Brock1978 Marriage Upheld by the Supreme Court!

[DaveW]

Quite a week or so for America!

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

Excellent news!

[gunnarthor]

Just a reminder, the Pride Parade is this weekend and people can celebrate or even march in it if you sign up in time.  It's usually a lot of fun and I imagine this one will be more fun than usual.

[DaveW]

 

Just a reminder, the Pride Parade is this weekend and people can celebrate or even march in it if you sign up in time.  It's usually a lot of fun and I imagine this one will be more fun than usual.

http://www.theonion.com/article/supreme-court-rules-favor-most-buck-wild-pride-par-50768

[Mike Sixel]

What a great day for freedom. And love.

[PseudoSABR]

The Court didn't have to go as far as they did, but I was heartened by Kennedy's opinion.

 

“It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions.”

 

 

[Craig Arko]

The Bifrost.

 

Actually 35W.

[TheLeviathan]

I think people should read the arguments of the Justices, very interesting.  I agree with this outcome, certainly, but I do see the struggle Roberts had with it.

 

(I suppose I'm raining on the parade a bit by bringing this up, but I enjoy Constitutional Law)

[biggentleben]

 

I think people should read the arguments of the Justices, very interesting.  I agree with this outcome, certainly, but I do see the struggle Roberts had with it.

 

(I suppose I'm raining on the parade a bit by bringing this up, but I enjoy Constitutional Law)

 

I guess I would add that it's a great way to realize the politicization of Scalia and Thomas. Incredibly disappointing to read their comments.

[TheLeviathan]

I guess I would add that it's a great way to realize the politicization of Scalia and Thomas. Incredibly disappointing to read their comments.

Yes, that too. They very much need to get off the court.

[gunnarthor]

 

I think people should read the arguments of the Justices, very interesting.  I agree with this outcome, certainly, but I do see the struggle Roberts had with it.

 

(I suppose I'm raining on the parade a bit by bringing this up, but I enjoy Constitutional Law)

The constitution isn't quite as rigid as the dissent would seem to suggest.  Michael Dorf had some quick thoughts on this http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2015/06/the-link-between-liberty-and-equality.html. 

 

I think the dissent would have been better if they all could have agreed on just one position and stuck to it - preferably the Chief Justice's opinion.  Instead, they all seem to argue things differently from each other, weakening their overall dissent.

[USAFChief]

Yes, that too. They very much need to get off the court.

It seems to me if Scalia is so opposed to the actions of the court, the only honorable thing for him to do is resign.

 

If not, then it seems to me he's just a big windbag without the courage of his convictions.

[jimmer]

another great article!

 

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/historic-gay-marriage-ruling-stirs-emotion-across-us/ar-AAccBES?ocid=mailsignout

 

[drjim]

 

The constitution isn't quite as rigid as the dissent would seem to suggest.  Michael Dorf had some quick thoughts on this http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2015/06/the-link-between-liberty-and-equality.html. 

 

I think the dissent would have been better if they all could have agreed on just one position and stuck to it - preferably the Chief Justice's opinion.  Instead, they all seem to argue things differently from each other, weakening their overall dissent.

 

The constitution is as rigid as you need it to be, right?

 

Even so, my thought is that the constitution exists to serve the people, the people don't exist to serve the constitution.

[Craig Arko]

The constitution is as rigid as you need it to be, right?

 

Even so, my thought is that the constitution exists to serve the people, the people don't exist to serve the constitution.

Yup, and I believe a useful term is 'living document.' These are not stone tablets carved by the Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodly appendage.

[TheLeviathan]

The constitution is as rigid as you need it to be, right?

 

Even so, my thought is that the constitution exists to serve the people, the people don't exist to serve the constitution.

I agree, though I typically prefer that social change happens legislatively whenever possible rather than manipulating the court to achieve something.

 

I don't think this was manipulation, but it was the far more expedient path. (Which is a positive in this case, just speaking kore on the principle of how things are supposed to happen).

 

I like Roberts quite a bit, love how he shot down right wing attempts on health care. It shows his principles generally cross ideological lines. (Not always, but generally)

[biggentleben]

Mike Huckabee also went full on bat**** today on his blog.

 

One of the best articles I've read on this discusses how this could be very freeing for the evangelical church: http://edcyzewski.com/2015/06/26/the-supreme-court-just-gave-american-evangelicals-a-gift/

[drjim]

 

I agree, though I typically prefer that social change happens legislatively whenever possible rather than manipulating the court to achieve something.

I don't think this was manipulation, but it was the far more expedient path. (Which is a positive in this case, just speaking kore on the principle of how things are supposed to happen).

I like Roberts quite a bit, love how he shot down right wing attempts on health care. It shows his principles generally cross ideological lines. (Not always, but generally)

 

I'm not 100% sure I agree when it comes to minority rights. This is one of the weaknesses of a democratic system - that the legislature can trample the rights of minorities, and is therefore one of the key functions of the judicial to protect them.

[gunnarthor]

 

Mike Huckabee also went full on bat**** today on his blog.

 

One of the best articles I've read on this discusses how this could be very freeing for the evangelical church: http://edcyzewski.com/2015/06/26/the-supreme-court-just-gave-american-evangelicals-a-gift/

Yeah, I agree. 

 

I have some pretty religious friends on facebook and none of them were posting scary stuff after the decision.  Instead, they were posting threads like the one you linked and talked about helping the poor or young children, etc. 

 

I actually worked for Catholic Charities once upon a time and SSM and gay rights never seemed to be a big issue to most of the people there.  They gave services to gay individuals.  I think this was always a bigger deal to "more powerful" people in that it could create a wedge issue and show it as a way the country was falling apart.  But it's support was wider than it was deep, if that makes sense.

[drjim]

 

Yeah, I agree. 

 

I have some pretty religious friends on facebook and none of them were posting scary stuff after the decision.  Instead, they were posting threads like the one you linked and talked about helping the poor or young children, etc. 

 

I actually worked for Catholic Charities once upon a time and SSM and gay rights never seemed to be a big issue to most of the people there.  They gave services to gay individuals.  I think this was always a bigger deal to "more powerful" people in that it could create a wedge issue and show it as a way the country was falling apart.  But it's support was wider than it was deep, if that makes sense.

 

I'll second this. Response from my conservative friends (who often post stuff on Facebook) was much more subdued than I thought. Perhaps this wasn't as divisive as was assumed. An extremely loud minority against, a lot of people in favor, and a lot of people that might be against, but just aren't that bothered anymore. That's probably a healthy split.

[formerly33]

As most of you probably know, I am a conservative. However, it still angers me the way so many conservatives act like maniacs about this and other similar things. It is in fact a bit of a disgrace since they're making a bad name for all conservatives, as people like to stereotype groups of people with the worst examples they know of. I'll even do that right now and say that the conservatives in question think that their behavior is all for a great cause and those who don't want to stand up with them have serious problems, while in fact the only serious thing about it is that they're embarrassing.

 

So let it be known that while we may not agree politically, I'm not going to lambaste you with my beliefs and shout from the rooftops that the nation is destined to hell (well, to tell the truth it either A) isn't or was a long time before gay rights became a political issue). Go ahead and stereotype conservatives if you want, but leave me out of the group that slams homosexuals ... and try not to be surprised that there are decent conservatives out there. That really is like the conservative who is shocked to hear that there are gay men who haven't abused little boys.

[DaveW]

I don't think anyone is saying that all conservatives are against gay marriage. However all of the conservatives running for president have come out against this decision, which is fine by me. This allows hill dawg or colonel sanders to win the election in a land slide.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I think people should read the arguments of the Justices, very interesting.  I agree with this outcome, certainly, but I do see the struggle Roberts had with it.

 

(I suppose I'm raining on the parade a bit by bringing this up, but I enjoy Constitutional Law)

This is what I posted on Facebook. It pretty much sums up my thoughts on the dissents.

 

"I read excerpts from Roberts' dissent and then I read Thomas' dissent. One guy, though I don't agree with his opinion, deserves to be on the court. And then there's Thomas.

 

I didn't read Scalia's dissent because why bother? The dude is the greatest troll of the 21st century. I'm still not convinced he isn't Andy Kaufman."

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm not 100% sure I agree when it comes to minority rights. This is one of the weaknesses of a democratic system - that the legislature can trample the rights of minorities, and is therefore one of the key functions of the judicial to protect them.

 

I agree, I think most of my hesitation stems from my growing frustration with every friggin thing being a "right" these days.  We have a total breakdown in our national understanding of our "rights", but I digress too much.

 

I'm glad the decision went this way, no one should have to wait on the legislature for marriage.

[twinsnorth49]

Welcome to the 21st century.

[stringer bell]

As per usual, two of the loudest voices are Republicans running for President and the Catholic Bishops. Their anger has devolved into fervent protection of "liberty" and protecting religious freedoms. I don't agree with the gay lifestyle, but I am certainly in the "live and let live" camp. I know enough gay people to know that they are people and not just charactatures.

[Mike Sixel]

How does it promote religious freedom to restrict what other religions can do?