supreme court ruling gays can marry

  • italianguy63

    Posts: 2

    Jun 26, 2015 2:47 PM GMT
    FINALLY! SEE GOD LOVES GAY PEOPLE :-)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2015 2:53 PM GMT
    The opinion of The Supreme Court of the United States of America legalizing gay marriage in the United States of America:

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf


    Mr. Justice Kennedy, writing for the Court in Obergefell v. Hodges,

    "...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.
    The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

    It is so ordered."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2015 2:57 PM GMT
    and Jeb Bush vows to take it away
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2015 3:00 PM GMT
    By the way, it's no longer called "gay" marriage.

    It's Just Marriage.

    It's Respect For All of Us!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2015 3:02 PM GMT
    pellaz saidand Jeb Bush vows to take it away


    Jeb has shifted gears very quickly. But the real shocker of who is now okay with marriage equality is BEN CARSON!


    Still it's worth remembering who fought us. And look at the 4 Justices who voted against equality---
    ALL FOUR OF THE CONSERVATIVES:
    ROBERTS, SCALIA, ALITO, THOMAS
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2015 3:13 PM GMT
    do we have any heightened scrutiny out of this decision??
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2015 3:14 PM GMT
    Yes, it was the four MALE justices who dissented and the three FEMALE justices who joined in the majority decision.

    Apparently, the language of the opinion was being changed until the very last moment. The opinion was distributed on stapled 8.5"x11" paper rather than in a bound booklet, the usual procedure, as there was no time for the formal printed version to be prepared.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2015 3:29 PM GMT
    Jonathan Rauch must be one happy puppy today (http://jonathanrauch.typepad.com), as he wrote long ago a book which was an exegesis on why the prohibition of same sex marriage was bad public policy: Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2015 3:36 PM GMT
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/gay-marriage-supreme-court-scalia-dissent

    The 10 Most Wild Lines From Antonin Scalia’s Extreme Dissent Over Gay Marriage

    It's fun to read Scalia embrace the wrong side of history.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2015 3:41 PM GMT
    CIbszPlWIAAJ10k%201_zpszcjebxno.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2015 3:42 PM GMT
    Sulla saidJonathan Rauch must be one happy puppy today (http://jonathanrauch.typepad.com), as he wrote long ago a book which was an exegesis on why the prohibition of same sex marriage was bad public policy: >Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America


    His book came out in 2004!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2015 3:44 PM GMT
    pellaz saiddo we have any heightened scrutiny out of this decision??



    4exampel; a 20 year old is discriminated on as he she cant buy alcohol. A heightened scrutiny (i am definitely not up to the legal skillz) is those citizens 21 and older who can buy the alcohol.

    this might play important if
    -business can't discriminate if you and your husband purchase a service.
    -equal employment is a right.
    -the NFL has to let you play, things like that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2015 3:47 PM GMT
    FitnessWorker saidhttp://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/gay-marriage-supreme-court-scalia-dissent

    The 10 Most Wild Lines From Antonin Scalia’s Extreme Dissent Over Gay Marriage

    It's fun to read Scalia embrace the wrong side of history.

    "Ask the nearest hippie" may become a great meme. And a wonderful way to mock the leading idiot on the US Supreme Court. While Uncle Thomas is the most stupid, Scalia is the leading pseudo-intellectual, whose faulty reasoning skills can make you go cross-eyed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2015 4:57 PM GMT
    I got up to page 28 of 103 and this is where I cried:

    "The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them."

    Oh well, there goes the houseboy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2015 5:03 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    FitnessWorker saidhttp://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/gay-marriage-supreme-court-scalia-dissent

    The 10 Most Wild Lines From Antonin Scalia’s Extreme Dissent Over Gay Marriage

    It's fun to read Scalia embrace the wrong side of history.

    "Ask the nearest hippie" may become a great meme. And a wonderful way to mock the leading idiot on the US Supreme Court. While Uncle Thomas is the most stupid, Scalia is the leading pseudo-intellectual, whose faulty reasoning skills can make you go cross-eyed.


    I actually agree w/ Artless for once: it IS fun to read Scalia's dissent, so cogently telling it like it is and cutting thru the majority's whining, ever-so-sensitive crap. Don't get me wrong, I support the majority's result, but not the way it came down. For that, CJ Bobs said it best:

    Indeed, however heartened the proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause. And they lose this just when the winds of change were freshening at their backs.

    How many other Court-ordered laws share the same origin, if not fate?

    And, what Artless post would be complete w/o a little ad hominem attack, in this case a blatantly racist one against Justice Thomas, whose own dissent is equal to the other three in highlighting the majority's faulty reasoning and use of the Due Process Clause. I'm not surprised that Artless is driven cross-eyed, though whether it's by his inability to comprehend any of the opinions - or an early morning raid on the Clamato bottle.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2015 5:24 PM GMT
    Mr. Chief Justice Roberts' dissenting opinion is a good exegesis on the role of the Courts in the American system. It is not in and of itself against the legalization of same-sex marriage but is decrying the method of its being achieved. Unfortunately, however meritorious is his judgement as a matter of political theory, he obviously never read Jonathan Rauch's book nor does the Chief Justice apparently have much appreciation for the proposition that sometimes it is just indeed time to use the Alexandrian solution and just slice the Gordian Knot.

    The Chief Justice concludes his dissent,

    "...If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. 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.
    I respectfully dissent."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2015 5:29 PM GMT
    History indeed. Many congratulations to all gay people in the US.

    _83884960_11119718_10153564889214238_513
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2015 5:33 PM GMT
    Sulla saidMr. Chief Justice Roberts' dissenting opinion is a good exegesis on the role of the Courts in the American system. It is not in and of itself against the legalization of same-sex marriage but is decrying the method of its being achieved. Unfortunately, however meritorious is his judgement as a matter of political theory, he obviously never read Jonathan Rauch's book nor does the Chief Justice apparently have much appreciation for the proposition that sometimes it is just indeed time to use the Alexandrian solution and just slice the Gordian Knot.

    The Chief Justice concludes his dissent,

    "...If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. 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.
    I respectfully dissent."


    So, "three generations of imbeciles is enough?"

    And, which book? Surely not Beyond Queer or Kindly Inquisitors.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2015 5:38 PM GMT
    FitnessWorker saidhttp://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/gay-marriage-supreme-court-scalia-dissent

    The 10 Most Wild Lines From Antonin Scalia’s Extreme Dissent Over Gay Marriage

    It's fun to read Scalia embrace the wrong side of history.



    Well...whatever one might think about Mr. Justice Scalia, a man who undoubted has never experienced the indescribable ecstasy of an anal orgasm delivered by a proud 8-incher without benefit of his own phallus having been manipulated, the man does indeed write good polemics. His dissent is hilarious with his articulate hysterics.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2015 5:50 PM GMT
    MGINSD said
    Art_Deco said
    FitnessWorker saidhttp://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/gay-marriage-supreme-court-scalia-dissent

    The 10 Most Wild Lines From Antonin Scalia’s Extreme Dissent Over Gay Marriage

    It's fun to read Scalia embrace the wrong side of history.

    "Ask the nearest hippie" may become a great meme. And a wonderful way to mock the leading idiot on the US Supreme Court. While Uncle Thomas is the most stupid, Scalia is the leading pseudo-intellectual, whose faulty reasoning skills can make you go cross-eyed.


    I actually agree w/ Artless for once: it IS fun to read Scalia's dissent, so cogently telling it like it is and cutting thru the majority's whining, ever-so-sensitive crap. Don't get me wrong, I support the majority's result, but not the way it came down. For that, CJ Bobs said it best:

    Indeed, however heartened the proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause. And they lose this just when the winds of change were freshening at their backs.

    How many other Court-ordered laws share the same origin, if not fate?

    And, what Artless post would be complete w/o a little ad hominem attack, in this case a blatantly racist one against Justice Thomas, whose own dissent is equal to the other three in highlighting the majority's faulty reasoning and use of the Due Process Clause. I'm not surprised that Artless is driven cross-eyed, though whether it's by his inability to comprehend any of the opinions - or an early morning raid on the Clamato bottle.


    A) Fuck the majority electorate that would withhold our civil rights. They can take their "true acceptance" or otherwise and shove it up their ass sidewise. Thank you Supreme Court for shoving it up their ass. This is as it should be, not voting on civil rights which derive au naturel, not by fashion.

    B) Do I recall this correctly or did I somehow misunderstand or did you at one point speculate if not predict a Scalia surprise of siding for civil rights for LGBT? Still surprised?
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jun 26, 2015 6:02 PM GMT
    Looks like RJ's resident GOP troglodytes may have lost the battle, but they'll stop at nothing to remain unwed and bitter to the end!icon_mad.gif

    icon_wink.gif

    Congrats to the USA and all the happy couples!!!icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2015 6:04 PM GMT
    HottJoe saidLooks like RJ's resident GOP troglodytes may have lost the battle, but they'll stop at nothing to remain unwed and bitter to the end!icon_mad.gif

    icon_wink.gif

    Congrats to the USA and all the happy couples!!!icon_smile.gif


    What part about supporting the end but not the means don't/won't you understand?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2015 6:08 PM GMT
    Congratulations to USA, it was about time!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2015 6:17 PM GMT
    theantijock said
    MGINSD said
    Art_Deco said
    FitnessWorker saidhttp://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/gay-marriage-supreme-court-scalia-dissent

    The 10 Most Wild Lines From Antonin Scalia’s Extreme Dissent Over Gay Marriage

    It's fun to read Scalia embrace the wrong side of history.

    "Ask the nearest hippie" may become a great meme. And a wonderful way to mock the leading idiot on the US Supreme Court. While Uncle Thomas is the most stupid, Scalia is the leading pseudo-intellectual, whose faulty reasoning skills can make you go cross-eyed.


    I actually agree w/ Artless for once: it IS fun to read Scalia's dissent, so cogently telling it like it is and cutting thru the majority's whining, ever-so-sensitive crap. Don't get me wrong, I support the majority's result, but not the way it came down. For that, CJ Bobs said it best:

    Indeed, however heartened the proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause. And they lose this just when the winds of change were freshening at their backs.

    How many other Court-ordered laws share the same origin, if not fate?

    And, what Artless post would be complete w/o a little ad hominem attack, in this case a blatantly racist one against Justice Thomas, whose own dissent is equal to the other three in highlighting the majority's faulty reasoning and use of the Due Process Clause. I'm not surprised that Artless is driven cross-eyed, though whether it's by his inability to comprehend any of the opinions - or an early morning raid on the Clamato bottle.


    A) Fuck the majority electorate that would withhold our civil rights. They can take their "true acceptance" or otherwise and shove it up their ass sidewise. Thank you Supreme Court for shoving it up their ass. This is as it should be, not voting on civil rights which derive au naturel, not by fashion.

    B) Do I recall this correctly or did I somehow misunderstand or did you at one point speculate if not predict a Scalia surprise of siding for civil rights for LGBT? Still surprised?


    Yes, no-name, I did speculate that Scalia might side with allowing gay marriage. To the extent I did, my optimism was misplaced.
    I like the remainder of your well-put and clearly well-thought-out arguments. Nice marshaling of the facts and application of logic, if not exactly of language: the expression is ex natura, though gay sex is often expressed au naturel, if not al fresco as well.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 26, 2015 6:22 PM GMT
    MGINSD said
    theantijock said
    MGINSD said
    Art_Deco said
    FitnessWorker saidhttp://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/gay-marriage-supreme-court-scalia-dissent

    The 10 Most Wild Lines From Antonin Scalia’s Extreme Dissent Over Gay Marriage

    It's fun to read Scalia embrace the wrong side of history.

    "Ask the nearest hippie" may become a great meme. And a wonderful way to mock the leading idiot on the US Supreme Court. While Uncle Thomas is the most stupid, Scalia is the leading pseudo-intellectual, whose faulty reasoning skills can make you go cross-eyed.


    I actually agree w/ Artless for once: it IS fun to read Scalia's dissent, so cogently telling it like it is and cutting thru the majority's whining, ever-so-sensitive crap. Don't get me wrong, I support the majority's result, but not the way it came down. For that, CJ Bobs said it best:

    Indeed, however heartened the proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause. And they lose this just when the winds of change were freshening at their backs.

    How many other Court-ordered laws share the same origin, if not fate?

    And, what Artless post would be complete w/o a little ad hominem attack, in this case a blatantly racist one against Justice Thomas, whose own dissent is equal to the other three in highlighting the majority's faulty reasoning and use of the Due Process Clause. I'm not surprised that Artless is driven cross-eyed, though whether it's by his inability to comprehend any of the opinions - or an early morning raid on the Clamato bottle.


    A) Fuck the majority electorate that would withhold our civil rights. They can take their "true acceptance" or otherwise and shove it up their ass sidewise. Thank you Supreme Court for shoving it up their ass. This is as it should be, not voting on civil rights which derive au naturel, not by fashion.

    B) Do I recall this correctly or did I somehow misunderstand or did you at one point speculate if not predict a Scalia surprise of siding for civil rights for LGBT? Still surprised?


    Yes, no-name, I did speculate that Scalia might side with allowing gay marriage. To the extent I did, my optimism was misplaced.
    I like the remainder of your well-put and clearly well-thought-out arguments. Nice marshaling of the facts and application of logic, if not exactly of language: the expression is ex natura, though gay sex is often expressed au naturel, if not al fresco as well.


    It felt good to be out of the rain


    peace, man. congrats to us all.