Supreme Court declares US-wide right to same-sex marriage

[Scott]

Some particularly nasty off-topic, inflammatory posts and replies have been removed.

People are allowed to post on a topic regardless of their nationality. We have a number of posters who have a great deal of insight and/or into the US political landscape.

Posters are required to stay within the rules and as long as that is done, they are welcome to post.

[Publicus]

The legacy of the Obama presidency has begun to take a definitive shape and it is looking good.

The right has lost big time in this and on a number of its important fronts.

Big time.

The right? There you go again. Right, left, political polarization and etc.

The fact is, most Americans are totally cool with this. It is just the out spoken weirdos (typically on both sides) that get all of the media circus attention.

This has zero to do with Obama legacy. The Supreme Court could give two cents less about his legacy.

I mean seriously, does Obama take credit for and do you give him credit for a sunny day at the beach during a vacation?

I'd called to your attention the fact the 'left" in the United States is not the European "left" which means it is insignificant in US politics and government. No threat to the Constitution or American society has ever come from the "left" and none is present now from the "left."

The menace is the right wing, from the KKK to McCarthyism to the tea party to the evangelical right and more.

The post also misrepresents me on the point of the legacy of the Obama presidency. I never said or implied SCOTUS ruled to give Barack Obama a legacy or to contribute to it or that the nine justices of the Court based their decision on the matter of an Obama legacy.

SCOTUS made its ruling. The ruling happened to contribute to the increasingly clear legacy of the Barack Obama presidency.

So the "left-right" politics campaign of late exhibited in yet another post is quite the forced march instead.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Publicus

[attrayant]

What did Obama really do that changed anything or sped up the process that would not have happened anyway.

He's been one of the most outspoken presidents on this issue, and even though there wasn't much he could do before the vote, at least he did this after it:

[geriatrickid]

Wow, the liberals got their wish. Now men can legally marry other men. It seems they may be successful in getting South Carolina to stop flying the Confederate flag as well.

What's next, not allowing people to smoke (unless it's marijuana), no more fast food, unable to say God in school, make gun ownership illegal, and ban saying Merry Christmas (use Happy Holidays instead).

The bubonic plague is like the common cold compared to liberalism.

Why do you claim that the liberals got their wish? Many people who are not liberals campaigned for same sex marriage. What about that amicus brief that was filed with the Supreme Court in support of gay marriage? Signatories included; former Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman, conservative commentators S.E. Cupp and Alex Castellanos, former White House chief of staff Ken Duberstein, former Mitt Romney senior advisers Beth Myers and Carl Forti, conservative economists Doug Holtz-Eakin (formerly director of the Congressional Budget Office) and Greg Mankiw (formerly on the Council of Economic Advisers), former senator Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), former homeland security adviser Fran Townsend and former Massachusetts state Senate minority leader Richard Tisei. Retired General Stanley McChrystal signed too.

These conservatives stated that they “have concluded that marriage is strengthened, and its value to society and to individual families and couples is promoted, by providing access to civil marriage for all American couples—heterosexual or gay or lesbian alike. In particular, civil marriage provides stability for the children of same-sex couples, the value of which cannot be overestimated. In light of these conclusions, amici believe that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits States from denying same-sex couples the legal rights and responsibilities that flow from the institution of civil marriage.” They went on to ask the SCOTUS "to protect our most cherished liberties against overreaching by the government, including overreach through an act of legislature or electorate. That principle, no less than our commitment to democratic self-government, is necessary to individual freedom and limited government.”

Smoking is a deadly activity. The only reason it is allowed is because it has been around so long. This doesn't make it right.

Most fast food is poisonous. Slick advertising convinces people otherwise. There is a reason why the fast food chains resist disclosing the chemical additives and the source of their ingredients. People would not be eating at some chains if they knew that the "white chicken" they were eating was actually processed skin, offal and trimmings bleached and then shaped to resemble chicken. Do you know why the sodium content is so high in most fast food? It's needed to conceal the actual taste of products that are neither fresh nor wholesome.

No one is trying to make gun ownership illegal. What intelligent people are trying to do is to ensure that there are proper screenings of gun purchases. It is reprehensible that anyone, whether it is a violent felon or a wacko can go to a gun show or to a private vendor and purchase a gun, no questions asked. It is reprehensible that a wacko like Dylaan Roof and an offender was allowed to legally obtain a firearm.

No one is forbidden from saying God in a school. What is forbidden is the state using public facilities to promote a state religion.

In respect to Merry Christmas, no one is banned from saying it. However, there is a separation of church and state and public officials should not use their office or public money to promote a pagan festival.

Ignorance and gross hyperbole spoken from self proclaimed conservatives is just as bad as the extremist filth that comes from ISIS/ISIL.

[geriatrickid]

What did Obama really do that changed anything or sped up the process that would not have happened anyway.

He's been one of the most outspoken presidents on this issue, and even though there wasn't much he could do before the vote, at least he did this after it:

Offensive photoshop

[attrayant]

No, it's a hilarious photoshop.

[attrayant]

Wow, the liberals got their wish. Now men can legally marry other men. It seems they may be successful in getting South Carolina to stop flying the Confederate flag as well.

What's next, not allowing people to smoke (unless it's marijuana), no more fast food, unable to say God in school, make gun ownership illegal, and ban saying Merry Christmas (use Happy Holidays instead).

The bubonic plague is like the common cold compared to liberalism.

Why do you claim that the liberals got their wish? Many people who are not liberals campaigned for same sex marriage. What about that amicus brief that was filed with the Supreme Court in support of gay marriage? Signatories included; former Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman, conservative commentators S.E. Cupp and Alex Castellanos, former White House chief of staff Ken Duberstein, former Mitt Romney senior advisers Beth Myers and Carl Forti, conservative economists Doug Holtz-Eakin (formerly director of the Congressional Budget Office) and Greg Mankiw (formerly on the Council of Economic Advisers), former senator Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), former homeland security adviser Fran Townsend and former Massachusetts state Senate minority leader Richard Tisei. Retired General Stanley McChrystal signed too.

These conservatives stated that they “have concluded that marriage is strengthened, and its value to society and to individual families and couples is promoted, by providing access to civil marriage for all American couples—heterosexual or gay or lesbian alike. In particular, civil marriage provides stability for the children of same-sex couples, the value of which cannot be overestimated. In light of these conclusions, amici believe that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits States from denying same-sex couples the legal rights and responsibilities that flow from the institution of civil marriage.” They went on to ask the SCOTUS "to protect our most cherished liberties against overreaching by the government, including overreach through an act of legislature or electorate. That principle, no less than our commitment to democratic self-government, is necessary to individual freedom and limited government.”

Smoking is a deadly activity. The only reason it is allowed is because it has been around so long. This doesn't make it right.

Most fast food is poisonous. Slick advertising convinces people otherwise. There is a reason why the fast food chains resist disclosing the chemical additives and the source of their ingredients. People would not be eating at some chains if they knew that the "white chicken" they were eating was actually processed skin, offal and trimmings bleached and then shaped to resemble chicken. Do you know why the sodium content is so high in most fast food? It's needed to conceal the actual taste of products that are neither fresh nor wholesome.

You were doing so well with your first two paragraphs, then you went Full Nutter with your fast food tirade.

[Berkshire]

It is your privilege to disagree. That does not make you right or me wrong. There was strong disappointment in Obama's remarks in 2008. I am happy that from Thailand you know the inside track of what is going on in the gay community here in the United States. Sorry but I see politicians as hypocrites, all of them of either party. If you prefer to see Obama on a pedestal as in the Lincoln Memorial, be my guest. I think it is a bit much. With your reasoning, it is like Obama influenced the Supreme Court justices rather than the justices using the law to reach their decision. I want to think this decision was reached based on the Constitution and the law not political necessity. You can worship Obama, a politician if you want to, I prefer to reason that the justices decided the decision based on the merits of the case, the constitution, and the law, NOT politics.

You're trying to sound like an objective bystander, but by your words, it's pretty clear that you're anti-Obama. That's your position, nothing wrong with that because everyone's entitled to their opinion. I do believe that the Supreme Court made their decision "mostly" due to the merits of the case. But do you think this decision could have been reached under the Reagan administration? Or even any of the Bush's? I think not.

The Supreme Court is an independent body who, by design, is supposed to make decisions on their own, without political interference. But they're also people. And people can be influenced, if not politically, at least by the changing public view regarding homosexuals in general. The President has demonstrated that he is more an "inclusive" sort of leader, not "exclusive." And as such, this decision will be a part of President Obama's legacy, like it or not.

[sdanielmcev]

The legacy of the Obama presidency has begun to take a definitive shape and it is looking good.

The right has lost big time in this and on a number of its important fronts.

Big time.

The right? There you go again. Right, left, political polarization and etc.

The fact is, most Americans are totally cool with this. It is just the out spoken weirdos (typically on both sides) that get all of the media circus attention.

This has zero to do with Obama legacy. The Supreme Court could give two cents less about his legacy.

I mean seriously, does Obama take credit for and do you give him credit for a sunny day at the beach during a vacation?

I'd called to your attention the fact the 'left" in the United States is not the European "left" which means it is insignificant in US politics and government. No threat to the Constitution or American society has ever come from the "left" and none is present now from the "left."

The menace is the right wing, from the KKK to McCarthyism to the tea party to the evangelical right and more.

The post also misrepresents me on the point of the legacy of the Obama presidency. I never said or implied SCOTUS ruled to give Barack Obama a legacy or to contribute to it or that the nine justices of the Court based their decision on the matter of an Obama legacy.

SCOTUS made its ruling. The ruling happened to contribute to the increasingly clear legacy of the Barack Obama presidency.

So the "left-right" politics campaign of late exhibited in yet another post is quite the forced march instead.

Obamas' legacy: "I wasn't as bad or ineffectual as Carter!"

OK. First you say it doesn't contribute to his legacy, then you say it does contribute to his legacy. Which one is it?

It's neither. Add in some mindless concoction about Obama flip-flopping was some grand plan, and you have a forced march of a foot in your mouth.

Once again detracting from those that worked for this ruling.

[boomerangutang]

I've gone from being a hippie, to a bit to the right (of hard left) in past decades. I was a bit uncomfortable with same-sex marriage, but am now ok with it. It's just as much as money-issue (s.security, inheritance, maternity-leave-from jobs, custody issues) as anything else. The man who sued, and got his case tried in the S.Court, was suing about having his name on the death certificate of his male marriage partner.

It'll mean a lot more people getting married, which will mean a lot more people getting divorced. Gay marriage begets gay divorce, gay child custody, gay alimony etc. There are new legal precedents to be set. It's a good day for the lawyers.

For awhile now, marriage, for many folks, is and has been a knee jerk decision. Just look at the quickie chapels in Las Vegas. My older brother has been married and divorced around 11 times, and my ex-wife is not far behind. Both r American. The urge to get married, in my view, is guided by the following inclinations, in descending order:

>>> liking someone to the degree of wanting to 'own' that person, or at least to the extent of keeping others (with romantic/sexual urges) away. Main motivation: not wanting anyone else to have sex with that person.

>>> sex, anytime (mostly a male's fantasy)

>>> money issues: having spouse cover some or all domestic expenses. (mostly a female's fantasy)

>>> legal issues relating to money: SS, inheritance

>>> making and/or taking care of kids

>>> emotional dependancy: someone to pat your head (or perform more physical duties) when you're feeling down

Background theme music: Tina Turner's 'What's Love Got To Do With It?'

Addendum: Actually, love does sometimes play a part. There are many types of love. The romantic 'take-my-breath-away' love is an immense motivation for jumping in to marriage. However, that sort of breathless love only lasts for weeks or months, and is usually tightly entwined with lust. After that, married couples are required to say "Yes, of course I love (spouse's name)" - but it's perfunctuary. Dislike and indifference ('familiarity breeds contempt') are more likely to set-in over the years. An early Cosmonaut once stated, "Take any two people. Put them in a capsule together for 4 weeks, and I can guarantee those two people will come to hate each other."

Edited June 28, 2015 by boomerangutang

[CMNightRider]

Wow, the liberals got their wish. Now men can legally marry other men. It seems they may be successful in getting South Carolina to stop flying the Confederate flag as well.

What's next, not allowing people to smoke (unless it's marijuana), no more fast food, unable to say God in school, make gun ownership illegal, and ban saying Merry Christmas (use Happy Holidays instead).

The bubonic plague is like the common cold compared to liberalism.

Why do you claim that the liberals got their wish? Many people who are not liberals campaigned for same sex marriage. What about that amicus brief that was filed with the Supreme Court in support of gay marriage? Signatories included; former Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman, conservative commentators S.E. Cupp and Alex Castellanos, former White House chief of staff Ken Duberstein, former Mitt Romney senior advisers Beth Myers and Carl Forti, conservative economists Doug Holtz-Eakin (formerly director of the Congressional Budget Office) and Greg Mankiw (formerly on the Council of Economic Advisers), former senator Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), former homeland security adviser Fran Townsend and former Massachusetts state Senate minority leader Richard Tisei. Retired General Stanley McChrystal signed too.

These conservatives stated that they “have concluded that marriage is strengthened, and its value to society and to individual families and couples is promoted, by providing access to civil marriage for all American couples—heterosexual or gay or lesbian alike. In particular, civil marriage provides stability for the children of same-sex couples, the value of which cannot be overestimated. In light of these conclusions, amici believe that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits States from denying same-sex couples the legal rights and responsibilities that flow from the institution of civil marriage.” They went on to ask the SCOTUS "to protect our most cherished liberties against overreaching by the government, including overreach through an act of legislature or electorate. That principle, no less than our commitment to democratic self-government, is necessary to individual freedom and limited government.”

Smoking is a deadly activity. The only reason it is allowed is because it has been around so long. This doesn't make it right.

Most fast food is poisonous. Slick advertising convinces people otherwise. There is a reason why the fast food chains resist disclosing the chemical additives and the source of their ingredients. People would not be eating at some chains if they knew that the "white chicken" they were eating was actually processed skin, offal and trimmings bleached and then shaped to resemble chicken. Do you know why the sodium content is so high in most fast food? It's needed to conceal the actual taste of products that are neither fresh nor wholesome.

No one is trying to make gun ownership illegal. What intelligent people are trying to do is to ensure that there are proper screenings of gun purchases. It is reprehensible that anyone, whether it is a violent felon or a wacko can go to a gun show or to a private vendor and purchase a gun, no questions asked. It is reprehensible that a wacko like Dylaan Roof and an offender was allowed to legally obtain a firearm.

No one is forbidden from saying God in a school. What is forbidden is the state using public facilities to promote a state religion.

In respect to Merry Christmas, no one is banned from saying it. However, there is a separation of church and state and public officials should not use their office or public money to promote a pagan festival.

Ignorance and gross hyperbole spoken from self proclaimed conservatives is just as bad as the extremist filth that comes from ISIS/ISIL.

You are right when you stated, "Many people who are not liberals campaigned for same sex marriage." Liberals just tend to have a large number of gender confused people amid their ranks.

Somehow, I don't believe children should be brought up in a man-man or woman-woman family. Children need a mother and a father. Same sex marriage is nothing to be celebrating.

[lifeincnx]

Wow, the liberals got their wish. Now men can legally marry other men. It seems they may be successful in getting South Carolina to stop flying the Confederate flag as well.

What's next, not allowing people to smoke (unless it's marijuana), no more fast food, unable to say God in school, make gun ownership illegal, and ban saying Merry Christmas (use Happy Holidays instead).

The bubonic plague is like the common cold compared to liberalism.

I'm curious, did you support interracial marriage when the majority of states prohibited it? It's funny you bring up South Carolina; did you know that state kept their ban on interracial marrige (though unenforceable) on their books in 1998? And, here's a shock, Alabama kept the same law on their books until 2000.

Yeah, liberalism sure is eveil.

[Ulysses G.]

Somehow, I don't believe children should be brought up in a man-man or woman-woman family. Children need a mother and a father. Same sex marriage is nothing to be celebrating.

In an ideal world, I would agree with you completely, but there are not enough straight couples to go around. In general, I think a kid is better off with two mommies or two daddies than being raised by the foster care system.

[Ulysses G.]

I'm curious, did you support interracial marriage when the majority of states prohibited it?

Interracial marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage. It is between a man and a women as marriage has been since the beginning of time. Only a very small part of the world ever forbid marriage between different races, but pretty much everyone all over the world for thousands of years considered same sex marriage absurd.

[stevenl]

I'm curious, did you support interracial marriage when the majority of states prohibited it?

Interracial marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage. It is between a man and a women as marriage has been since the beginning of time. Only a very small part of the world ever forbid marriage between different races, but pretty much everyone all over the world for thousands of years considered same sex marriage absurd.

Sorry, don't agree with you. Marriage between different races was not done for a long, long time in many countries all over the world. Even a marriage of the same race but different religion was not done in many, many parts of the world for a long, long time.

[lifeincnx]

I'm curious, did you support interracial marriage when the majority of states prohibited it?

Interracial marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage. It is between a man and a women as marriage has been since the beginning of time. Only a very small part of the world ever forbid marriage between different races, but pretty much everyone all over the world for thousands of years considered same sex marriage absurd.

Remember, we are talking about a ruling in the United States, thus making your comparative point moot.

But OK, using your "only a small part of the world" argument what are the predominate types of government today that ban same-sex marriage? It's predominantly the Arab nations and virtually all communist countries. No surprise there.

It took a Supreme Court to rule nationwide on prohibiting bans against interracial marriage (tough luck racist states rights), just as they did with the current ruling and both will be forever judicially connected.

[attrayant]

[Marriage has always] between a man and a women as marriage has been since the beginning of time.

I don't know why people feel compelled to keep telling us what some ritual has always been. What bearing does that have on current and future developments? In other words, what's the point of this statement?

[Pinot]

The same people who call for their rights to fly a flag in those same states would deny someone else his freedom, all the while preaching freedom. The hypocrisy from both sides blows me away sometimes. Some people, on both sides, just seem to want to control people and somehow both sides believe they are pushing for morality.

I guess it just depends on whose ox is gored.

Ye gods! What an inane statement. Republicans heads are exploding.

Denying the right to fly the confederate flag and denying rights of anyone to marry in the same sentence. Ludicrous? Absurd? Let me try and break it down for you. One is a a symbol of the disgusting practice of slavery that has somehow been turned in to some kind of "heritage" bullshit. The right to marry is, oh forget it. It's just too stupid to go on.

Whose ox is gored?

Edited June 28, 2015 by Pinot

[lifeincnx]

The same people who call for their rights to fly a flag in those same states would deny someone else his freedom, all the while preaching freedom. The hypocrisy from both sides blows me away sometimes. Some people, on both sides, just seem to want to control people and somehow both sides believe they are pushing for morality.

I guess it just depends on whose ox is gored.

Ye gods! What an inane statement. Republicans heads are exploding.

Denying the right to fly the confederate flag and denying rights of anyone to marry in the same sentence. Ludicrous? Absurd? Let me try and break it down for you. One is a a symbol of the disgusting practice of slavery that has somehow been turned in to some kind of "heritage" bullshit. The right to marry is, oh forget it. It's just too stupid to go on.

Whose ox is gored? <deleted>?

I personally hate everything the Confederate flag stands, and agree with you on on its use as part of the "Southern heritage" fairytale. That said, it is every American individual's right to wave it or wear it. It is also the right for any American to burn the US flag. Personally I view wearing a Confederate flag tantamount to burning the US flag - 650,000 deaths fought over slavery (not tariffs - more fair ytales). But both are protected free speech asguaranteed under the US Constitution. But the state has the right, by legislative vote, to fly or not fly the Confederate flag at their state.capitol.

[samran]

I'm curious, did you support interracial marriage when the majority of states prohibited it?

Interracial marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage. It is between a man and a women as marriage has been since the beginning of time. Only a very small part of the world ever forbid marriage between different races, but pretty much everyone all over the world for thousands of years considered same sex marriage absurd.

Mate, for the most part marriage is a recent phenomenon.

Up until the Middle Ages most of the time it was arranged, and mostly restricted to nobility and the upper classes. Most of the rest of society didn't get a look in.

Mostly it wasn't concensual unless the woman was a widow.

Using the the concept of marriage from time inmemorium is really a bit of a misnomer.

Agree with your comment though about parents. As long as they are loving, who cares. Give me a loving gay couple anyday over a dysfunctional abusive 'traditional' parental set up.

[attrayant]

I think some people are using the phrase "since the beginning of time" to mean "for as long as I can remember and without having to look it up or put any kind of effort into researching it".

Edited June 28, 2015 by attrayant

[Ulysses G.]

I'm curious, did you support interracial marriage when the majority of states prohibited it?

Interracial marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage. It is between a man and a women as marriage has been since the beginning of time. Only a very small part of the world ever forbid marriage between different races, but pretty much everyone all over the world for thousands of years considered same sex marriage absurd.

Mate, for the most part marriage is a recent phenomenon.

Up until the Middle Ages most of the time it was arranged, and mostly restricted to nobility and the upper classes. Most of the rest of society didn't get a look in.

Mostly it wasn't concensual unless the woman was a widow.

I'm not sure what your point is. Marriage is in no way a recent phenomenon and your examples prove it. However, it would be fair to say that Christian marriages were a lot less romantic phenomenon in the olden days. Muslim marriages don't seem to have changed a lot. What is recent is MEN marrying MEN. THAT is a recent phenomenon.

[Chicog]

I'm curious, did you support interracial marriage when the majority of states prohibited it?

Interracial marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage. It is between a man and a women as marriage has been since the beginning of time. Only a very small part of the world ever forbid marriage between different races, but pretty much everyone all over the world for thousands of years considered same sex marriage absurd.

Mate, for the most part marriage is a recent phenomenon.

Up until the Middle Ages most of the time it was arranged, and mostly restricted to nobility and the upper classes. Most of the rest of society didn't get a look in.

Mostly it wasn't concensual unless the woman was a widow.

I'm not sure what your point is. Marriage is in no way a recent phenomenon and your examples prove it. However, it would be fair to say that Christian marriages were a lot less romantic phenomenon in the olden days. Muslim marriages don't seem to have changed a lot. What is recent is MEN marrying MEN. THAT is a recent phenomenon.

Probably because they risked being beheaded, drowned, hung drawn and quartered, etc.

I'm fairly certain homosexuality dates back to at least Roman times, based on the literature of the period.

[Ulysses G.]

I think some people are using the phrase "since the beginning of time" to mean "for as long as I can remember and without having to look it up or put any kind of effort into researching it".

The first recorded evidence of marriage contracts and ceremonies dates to 4,000 years ago, in Mesopotamia, but pair-bonding began in the Stone Age. The purpose of marriage was the production of heirs, as implied by the Latin word matrimonium, which is derived from mater (mother).

[JakeSully]

Probably because they risked being beheaded, drowned, hung drawn and quartered, etc.

I'm fairly certain homosexuality dates back to at least Roman times, based on the literature of the period.

You forget Alexander and Hephaestion. That means atleast 350 B.C.

[Ulysses G.]

If homosexuality is mostly biological - which is what I believe - it has likely existed since the beginning of time. - or from the time of the first animals.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[attrayant]

I think some people are using the phrase "since the beginning of time" to mean "for as long as I can remember and without having to look it up or put any kind of effort into researching it".

The first recorded evidence of marriage contracts and ceremonies dates to 4,000 years ago, in Mesopotamia, but pair-bonding began in the Stone Age. The purpose of marriage was the production of heirs, as implied by the Latin word matrimonium, which is derived from mater (mother).

Golf clap.

Do you agree that marriage (in whatever form and by whatever name) has changed quite a lot over the course of time?

Edited June 28, 2015 by attrayant

[Ulysses G.]

Everything has changed since the beginning of time, but the Supreme Court has just changed a definition that has existed for thousands of years and - IMO - fraudulently. However, it really does not matter. There is no stopping gay marriage now.

Justice Antonin Scalia dissent on gay marriage ruling:.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/269769999/Scalia-Dissent

"I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy," Scalia wrote in the opening paragraph of his dissent.

"Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court," Scalia said.

"This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves."

Edited June 28, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[attrayant]

Everything has changed since the beginning of time, but the Supreme Court has just changed a definition that has existed for thousands of years and - IMO - fraudulently. However, it really does not matter. There is no stopping gay marriage now.

Justice Antonin Scalia dissent on gay marriage ruling:.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/269769999/Scalia-Dissent

No, the reason it went to SCOTUS was that there was disagreement about the definition, and even if there was a definition. SCOTUS has not changed, but merely affirmed the definition that is consistent with the constitution.

And since we're going there now: Scalia's dissent was even more unhinged than usual:

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.

Edited June 28, 2015 by attrayant

[Pinot]

What a week for Obama and the Democrats. The usually conservative Supreme Court gives the nation healthcare and the right to marry anyone they choose much to the chagrin of the Teabaggers. 50 times the Republicans voted to try and stop the ACA. It's all over. Marriage and health care...done.

I would say that Obama just had the best week of his administration.

A big middle finger salute to all the Republicans crying in their beer.