See 478 U. S., at 186, 190–195. That approach might have been viewed as a cautious endorsement of the democratic process, which had only just begun to consider the rights of gays and lesbians. Yet, in effect, Bowers upheld state action that denied gays and lesbians a fundamental right and caused them pain and humiliation. As evidenced by the dissents in that case, the facts and principles necessary to a correct holding were known to the Bowers Court. See id., at 199 (Blackmun, J., joined by Brennan, Marshall, and Stevens,JJ., dissenting); id., at 214 (Stevens, J., joined by Brennan and Marshall, JJ., dissenting). That is why Lawrence held Bowers was “not correct when it was decided.” 539 U. S., at 578. Although Bowers was eventually repudiated in Lawrence, men and women were harmed in the interim, and the substantial effects of these injuries no doubt lingered long after Bowers was overruled.

 

Properly presented with the petitioners’ cases, the Court has a duty to address these claims and answer these questions.

 

Indeed, faced with a disagreement among the Courts of Appeals—a disagreement that caused impermissible geographic variation in the meaning of federal law—the Court granted review to determine whether same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry.

 

(pgs. 24-26)

Edited June 26, 2015 by Daniel2

[darkrats]

As a non-member, but with an interest in the LDS Church, I am going to be very interested in how things are handled in the near future.

It seems to me that with every step forward by the "gay" community, the Church takes a half-step back, trying to be diplomatic and understanding of the "lifestyle".

But, within a decade or so, the issues of tax exemption, access to Church facilities (including the Temple), being blacklisted in jobs and offices (already, if you don't support "gay" rights, there isn't a party here in Canada that would accept you as a candidate for office), and many other areas of life, will force the LDS Church (and other churches) into either accepting, make that supporting "gay" marriage and other so-called rights.

Those who are openly "gay" are not interested in being tolerated, they are not interested in state sponsored equal rights and marriage. What their end game is, is to force Christians to accept that what they do is right, and good, and moral. And they want all those who don't agree with this, to not only be persecuted, but have that persecution sponsored by the state and agreed to by the general public.

When the time comes, what will the LDS Church decide to do? Civil disobedience, go undergound, go along with the rest of the population, or maybe suddenly have a new "revelation" to smooth things over?

In light of today's US Supreme Court ruling, shouldn't the Genral Authorities make some kind of definitive statement? Maybe now is the time.

[Duncan]

As a non-member, but with an interest in the LDS Church, I am going to be very interested in how things are handled in the near future.

It seems to me that with every step forward by the "gay" community, the Church takes a half-step back, trying to be diplomatic and understanding of the "lifestyle".

But, within a decade or so, the issues of tax exemption, access to Church facilities (including the Temple), being blacklisted in jobs and offices (already, if you don't support "gay" rights, there isn't a party here in Canada that would accept you as a candidate for office), and many other areas of life, will force the LDS Church (and other churches) into either accepting, make that supporting "gay" marriage and other so-called rights.

Those who are openly "gay" are not interested in being tolerated, they are not interested in state sponsored equal rights and marriage. What their end game is, is to force Christians to accept that what they do is right, and good, and moral. And they want all those who don't agree with this, to not only be persecuted, but have that persecution sponsored by the state and agreed to by the general public.

When the time comes, what will the LDS Church decide to do? Civil disobedience, go undergound, go along with the rest of the population, or maybe suddenly have a new "revelation" to smooth things over?

In light of today's US Supreme Court ruling, shouldn't the Genral Authorities make some kind of definitive statement? Maybe now is the time.

 

 

the Church already issued a statement. I don't know about that a party in Canada that wouldn't accept you, you would just have to be silent on the issue and it's a dead issue anyways, it's signed sealed and delivered.