In a 5-4 decision, authored by Justice Kennedy, same sex marriage bans all across the country have been held unconstitutional today. This is a very good day for everyone who believes in the fundamental dignity of all human beings, and each individual’s right to marry the person they love, regardless of sexual orientation or gender. It is an historic day, a day in which all Americans can take pride.
To read the decision, go to this link.
A few, brief excerpts:
[T]he right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.” […]
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.
I don’t know why, exactly, but my first reaction to seeing that Justice Anthony Kennedy had delivered a constitutional right to gay marriage was to go see how it was going over at Erick Erickson’s Red State. I got what I was expecting, although it would be a mistake to say that I wasn’t disappointed.
We can keep that reaction for the grandchildren. They will marvel that we once walked among these cavemen.
hahahahahahahhahahaha
well, a sensible observation from the freeper–if one were discussing global warming, which will destroy the 11,000 year old stable climate during which all human civilization occurred.
As a comment to extending marriage rights (a creation OF civilization) to another class of humans, not so much.
I wonder how many freeps under stand that their exact predictions were universally proclaimed by their American “conservative” ancestors when Brown v. Board of Ed. came out over 60 years ago?
As schools today are as much, if not more, segregated today than they were in 1954, their predictions were never actually tested.
More confirmation of what I said yesterday: The decision in favor “Inclusive Communities” reinforces that Roberts doesn’t possess much of a social conscience.
And my long held expectation that Kennedy wouldn’t backtrack from his decision in Lawrence v. Texas.
A shame we have to live with four Supreme Court justices that don’t subscribe to equal justice under the law. How pathetic that Thomas fails to recognize that the principles in this case are no different from that of “Loving.”
Clarence got his rights, let the others eat cake! (but not gay wedding cake…)
A particularly horrifying quote from Thomas’ dissent:
His empathy is weak even by conservative standards.
Especially for a black man. His skin is black, but his soul is redneck.
Now the poly community needs to begin it’s fight for it’s rights and demand support from all liberals. And like the fight for gay marriage, this will mean putting economic issues on hold and giving things away to big business to get their backing.
Marriage rights are not for everyone yet, now a new fight begins.
I’m sorry, no. I’ve been poly for more than two decades and would in no way support prioritizing that fight over economic ones. Not even close.
Civil rights are more important. Only a bigot would argue otherwise.
That’s all you’ve got? Calling me a bigot? Geez, great way to advance the cause.
State sanctioned marriage is a contract giving two people who enter into that contract certain rights automatically. Nothing more. Nothing less.
And there are certain rights within that marriage contract that by intrinsic definition can only be shared between two people. For example, when the decision to remove someone from life support has to be made that can’t be decided by committee. Someone has to have the final say there.
Another example – our social security laws. Right now, if the spouse who had a higher social security benefit passes, the remaining spouse’s benefit gets bumped up to that higher level. How can that be determined among three people?
However people perceive the polygamous lifestyle (from let people live as they want to it fosters abuse) the legal argument against polygamy is that there are simply some rights intrinsic to the marriage contract that cannot be shared between more than two people.
Same arguments that were thrown at gay marriage. And for those of us in poly relationships that already have to go through crazy hurdles about who can visit who in the hospital.
We already structure it somewhat based on powers of attourney and other items. In social security laws, well everyone could get bumped to the higher level.
Trust me, marriage as between two people is as limited as marriage between people of the same race or between members of opposite sex. Get on the right side of this fight while you can.
When two people of the same sex marry the basic form of the state sanctioned marriage contract does not change nor does the clerk have to do anything beyond issuing that license. That is because that contract includes rights and responsibilities that are intrinsically bi-lateral.
If a poly group were to marry those intrinsic bi-lateral rights and responsibilities, that are automatically conferred, would have to be enumerated and decided upon i.e. it will have to spelled out who makes medical decisions, who gets the social security survivor’s benefits, etc
In other words it will have to be a contract that is negotiated rather than one that is automatic once a license is issued. That is beyond both the ability of what a county clerk can do and the scope of what they should be doing. It is not the state’s job to negotiate a contract between multiple parties.
I have no issue with people calling that unique contract a marriage but it wouldn’t be remotely the same process as going to the county clerk, showing identification, signing a license, and automatically getting the rights, many of which are intrinsically bi-lateral, that come with what we now call marriage.
It would be a lot more complex than that and involve people outside of the state (attorneys representing each party’s interests) writing up the specific circumstances of that contract.
People make multi-party contracts all the time. There is no reason they couldn’t do so in this case as well. Besides, legal responsibilities and privileges can always be prioritized. Surrogate decision making is a good example – it actually supports the case for legal poly marriage rather than contradicts it, as you suggest, since people are free to designate anyone they want to be their surrogate, and all states have priority lists for who is designated surrogate in case no prior decision was made and the person is unable to (ie. spouse, parent, oldest child, etc..) There is no reason similar arrangements couldn’t be made for marriages involving multiple people.
Also, as an aside, your assumption that Sid’s use of “poly” means “polygamy” kind of indicates that you don’t know what you are talking about here. Poly is much more flexible than that.
Contract. My point is that it isn’t the same thing as the automatic rights and responsibilities that are conferred when TWO people get a marriage license. THAT is the difference. Marriage between two people is a lot less complicated due to the intrinsically bi-lateral rights. Because of that the license can be issued by a clerk. No outside parties needed except maybe a witness or two.
Marriage between multiple parties won’t be near that simple. It would have to be a negotiated contract that will be a lot longer than a simply marriage license. Rights that are automatically conferred in a standard marriage license will have to be enumerated and decided upon in a longer contract.
That is why the process itself will be fundamentally different. no matter what the end result is called. That is also why the slippery slope argument has never held water. There is simply no way a simple marriage license will ever be adequate to cover all of the contractual issues that will arise in a multi-party marriage.
you’re trolling, right?
No, this is a real issue. I’m not sure it is a movement yet, but it is getting there. Read around some on it.
ah yes, the charge of lib’rul “hypocrisy”, a time-honored rightwing meme. Bravo!
I’d argue the natural path from here is to get the state out of it altogether, or at least stop giving state preferences to married people. Marriage is a conservative institution. I’d rather it be smashed with a hammer.
If not for the all too real and beneficial preferences granted to married people, a whole lot of boomers like me may not have taken the plunge.
Soft “h” on historic, eh Steven?
hahaha
Yes, I guess so.
Grammar, not my long suit is.
From the wackadoodles:
Chief Justice Roberts:
Not in Roberts copy of the Constitution that defines rights for corporations and doesn’t mention the people.
Scalia:
IOW — Only when the majority on the Supreme Court sides with Scalia is it legitimate.
Like his installation of G.W. Bush as president.
Citizens United.
Also pathetic that Mr. Scalia believes that his “ruler” is mine and yours too. Coast to coast aaargh! The struggle continues indeed.
what does he mean by Ruler? weird
Scalia jumped the shark some time ago and has transformed himself into a blathering clown figure. He doesn’t make the slightest attempt to portray himself as having a judicial temperament any more, nor do his fans and disciples. His opinions will be mocked by law students of the future, IMO.
Obviously he is saying the the Supreme Court is a Politburo and the other branches just a charade.
Not sure that I want to know.
Coast-to-coast? Did Mr. Literal Interpretation just say he’s cool with same-sex-marriage in Hawaii, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Philippines, and Guam?
Wonderful how Scalia and Roberts creation of a right to private gun ownership didn’t fall afoul of this rhetoric. Or to the endless parade of federal laws they have invalidated.
Scalia now calls for the installation of a Southern Fundie on the Court, apparently to get the white American Taliban perspective represented. Funny, but somehow I’m content that the 5 conservative Catholic males are holding up that side of the country pretty well.
Also hilarious that Scalia is now preaching a common lib’rul complaint about lack of educational, religious and regional “diversity” on the Court. Hang around long enough and you’ll hear everything, haha.
Kennedy is on the court because liberals in the Senate killed the Bork nomination.
Sometimes when you fight you win and don’t know it.
National Review is hitting that, too.
Also:
National Review:
I weep for them
… tears of laughter.
That was back in the days when Democratic Senators were only willing to go so far in confirming SC justices. Haynesworth, Carswell, and Bork: no. O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter: okay. But the no on Bork was a year after they had already said okay to one rightwing nut, Scalia.
However, let’s not overlook that O’Connor and Kennedy were part of the gang of five that installed GWB as POTUS. Along with SC Rehnquist that the Senate confirmed as Chief Justice.
The significant confirmation failures were with Thomas as Thurgood Marshall’s replacement and Alito as O’Connors replacement.
and I think in part it was because the Civil Rights and Womens groups had more power. They were against Bork out of the box.
The defeat of Bork didn’t just get us Kennedy, it got us Souter. After the Bork nomination President’s started looking for candidates with less of a paper trail.
Both Kennedy and Souter were part of the majority in Casey that upheld Roe.
I think in part it was because the Civil Rights and Womens groups had more power.
More likely that those groups exercised what little power they had. (Recall that the ERA was dead by then.) And perhaps there were fewer Senators in the crazy wing of the GOP and a few in the totally not crazy wing of the GOP.
Power, even when small and limited, not exercised is like a muscle, it atrophies and withers.
Let’s also note that feminists, circa 1966-72, didn’t play their hand as shrewdly as the gay community has over the past fifteen years. There were disputes in the gay community on how fast to push the issue to the Supreme Court versus working legislatively, judicially, and at the ballot box on a state by state basis. Before today, same sex marriage was legal in 35 states. Compare that to:
“Roe” came too early — and for the past forty odd years all energies have gone into fighting against more and more restrictions. Pushing women further and further away from the goal of “my body; my choice.”
WOW
WOW
WOW
feeling festive! party next door is playing Village People!
graduation party!!
I’m encouraged by how broadly Kennedy is interpreting the 14th Amendment. It’s a ringing endorsement of the Second Founding, treating it as establishing a true fundamental right to human equality, and not just abolishing slavery. It’s singularly appropriate this comes out just as the country is finally moving against the Traitor Flag, and I think over time this decision will have consequences for discrimination much broader than that affectings gays and lesbians.
○ Conservative radio host compares gay marriage ruling to 9/11, Pearl Harbor
A long time coming: 2/28/76 at 11:30-12:05
The decision seems anti-climactic, since it was so widely anticipated and since court rulings had already legalized same-sex marriage in most of the states. But it is still astonishing how far we came in how short a time. History took a very different turn from what I had expected.
I’m thinking back to 1996, and a conversation I remember having shortly after DOMA passed. A friend said to me, “You’re gay. How different does this feel to you than the Nuremberg Laws [the Nazi decree that, among other things, denied recognition to marriages between Jews and non-Jews]? It’s really the same thing, isn’t it?” That comparison hadn’t occurred to me, and at first I thought it was over the top, but the more I thought about it, it didn’t seem so unreasonable.
Indeed, it seemed in those days that the nation was going through a period of Christian ascendancy. I came to expect that DOMA would be a prelude to other laws that would place restrictions on gays and lesbians not all that different from some of the restrictions that the Nazis placed on Jews when they came to power. It seemed likely, for example, that there would be certain professions that would be closed to persons because of their sexual orientation — education for sure, perhaps health care. Since it was still the United States, I felt pretty confident it wouldn’t go as far as concentration camps, but it seemed at the time as though we were entering an era when life would be especially difficult for gay men and lesbians. How could it be otherwise? The Moral Majority was a large and powerful force in American politics. Gays were a small minority without much clout.
I have to admit, my crystal ball has never worked all that well. But to see such a complete turnabout in less than two decades is incredible to me.
Oddly, popular opposition to SSM started to collapse right around the time of the maximum legal barriers were placed on SSM: 2005.
I spent election evening 1992 at my friends’ Mark and Eric’s apartment watching the election returns. Mark had been active in getting people to the polls that day. When it appeared that Clinton/Gore were going to win, it was time to break out the bottle of champagne that I’d been saving for a special occasion. Mark’s toast was that he couldn’t live if Bush had won a second term and he loved the new First Lady.
Formal acceptance of gays and lesbians in the military with the implication that it was but a first step was very real that year. DOMA, supported by both Clintons, was a total, freaking betrayal. Mark didn’t live long enough to see that day, and in his memory, I will never forget nor forgive the rank hypocrisy and political opportunism of the Clintons.
Is is not wonderful the terrorists did not get the expected media coverage of them killing random people. All our media is in DC or Charleston. It’s like no one has time for them…except FOX.
God’s judgement rains down in threes:
SCOTUScare
Marriage equality under the law
The “Muslim” president preaches an awesome sermon on receiving and honoring the grace of God in black church form as a eulogy. Theologically on target. Politically on target. Culturally pitch perfect for the Southern church of both races. Anyone who questions his religion again is just whistling Dixie.
Timeline of same-sex marriage in the US.
Major milestones:
1993
Hawaii – 1993 Baehr v. Miike
1996 DOMA
1999
Vermont – Baker v. Vermont.
2000
Vermont – institutes “civil unions” to comply with “Baker” ruling.
2002
US House: Federal Marriage Amendment – H.J. Res. 93. (Bans same-sex marriage.)
2003
Massachusetts – November 18 Goodrich …. Same-sex couples cannot be denied marriage licenses.
2004
Massachusetts – February 4, “Goodrich” held that same-sex couples were to be issued marriage licenses, and unlike Vermont, cannot be labeled “civil unions.”
San Francisco – February 12, same-sex couples issued marriage licenses.
Massachusetts – May 17 first marriage licenses for same-sex couples issued.
DC – GWB called for constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Resolutions introduced in House and Senate. Failed to meet two-third threshold in House for an Amendment. Filibustered in Senate.
Hillary Clinton floor speech:
2005
California – September 29 Schwarzengger vetoes same-sex marriage legislation.
2006
New Jersey – October 25 Lewis v. Harris marriage or civil unions within six months.
2007
California – legislature passes same-sex marriage bill for second time and it was vetoed again.
2008
NY Governor institutes reciprocity for same-sex couples married in other jurisdictions.
California Supreme Court overturns ban on same-sex marriage.
Connecticut Kerrigan …
2009
Iowa Varnum v. Brien
Vermont – first state to legislate same-sex marriage
Connecticut – legislates same-sex marriage.
Maine – legislates same-sex marriage.
New Hampshire legislates same-sex marriage.
——-
Through referendums voters took away the right of same sex couples in CA and ME. A federal court restored same-sex marriage in CA and voters restored it in Maine. Courts and voters in many states demonstrated no respect for equality under the law.
The HI Supreme Court and later trial court came close to being the leader on this question. (If not for DOMA, Hawaii may have led the way.)
The Vermont Supreme Court did lead, but whiffed by permitting the legislature to call it “civil unions.” (During 2003 many so-called liberals objected to Howard Dean’s presidential campaign because he’d signed Vermont’s civil union legislation.)
So, the MA SC ends up as the judicial leader.
The CA Assembly and Senate led legislatively. One horrible man created an acrimonious five year delay in doing the right thing for same-sex couples.
—-