SCOTUS rules in on gay marriage.

[Hammersmith]

I'm pulling this from another site, but I figgured it's point of order wasn't so much as political as it was revolutionary and a balm for a lot of people.

 

WOOOOOOOOOO long time coming, thanks to all the ones who dug their heels in so hard and who elevated this in importance to the point where Scotus had to lean in

 

Decision below:

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

 

Scotus

Originally Posted by SCOTUS

Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage

between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage

between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully

licensed and performed out-of-State.

 

 

Scotus

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.

 

 

And there's some absolutely delightful old man crying tears in the dissents.

 

'Scalia's dissent has an awesome footnote on page 7 (note 22): he says, "If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

[AquiziTC]

Scalia's masterful use of hyperbole NEVER fails to entertain.

[Hammersmith]

Scalia's masterful use of hyperbole NEVER fails to entertain.

 

Scalia is a precious, precious baby.

 

 Scalia

Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. “The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.” (Really? 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. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.)

 

In the year of our lord 2015 a member of the high court uses hippies as an example of contemporary morales and martial intimacy.

[Gegenji]

Scalia is a precious, precious baby.

 

 Scalia

spirituality [whatever that means]

 

 

D-Does Scalia not understand what spirituality means?

[Hammersmith]

So.  Uh.  While Scalia is a laughable clown...Thomas is...legitimately unhinged and scary in a dark and frightening way:

 

JUSTICE THOMAS WHO SITS ON THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

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.

[Martiallais]

So first and most importantly, that's great news to hear! I know some very happy folks due to this news!

 

In response to the other quotes/commentary (ESPECIALLY the last one) all I can say is...what.the actual. fuck.

[Gone.]

About time. Now maybe we can start working on trans rights so hopefully I'm actually considered a human being within some period of my limited life span.

 

p.s. who wants to marry me?

[Hammersmith]

About time. Now maybe we can start working on trans rights so hopefully I'm actually considered a human being within some period of my limited life span.

 

p.s. who wants to marry me?

 

This is a good point about this not being a peak/final solution all things are fixed forever and needs to be kept in mind.

 

Good step here, but a long way to go.

[Melodia]

While I am genuinely not enjoying my week thus far, this news did make me happy. I am happy for my friends and relatives and everyone out there this ruling will help.

[Addison]

While I'm happy for the overall ruling, the fact that it won by such a narrow margin just proves we will have a long way to go. And I can't imagine what kind of crap the people against this ruling are going to pull, especially those in power in Congress.

[Thorgar]

About time. Now maybe we can start working on trans rights so hopefully I'm actually considered a human being within some period of my limited life span.

 

p.s. who wants to marry me?

you are human, unless your have horns and a tail then your a cooler human lol.

[Thorgar]

While I'm happy for the overall ruling, the fact that it won by such a narrow margin just proves we will have a long way to go. And I can't imagine what kind of crap the people against this ruling are going to pull, especially those in power in Congress.

sadly its one of many leftover laws based on the puritan belief system. Im glad they finally kicked that one.  Never made sense to me why it was even an issue.  Its not like its going to force everyone to have same sex marriages, but shyte life can be a pain in the arse so once you find that person who makes it worth while why would'nt you marry them?

 

oh did anyone else read Scrotum in the title or am i just that tired?

[Kage]

While I'm happy for the overall ruling, the fact that it won by such a narrow margin just proves we will have a long way to go. And I can't imagine what kind of crap the people against this ruling are going to pull, especially those in power in Congress.

It was not unexpected. For the most part there is party and social conservative lines in place in SCOTUS.

[Hammersmith]

I want to start a deadpool of bets on which state will try to use the Theory of Nullification on the 14'th amendment first.

[Dat Oni]

So.  Uh.  While Scalia is a laughable clown...Thomas is...legitimately unhinged and scary in a dark and frightening way:

 

JUSTICE THOMAS WHO SITS ON THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

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.

 

 

...

 

[Thorgar]

So.  Uh.  While Scalia is a laughable clown...Thomas is...legitimately unhinged and scary in a dark and frightening way:

 

JUSTICE THOMAS WHO SITS ON THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

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.

 

 

...

 

wow.... im not sure if he was trying to convey something good and just botched it or needs to be lynched.

[cherrybomb]

JUSTICE THOMAS WHO SITS ON THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

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.

 

Haha, goddamn. Gotta love it when a member of the Supreme Court is running around saying stuff that looks like random garbage plucked right out of Stormfront.

 

(and by "love" i mean "feel the hate flow through, bitter and warm, like a shot of cheap whiskey")

[Erik Mynhier]

So.  Uh.  While Scalia is a laughable clown...Thomas is...legitimately unhinged and scary in a dark and frightening way:

 

JUSTICE THOMAS WHO SITS ON THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

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.

 

Well remember Thomas was the man that taught a country what sexual harassment was. I am older then a lot of you and I remember when he was accused of harassment when his name went up to join the court. A lot of people in America either had never noticed such behavior, or had never put a name to it when they had.

[Tortles]

It's getting chipped away at, and is going to still take a long, long time.

[Jana]

 

The funniest part is how many people are threatening to move to Canada!

[BumblingSeaBiscuit]

 

The funniest part is how many people are threatening to move to Canada!

 

. . .I do hope it isn't to get away from gay marriage because, uh, well, you see. . .

Congratulations America. <3

[K'hatos]

I thought Scalia was just an old wives' tale.

[Zyrusticae]

About time. Now maybe we can start working on trans rights so hopefully I'm actually considered a human being within some period of my limited life span.

 

p.s. who wants to marry me?

 

That's the dream, ain't it?

 

A lot of times it feels like it just ain't happening in this lifetime... but then stuff like this happens. Maybe there's hope after all?

[Sylentmana]

 

The funniest part is how many people are threatening to move to Canada!

The only reason one should move to Canada is for the bacon.

[Enla]

About time. Now maybe we can start working on trans rights so hopefully I'm actually considered a human being within some period of my limited life span.

 

p.s. who wants to marry me?

 

That's the dream, ain't it?

 

A lot of times it feels like it just ain't happening in this lifetime... but then stuff like this happens. Maybe there's hope after all?

 

With how fast social change has been coming in the last hundred years, let alone the last -ten- I wouldn't be surprised if something akin to trans acceptance starts gaining more traction in the coming decade. Hell, approval of gays jumped in the near decade since the whole recent debacle started in something that was almost nearly unprecedented. I had honestly thought that back when all this was happened and when Prop 8 was passed that I would never see gay marriage legalized until I was well and into my twilight years. Yet look at how far we've come. It's not perfect and we should never settle until gay marriage is simply known as marriage within the population at large and enjoys full equality across the country, but that sort of sweeping change in public opinion is almost unprecedented at any other time in history. It isn't just the issue of gay marriage either, so many other social issues are having sweeping changes in the court of public opinion to the point where I'm rather interested to see what things will be like in another decade.

 

I will say though I'm honestly laughing at how so many states are trying to circumvent the ruling. At least two are debating removing the option to issue marriage licenses entirely while the rest are hurrying to pass laws that assure their constituents that -yes- people don't -have- to marry someone who they have religious objections to marrying. Why anyone would want to be married in a religious setting where the person marrying them has an objection to who they are is beyond me. I wouldn't want to ruin that sort of occasion by having, say, the pastor spit fire at me with their gaze throughout the entire ceremony. Though I'm not sure of the legality when it comes to governmental workers who are just issuing the licenses.