Finally · 1:00am Jun 27th, 2015
art by Sophiecabra
While I usually steer clear of anything of a political nature in my blog, my stance on this is no secret, and this is too big a victory for freedom and equality in my country to go uncelebrated:
From The New York Times:
In a long-sought victory for the gay rights movement, the Supreme Court ruled by a 5-to-4 vote on Friday that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage.
“No longer may this liberty be denied,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority in the historic decision. “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.”
The decision, which was the culmination of decades of litigation and activism, set off jubilation and tearful embraces across the country, the first same-sex marriages in several states, and signs of resistance — or at least stalling — in others. It came against the backdrop of fast-moving changes in public opinion, with polls indicating that most Americans now approve of the unions.
The Supreme Court's decision is battle is a major step on the road to equality and overcoming anti-LGBT prejudice, but there is still a long and arduous road ahead. And those who stand on the wrong side will not lose to progress graciously. For now, however, celebrations are in order.
Congratulations. And long past due.
art by Geo-Vaga
Progress marches on.
I am a True Christiam(tm) and was always a fan of your work but your alliance with the homoes has destroyed Fallout:Equestria
I think it's definitely a step in the right direction, and I'm happy for gay Americans will be able to marry... but ultimately as a society we have taken about twenty times more steps backwards in terms of personal and economic liberty in the past few decades. Whether it is the ever-increasing and onerous regulations on business, or the surveillance and restrictions on individuals' constitutional rights brought about as a result of the War on Terror and other atrocities in order to "keep us safe." I could name more examples that would appeal to whatever side of the political spectrum you find yourself on, but I do think that most Americans who actually follow politics closely would be convinced that we are generally becoming less free as a society, not more.
In my opinion, gay marriage is meant to be a distraction to the non-politically aware so that they see it in the headlines and believe that America is becoming more free and liberty is expanding... when in reality the opposite is true and gay marriage is the exception to the general trend, not the rule. In other words, they're throwing the dog a bone.
3185315 I kinda hope you're being serious, 'cause this is not the kind of thing to joke about.
Anyway, 'grat's to all LGBT people out there, this has been a long time coming, and sorely needed. Perhaps people will be more inclined to love and tolerate others now, no matter their preference in partner.
3185383
What, something historically good just happened, so therefore joking around isn't allowed?
Being somber is for sad events.
3185394 Perhaps nobody got the irony of somebody who disliked gay people reading and enjoying a story where every third or so chapter contains the lesbian protagonist's internal monologue about other mares that she finds attractive.
Though because of that, I found your comment hilarious, at least
3185394 I don't want people to be sombre, but serious is always good. Sombre implies sadness, and this isn't something to be sad about (IMO).
I live in englad and i find it funny of the more dumber american who say there now moving to canada because of the change now, hope they fucking realise that canadia's had gay rights/laws for the last ten years the dumb fucks!
Um, yay! Americans, always late to the party, aren't we?
3185438 That is actually extremely hilarious.
3185477 in which i find it double fucking hilarious! and i know a certain religious group that will be shitting themselves at the news right now
It is so ordered...
I can't wait for the crazy right wing to say this is taking away their rights, and say this is the end of religious freedom.
3185524 Did someone just step out of a Stable?
They've been blowing that bag of hot wind for years already.
But as to the news HO-RAH! Today has been rather awesome. I... really can't think of anything better to say that doens't just sound pretentious or forced so, yet again HELL YEAH!
As someone who is both small government and pro-gay marriage. I feel conflicted because on one hand giving the federal government yet another way to overpower the states is a continuation of an unhealthy trend, and giving the government the precedent that they can make large sweeping decrees about marriage and other similar things can't be good for the people in the long run. On the other hand this has basically finished the fight for marriage equality.
I guess we'll have to see how this plays out.
Good news all around. It's a great start.
3185344
Shh. Don't you know you're questioning Big Brother?
blog.gabrielsaldana.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/1984.jpg
They don't like it when you question Big Brother, and if you continue you may be put on a terror list or something.
This is extremely pleasing.
-stops holding breath-
3185554
Ummm, they've had that precedent since the 60's when the SC ruled laws banning inter-racial marriage ware unconstitutional.
3185799
How?
The case was brought before them because the states can't make up their minds and kept trying to pass unconstitutional marriage bans and equally unconstitutional "religious freedom" bills. The SCOTUS put a stop to that shit and all of us can breathe a little easier, since bitch states like Texas can't deny people their constitutional rights based on sexual preference anymore.
Stopping a large percentage of the population's basic civil rights from being in a neverending state of flux sounds a lot like promoting the general welfare and insuring domestic tranquility to me.
Also see Seraphem's point about how this isn't a new precedent for the SC, since they did the same thing more than fifty years ago to safeguard interracial marriages.
Oh, never mind. I made the mistake of assuming I was arguing with someone who lived on planet Earth. Where in the blue fuck have you been living that led you to conclude that gays, lesbians, bisexuals, asexual, transgender people, etc. aren't oppressed?
3185799
1. This has not one single thing to do with violating the first amendment. And before you pull "religious freedom" out... this does not in any way 'violate' that... it keeps people opposed to it on religious grounds from violating everyone elses religious freedom. Unless you are personally being forced to marry someone of the same gender, it does not in anyway do a single thing to your rights.
2. The Tenth, Only if you stop reading at that point, and fail to get to the Fourteenth, which is what this ruling was based on. Yes the Tenth reserves all powers not given to the federal level for the staes and/or people. But at the Fourteenth guarantees that
And the final section of it gives the federal government the right to enforce the articles of that amendment. Since the Tenth explicitly says the State and/or people innately have all rights not granted by the Constitution to the Federal Government, and the 14th explicitly gives the Federal Government the right to ensure all citizens in every state are treated equally and given "Equal protection of the laws" Ensuring that marriage laws treat everyone equally falls squarely within the Federal Governments jurisdiction as a power granted to it by the Constitution, and so does not violate the tenth.
Except as above, ensuring that all citizens are fully granted all rights is explicitly their job. it doesn't matter what the exact issue is, marriage, segregation etc...
Oh and also, the SC had already established it had the power to overrule state marriage laws when they are found to be discriminatory. They did the exact same thing when they ruled laws banning inter-racial marriage were unconstitutional in the 60's. This is just them ruling that anti-Same-Sex marriage laws are equally discriminatory.
Well, can't really argue to much on that first point as it's pretty much just a belief. but the fact is the government is, and has always been tied to regulating marriage. And there in lies the main point of contention. Whether "marriage" refers to a religious ceremony, or simply a legal contract between two people. But the fact is, you can get 'married' in a church, but until you go to the court house and sign the marriage license, it doesn't count for anything as far as taxes, estates, or anything related to the government is concerned. But you can go to the court house, file the paperwork, and never have the ceremony, and still have equal access to all of that.
And this is hardly a US or even new thing. It has ALWAYS been that way. Hell the entire Church of England only exists because of an issue between the church and state over that fact. Henry the VIII wanted to divorce his wife. The Catholic Church said no, so he basically said "Screw you I'm forming my own church that will let me." Marriage has always been a civil issue.
Once again, if you are upset about that, then you've been pissed at them since the 60's when they actually did this the first time?
Oh and yes there were a large portion of people using the "it's against the Bible" excuse for why inter-racial marriage should be illegal then too.
The majority of which support this decision. And even if not, so? It's called Tyranny of the Majority, and it was one of the things the Bill of Rights was explicitly created to prevent. To ensure that no group, simply be being more populous, could in anyway restrict the rights of a minority.
That is whole separate issue..... but yeah that is extreme bullshit and needs to be fixed and yeah, that one is just wrong.
Given that the SC's explicit job is to have final verdict on what is and is not constitutional.. by definition the ruling is constitutional. Just because you don't like it does not change this fact.
Because none of you have yet to come up with any reason why two people you have never met being able to get married in some way effects you. Beyond "The bible says they shouldn't" And those seeking to inflict your own religious views on others.
Again not only were you incorrect about the whole "Violates the 1st and 10th amendment", but by the very definition of it's entire stated role in the government, the SC's ruling on whether something is or is not constitutional IS the 'supreme law of our country."
And once again, they grabbed a power they have explicitly had since the 60's?
3185344 I think you hit the nail on the head but your off a bit. This isn't them throwing the dog a bone it's the government saying hey we still have the power over giving out marriage licenses to begin with. Marriage licenses were originally made so governments could legally stop people who they didn't approve of getting married. Originally blacks and whites. Why should the government have a say in marriage at all? It's a contract between two individuals the only thing state involvement can bring about is oppression. The supreme court defending liberty would have been them striking down states regulating marriage licenses all together.
3185799 I agree 100% with what you said. The problem is ignorant or moronic people will say that your a bigot because you don't want the government to interfere in favour of something they like. When it snot about that. It's about the government staying out of private individuals affairs all together. The reason gay marriage bans became a problem is because of government involvement in the first place.
3185951 Exactly "A contract between two people" that confers access to numerous benefits from taxes, inheritance, ensuring visiting privileges at hospitals, I think one count was up to like 1.5 thousand or so different benefits that can be found in some way or another through doing so. And denying anyone equal access to those benefits violates the 14th amendment.
HEY we agree. The government shouldn't be able to tell people who they can and cannot marry. That's exactly what this ruling determined.
About damn time. People need to realise its okay to be gay/lesbian. This is a step towards that I believe
3185951
3185973
I mostly would tend to agree with you guys in principle, though when putting together a short response to a blog post, there are obviously things that will get left out
Another problem is that civil marriage is so ingrained in the legal and tax system, that it's really difficult to just dismantle it overnight. That would cause a lot of economic and social upheaval.
Another thorny issue is polygamy, and I doubt the IRS would be so willing to accept that one...
While I don't like this decision, I can live with it. Forcing bakers to make cakes for gay weddings, and taking away the nonprofit status of churches that stick to their beliefs is another matter entirely.
3186025 Those won't happen. This is a CIVIL ruling on CIVIL matters and the duty of the CIVIL employees to do their job without discrimination.
Also, the "gay wedding cake" horse is an unrecognizable mass of flesh and blood, stop beating it. A public business like a bakery or restaurant doesn't have the right to discriminate openly. Your right to observe your religion cannot obstruct MY right to exist and pay for your services that are available outside of a religious context.
3186025 For the first part, if they are running a public business, then they cannot discriminate. Period. The second, churches can do whatever they want. it's their business. The "Losing benefits, tax exemption' etc.. is an issue for semi-religious institutes, that also receive public money, like some religious based collages. Again, once you create a public business, or start accepting public fund, you cannot discriminate.
And no it does not "infringe on your religious freedom", unless you are being forced into a same sex marriage. Otherwise, it has zero bearing on your freedoms.
I'm a little lost here, I thought some states already authorized same sex marriage. What does that mean ? That now every states has to legalize it in all the country ?
At least, argument from the opposition here are a little more developped than in France... it was hilarious some times.
"What's next ? Legalize pedophilia and incest ?"
Sometimes christians don't know what to say to ridiculise themselves.
Oh yeah, and there was this mayor who said he would only unite lesbians but not gays...
3186026
I'm sorry, but I have to delete this comment. I cannot condone name-calling and nastiness on this blog. This comment crossed the line. Please feel free to repost in a more polite fashion.
Everyone else: regardless of differing opinions, please keep this civil.
3186046 1. Yes about 2/3 of the states had legalized SSM, though most of those were due to Court decision ruling barring it was illegal. Those would have been called into question or overturned if the SC ruled the other way. This means that it is now required for all 50 states to perform and recognize SSM.
2. Oh they made that argument too. Along with redefining the term 'marriage' would lead to redefining the term 'Animal Husbandry' and many other ridiculous ones. What part of "Consenting adults' do they not understand?
3186047 Sorry about that, I'm the kind of person that hates it when they get a nut mixed in with their fruit salad.
I do stand by the second part of my initial comment: now we need federally-mandated transgender rights added in on the existing nondiscrimination legislation.
One battle won, but the war rages on.
3186052 Most seem to have a problem with both. Look at the number of hard-right batshit-crazy people caught up in child molestation or rape cases. The most vocal ones seem to be those with the most to hide.
A major battle has been won, but the war still rages. We've come a long way and we still gotta keep on going.
3186045 If you take away a church's nonprofit status, which they do have, then it can almost never pay for itself, thus shutting the church down. If you shut down churches for their beliefs, be it though proxy with tax laws or otherwise, then that is religious persecution.
Also, if you look closely at the decision's ruling, it says that religious institutions are permitted to state their beliefs about gay marriage, not actually do anything about them. This does not inspire confidence.
3186117
You made a lot of points, and I'm pretty sure I agree to one degree or another with all of them. I'm a little afraid that people might still be confused about the central issue here, though, so please allow me to summarize for other readers:
The problem with the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)'s recent ruling on gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. It's how they arrived at this ruling that has me and many other citizens very concerned.
You see, YOU didn't legalize gay marriage. I didn't legalize gay marriage. Your elected state representatives didn't legalize gay marriage, your elected federal representatives didn't legalize gay marriage, even your President, who isn't a legislator but who IS elected: even he didn't legalize gay marriage.
Five appointed officials, whom we the People never voted for and who can never be removed from office save by death, resignation, or impeachment, legalized gay marriage. They did so by reading into the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution a new "right" and meaning that apparently went unnoticed from its adoption in 1868 until now; that is to say, if you or I were to read the text of the amendment, we would find no mention of gay marriage whatsoever, and only some fine lawyerly gymnastics could put it there.
Here is how things are supposed to go: unless something is explicitly defined by the US constitution as part of the federal government's purview or a fundamental right, then it's up to the individual states to decide for themselves how they want to handle it. In this case, the people of that state can decide whether or not they want to legalize gay marriage in their state.
Now, if something is so fundamental a right that it should be enshrined in the Constitution - freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. - then that's fine. The process for amending the constitution is well laid-out and has been done many times before; it involves adoption and ratification by state and federal legislatures - you know, your elected officials. The guys you voted for (or against).
Instead, not only has SCOTUS scuttled the Defense of Marriage Act (which, whether you think it was a Good Law or a Bad Law, was at the very least a law enacted by the legitimate elected representatives of the People of the United States of America), it has now overturned every law for every state whose legitimately elected representatives voted to define a marriage as between one man and one woman. It did so by taking the concept of marriage and applying to it the fourteenth amendment's "equal protection" clause to deny the government the right to discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual couples.
The trouble is, the word "marriage" is not even mentioned in the Constitution. The fourteenth amendment doesn't mention it, and it's original (1868) drafters clearly never intended for it to be interpreted in such a way. This incredibly loose, "evolving" interpretation of the Constitution has progressed from simple interpretation of the law (the court's intended function) to the effective fabrication of new rights and new laws (Congress's intended function).
If this doesn't frighten you, remember: these nine unelected life-term political appointees have the power and the authority to overturn the laws of the United States Congress and of every state congress in the union (and of those nine, only five are required). And now they've shown that they're both willing and able to go far beyond mere interpretation into the realm of defining the Constitution's text to mean things that it does not say, and which its writers and ratifiers clearly never intended.
And before you reason and rejoice that it was all in the name of a good cause, remember: just because SCOTUS's abuse of its judicial power occurred in your favor this time, doesn't mean it will the next time. And there WILL BE a next time. Now that the Supreme Court has demonstrated, not only its ABILITY to tortuously extract whatever interpretation it desires out of the plain text of the Constitution, but its WILLINGNESS TO DO SO, there is little incentive for them to give that power back.
And next time - just like this time - neither you, nor I, nor the states, nor Congress, nor the Constitution are going to have anything to say about it.
P.S. If you'd like an actual lawyer's learned opinion on the topic - a Supreme Court Justice's no less! - I'll post a link below. It's surprisingly easy reading.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/269769999/Scalia-Dissent
P.P.S. Kkat your story's so good!!!
History and progress has been made this week....
And it is GLORIOUS.
Even though there are several things that may bad right now. I am glad and full-heartedly approve of this, and congratulate all homos for their persistence and patience. Well earned people.
3186117
Fun fact: I'm a libertarian too and your understanding of the laws of the country you live in is embarrassing.
But I'm leaving the legalese aside for now and am just going to the most ass-backwards thing you said, because I haven't had my coffee yet.
[Predictable sarcasm that I think is really clever, but isn't]
Duh. So are homosexuals here. You don't need to be whipped and chained, tearfully singing "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot" to be oppressed. Being unfairly denied basic civil liberties that were promised to you by your nation's founding documents definitely counts.
And here's where I could stop, because that's the be all end all of the issue, but you keep talking and it just gets worse.
Wow, you're either a monster or hideously inept in your wording, because you just said that it is homosexuals' fault at home and abroad for the oppression and murder they face.
Oh, this should be good.
derpicdn.net/img/2014/6/9/649126/large.png
Except for the part where they totally can and still are.
Here, LET ME GOOGLE THAT FOR YOU.
Then again, since you're too lazy to to do five seconds of research to see if what you're saying is even true, why don't I provide a handy dandy little chart here?
media.vocativ.com/photos/2015/02/LGBT-Employee-Rights.r12698578008.png
Lovely.
Sometimes. It's up to the individual adoption agencies, many of which just use being anything other than a married heterosexual cisgender couple as a reason to declare you unfit parents, and then you have a long legal battle ahead of you if you still want to adopt that child.
Just... what the fuck?
This is one place where I don't have evidence to link you, but I'm still pretty damn sure that no one has ever argued that homosexuals aren't allowed to go to school or own property.
I'm not sure if you watched the news, but apparently gay people can't even buy a CAKE without it being a national incident.
Gee, maybe it's because public businesses aren't legally allowed to pull that shit.
And this isn't the first time business owners' hatred has been forced to take a backseat to common courtesy.
Yeah, TODAY. Prior to that, lolno.
Are you complaining about the first amendment now? I'm pretty sure you don't mean to be, but that's exactly what you're doing.
You don't like that they're allowed to peacefully assemble and have parades.
Everyone can, numbnuts.
What, you mean the protections that they're TRYING to get and still don't have in most states? I already linked you a chart up above.
Are you SURE you're not a bible thumper? Because bible thumpers are the only ones mentally degenerated enough by inbreeding to think that such a thing as a "gay lifestyle" exists.
thedesoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/5624153976_0966ee20c9_z.jpg
LGBT people murdered in Americas During 15 Month Period
Gay Man Bashed in Head With Baseball Bat While Helping to Change Tire
i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--kPAU01XN--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/nk3zc6c6u3dkfpol3okm.jpg
"Father Stabs His Trans Child to Death, Tells Police it Was a Cult"
3186078 And yet how much money have churches spent trying to lobby for or supporting political events they want? Some spent hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to sway the whole California Prop 9 vote. Most that weren't even based in Cali.
Yes, because you have the right to believe whatever the hell you want. You do not have the right to do a damn thing the interferes with the rights of another. Churches are more then welcome to refuse to perform some meaningless (As far as the State and laws are concerned) ceremony. It is clerks and justices of the peace, public officials, who cannot refuse to sign the legal documents allowing any two people who wish to enter into the civil contract of marriage. And yes any public business that cannot refuse to serve a gay wedding the same way they would a het one, because that is by it's very definition discrimination and hence illegal. No matter what your personal beliefs are, you are a business and must treat everyone equal. If your religion told you that only interracial marriage was sinful, you couldn't refuse to cater one of those either. And yes there were people making that claim back when the SC first decided it had the power to rule certain types of marriage were guaranteed rights.
3186117
And it has just as often been a political affair and civil concern. See again the whole formation of the Church of England. The very term "Political marriage". And it is nothing more, legally speaking, then a meaningless ceremony. All the matters is the marriage contract/license itself.
And this has what to do with ruling the the civil contract of marriage must be granted to any two consenting adults who wish it?
Yes, but no-one is being 'forced' to do anything other then public officials being forced to not discriminant in executing their duties.
I love how you defeat your own argument.
The is exactly what they did, ensured gay and lesbians the right to be treated equally in regard to marriage. A Civil contract that has nothing at all to do with any religion so far as the government is concerned.
I also love how you completely ignored the fact this is no different then the SC doing the exact sme thing to laws banning inter-racial marriage in the 60's and so establishing this precedence.
Well then, you'd have to remove every single solitary benefit marriage in any way shape of form conveys to people. Tax breaks, visitation rights, inheritance.. think some people calculated it at around one and a half thousand separate benefits granted in some way shape or form by being married. And keep it as some utterly completely, and wholly meaningless (As far as the law and government is concerned) ceremony that conveys not one single solitary benefit in anyway. But that is never going to happen, and so the government cannot bar any two people who wish from accessing those benefits by engaging ti the civil contract of marriage.
If your issue is those benefits exist, then that has jack-all to do with gay marriage.
Again 'Marriage' is two separate things. A religious Ceremony, and a civil contract. All this ruling effected is the Civil Contract. Not the meaningless as far as it is concerned religious ceremony.
And once again, given the explicit purpose of the SC is to define what is and is not Constitutional, by definition it's ruling cannot be unconstitutional.
Except even the "Just sign and stamp" involves them. If they got fully out of the business, then they would have no reason at all, to record anything because it would be an utterly meaningless little ceremony that had no bearing on anything as far as the government was concerned. And again if the issue is governments being involved at all, that ship has sailed centuries ago.
Oh and, wanting full and equal treatment under the law makes one a 'whiner'? And wanting this 'mocks whatever church or temple yadda yadda.."? What about those churches and temples that DO recognize SSM? Once more, marriage is a civil contract. If you think it should not be, fine, but then you should have no issue at all with SSM you do not have with any other.
Ah the "there are people who have it worse then you so you can't complain about anything" argument. Bullshit. Next!
But it is not. In reality, marriage is a civil contract that conveys benefits to those who enter into it. You don't like that, fine. But then your issue is wait already did this....
Wow the denial is strong in this one. Ummm, yes, they CAN be fired, denied housing, denied the right to adopt, and many other forms of discrimination unless they live in certain states. There ARE states the explicitly have no law preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Because it discriminated against them, which is against the law. That just happened to be in a state that DOES have laws preventing discrimination based on orientation.
1. Not all states allowed them
2. So the old 'Separate but Equal' idea?
Wow, so now your bigotry is showing. Yeah, you can't claim "This is all a libertarian, the government simply shouldn't be in marriage at all" position, while saying stupid, bigoted things like that.
No they don't. Only the exact same laws that prevent discrimination based on race, gender, or other such issues, and again, only in some states.
Hey you have the right to believe whatever you want. And we have the right to mock you if we think the belief is bigoted, or just plain stupid.
Yes, because you can't care about more then one thing at a time. And because a group has worse issue somewhere else, means you should ignore all issues around you?
3186320
And why are they given those positions? For this very exact reason. So they can make decisions based one their understanding of the constitution, and only that, without fear of political pressure or reprisal.
No, it was noticed back in the 60's when the SC made this exact same ruling, only against laws banning inter-racial marriage.
And the Federal government as, explicitly, per the 14th amendment the right to ensure all citizens of the country are given full and equal protection by the Law.
Do you know why the Bill of Rights was added as amendments rather then as part of the basic document if they are that important? A lot of the founding fathers were dead set against adding a Bill of Rights of any kind. Not because they didn't believe guaranteeing those rights were important, but for this very reason. They knew that they could not foresee and name every single possible right people should have, and knew some people would interpret it exactly how you did. That if it wasn't explicitly in the document, it did not exist.
Ever hear the term "Checks and Balances" Overturning laws passed by the legislature that it deems to be unconstitutional... is the entire point of the Supreme Court.
Yes, as in, it did it's job.
No but the phrase "Equal protection of the Law" is in the 14th. The law did not treat homosexual couples equally in regards to marriage laws. The Constitution was intended to be rather vague on ideas like this, explicitly because the founding fathers knew they could not foresee every possible eventuality, and so left things open ended enough to allow for differing interpretations based on the current society. It's one of the greatest strengths of the document.
Yes... that is their JOB as defined in the constitution. To overturn laws when they violate the constitution, and to interpret what laws do and do not do so.
Once more, since none of you seem to be able to see this, or simply want to ignore it. They showed that back in the 60's with this exact same ruling against bans on inter-racial marriage.
It is a power they have always, and explicitly HAD. They just used it in a way you dislike this time.
3186396
Thank you! I was a bit surprised and pleased to see someone else who viewed SCOTUS's decision in the same judicial light that I did; everyone just seemed so caught up in the what that they hadn't stopped to think of the how or the why. You seemed a bit caught up in back-and-forth of individual issues, so I figured I'd try to pause and explain the legal significance of what was going on from the ground up.
...It's good to be reminded sometimes that I'm not the only libertarian-minded fellow in the fandom. ("Libertarian" in this context meaning that I like for the laws to mean what they say and for government officials to obey the law. It shouldn't even need its own word.)
3186320 That was well-stated, and I can definitely understand the dissenting viewpoint, even if I can't agree with it. The issue that I have with that perception is that the decision does not add to the Constitution, but rather enforces it. Specifically, the 14th Amendment states:
And that is exactly what States were doing. I can see the argument that this decision "isn't about gay marriage", but only because the decision is then (and perhaps more appropriately) about "States enacting un-Constitutional laws aimed at preventing a minority class of the citizenry from enjoying a privilege afforded to the general citizenry and perpetuating an unequal treatment of that minority". There is no legal gymnastics required; the Supreme Court did exactly what it was supposed to do by stepping in when States tried to abuse legislative power to institutionalize discrimination.
We use the phrase "legalize gay marriage", but what the Supreme Court's decision actually did was to ban discriminatory laws. The argument that "the Constitution doesn't have anything to say about marriage" is immaterial as the Constitution does have quite a bit to say about freedom, equality and forbidding discrimination. Furthermore, as marriage impacts Federal taxes, "married" is a Federal classification and falls under Federal, not State, purview. I can empathize with arguments that perhaps marriage shouldn't be a Federal concern, but unless all Federal benefits for being married are stripped, it remains one. And thus it should not be within the right of the States to create their own definitions of what that Federal classification means.
As for the concerns raised about national laws being affected by a body not voted into office:
Both the President and members of Congress and are voted into office. Their actions are influenced and compromised by the need to retain and gain contributors, appeal to their base, and act in the best interest of their political party. Many of the State laws passed banning same-sex marriage were initiated to inflame conservative voters and to win political influence -- not because the laws were right or just or Constitutional. The Supreme Court does not always rule in the manner I would prefer; it is far more common that they do not. But I still find it a relief that we have a branch of government not beholden to the eternal campaign machinery that plagues both State and Federal government.
Of course, there are five equally august lawyers -- Supreme Court Justices, no less -- with equally learned opinions on the topic who would disagree.
Thank you so much!
3185554
I view this as one of the legitimate powers of the federal government, protecting a right to equal protection under the law - in this case in marriage.
Ideally I'd like government to be out of marriage entirely, but equality under the law is the next best thing.
(And let's be honest, government getting out of marriage entirely would be a far, far harder feat than simply allowing gay marriages.)
Though I'd agree that state's rights have been trampled in places where they hold more legitimacy, I'd rather not put a damper on this event.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
3185799
Yes, getting government out of marriage would be ideal, but in the meantime it is unjust to deny same-sex couples the benefits of marriage.
I see where you are coming from with the tenth amendment, but I see no conflict with the first amendment - it isn't prohibiting a religion, if that's what you mean.
Their argument that equal protection under the fourteenth amendment is at least a plausible justification of the ruling - since same-sex couples certainly did not have equal legal status to others when denied marriage.
Though I admit that basis is kind of thin, and the tenth amendment argument may be stronger.
3186667
One of my least favorite things to do is argue with people on the internet. By my very nature I tend to get tense during confrontation, I get upset, it's not generally a fun experience for me. And all for what seems like very little gain: I can't actually think of a time when I've used any combination of logic and emotion to persuade someone to abandon a viewpoint critical to their worldview. People are often stubborn, willful-minded creatures: that's why they're on the internet arguing their views with complete strangers in the first place.
That being said, if I were going to argue jurisprudence with a random stranger on the internet... that random stranger would be you, Kkat. I remember my first time reading the blog posts of my favorite dystopian author and being very impressed by the depth of thought and creativity put into them. I am not at all surprised that that intellectual acuity would extend to the realm of politics and law as well.
So: I made my argument. You made your counterargument. It's tempting to continue the debate (though not about the executive and legislative branches being "compromised," no one disagrees with that), but if it's alright with you, I'll happily agree to disagree.
Anyway. I eagerly await your next post! Perhaps one on something less political and divisive, Something more... universally loved and desired? Something adorable that you would find in a children's cartoon.
Something like changelings.
About-motherfuckin'-time!
3186636 There is little difference between saying that a baker cannot opt out of a gay wedding because of discrimination, and saying a church cannot opt out of performing a gay wedding because of discrimination. And this is where I fear we are going.
As a Canadian, I'm glad that that ordeal is finally over for you guys.
Here's to all the happy couples out there in the USA. I'd say keep fighting the good fight, but it seems you've won. *cheers*
hi hi
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., 1963
- Robert H. Jackson, 1943
3187238
A church is not a business. Well, not officially.