US Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriage is legal nationwide

[Passage]

The US Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex marriage is a legal right across the United States.

[outside image source]

In a landmark 5-4 decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority ruled that marriage is a constitutional right for all.

"No union is more profound than marriage,'' he wrote, backed by the court's four more liberal justices.

It is unclear how soon marriage licences will be issued in states where gay unions were previously prohibited.

Writing one of the dissenting opinions, Chief John Roberts said the constitution "had nothing to do with it".

However, Christian conservatives decried the decision.

"We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat," said Mike Huckabee, Republican presidential candidate and former Arkansas governor.

Before the ruling on Thursday, gay couples could marry in 37 states in addition to Washington DC.

Now the remaining 14 states, in the South and Midwest, will have to stop enforcing their bans on same-sex marriage. Minutes after the ruling, couples in one of those states, Georgia, lined up to be wed.

Loud cheers erupted outside the court after the ruling was announced, said the BBC's Paul Blake at the Supreme Court.

Hundreds of people had camped out for hours awaiting the news.

One of the demonstrators, Jordan Monaghan, called his mother from his mobile phone amid the celebrations.

"Hey mom, I'm at the Supreme Court. Your son can have a husband now," Mr Monaghan said.

On social media, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton merely tweeted the word "proud" and the White House changed its Twitter avatar into the rainbow colours.

The case considered by the court concerned Jim Obergefell, an Ohio resident who was not recognised as the legal widower of his late husband, John Arthur.

"It's my hope that gay marriage will soon be a thing of the past, and from this day forward it will simply be 'marriage,'" an emotional Mr Obergefell said outside the court on Friday.

The first state to allow same-sex marriage was Massachusetts, which granted the right in 2004.

In recent years, a wave of legal rulings and a dramatic shift in public opinion have expanded gay marriage in the US. In 2012, the high court struck down a federal anti same-sex marriage law.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33290341

 

[ToxicAsF]

I love how you have a US news related article being cited from BBC.

Also, huzzah!

 

[Passage]

Lol. Most of my US news comes from outside sources.

 

[ToxicAsF]

Lol. Most of my US news comes from outside sources.

Funny how that works, huh?

 

[Passage]

Sadly, I trust outside sources just a bit more.

On topic, though, I'm really excited about this. Kids born in this era may never know that gay marriage used to be illegal. They'll think, "what do you mean it wasn't legal? Why the hell not?"

 

[Simpwn]

Getting off topic but I trust a news source like BBC over something like CNN and Fox News that are mainly out for ratings and will publish any news story that brings in clicks/viewers.

SCOTUS is having themselves a pretty busy week. First Obamacare now gay marriage.

 

[ToxicAsF]

Sadly, I trust outside sources just a bit more.

On topic, though, I'm really excited about this. Kids born in this era may never know that gay marriage used to be illegal. They'll think, "what do you mean it wasn't legal? Why the hell not?"

And creating a more accepting culture will be amazing.

Remember when women couldn't vote? Crazy to think that was "revolutionary" looking back now because it seems like so simple logic.

 

[Keleynal]

This makes me absolutely sick to my stomach. Not because homosexuals will be able to marry anywhere in the US. I've accepted that as a foregone conclusion for awhile now. What upsets me is the precedent this sets for the expansion of Supreme Court and central government power.

Marriage is an institution that until now has been determined by the states. They set the age of majority, set the rules for civil marriages, issued certificates, the whole thing was state jurisdiction. Now the federal government has stolen yet another issue that should be on the state level. As a political conservative, this is very disturbing. I want to see as much power as possible consolidated at the local and state level, and as little as possible given to the central government. As orginally drafted, the Constitution intended that as well. It gave very finite, specific powers to the central government and used very broad terms to describe state and individual rights. The Tenth Ammendment was supposed to stop this sort of thing from happening. This looks more like an oligarchy than a democratic republic.

It's not the outcome that has me upset here; it's the process. I don't believe the ends justify the means. If we don't preserve the balance of power between the states and federal government we are going to end up with a dictatorship or another civil war.

 

[Passage]

I agree with the balance of power, but doesn't the Supreme Court handle cases of Constitutional Law? If states are denying certain parties access to the fundamental institution of marriage and family, then it absolutely falls under Supreme Court jurisdiction.

//edit, also moving this from All The Things to Rants since it's politics.

 

[Keleynal]

I agree with the balance of power, but doesn't the Supreme Court handle cases of Constitutional Law? If states are denying certain parties access to the fundamental institution of marriage and family, then it absolutely falls under Supreme Court jurisdiction.

//edit, also moving this from All The Things to Rants since it's politics.

Marriage was not established or maintained by the Constitution. There is no Constitutional right to marry, heterosexual or otherwise. The Supreme Court should not have had the authority to rule on this.

In other words, the Supreme Court should not be making moral judgments. They need to make legal judgments that don't undermine our whole system of government.

Hooray for the heroes that have thwarted injustice! Celebrate that if you like, but the Constitution lost.

The correct answer here would have been that since states disagree on this issue, citizens should choose to live in the jurisdictions they like best whenever possible. If that's not possible they should fight to change the law at the state level. I'd have nothing negative to say about this change from a political viewpoint if the decision had come from the several states instead of being dictated from on high.

 

[Passage]

Marriage was not established or maintained by the Constitution. There is no Constitutional right to marry, heterosexual or otherwise. The Supreme Court should not have had the authority to rule on this.

You got me.

//edit - Sorry, haven't had my coffee yet.

Supreme court has jurisdiction over Constitutional and Federal Law.

Marriage Law has federal recognition... and the 14th amendment is Constitutional. It's valid and within reach of SCOTUS either way.

"Marriage is chiefly regulated by the states. The Supreme Court has held that states are permitted to reasonably regulate the institution by prescribing who is allowed to marry and how the marriage can be dissolved. Entering into a marriage changes the legal status of both parties and gives both husband and wife new rights and obligations. One power that the states do not have, however, is that of prohibiting marriage in the absence of a valid reason. For example, prohibiting interracial marriage is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution."

Equal Protection Clause of the Constituion:

"The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. "

 

[Euchale]

So can we stop calling it same-sex marriage now and start calling it marriage?

 

[Passage]

So can we stop calling it same-sex marriage now and start calling it marriage?

But then the title would be: "US Supreme Court rules that marriage is legal nationwide" ;]

 

[Milleuda]

#LoveWins

That's all I have to say

<3

 

[Simpwn]

Marriage was not established or maintained by the Constitution. There is no Constitutional right to marry, heterosexual or otherwise. The Supreme Court should not have had the authority to rule on this.

I believe this became a constitutional issue when people were refused access to specific benefits that only pertained to married couples.

 

[Milleuda]

I'll stay out of the political debate because that's not my thing.

For those that are interested, I did get a little choked up when a buddy texted me congratulations.

I'm not sure what came over me, but in the midst of my crazy work day I had an ephemeral moment where I felt like we (gays) were acknowledged as human beings.

Maybe I am being dramatic, but this is the non-political reaction from someone directly affected by this

 

[Keleynal]

You got me.

//edit - Sorry, haven't had my coffee yet.

Supreme court has jurisdiction over Constitutional and Federal Law.

Marriage Law has federal recognition.

"Marriage is chiefly regulated by the states. The Supreme Court has held that states are permitted to reasonably regulate the institution by prescribing who is allowed to marry and how the marriage can be dissolved. Entering into a marriage changes the legal status of both parties and gives both husband and wife new rights and obligations. One power that the states do not have, however, is that of prohibiting marriage in the absence of a valid reason. For example, prohibiting interracial marriage is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution."

Equal Protection Clause of the Constituion:

"The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. "

That's an overreach. The 14th Ammendment states

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This isn't the first time this Ammendment has been used regarding marriage. As you mentioned, it was also used to overturn interracial marriage. I would argue that was an overreach as well. The ruling did a very good thing, but having the federal government dictate it instead of allowing the states to handle the process is a very bad thing.

In today's decision, Chief Supreme Court Justice Roberts wrote:

Petitioners’ “fundamental right” claim falls into the most sensitive category of constitutional adjudication. Petitioners do not contend that their States’ marriage laws violate an enumerated constitutional right, such as the freedom of speech protected by the First
Amendment. There is, after all, no “Companionship and Understanding” or “Nobility and Dignity” Clause in the Constitution.

See ante, at 3, 14. They argue instead that the laws violate a right implied by the Fourteenth Amendment’s
requirement that “liberty” may not be deprived without “due process of law.”
This Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause to include a “substantive” component that protects certain liberty interests against state deprivation “no matter what process is provided.” Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 302 (1993). The theory is that some liberties are “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental,” and therefore cannot be deprived without
compelling justification.

Allowing unelected federal judges to select which unenumerated rights rank as “fundamental”—and to strike down state laws on the basis of that determination—raises obvious concerns about the judicial role. Our precedents have accordingly insisted that judges “exercise
the utmost care” in identifying implied fundamental rights, “lest the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause be subtly
transformed into the policy preferences of the Members of this Court.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 720
(1997) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Kennedy, Unenumerated Rights and the Dictates of Judicial Restraint 13 (1986) (Address at Stanford)

(“One can conclude that certain essential, or fundamental, rights should exist in any just society. It does not follow that each of
those essential rights is one that we as judges can enforce under the written Constitution. The Due Process Clause is not a
guarantee of every right that should inhere in an ideal system.”).

He's not arguing that same-sex marriage is right or wrong. The concern is power creep. Just because the Supreme Court overstepped before, should they do it again? This time redefining a fundamental social institution? Do we really want unelected judges deciding what are fundamental rights and what aren't?

That needed to be handled at the state level. 37 states and DC had already done it; it was just a matter of time. Instead of being patient and letting the
states and people sort it out, the Supreme Court decided to swoop in. If they had done this 10 years ago, it would have been just as wrong, but heroic on
their part since majority public sentiment wasn't there yet. At this point, it's an incredibly safe decision that gives them credit for something they
should not have been involved with. A nice feather for their cap, I guess, but it's a loss for the balance of power.

 

[Keleynal]

Here's my wife's 2 cents on the matter:

In college I read a far left paper talking about how horrible gay marriage would be for the gay rights cause as a whole. Basicly arguing that buying into marriage as an institution, requires buying into the morality and social contracts implicit in this institution. Marriage necesitates a level of commitment and accountability that is not available in any other social relationship. Once you make that commitment the consequences of breeaking it are both horrific and costly in every sense of the work. Gay people who marry rather than living together are making an unprecedented commitment to their relationship, which actually places importance on their relationship rather than simply living together for sex or convenience. It is impossible to marry without being changed.
I belive that in the coming years, the teeth and anger of the gay rights movement will be greatly reduced as they realize that they have given up their "sexual freedom" for the chains of a social institution with thousands of years of tradition and expectation behind it. Their behavior will be constrained, which will necessarily lead to a change in their thoughts and emotions regarding other aspects of their life.
This is a dead cause walking as gay peoplel will get married in order to excercise their "rights" and end up becoming disenfranchized with the LGBT community in the process. If Christian churches can reach out to these newly married couples with counseling and support in this transition time, we have a huge opportunity to show them that: 1. Christians can be loving and 2. Maybe God could love them too.
Legally, I feel that gay marriage is a very small step in terms of the legal standing that will be granted to these couples as many states already recognize various categories of partners for insurance and inheritance benefits. Emotionally and morally, they will be jumping off of a cliff into completely foreign territory. Since gay people are not immune to human nature (clearly) they will begin to experience divorce, abusive relationships and all the other areas of relational turbulence they have largely avoided in the past. They will be looking for answers in how to deal with this and most in their community will not have the expereince to help them. When they come looking for answers Christians will either pass the test of fail miserably. Here's to hope for the future.

 

[Euchale]

My 2 cents:
The reason why the state is even involved in marriage is because marriage produces goods that the state is interested in. These goods being kids. To incentive this they give married couples benefits. And here is where my problem comes when people argue that gays shouldn´t get benefits, because they can´t have kids.
A. How many straight couples don´t have kids?
B. If you would allow adoption for gay couples, it would improve the life of a orphan considerably
C. How many parents have kids and raise them poorly?

In the end marriage is just a word, and if you want to label yourself as being married go ahead to do so. The state should give gay couples the same benefits as straight couples, because on average they raise a child just as well (according to recent studies it´s better, but the data might be biased).

 

[Passage]

That's an overreach.

It isn't. But I'd take the overreach for jurisdiction over your filibuster.

Emotionally and morally, they will be jumping off of a cliff into completely foreign territory. Since gay people are not immune to human nature (clearly) they will begin to experience divorce, abusive relationships and all the other areas of relational turbulence they have largely avoided in the past. They will be looking for answers in how to deal with this and most in their community will not have the expereince to help them.

I can't decide if this is a serious comment. If you really read that paper in college, you must realize it's satire.