Supreme Court Issues Ruling On Same Sex Marriage Legalizing Marriage Nat.

[sg0508]

Politically, it would be very hard now for any Republican or the courts to overturn this.  The backlash would be career-killing and legacy killing.  When you're fighting an unwinnable battle, the best thing you can do is restructure so that you have a chance to win the war.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

This issue is not settled. 4-3 Traditional marriage wins because the advocates of marriage supremacy (gay marriage) have no honor in recusing over conflict of interest.

Incorrect.

 

This issue is not settled. 4-3 Traditional marriage wins because the advocates of marriage supremacy (gay marriage) have no honor in recusing over conflict of interest.

In that case the vote is 1-0 in favor of marriage equality as everyone besides Kagan has had a heterosexual marriage, creating a conflict of interest.

Nope. It's 4-3 Kagan and Ginsberg performed gay weddings. Marriage equality is one man one woman. You and the pro-SSM crowd advocate the destruction of religious liberty which must be preserved.

JCL please kindly remove the L in your logo, (L)(l) ibertarians do support the right to marry because we believe in maximum freedom both economically and socially, so kindly remove it

This decision doesn't force religious institutions from wed gay couples if it is against their religious beliefs.

[Comrade Funk]

This issue is not settled. 4-3 Traditional marriage wins because the advocates of marriage supremacy (gay marriage) have no honor in recusing over conflict of interest.

Incorrect.

Absolutely correct.

 

This issue is not settled. 4-3 Traditional marriage wins because the advocates of marriage supremacy (gay marriage) have no honor in recusing over conflict of interest.

In that case the vote is 1-0 in favor of marriage equality as everyone besides Kagan has had a heterosexual marriage, creating a conflict of interest.

Nope. It's 4-3 Kagan and Ginsberg performed gay weddings. Marriage equality is one man one woman. You and the pro-SSM crowd advocate the destruction of religious liberty which must be preserved.

R-IN

[Xing]

The best thing Republican candidates can do, at this point, is to mostly keep quiet on the issue. Arguing against gay marriage clearly isn't going to help them in a GE.

[Skill and Chance]

Politically, it would be very hard now for any Republican or the courts to overturn this.  The backlash would be career-killing and legacy killing.  When you're fighting an unwinnable battle, the best thing you can do is restructure so that you have a chance to win the war.

I would actually be quite concerned about it being overturned if Ginsburg died under a Republican president and senate.  The fallout would be Dred Scott level, but they only need one more vote.  2016 just got a lot more important this week, with gay marriage, housing discrimination protections and a fully intact Obamacare now on the line.

[Angel of Death]

Still not a peep from Rand Paul. Why am I not surprised?

[pbrower2a]

You and the pro-SSM crowd advocate the destruction of religious liberty which must be preserved.

Huh??

"Love thy neighbor" implies standing up for rights for my neighbor when those rights when exercised do humanity no harm.

Sure, child sexual abuse is horrible, and I would report that to law enforcement on principle.

Same-sex marriage? Harmless.

...Mainstream gays and lesbians, the ones who want to live normally as possible. won on this issue of civil rights because they conducted themselves honorably. They separated themselves from the perverts who abuse children for sick gratification.

Have you ever considered that God made some people homosexual?

[7,052,770]

Remember when JCL guaranteed that Indiana and other "Christian" states would secede if gay marriage became legal? How's that going by the way?

[Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez]

I recognize that SSM is "the law of the land" and that the likelihood of a Constitutional Amendment reversing this is pretty near nil at this point.

What I DO think ought to happen is that Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan ought to all be impeached and subjected to a Senate trial for exceeding their authority.  Marbury v. Madison states that it is the duty of the court to say what the law is.  The Court went far beyond that; they made law and created a right out of whole cloth.  And it is a right that promises to conflict with ENUMERATED Constitutional Rights.  Whether or not they are removed is immaterial; they ought to explain their reasoning to the American people as a whole, and they ought to be made to admit that they, indeed, legislated from the bench.  This, to me, would be a proper application of the principle of balance of power between our branches of government.

[WVdemocrat]

I recognize that SSM is "the law of the land" and that the likelihood of a Constitutional Amendment reversing this is pretty near nil at this point.

What I DO think ought to happen is that Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan ought to all be impeached and subjected to a Senate trial for exceeding their authority.  Marbury v. Madison states that it is the duty of the court to say what the law is.  The Court went far beyond that; they made law and created a right out of whole cloth.  And it is a right that promises to conflict with ENUMERATED Constitutional Rights.  Whether or not they are removed is immaterial; they ought to explain their reasoning to the American people as a whole, and they ought to be made to admit that they, indeed, legislated from the bench.  This, to me, would be a proper application of the principle of balance of power between our branches of government.

Go away.

[oeoyeleye]

What's the difference between this decision and Loving v. Virginia in 1968? Was striking down bans on interracial marriage "judicial tyranny" and "legislating from the bench"?

[Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez]

What's the difference between this decision and Loving v. Virginia in 1968? Was striking down bans on interracial marriage "judicial tyranny" and "legislating from the bench"?

This is a very valid question that goes to the heart of the current issue.

LOVING v. VIRGNIA did not RE-DEFINE marriage.  Until the last 15 years, marriage was defined by every society and every religious group as the union of a man and a woman.  The idea that marriage was a union between one man and one woman was AXIOMATIC.  No one quibbled with that.  And marriage between persons of different races, tribes, nations was nothing new either; it was axiomatically assumed to be part of marriage.  Virginia placed a racially-based restriction on who persons could marry (within the existing definition of marriage) that was a deprivation of liberty; indeed, they placed a criminal penalty on interracial marriage (arguably a cruel and unusual punishment). 

Friday's decision does much more than LOVING.  It re-defines marriage to be a union of two persons, regardless of gender.  Whether you believe in this or not, this is something that has not even been imagined until the last 15 or so years.  And it re-defines the purpose of marriage.  Whereas marriage was once for setting formal framework for the continuation of the biological family, now, marriage is defined as a means by which persons in a "loving" relationship can enjoy the same "dignity" as folks in a traditional marriage.  (This is the short form, but it does explain the basic differences.  I'm not a lawyer; this is a layman's understanding.)

I would assert that it is NOT the place of the SCOTUS to redefine something such as marriage that is CLEARLY and AXIOMATICALLY defined and has been for millennia.  When fashioning laws governing marriage, the intent of legislatures was clear.  Whether one supports redefining marriage is another issue, but redefinition of terms (something LOVING did not do) is something that ought to be left to the LEGISLATURES, and the remedy for legislative inaction is to vote in like-minded legislatures. 

A Court that can make "rights" out of whole cloth in a system of specifically enumerated rights is not my definition of "The Least Dangerous Branch" of government.  Indeed, it's the same thing they did in CITIZENS UNITED; they redefined corporations as people.  (And Mr. Justice Kennedy was the key player in that decision as well.)  This is the issue; Friday's decision was SUBSTANTIALLY different from LOVING v. VIRGINIA.  And while I'm not normally a "judicial tyranny" guy, I do agree that if the SCOTUS is free, in deciding cases, to substitute its judgment for the judgments of legislatures, and not merely "say what the law is", then we have arrived at a point in history where the people don't really rule.  At least not if the SCOTUS decides that they shouldn't rule on a certain issue.

[Phony Moderate]

I'm sure JCL had his argument all worked out prior to the ruling and that he isn't just grasping at straws in the aftermath.

[oeoyeleye]

Except for the fact that "traditional marriage" is not a loving relationship between a man and a woman. It's a relatively new concept to Western culture. Marriage in the bible often meant a fourteen year old girl being basically sold to her first cousin for the monetary benefit of the family, often being the second or third wife. The story of Rachel and Leah, in which their father offers their hand in marriage to Jacob in exchange for seven years of work each, is emblematic of marriage at the time. These types of arrangements were NOT uncommon. If we're going to be referring to Judeo-Christian "traditional marriage, this is the type of relationship we should be talking about. It becomes even trickier when you talk about the institution of marriage from a non-Western standpoint. Egyptian pharaohs would marry their sisters to keep the blood line pure. Polygamy has historically been permitted in Islam, and in some places, still is. Ming dynasty art portrayed "harmony" in same-sex relationships. Native American tribes often sanctioned same sex relationships as well. If we look outside of the west, we see that "tradition" does not mean the same thing in every culture, and to talk about marriage as "an an institution between one man and one woman that goes back thousands of years" is myopic and a gross oversimplification.

[7,052,770]

Actually lots of Polynesian societies include a "third gender" of effeminate males who marry other men. I wonder why you never hear the "bbbbut EVERY SOCIETY has always said marriage is man-woman!!!" crowd address that fact?

[publicunofficial]

Actually lots of Polynesian societies include a "third gender" of effeminate males who marry other men. I wonder why you never hear the "bbbbut EVERY SOCIETY has always said marriage is man-woman!!!" crowd address that fact?

Are you saying that the religious right are not particularly aware of other cultures, and tends to think of it's culture as the "normal" and all others are blasphemous aberrations? How shocking.

[DS0816]

This issue is not settled. 4-3 Traditional marriage wins because the advocates of marriage supremacy (gay marriage) have no honor in recusing over conflict of interest.

Incorrect.

Absolutely correct.

Incorrect.

[DS0816]

This issue is not settled. 4-3 Traditional marriage wins because the advocates of marriage supremacy (gay marriage) have no honor in recusing over conflict of interest.

Incorrect.

Absolutely correct.

 

This issue is not settled. 4-3 Traditional marriage wins because the advocates of marriage supremacy (gay marriage) have no honor in recusing over conflict of interest.

In that case the vote is 1-0 in favor of marriage equality as everyone besides Kagan has had a heterosexual marriage, creating a conflict of interest.

Nope. It's 4-3 Kagan and Ginsberg performed gay weddings. Marriage equality is one man one woman. You and the pro-SSM crowd advocate the destruction of religious liberty which must be preserved.

I don't care what you think.

We won, you lost. That's all that matters to me. Go cry about it.

You haven't won yet. This case can still be reconsidered and congress can also still act.

Incorrect.

[Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez]

Actually lots of Polynesian societies include a "third gender" of effeminate males who marry other men. I wonder why you never hear the "bbbbut EVERY SOCIETY has always said marriage is man-woman!!!" crowd address that fact?

That really is a stretch.

[SWE]

This issue is not settled. 4-3 Traditional marriage wins because the advocates of marriage supremacy (gay marriage) have no honor in recusing over conflict of interest.

It's fun to pretend!

[Simfan34]

Actually lots of Polynesian societies include a "third gender" of effeminate males who marry other men. I wonder why you never hear the "bbbbut EVERY SOCIETY has always said marriage is man-woman!!!" crowd address that fact?

Yes, but we're not a Polynesian society.

[Crumpets]

Actually lots of Polynesian societies include a "third gender" of effeminate males who marry other men. I wonder why you never hear the "bbbbut EVERY SOCIETY has always said marriage is man-woman!!!" crowd address that fact?

Yes, but we're not a Polynesian society.

Our 50th state may take some umbrage with that statement.

[Likely Voter]

So the GOP field has split into two factions on SSM:
1. Let's move on (Bush, Rubio, Kasich, Graham)
2. Let's keep fighting (Cruz, Santorum, Jindal, Huckabee)

Looking at the Sunday shows today Graham was saying the party should take the anti gay marriage amendment plank out of the platform while Huckabee and Jindal had their hair on fire with talk of Jesus and nullying SCOTUS.

But what about front runner Walker? He seemed to be in the second camp with his call for a constitutional amendment, but an article today in Politico is interesting

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Seems to me that you got to take a stand on this issue and campaign with it to show leadership to the voting block you want. Walker's problem may be that he wants both mainstreamers and socons and so he is paralyzed into wishywashiness.

[Will of the People]

President Obama is a disgrace and should be impeached for supporting and affirming the supreme court's tyranny.The president has lost his mind calling perversion love and requiring all states to recognize perverse mortal sin to be equal to sacred holy matrimony.Obama fails to protect Americans with his twisted response and action and should be impeached along with the supreme court judges who voted in favor to validate homosexual marriage.Wake up people.

[Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez]

This issue is not settled. 4-3 Traditional marriage wins because the advocates of marriage supremacy (gay marriage) have no honor in recusing over conflict of interest.

It's fun to pretend!

I believe that the issue of SSM is now settled.  There will be no Constitutional Amendment,  and I doubt that there will be a reversal, even if a Republican President takes office and appoints a conservative to the bench.  By that time, there will be tens of thousands of married same-sex couples, possibly more.  Obergefell will be a precedential case, and regardless of whether or not a new Justice believes the decision to be bad law, the effect of a reversal on both the public and the Court will be considered, discussed, and the Justices will probably choose to adhere to precedent.  

I do believe that impeachment on the grounds of abuse of power is possible, and I would recommend that the impeachment process go forth, even though removal certainly will not occur.  It is the only way to bring any kind of accountability to the Court's Justices.