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

[Pinot]

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."

What a sad excuse for a human being this POS Scalia is. Him and his dummy Thomas. The grimm reaper can't catch up with these two soon enough. They're the two best reasons for never electing a Republican President again.

I like this one the best. What a dick. He should retire and get a a show on Fox News. O'Reilly couldn't have said it any better:

"One would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie."

[Publicus]

Scalia went off the deep end on this one and he took the whole of the reactionary far out right with him. Clarence Thomas meanwhile is sitting at the back of the bus silently and just happy to be on the bus.

[Neurath]

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".

No, they mean for 6,000 years. But I wouldn't want to argue about it since "I'm not a scientist, and scientists disagree".

[Neurath]

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.

For thousands of years people considered the following absurd: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal....[etc]" Considered even more absurd for thousands of years is the notion that a unique state should be build to protect, promote and expand the play of these self-evident truths.

[Publicus]

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.

pretty much everyone all over the world for thousands of years considered same sex marriage absurd.

The Bible thumping crowd that reads 6000 years of earth history pronounced in their book doesn't actually have much time on their side at all, does it.

6000 years equal time to expand the definition seems a reasonable period of time. Society can look at things then but I'd be confident the expanded meaning based on the SCOTUS ruling will work out just fine.

Regardless, however old the earth might be, it's better to go forward in time than to go backward into it.

[Ulysses G.]

For thousands of years people considered the following absurd: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal....

Really? Please supply some evidence.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

The USA has made its final ruling on legalizing same sex marriages.

Nobody with any sanity thinks it can be reversed now ... EVER.

Why the continued debate?

I don't get it.

It's over.

Time to move on to other things.

Time for the losers to be gracious and not insult their fellow Americans who happen to be gay by calling them dirty things like depraved.

Not all opponents of marriage equality are anti-gay bigots, but MANY are.

So sad really.

If people find gay marriage absurd or disgusting to you, just don't get gay married. Easy enough? I would have thought so but apparently not.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Jingthing

[chuckd]

For thousands of years people considered the following absurd: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal....[etc]" Considered even more absurd for thousands of years is the notion that a unique state should be build to protect, promote and expand the play of these self-evident truths.

"For thousands of years people considered the following absurd: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal....[etc]"

I don't know what calendar you are using but these words are from the Declaration of Independence written in 1776.

A timeframe of only 239 years, not the thousands you project.

[Neurath]

For thousands of years people considered the following absurd: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal....

Really? Please supply some evidence.

Ruling out Slave Holding Nations, Monarchies and dictatorships?

[Neurath]

For thousands of years people considered the following absurd: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal....[etc]" Considered even more absurd for thousands of years is the notion that a unique state should be build to protect, promote and expand the play of these self-evident truths.

"For thousands of years people considered the following absurd: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal....[etc]"

I don't know what calendar you are using but these words are from the Declaration of Independence written in 1776.

A timeframe of only 239 years, not the thousands you project.

Not the brightest bulb are you.

[Neurath]

The USA has made its final ruling on legalizing same sex marriages.

Nobody with any sanity thinks it can be reversed now ... EVER.

Why the continued debate?

I don't get it.

It's over.

Time to move on to other things.

Time for the losers to be gracious and not insult their fellow Americans who happen to be gay by calling them dirty things like depraved.

Not all opponents of marriage equality are anti-gay bigots, but MANY are.

So sad really.

If people find gay marriage absurd or disgusting to you, just don't get gay married. Easy enough? I would have thought so but apparently not.

Truly, most of them couldn't give a toss one way or the other about gay marriage. They despise the "Liberal Left" far more than they despise gay marriage and despise gay marriage primarily as it was something supported by the "Liberal Left". Point is, that the for the moment they can't let it go because the object of their enduring disgruntlement is not gone. Fear not, something else will now take it's place, and gay marriage will become something about which one is only privately bigoted about - just like Race has become.

[chuckd]

Perhaps I simply don't understand your particular brand of code words.

I know what you said, and what you said was wrong.

Perhaps if you wrote in proper sentences, with those nasty little punctuation marks in the right places, your sentences might even make sense.

Your bulb is dimming as we speak.

[Ulysses G.]

Truly, most of them couldn't give a toss one way or the other about gay marriage.

I am all for gays having lawful unions with the same legal rights as straights in that regard. What I reject is completely changing the definition of traditional marriage to do it. All they had to do is call it something else and I would have been out marching with them. I am not religious at all, but these guys make a very valid point:

The president of the US bishops’ conference has called the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling “a tragic error” and urged Catholics to move forward with faith “in the unchanging truth about marriage being between one man and one woman”.

Regardless of what a narrow majority of the Supreme Court may declare at this moment in history, the nature of the human person and marriage remains unchanged and unchangeable, said Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, Kentucky.

“It is profoundly immoral and unjust for the government to declare that two people of the same sex can constitute a marriage,” he said.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/06/27/supreme-court-ruling-on-same-sex-marriage-a-tragic-error-says-archbishop/

Edited June 28, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[attrayant]

Now we're leaning on the catholic church as a beacon of righteousness? That's rich.

Anyway the judiciary should not be getting involved in the business of what's moral, but of what's legal.

Edited June 28, 2015 by attrayant

[Chicog]

Truly, most of them couldn't give a toss one way or the other about gay marriage.

I am all for gays having lawful unions with the same legal rights as straights in that regard. What I reject is completely changing the definition of traditional marriage to do it. All they had to do is call it something else and I would have been out marching with them. I am not religious at all, but these guys make a very valid point:

The president of the US bishops’ conference has called the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling “a tragic error” and urged Catholics to move forward with faith “in the unchanging truth about marriage being between one man and one woman”.

Regardless of what a narrow majority of the Supreme Court may declare at this moment in history, the nature of the human person and marriage remains unchanged and unchangeable, said Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, Kentucky.

“It is profoundly immoral and unjust for the government to declare that two people of the same sex can constitute a marriage,” he said.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/06/27/supreme-court-ruling-on-same-sex-marriage-a-tragic-error-says-archbishop/

In a couple of years, the kerfuffle will have died down.

People will talk about "marriage" and not gay marriage.

The church will pipe down soon enough, lest it start a debate over whether or not it really deserves tax exempt status.

People who really think that it's different being married for same gender couples can continue to discuss their views in private, much as racists can continue to discuss theirs.

They'll just be an oddity that becomes increasingly irrelevant.

[Jingthing]

The "sale" has already been made to the U.S. supreme court.

No need to convince anyone else now that this was the right thing to do, which of course it was.

That's what matters.

The blow back right now is just (unpleasant) noise.

It will pass.

[lifeincnx]

Bringing up the "valid point's" by various religious leaders is a moot point. Marriage is a legally binding contract and the power to marry is vested at the state level. Separation of church and state - let's please not forget that.

[Ulysses G.]

As long as we are making predictions, my prediction is that the majority of gay men's promiscuous behavior will make "marriage" look like a farce within a few years. That is when the blowback will really start and that is why they should have called it something else. They have every right to have partners, but it is going to be something very different from how it has been traditionally between men and women.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Pinot]

Truly, most of them couldn't give a toss one way or the other about gay marriage.

I am all for gays having lawful unions with the same legal rights as straights in that regard. What I reject is completely changing the definition of traditional marriage to do it. All they had to do is call it something else and I would have been out marching with them. I am not religious at all, but these guys make a very valid point:

The president of the US bishops’ conference has called the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling “a tragic error” and urged Catholics to move forward with faith “in the unchanging truth about marriage being between one man and one woman”.

Regardless of what a narrow majority of the Supreme Court may declare at this moment in history, the nature of the human person and marriage remains unchanged and unchangeable, said Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, Kentucky.

“It is profoundly immoral and unjust for the government to declare that two people of the same sex can constitute a marriage,” he said.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/06/27/supreme-court-ruling-on-same-sex-marriage-a-tragic-error-says-archbishop/

They don't make a point, they're spouting doctrine. These guys are against meat on Fridays. Scalia made all kinds of points yesterday...all nonsense.

Interesting that you should quote these old geezers. The US Bishops have a history of taking right wing stances and have a been a strong friend to the GOP much to the determent of the Catholic church in the US. Fortunately, Catholics don't give a shit what their parish priest to the Bishop think.

After a number of these guys were tossed out of the church for their involvement in child molestation cases and speaking out on issues with anything but christian charity, the Pope has enough of them in his latest announcements on humanism and the environment.

http://thehigherlearning.com/2014/07/31/the-pope-just-released-a-list-of-10-tips-for-becoming-a-happier-person-and-they-are-spot-on/

"The Rev. Thomas Reese, an analyst with the National Catholic Reporter, called the Vatican announcement a "shot across the bow" to bishops around the world that they must "get their act together or there will be consequences."

The days of old catholic doctrine are over. I doubt theses are the views of this Pope, not that anything said by an any official of the catholic church matters.

Scalia should get a job as a Catholic Bishop. He'd make a good mouthpiece for them.

[Jingthing]

Colbert comments:

[Jingthing]

As long as we are making predictions, my prediction is that the majority of gay men's promiscuous behavior will make "marriage" look like a farce within a few years. That is when the blowback will really start and that is why they should have called it something else. They have every right to have partners, but it is going to be something very different from how it has been traditionally between men and women.

Your comment comes off as nasty and mean spirited.

Imagine if you said something like that about black people.

That they are not "good enough" to have the same legal options as whites.

People would correctly label that rabid RACIST hate speech.

Yes I went there. Love is love and hate is hate and the hate speech being used against gays now is exactly the same kind of thing as racism.

Some people are sluts. Some are gay. Some are straight. Some sluts are married. Some are not.

So what?

Edited June 28, 2015 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

Black people are not especially promiscuous. Most gay men are. I have lots of gay friends and acquaintances and they don't try to hide it. Once they start getting married in droves, that will become an issue. I really like this take on the subject and the guy is left-wing journalist:

Gay men have always been insanely promiscuous. This has been a feature of gay male culture in the US for much of this century. There is nothing new about it. It exploded in the 1970’s as new opportunities arose for gay men to have many more partners than before

https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2013/11/20/gay-men-straight-men-and-promiscuity/

Edited June 28, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

Black people are not especially promiscuous. Most gay men are. I have lots of gay friends and acquaintances and they don't try to hide it. Once they start getting married in droves, that will become an issue.

You twisted my comment as I didn't say anything about black promiscuity, either way.

Dude, we are both U.S. citizens yet it's clear to me that you still don't accept gay Americans as first class U.S. citizens like you.

I find that horribly insulting. You are objectively wrong. The U.S. government via the Supreme Court got that right.

[Ulysses G.]

I do accept gay Americans as first class U.S. citizens. In fact, I marched for gay rights regularly when I lived in San Francisco and Miami. I want gay people to have the same rights as I do, but I do not consider changing the definition of marriage to be a "right." They should have the right to legal partnerships with the same rights as marriage, but it should be called something else, because it is something else when it is between two men, instead of a man and a woman.

I understand that it is impossible to change it now and once there are large numbers of gay marriages, I feel that it would be unfair to change it back. However, that does not mean that I will keep it to myself what a big mistake I think it was it was for society to change it in the first place. If they had just called it something else, I think it would have ended up being a lot more acceptable in the long run.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

I do accept gay Americans as first class U.S. citizens. I marched for gay rights regularly. when I lived in San Francisco and Miami. I want gay people to have the same rights as I do, but I do not consider changing the definition of marriage to be a right. They should have the right to legal partnerships with the same rights as marriage, but it should be called something else, because it is something else when it is between two men, instead of a man and a woman. .

You did lose so that's good news.

You speak in double speak dude.

In the same post you say you want gay Americans to have the same rights as you and then you say you don't.

The changing marriage definition meme is just right wing spin. It's still marriage but it no longer discriminates against same sex couples just like a previous ruling that rules you can't discriminate against interracial couples.

Who's buying that as a position that really accepts gay Americans as full first class citizens? I'm not and never will.

You could have been Harvey Milk's bum boy and I still wouldn't buy it.

Your position is clear ... you actually DO oppose full legal equality for your fellow gay American citizens.

It would be much more honest and yes I would actually respect your position more if you just OWNED UP to what your position really is. AGAINST full legal equality for gay Americans. Because that's the truth of it and no amount of right wing talking points will change that.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

I was in City Hall when Harvey Milk was killed, but I had nothing to do with it. I was a SF bicycle messenger making a delivery.

[Jingthing]

I was in City Hall when Harvey Milk was killed, but I had nothing to do with it. I was a SF bicycle messenger making a delivery.

I was at the White Night riots. Kind of irrelevant.

[Ulysses G.]

It would be much more honest and yes I would actually respect your position more if you just OWNED UP to what your position really is.

I already have. You refuse to accept the truth because it contradicts the false narrative people like you used to convince the American people of something that was never true. However, you got away with it. Why admit it now?

Edited June 28, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[lifeincnx]

As long as we are making predictions, my prediction is that the majority of gay men's promiscuous behavior will make "marriage" look like a farce within a few years. That is when the blowback will really start and that is why they should have called it something else. They have every right to have partners, but it is going to be something very different from how it has been traditionally between men and women.

The religious leaders you quoted comments from all talk about sacred unions between a man and a women and, which seems to be conveniently forgotten, "until death do us part."

With the US divorce rate presently over 50% don't you think your gays making a 'farce' of marriage angle is a bit of a stretch? FYI, I am a very happily married straight guy (it took me twice to get it right ).

[Jingthing]

It would be much more honest and yes I would actually respect your position more if you just OWNED UP to what your position really is.

I already have. You refuse to accept the truth because it contradicts the false narrative people like you used to convince the American people of something that was never true. However, you got away with it, Why admit it now?

I truly do not understand what you just tried to say there, but it doesn't matter, one thing I am clear on is that people holding your position are NOT allies of the American gay civil rights movement. That is your right to have such positions as a first class U.S. citizen, which I am also, regardless of some people still refusing to accept that reality. As far as the future, you do realize this is only the beginning. There are still hundreds of anti-gay laws to change nationally, and national legislation is needed to protect LGBT people from other kinds of discrimination such as employment and housing. I do fully realize that equality under the LAW is not the same thing as SOCIAL equality. That takes generations. A good example is the black American civil rights movement. Far from over.

The strong precedent of this landmark civil rights SCOTUS decision will indeed be very useful going forward in the continuing fight for full legal equality under the law for gay (and GLBT) Americans. The social acceptance stuff ... some people will never change. See above.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Jingthing