US Supreme Court in historic rulings on gay marriage

[rotary]

Disgusting the whole thing

[geriatrickid]

Disgusting the whole thing

I agree. Shameful too that the 80+ year old lady who had been in a bonafide relationship for 40+ years, and upon who's case judgement was made, was denied some basic rights for so many years.

[Jingthing]

Perhaps predictably, the backlash begins. Some wingnuts from the right wing anti-gay civil rights republican party are proposing an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment. Based on the current number of no gay marriage states, perhaps they have a chance to pass it, but even if they did (it seems very unlikely) it would probably be another case like prohibition where later it gets quashed. The good news is these kinds of intolerant antics from the republican party serve to make it even more unappealing to young American voters, who after all are getting older, meaning they will VOTE more.

“A narrow radical majority of the court has substituted their personal views for the constitutional decisions of the American voters and their elected representatives,” said Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.). “My response will be later this week to file a federal marriage amendment.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/conservatives-promise-legislative-fight-over-marriage/2013/06/26/7c0adffe-deaa-11e2-b2d4-ea6d8f477a01_story.html

[F430murci]

Perhaps predictably, the backlash begins. Some wingnuts from the right wing anti-gay civil rights republican party are proposing an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment. Based on the current number of no gay marriage states, perhaps they have a chance to pass it, but even if they did (it seems very unlikely) it would probably be another case like prohibition where later it gets quashed. The good news is these kinds of intolerant antics from the republican party serve to make it even more unappealing to young American voters, who after all are getting older, meaning they will VOTE more.

“A narrow radical majority of the court has substituted their personal views for the constitutional decisions of the American voters and their elected representatives,” said Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.). “My response will be later this week to file a federal marriage amendment.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/conservatives-promise-legislative-fight-over-marriage/2013/06/26/7c0adffe-deaa-11e2-b2d4-ea6d8f477a01_story.html

Tim Huelskamp is just another farm belt christian rightist wanting to save heathens from themselves and tell others how to live.

In early 2012, Huelskamp introduced legislation to prohibit military chaplains from performing same-sex marriages on military bases in states where such unions are permitted.

He is another whack job straight from a children of the corn tribe.

[smooth expat]

That's good news. Americans are finally treating other human beings as they should be. The problem is they are holding these opinions for the WRONG reasons. I think they are okay with gays in 2013 and not 1983 is because being gay is "cool" now and the flavor of the month. Notice that nobody is promoting incest rights or zoophile rights because they have no support or popularity. Humans are the same bigots in 2013 as they were in 1983.

[qdinthailand]

Disgusting the whole thing

I agree. Shameful too that the 80+ year old lady who had been in a bonafide relationship for 40+ years, and upon who's case judgement was made, was denied some basic rights for so many years.

She basically had to pay a big chunk on inheritance taxes on their joint estate when her partner died, taxes she wouldn't have had to pay if she was a surviving spouse.

[SteeleJoe]

Notice that nobody is promoting incest rights or zoophile rights because they have no support or popularity.

Wow.

I wonder if you even realize what you did there...up to now, I've only seen people do it deliberately. Not sure this time...

[Jingthing]

43 years ago, the first Gay Pride Parade.

Read paragraph 3.

Amazing.

Reason now to REALLY feel pride for all the progress made, in the USA and all over the world, especially for those of us who were early pioneers in this historic civil rights movement:

[folium]

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?

When Ike sent the 101st Airborne into Little Rock, AR, in 1957 to escort black students into the Central High School, he overrode local "democracy" (based on a whites-only voting system) that had elected Gov Faubus. Good for Ike. Application of Federal power at its best.

Gay marriage in the USA is certainly historic. People landing on Mars? Irrelevant. The unmanned Spirit (RIP) and Opportunity are doing/have done a great job and are the drones of the space industry.

Joke is that if you ask a US citizen aged less then 35, they would not think twice about legalizing gay marriage. Even the Republicans have realized that to be electable they have to change their stance on gay marriage, and today on immigration. Sometimes it takes electoral prospects to get people to do the right thing but whatever it takes, doing the right thing always makes for a good day....

[Berkshire]

Notice that nobody is promoting incest rights or zoophile rights because they have no support or popularity.

Wow.

I wonder if you even realize what you did there...up to now, I've only seen people do it deliberately. Not sure this time...

Double wow. Mr. "Smooth" expat is comparing homosexuality to incest and zoophile?? Reminds me of when bigots in the US south were comparing interracial relationships to dogs and cats mating. Mr. Smooth, you may want to recalibrate your thinking as you are displaying an obscene level of ignorance and intolerance.

[SteeleJoe]

Notice that nobody is promoting incest rights or zoophile rights because they have no support or popularity.

Wow.

I wonder if you even realize what you did there...up to now, I've only seen people do it deliberately. Not sure this time...

Double wow. Mr. "Smooth" expat is comparing homosexuality to incest and zoophile?? Reminds me of when bigots in the US south were comparing interracial relationships to dogs and cats mating. Mr. Smooth, you may want to recalibrate your thinking as you are displaying an obscene level of ignorance and intolerance.

Indeed.

Having said that, at least in that analogy, both races were animals and neither was more denigrated than the other...the southern racist in that scenario comes out looking slightly better than smooth expat.

This is hardly an original observation on my part but there is a lot about the opposition to same sex marriage that is reminiscent to the extreme antipathy towards interracial marriage in the previous generations...and it's no less repugnant to me.

[Rust Never Sleeps]

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.

From little things big things grow. Archie Roach

[SaintLouisBlues]

I currently have a relationship with a woman but I have swung both ways in the past, often both ways at the same time. I demand my right to have simultaneous marriages recognized.

[Publicus]

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?

By remanding Prop 8 to the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, the Supreme Court allowed to stand the District Court's ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. The result is that Prop 8 is negated in California.

This was the Supreme Court's purpose in accepting Prop 8, which had been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. District Court in San Francisco and by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, also in San Francisco. In accepting Prop 8, the Supreme Court had nothing it wanted to overturn, as both lower courts had ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional. The Supreme Court accepted the Prop 8 case because it had wanted to make its point concerning Prop 8, i.e., it is unconstitutional.

Thus, with the Supreme Court's ruling the DOMA is unconstitutional, Prop 8 in California is double dead. Consequently, this was a double victory in California for gay rights in civil marriage equality and in general.

Harvey Milk is pleased. The first San Francisco openly gay elected to the Board of City Supervisors, and one of the few openly gay elected officials in the United States, Harvey was shot and killed in his office in 1978 by an opponent on the Board, who after a prison term concluded committed suicide. So thank you to you, Harvey Milk. In 2009 Harvey Milk was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Prez Obama, the highest civilian award in the United States.

Harvey Milk, Hero and Martyr

http://www.kqed.org/w/hood/castro/resourceguide/harveymilk.html

[MrRealDeal]

The important part of the prop 8 case was that is was in fact heard by the Court , as much of it as they needed to hear anyhow , and the decision said that the people bringing the case had not been harmed and lacked standing to bring the case , but more importantly the government was not harmed because Gay marriage is not harmful to the government or the people they represent and also lacked standing.

To say they didn't hear the case and didn't decide anything would be wrong.

[SteeleJoe]

I currently have a relationship with a woman but I have swung both ways in the past, often both ways at the same time. I demand my right to have simultaneous marriages recognized.

I hope that wasn't meant as an attempt to make a point, rather than just a joke. Heterosexuals aren't allowed to be polygamists so why would bisexuals? Moreover the law doesn't now say EVERYONE has the right to marry someone of the same gender (ie even if they are already married).

I post this only because I have seen some truly absurd arguments against gay marriage that were weakly disguised as rational with fallacious claims of dangers and contradictions of inherent in allowing same sex marriage.

[MrRealDeal]

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?

By remanding Prop 8 to the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, the Supreme Court allowed to stand the District Court's ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. The result is that Prop 8 is negated in California.

This was the Supreme Court's purpose in accepting Prop 8, which had been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. District Court in San Francisco and by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, also in San Francisco. In accepting Prop 8, the Supreme Court had nothing it wanted to overturn, as both lower courts had ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional. The Supreme Court accepted the Prop 8 case because it had wanted to make its point concerning Prop 8, i.e., it is unconstitutional.

Thus, with the Supreme Court's ruling the DOMA is unconstitutional, Prop 8 in California is double dead. Consequently, this was a double victory in California for gay rights in civil marriage equality and in general.

Harvey Milk is pleased. The first San Francisco openly gay elected to the Board of City Supervisors, and one of the few openly gay elected officials in the United States, Harvey was shot and killed in his office in 1978 by an opponent on the Board, who after a prison term concluded committed suicide. So thank you to you, Harvey Milk. In 2009 Harvey Milk was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Prez Obama, the highest civilian award in the United States.

Harvey Milk, Hero and Martyr

http://www.kqed.org/w/hood/castro/resourceguide/harveymilk.html

That's an absurd conspiracy theory to say that the Supreme Court took a case because before they heard the evidence they had decided on how they were going to rule.

They took the case because the question merited their time , not because they decided the case before they heard it and wanted to make a point.

[F430murci]

That's good news. Americans are finally treating other human beings as they should be. The problem is they are holding these opinions for the WRONG reasons. I think they are okay with gays in 2013 and not 1983 is because being gay is "cool" now and the flavor of the month. Notice that nobody is promoting incest rights or zoophile rights because they have no support or popularity. Humans are the same bigots in 2013 as they were in 1983.

I think it has more to do with the differing mentality possessed by different generations. Baby boomers growing up in the 50s generally or probably possessed different views of the way family life was growing up than we experienced growing up in the 70s and 80s.

[Scott]

Off-topic post deleted as well as replies.

[Maestro]

A post calling for murder has been removed.

[Publicus]

The Sesame Street generation.

The New Yorker's Brilliant Cover On The Supreme Court's Gay Marriage Decisions

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/bert-ernie-new-yorker-cover-gay-marriage-supreme-court-doma-2013-6#ixzz2XYxhRWQ6

[Publicus]

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?

Gay Marriages Resume Immediately In California After Federal Court’s OK

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/06/28/federal-court-oks-gay-marriage-to-resume-in-california-immediately/

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS SF) — The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, filed an order late Friday afternoon allowing same-sex marriages to resume in California immediately.

Supreme Court orders usually take 25 days to go into effect, but the 9th Circuit’s filing on Friday vacated a stay and allowed the state to resume issuing same-sex marriage licenses right away.

At San Francisco City Hall, officials quickly conducted California’s first same-sex marriage ceremony at 4:45 p.m. between Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, both of Berkeley. They were one of two couples whom successfully challenged the state’s Proposition 8 ban in court.

[Jingthing]

The Sesame Street generation.

The New Yorker's Brilliant Cover On The Supreme Court's Gay Marriage Decisions

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/bert-ernie-new-yorker-cover-gay-marriage-supreme-court-doma-2013-6#ixzz2XYxhRWQ6

It's funny but to be fair, there is a dissent about the cover:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/06/28/bert_and_ernie_on_new_yorker_cover_for_gay_marriage_a_terrible_way_to_commemorate.html

[Jingthing]

A history of gay marriage related New Yorker covers starting in 1994:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2013/06/slide-show-gay-marriage-on-the-new-yorkers-cover.html#slide_ss_0=1

[SaintLouisBlues]

No less a serious magazine than The Economist now argues for a serious consideration of multiple marriages http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/06/slippery-slopes

If gender does not matter neither should number.

[Jingthing]

No less a serious magazine than The Economist now argues for a serious consideration of multiple marriages http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/06/slippery-slopes

If gender does not matter neither should number.

I consider this off topic. Gay rights advocates have their own fight and it ain't over. If significant numbers of people are seriously wanting to change the polygamy laws: Do It Yourself and be prepared to work for decades to achieve anything, if it all. I don't like your odds though it is true nobody would have given the gay marriage equality movement any chance decades ago.

[SaintLouisBlues]

Why is it off topic? Those who have opposed gay marriage routinely say that allowing it is the first step on the slippery slope to plural marriage and that since gender does not matter neither should number. If you bothered to read the article you would see that that precise point is addressed. I know it's always the technique of the Left to shut down discussions of any inconvenient truth but this issue is completely integral to a discussion of the question "what is marriage?"

[Jingthing]

Why is it off topic? Those who have opposed gay marriage routinely say that allowing it is the first step on the slippery slope to plural marriage and that since gender does not matter neither should number. If you bothered to read the article you would see that that precise point is addressed. I know it's always the technique of the Left to shut down discussions of any inconvenient truth but this issue is completely integral to a discussion of the question "what is marriage?"

Gay marriage equality, FULL, may still be decades away. Now we've got 70 percent support of the under 30's. What percentage of under 30's do you reckon support legalized polygamy? Now I don't know but if I had to guess I would say 25 percent. Allying these two issues would DESTROY the gay marriage equality movement. No thanks. They are separate.

Also, yes polygamy legalization is off topic. The topic is about GAY marriage, not polygamy.

When there is a polygamy topic, then that's the time to discuss polygamy.

Any kind of linkage of any "other" kind of marriage "progression" whether polygamy, or bestiality, or whatever is almost always a argument to weaken the argument for gay marriage equality. Again, no thanks. If these "other" situations have merit, they need to start their OWN movements and take them to the public forum like any other interest group.

[Scott]

I think there are other places to discuss polygamy. It's a red herring in this thread and it is off-topic.

[lomatopo]

The New Yorker cover - double-summer issue July 8 & 15 - is a classic, titled "Moment of Joy".

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2013/06/new-yorker-cover-bert-ernie-gay-marriage.html