US Supreme Court in historic rulings on gay marriage

[webfact]

US Supreme Court in historic rulings on gay marriage

WASHINGTON: -- The US Supreme Court has struck down a law denying federal benefits to gay couples and cleared the way for same-sex marriage in California.

The justices said that the Defense of Marriage Act, known as Doma, discriminated against same-sex couples.

They also declined to rule on Proposition 8, California's prohibition of gay marriage, in effect allowing such unions to resume in the state.

Opinion polls indicate that most Americans support same-sex marriage.

Wednesday's decisions do not affect the bans on gay unions enshrined in the constitutions of more than 30 US states.

But the California ruling means that 13 US states and the District of Columbia now recognise same-sex marriage.

Full story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23068454


-- BBC 2013-06-27

[Tatsujin]

+1

[F430murci]

Good decision.

Edited June 27, 2013 by F430murci

[Ulysses G.]

I agree that gay couples should get federal benefits, but not that the defintion of marriage should be changed against the wishes of the voters. I'm 50/50 on this one.

[SteeleJoe]

I agree that gay couples should get federal benefits, but not that the defintion of marriage should be changed against the wishes of the voters. I'm 50/50 on this one.

I'll try again (even though I am fairly sure it will be as futile as the last time I repeatedly asked you and others but never got a reply):

Why does it matter if "the definition of marriage" (ie ONE definition - and not one that is universally held) is changed?

[Berkshire]

I agree that gay couples should get federal benefits, but not that the defintion of marriage should be changed against the wishes of the voters. I'm 50/50 on this one.

In matters of individual rights, voters really shouldn't have been allowed to deny a small minority their equal rights. The Supreme Court is on the right side of history on this one.

[Rust Never Sleeps]

Good to see the US Supreme Court show some enlightenment.

Back in Australia we have a neanderthal, Senator Cory Bernardi who believes homosexuality leads to beastiality

[Suradit69]

I agree that gay couples should get federal benefits, but not that the defintion of marriage should be changed against the wishes of the voters. I'm 50/50 on this one.

Presumably any definition set by the Supreme Court would only apply in legal applications such as federal benefits and tax situations. At that level and for those purposes it's all a form of FedSpeak-lawyer gibberish anyway.

They don't intend to control what individuals, religions, writers, actors, singers, good ole boys, et al may choose to mean when they say, or refrain from saying, "marriage." So what possible difference could it make to voters (many of whom still believe the earth is flat) how some 99 year old senile justice pontificating in a black robe defines "marriage?"

Here's how the federal government defines (in part) ice cream:

(a)Description. (1) Ice cream is a food produced by freezing, while stirring, a pasteurized mix consisting of one or more of the optional dairy ingredients specified in paragraph ( of this section, and may contain one or more of the optional caseinates specified in paragraph © of this section subject to the conditions hereinafter set forth, one or more of the optional hydrolyzed milk proteins as provided for in paragraph (d) of this section subject to the conditions hereinafter set forth, and other safe and suitable nonmilk-derived ingredients; and excluding other food fats, except such as are natural components of flavoring ingredients used or are added in incidental amounts to accomplish specific functions. Ice cream is sweetened with safe and suitable sweeteners and may be characterized by the addition of flavoring ingredients.

(2) Ice cream contains not less than 1.6 pounds of total solids to the gallon, and weighs not less than 4.5 pounds to the gallon. Ice cream contains not less than 10 percent milkfat, nor less than 10 percent nonfat milk solids, except that when it contains milkfat at 1 percent increments above the 10 percent minimum, it may contain the following milkfat-to-nonfat milk solids levels:

Does anyone really care? Do you use this definition when you ask for Cherry Garcia at the Baskin-Robbins? Are voters up in arms? Has Pat Robertson announced that locusts will be visited upon the Supreme Court Bldg? Is Pat Robertson still alive?

Edited June 27, 2013 by Suradit69

[Jingthing]

I agree that gay couples should get federal benefits, but not that the defintion of marriage should be changed against the wishes of the voters. I'm 50/50 on this one.

News flash: the most recent STATE marriage voters APPROVED legal gay MARRIAGES in their states. As well over 70 percent of Americans under 30 approve of legal gay MARRIAGE, it's only a matter of time before the majority of ALL American voters would approve of gay MARRIAGE by popular vote in all states and certainly nationally even sooner. Civil rights for minorities, however, should not be left up to popular votes alone. It is a very apt area for constitutionally based JUSTICE. Thank you Supreme Court for moving this issue along. Still many years to go until TOTAL equality, but the direction has (hopefully) been set.

For those who think this American gay civil rights battle over, no, sadly, it isn't. Though it is MAJOR victory and the big celebrations are well justified, and many DECADES in the making to reach this historic turning point.

There are still those majority of U.S. states that don't offer legal gay marriages, the complications of different states having different rules and how that meshes with federal law, the important matter of SOCIAL SECURITY which must be decided by congress (currently controlled by the anti-gay republicans) which means this ruling does NOTHING to change federal treatment of gay married for social security, and the ultimate goal of course is for ALL discrimination against people just based on sexual orientation to be unconstitutional nationally for any aspect of life, not just marriage rights, etc.

The presidential elections and supreme court picks will still be crucial. These decisions were 5-4. If a republican replaces Obama and gets a few picks, any future even wider cases in the new court related to these issues either won't be heard or ruled in anti-gay way. So that could delay the inevitable civil rights full wins for another generation. So while the odds are on the ark of history towards full gay civil rights, current POLITICS still makes a difference, in the sense of the ultimate timing of achieving the full goals.

Even now Obama as president has a lot of power to rule on implementing a lot of the implied federal inclusion of gay married in federal rights, but as said, he can't do everything, he can't change social security rules without congress.

This does appear to be immediate good news for bi-national gay couples though!

Edited June 27, 2013 by Jingthing

[SteeleJoe]

There isn't just one definition of "marriage" - that is self evident and indisputable. An example of one (from Cambridge) is: "a legally accepted relationship between two people in which they live together, or the official ceremony that results in this".

But even if every dictionary or legal code in the world specified that a "marriage" can only be between people of opposite genders, why - in that totally hypothetical world - should the definition not be changed?

I keep asking this because I see so, so many people sticking to that one "point" (to be generous) to justify their opposition to same sex marriage - "we should not be forced to change the definition" (or the versions thereof) and it not only mystifies me but I can't help but think it is disingenuous (at best) and deliberately obfuscatory.

[Jingthing]

The anti-gay arguments are going to get weaker and weaker.

Governor Huckabee tweeted: Jesus wept.

The proper response being, who cares, the USA is not a theocracy!

[SteeleJoe]

The anti-gay arguments are going to get weaker and weaker.

Governor Huckabee tweeted: Jesus wept.

The proper response being, who cares, the USA is not a theocracy!

Indeed.

Asfar as I can figure - I invite someone to offer another explanation - the only possible means that someone might justify why "the definition of marriage" should not be changed is because (their interpretation of) their religion doesn't allow for it or because they have an issue with homosexuality and homosexuals and can't stomach the idea of them being allowed equality (or perhaps doing anything in their favor).

If it's a religious thing, then that's got NOTHING to do with law in the US (or any legitimate democracy or approximation thereof). If it's just prejudice, fear and animosity...then that too is, needless to say, not grounds for legal findings and is something to be shunned by society and negated by legislation to the extent possible, rather than perpetuated.

[Wombat6]

Perhaps Thai Visa can open an American Forum so that the rest of us do not have to be bothered/bored with useless information.

[Jingthing]

Perhaps Thai Visa can open an American Forum so that the rest of us do not have to be bothered/bored with useless information.

Perhaps, but when France legalized gay marriage that was a topic here too. The USA is part of the world of world news, eh?

I do think when big countries like France legalize gay marriage that is news of interest to the world and may have an influence on the rest of the world as well.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Jingthing

[BeforeTigers]

Finally, something for us to be proud of.

Faith in the system at an all-decade high today.
Which is to say; hovering just above zero.

[SteeleJoe]

Perhaps Thai Visa can open an American Forum so that the rest of us do not have to be bothered/bored with useless information.

Perhaps they will also stop forcing to open threads that don't interest you, read them, and comment on them. Oh, wait...they don't do that.

Well, at least there are no other threads on the forum that are about things that only interest certain people...ooops, there are thousands of them - as any idiot would recognize that there has to be...

You decide it's useless (an entirely arbitrary and subjective call) and you are somehow bothered by its very existence. What could Thai Visa do about your particular problem?

[Rust Never Sleeps]

Perhaps Thai Visa can open an American Forum so that the rest of us do not have to be bothered/bored with useless information.

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you an Australian?

Currently there is another topic in the World News section in regards to a new Australian Prime Minister. Should we also open an Australian Forum as to not bore non-Australians with useless information.

Although I do not agree with many policies of America, this particular judgement I feel can major positive influence on giving equality to gay and lesbians around the world.Like it or not America is still the most influential nation on earth.

BTW I am an Australian embarressed by our stone-age thinking towards equality for all, by the inaction of our politicians.

[thaibeachlovers]

I agree that gay couples should get federal benefits, but not that the defintion of marriage should be changed against the wishes of the voters. I'm 50/50 on this one.

In matters of individual rights, voters really shouldn't have been allowed to deny a small minority their equal rights. The Supreme Court is on the right side of history on this one.

It's a "democracy". The majority is supposed to rule. Seems that "democracy" only applies when the government says it does.

BTW, it's hardly "historic". The court only ruled that all legally married people are entitled to government benefits and refused to rule on Prop 8.

It's not like people landed on Mars, is it?

[Jingthing]

Of course it is historic, but it's not the final chapter.

Nobody really expected this court to go all the way at this stage.

[SteeleJoe]

I agree that gay couples should get federal benefits, but not that the defintion of marriage should be changed against the wishes of the voters. I'm 50/50 on this one.

In matters of individual rights, voters really shouldn't have been allowed to deny a small minority their equal rights. The Supreme Court is on the right side of history on this one.

It's a "democracy". The majority is supposed to rule. Seems that "democracy" only applies when the government says it does.

BTW, it's hardly "historic". The court only ruled that all legally married people are entitled to government benefits and refused to rule on Prop 8.

It's not like people landed on Mars, is it?

You show a rather remarkably uninformed idea of how the system works, or is supposed to, and your idea of what is or isn't a democracy is breathtakingly simplistic. Maybe you could start with getting a grasp on the branches of government, how the people serving in them get where they are and what checks and balances they serve under - I'd begin with the Judicial if I were you...

And he didn't say it was historic ( though by definition, it is). The phrase he used has a rather different meaning - one that has eluded you.

[Jingthing]

Here is a comedic take on this from the DAILY SHOW.

For those who don't know, the Daily Show (and also the Colbert Report) is how the majority of younger people get their news. Yes, comedy shows.

This should tell people more about where the young Americans are at on gay civil rights. Ain't it grand!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-june-26-2013-josh-fox

(BTW, the host John Stewart is on leave to make a movie.)

Edited June 27, 2013 by Jingthing

[Berkshire]

I agree that gay couples should get federal benefits, but not that the defintion of marriage should be changed against the wishes of the voters. I'm 50/50 on this one.

In matters of individual rights, voters really shouldn't have been allowed to deny a small minority their equal rights. The Supreme Court is on the right side of history on this one.

It's a "democracy". The majority is supposed to rule. Seems that "democracy" only applies when the government says it does.

BTW, it's hardly "historic". The court only ruled that all legally married people are entitled to government benefits and refused to rule on Prop 8.

It's not like people landed on Mars, is it?

It seems that this ruling was not to your liking. Too bad. Regardless, the point I was making was that sometimes the government does have

to step in and protect individual rights. The example brought up many times is that if slavery had been brought to referendum back in the day,

the majority at the time would have voted to keep it legal. Clearly, the "majority" would have been wrong.

And as SteelyJoe pointed out, I did not say it was "historic," although I could have. Same-sex marriage will eventually be legal everywhere in

the USA. It's just a matter of time. So history will look back and recognize that the Supreme Court made the right decision.

[Jingthing]

The Colbert report take on it:

http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/wed-june-26-2013-bill-moyers

For those who don't know, Colbert plays a character of a right wing zealot. (It's satire.)

[thaibeachlovers]

I agree that gay couples should get federal benefits, but not that the defintion of marriage should be changed against the wishes of the voters. I'm 50/50 on this one.

In matters of individual rights, voters really shouldn't have been allowed to deny a small minority their equal rights. The Supreme Court is on the right side of history on this one.

It's a "democracy". The majority is supposed to rule. Seems that "democracy" only applies when the government says it does.

BTW, it's hardly "historic". The court only ruled that all legally married people are entitled to government benefits and refused to rule on Prop 8.

It's not like people landed on Mars, is it?

You show a rather remarkably uninformed idea of how the system works, or is supposed to, and your idea of what is or isn't a democracy is breathtakingly simplistic. Maybe you could start with getting a grasp on the branches of government, how the people serving in them get where they are and what checks and balances they serve under - I'd begin with the Judicial if I were you...

And he didn't say it was historic ( though by definition, it is). The phrase he used has a rather different meaning - one that has eluded you.

You must have failed to read the headline to the OP. It mentions "historic".

I do know the definition of "democracy"- by the people etc. Perhaps you think it's something else.

[Pacificperson]

Its interesting that the ruling was based on a tax dispute. It appears that married gay couples will now also be subject to the marriage penalty in the US income tax code.

[Jingthing]

Its interesting that the ruling was based on a tax dispute. It appears that married gay couples will now also be subject to the marriage penalty in the US income tax code.

Yes which is another reason why all inequality must end. My understanding is that gay marrieds are still not eligible for social security survivor benefits. Same taxation without the same benefits rights, that is just wrong. Sadly congress has to act and for that to happen congress will have to be changed a lot.

BTW, there is a Thai expat angle to this story.

If I'm reading this change correctly Americans in Thailand might have the option of importing their same sex Thai spouses, just like straight people.

Not suggesting that would a sensible thing to do really but it would be nice to have the same rights and choices.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Its interesting that the ruling was based on a tax dispute. It appears that married gay couples will now also be subject to the marriage penalty in the US income tax code.

*Deleted post edited out*

That is true but keep in mind gay marriage is not REQUIRED.

This might sound odd to some people but the reason I am so happy that gay civil rights is advancing so well in the USA is not based on any selfish intention to get gay married EVER personally, but in regard to the upcoming generations of gay YOUNG PEOPLE, so they can grow up in country where they know they are not being treated as second class citizens (like I did).

The ultimate goal of the movement is not only marriage rights, but rather sexual orientation discrimination to become illegal in ALL aspects of life. The drive for marriage equality was a tactical decision made by some very smart people. I think it's working out great and much faster than most of us thought it would. I think 10 years ago most gay rights advocates thought it would take 50 years to get where we're at now ... so yes the future of gay civil rights in the USA looks bright.

Marriage equality is hugely SYMBOLIC and of course very real to the individuals it directly impacts, but it is just part of the gay civil rights movement.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Scott

[Pacificperson]

Its interesting that the ruling was based on a tax dispute. It appears that married gay couples will now also be subject to the marriage penalty in the US income tax code.

*Deleted post edited out*

That is true but keep in mind gay marriage is not REQUIRED.

This might sound odd to some people but the reason I am so happy that gay civil rights is advancing so well in the USA is not based on any selfish intention to get gay married EVER personally, but in regard to the upcoming generations of gay YOUNG PEOPLE, so they can grow up in country where they know they are not being treated as second class citizens (like I did).

The ultimate goal of the movement is not only marriage rights, but rather sexual orientation discrimination to become illegal in ALL aspects of life. The drive for marriage equality was a tactical decision made by some very smart people. I think it's working out great and much faster than most of us thought it would. I think 10 years ago most gay rights advocates thought it would take 50 years to get where we're at now ... so yes the future of gay civil rights in the USA looks bright.

Marriage equality is hugely SYMBOLIC and of course very real to the individuals it directly impacts, but it is just part of the gay civil rights movement.

There is a practical aspect. A good friend has a long term partner and an adopted child. His partner has not been as financially successful as he has. We we work together. My wife will have a survivors' pension if I die and the kids will be cared for. His partner will not. It is a big burden for him to try to compensate for this inequality in our retirement plan.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Scott

[Jingthing]

Of course. It's no secret there is a strong economic aspect to marriage.

[CIHUAHUA]

A rose is a rose . . . "When you are in love, you are in heaven and in heaven anything goes." Love, love, love, love, OH, love, love, love - love you at least till monday.