Gay marriage...law of the land.

Sad it only passed 5-4 and took so long.

I wouldn't doubt it that the Republicans are now scheming to take down the SCOTUS decision

I always thought we weren't supposed to legislate morality

Gay Rights

No gay person ever hurt my family or tore down my marriage.

But now that gay marriage is legal, your marriage is worthless, right?

Fry brings up some legitimate questions about the 4 judges that voted against gay rights...

BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
1800's

Jun 26, 2015 - 09:40am PT
So now we've established legalities. It time give back what was stolen.

I'm sick having to explain every time I publicly use the words Queer or Gay. The words have been turned into lies. Right along with with the rainbow flag. Do you know it's origin? Has nothing to do with homosexualality!

Now that their legit, can we please start this new day from a platform of Truth?!!!!

Geese mate for life...Why can't gays...?

Opining or not, I'd like to hear a well-articulated view of anyone who doesn't believe that gay marriage isn't consistent with the principles of the Constitution.

As I noted upthread Ginsburg and Scalia are best friends AND she has a lot of respect for his opinions which in lawyer speak means she respects the way they are written.

This is just speculation

I'm sick having to explain every time I publicly use the words Queer or Gay.

Scalia, in his own scathing dissent, complained that the majority opinion lacked "even a thin veneer of law." He quipped, "Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage."

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.

There's only one right side of history when it comes to some issues.
A lot of people fought to maintain slavery. Who ever thought that could be the right side of history?

A lot of people fought to deny women the right to vote. Who ever thought that could be the right side of history?

A lot of people fought to keep blacks from having the right to vote. Who ever thought that could be the right side of history?

A lot of people fought to keep segregation in place. Who ever thought that could be the right side of history?

God already has punishments laid out for gay marriage.

Men will have to deal with being married to someone who doesn't listen to them, and is dirty, smelly, and hairy.

And women will have to deal with being married to someone who nags, treats them like a child, and tries to change them.

states like CA and CO are in direct violation of Federal law.

Medical marijuana is legal pursuant to Proposition 215 in 1996 and Senate Bill 420. Recreational marijuana possession of up to one ounce is an infraction, similar to a traffic violation, with a $100 fine.

The spending bill includes an amendment that prohibits the Department of Justice from using funds to go after state-legal medical cannabis programs. If the bill is signed into law, it will bring the federal government one step closer to ending raids on medical marijuana dispensaries, as well as stopping arrests of individuals involved with pot businesses that are complying with state law.

The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) condemned the Supreme Court for legalizing gay marriage on Friday, calling their ruling for Obergefell v. Hodges "a grave mistake."

Walker doubled down on his stance that the legality of same-sex marriage should be up to the states, and cited a referendum to ban gay marriages in Wisconsin that was passed by voters in 2006. Walker, a potential 2016 GOP contender, argued the nation needs a conservative president who can appoint conservative Supreme Court justices "who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our land without injecting their own political agendas."

unfettered?

Sullivan calls himself a conservative still, and is a practicing Catholic, but he has been an enthusiastic supporter (and occasional critic) of Obama since 2007. Sullivan appears regularly on The Colbert Report and Real Time with Bill Maher on television and continues his weekly column for The Sunday Times. He lives with his husband and two hound dogs in Washington, D.C., and Provincetown, Massachusetts.

In fact, we lost and lost and lost again. Much of the gay left was deeply suspicious of this conservative-sounding reform; two thirds of the country were opposed; the religious right saw in the issue a unique opportunity for political leverage – and over time, they put state constitutional amendments against marriage equality on the ballot in countless states, and won every time. Our allies deserted us. The Clintons embraced the Defense of Marriage Act, and their Justice Department declared that DOMA was in no way unconstitutional the morning some of us were testifying against it on Capitol Hill. For his part, president George W. Bush subsequently went even further and embraced the Federal Marriage Amendment to permanently ensure second-class citizenship for gay people in America. Those were dark, dark days.

Fearing a huge setback to their cause, opponents of same-sex marriage, including some of the major contenders for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination, are darkly warning that they will not "honor" an adverse Supreme Court decision. Some are calling for civil disobedience. Others are moving to strip the Supreme Court of its authority to decide whether gay couples should be allowed to marry, while others have questioned whether the court has that jurisdiction in the first place. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has said that such a decision would be "fundamentally illegitimate."

A person may not be disqualified from entering or pursuing a business, profession, vocation, or employment because of sex, race, creed, color, or national or ethnic origin. California Constitution, Article I, §8 (1879)

The rights of citizens of the State of Utah to vote and hold office shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex. Both male and female citizens of this State shall enjoy all civil, political and religious rights and privileges. Utah Constitution, Article IV, §1 (1896)

If we don't like this decision...

Odd. Werner has been strangely silent on this issue.

It's great when, like this decision, we favor the outcome. But Citizens United was a 5-4 vote as well. And this decision has seriously impacted our electoral process. Is someone going to begin the amendment process to reverse this boondoggle?

The Supreme Court cannot "rewrite" any law.

Until just recently, Obama was on the loser one-man-one-woman side. His last election, that was his position.

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

Major victories for Obama and his legacy this week, like it or not the man is changing America and in my view for the better.e

Someone must not have been following the news very closely this week, where the Court in effect rewrote "established by the state" to mean "established by the state or federal government."
Maybe that's for the best and the decision wasn't a surprise to anyone (certainly not to me), but that's about as clear a case of rewriting as we'll ever see.

Can someone strip in Cruz's face on Locker's ballcupping pic as the cupper to Hannity's cuppee?

That would be priceless. Here

What did Obama have to do with this?

We'll just have to disagree about the power vested in SCOTUS. One player changing the outcome of a basketball game just does not rise to the level of a single Justice having the power to create law for the entire nation.

Do you disagree with the situation where a single vote in the House is sufficient to pass a bill and create a new law?

Do you disagree with the situation where a single judge is able to issue decisions about what is admissible in court, or even to issue decisions on an issue.

I hear your complaint, but give us a scenario in which it would be different or better?

"changing america for the better"

"people having sex with other people"

The Universe applauds our graduation up into Consciousness.

The universe may be applauding, but much of the population of the planet we live on is not.

shouldn't we also want our homosexual brethren to understand this joy and success also?

turn our attention to more critical issues.

As of yesterday, every kid going back to school, or to the playground with two moms or two dads, whether in Berkeley or Dallas, or Peoria, finds their family more accepted.

Now if they would only legalize, Polygamy

“If you are among the many Americans — of whatever sexual orientation — who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”

well Justice Roberts, the Constitution also says nothing about the Space Program

or doing away with Slavery

or "allowing" women to vote

but it does say, Mr. Roberts, that all Americans should be accorded Life, Liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness....you "conservative" moron

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence.[1] The phrase gives three examples of the "inalienable rights" which the Declaration says has been given to all human beings by their Creator, and for which governments are created to protect.

Can we get a decision on making those stupid robes optional?

and Jimmie was cool, but he didn't become religious until his presidency

I just had to give two "friends" the boot here for their offensive and bigoted comments on the recent Supreme Court decision regarding marriage equality. I've got no patience for that sort of thing, and if you share Pat and Robin's views about "perverts" lobbying for their "disgusting" special interests you should do us both a favor and unfriend me now. As I'm guessing he'll delete it, here's my parting commentary, it's a pretty accurate representation of my feelings on the subject:
"Pat, I'd thought you believed in freedom, but apparently that's only for people you like. People don't choose to be gay, black, female, or whatever: this is something you just are, it's what you come with. People do choose to be bigots though, that's learned behavior, not an immutable aspect of one's being. You can believe what you choose, but that doesn't give you the power to dictate whether someone else can enjoy the same rights you posess. That's what equal protection under the law is about, and its why Jim Crow laws, Native treaty violations, Japanese internment, torture, racial profiling, and yes, oppression of gay people are odious examples of this nation's failure to live up to the promises it makes to it's citizens and the world at large. These things can be changed, we can become closer to the society we think we should be as compared to the one we actually are. The work to bring our actions closer to our ideals is as important a struggle for freedom as anything the military does.
"They" are my friends you're talking about: Drew and Tom, Sally and Marilyn, Lisa and Lynn, Michael, Deven and Allyson, Xenia, Tom and John, Theresa, Carole, Kate and Kellie, Vauhn and Bobbi, and many others. "They" aren't faceless lobbyists out to molest your children, they are real people with faces and lives, aspirations and dreams, families and children, who are actively making this world a better place to live. My life is better for knowing these folks. You'd deny them the rights you feel you're entitled to because you don't like the way they love? That's what is disgusting and offensive here. I haven't seen you in over 40 years, but I find it sad you grew up to be such an ugly person inside."

Can we get a decision on making those stupid robes optional?

i can marry a sheep?

what do we tell the kids?

I doubt Obama ever changed his opinion.

He just changes what he says it is.

JE is that the long way to say "two-faced" or "speaks with forked toungue"??


KSolem was spot on.

In other words, politicians lie because the voters demand it.

Does anyone here know someone who opposes it on non-religious grounds?