Breaking: Supreme Court rules SSM a legal right

[pbrower2a]

Strictly speaking, I saw only the repudiation of the decision of the Sixth Circuit Court; only states within that district (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee)  are mentioned.

[pbrower2a]

When the other states concede or when the US Supreme Court smacks down some attempt to win an exception, then it really is over. The Supreme Court knocked down, so far as I can tell, every argument against the legalization of SSM. Some backward official in some  backwoods court (Roy Moore is possible) is likely to argue that Obergfell vs. Hodges does not apply to 'his' state.

That will not take long to clear.

[pbrower2a]

Georgia concedes.

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2015/06/26/georgia-democrats-celebrate-same-sex-marriage-ruling/

Georgia’s Council of Probate Judges is prepared. Judge Chase Daughtrey, the group’s president, sends word:

    “The Council of Probate Court Judges is reviewing the 100 plus page opinion regarding same sex marriage and we are in consultation with the Attorney General’s office. A revised marriage license application form will be sent electronically to probate judges statewide via our list serve once the review is complete and we find the opinion immediately legalizes same sex marriage in Georgia.”

[pbrower2a]

Nebraska, too.

Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts and Attorney General Doug Peterson said Friday that the State of Nebraska would follow the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling.

In a statement, Ricketts said: “The U.S. Supreme Court has spoken and ruled state same-sex marriage bans to be unconstitutional. While 70 percent of Nebraskans approved our amendment to our state constitution that defined marriage as only between a man and a woman, the highest court in the land has ruled states cannot place limits on marriage between same-sex couples. We will follow the law and respect the ruling outlined by the court.”

http://www.omaha.com/news/nebraska/douglas-lancaster-counties-begin-issuing-same-sex-marriage-licenses/article_74f43388-1ab6-11e5-987c

Applications for same-sex marriages in Douglas (largely Omaha) and Lancaster (heavily Lincoln) have been accepted.

[pbrower2a]

South Dakota:

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) — A U.S. Supreme Court opinion that declared same-sex marriage legal nationwide is effective in South Dakota immediately and it's up to each county in the state to begin issuing marriage licenses, the state attorney general said Friday.

Attorney General Marty Jackley said counties can begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples as soon as they are able, but acknowledged issues like the size of a county and the number applications could delay the process.

"We are saying it's effective immediately but with that recognition that we will work with local jurisdictions to provide a reasonable period of time to implement a fairly significant rule and change in law," Jackley said.

http://siouxcityjournal.com/ap/state/jackley-up-to-counties-to-issue-gay-marriage-licenses/article_2aa994ca-28cc-57cc-85d7-8359e9a17ec9.html

[pbrower2a]

I could get nothing definitive about North Dakota. There is official resistance in Louisiana, so getting a same-sex marriage in The Big Easy (or anywhere else in Louisiana) won't be so  easy as elsewhere.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/06/gay_marriage_louisiana_attorne.html#incart_related_stories

(Most of the material is official statements by public officials, so please do not consider such a copyright violation).

The Governor:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/06/bobby_jindal_gay_marriage_supr.html#incart_story_package

(Most of the material is official statements by public officials, so please do not consider such a copyright violation).

[pbrower2a]

   Any ideas on what this ruling will mean for churches and other religious organization that aren't accepting of this?

Nothing.

Churches can still legally refuse to perform interracial marriages. Of course, somebody will perform the marriage. No couple needs to get married at the "Church of Adolf Hitler" when there are so many alternatives, including court houses.  

[pbrower2a]

What's sad is that I wish this had been a 9-0 decision either for or against. It would have had more clarity. Imagine a John McCain appointed court. No Sotomayor and no Kagan, and today might have been a 6-3 against gay marriage decision.

Perhaps, but I imagine Souter and Stevens don't retire if a Republican is president.

Besides, what is to say that John McCain would still be President?  He could have easily been a one-term President had he handled the economic meltdown of 2007-2009 badly.

[pbrower2a]

The Supreme Court of the country formerly known as the United States of America has overruled God, usurped their authority as impartial jurists, and rewrote three laws this week to match with their ideological crusade.

There is a country in which the political order effectively faces the veto of Almighty God, at least as understood by some religious experts, on all  political issues. That country is the Islamic Republic of Iran. If you are a Christian, then you worship that God Allah.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are two 'gay' agendas. One is the perverse agenda of NAMBLA and its female equivalent -- the sorts of people who think themselves entitled to mess up the lives of children for their own sick indulgence. The other, mainstream gays and lesbians, are either men capable only of loving men or women capable only of loving women. Those innocuous people align with straight people on the rights of children to avoid becoming prey of perverts.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Same-sex marriage is now as mainstream as child sexual abuse has become uniformly reviled. Corporate America has decided, as is its prerogative, that SSM is good for business. The entertainment media are what they are -- a relatively-liberal bastion. Loud FoX "News" condemns the ruling.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Religious congregations still have the right to refuse to perform any marriage that the religious hierarchy considers unsuitable, including interfatith and even interracial marriages.

[pbrower2a]

Pushing the edge might get your post deleted, so it will be lost in cyberspace, rather than stay for all to savor for posterity as it were (the death points being a side issue). You can make your point within the rules. Heck I just did, I think, positing that I think CCSF is probably lying based on the evidence.

Okay, that's it. I'll ask one final time, how can I prove to you that I am gay? my name? something from a long time ago that has me stating that I'm gay?  Just tell me now.

P.S. Don't serve on a jury.

Contempt for women?

Extreme, put-on machismo often suggests homosexuality. Such often comes with contempt for femininity.

[pbrower2a]

All the streets in San Francisco are adorned with the flag. 

Essentially, You're going to Pride, whether you like it or not.

Given a choice between a gay pass and gay-bashing... I can always say no to the former.

I have been in San Francisco many times, and I have never found homosexuality a threat. Do gays really figure me out?

Gay-bashers don't.

[pbrower2a]

Above post makes no sense. I said that I feel uncomfortable and I feel pride parades are an in your face statement, and get annoyed when the entire city has to come to a standstill to accommodate a sexual parade... No one bashed anyone.

Cocktails and sunset on the beach down here in real California shortly. Much calmer. Much nicer. My not being there doesn't equate to gaybashing.

Lacking any interest in 'gay culture' I avoid Gay Pride events. I also have no interest in NASCAR racing, so I avoid NASCAR races, too.

[pbrower2a]

Lacking any interest in 'gay culture' I avoid Gay Pride events. I also have no interest in NASCAR racing, so I avoid NASCAR races, too.

That's my point - it's not bashing.  But the problem is, Pride is forced on you.  You get sponsored ads on Facebook with rainbow crap, you hear people in the street, it's not a matter of "just don't look at what annoys you" - this is an in your face statement

I have never had "Gay Pride" pushed upon me. I have seen plenty of stuff 'pushed' upon me for commercial purposes even if I find the product at best irrelevant and at worst disgusting. I have seen political ads that offend my sensibilities.

Does a rainbow flag offend you as much as Orwellian rhetoric offends me? I think not. You can take or leave 'gay culture' at will. I cannot avoid the consequences of the votes of people susceptible to dog-whistle politics or the debasement of political rhetoric.

You have a right to avoid businesses that display the rainbow flag just as you have the right to avoid a business that displays an iconic image of Che Guevara. Che Guevara was a killer.  B ut even if you enter a place in which Che Guevara is offered as a hero you have the right to challenge such. If I would not honor the apolitical thug John Dillinger I would not honor the political thug Che Guevara.

...I am not black -- but what trouble would arise if someone told me "I am black and I am proud!" Nothing. Nobody deserves to feel shame because his people has been abused and exploited in the past. Pride that contradicts prior degradation is a good thing.  I am not gay -- but if people put into our collective consciousness that "gay is OK" after such has been contradicted in public policy and in violent crime -- so be it.

White pride? Such implies pride in being the exploiter and abuser with the intention of imposing more of the same. Undeserved privilege that allows one to get undeserved advantages is destructive, cruel, unjust, and evil. Anyone who wants others to show respect had better do some extraordinary achievement. "Straight pride" is much the same.
   

[pbrower2a]

Of course. A black person (unless winning the genetic lottery that allows one to pass as white if one so wished) could never hide being black even by identifying with some stereotypically-white culture. Not all gays are flagrant in behavior, and a gay who isn't flagrant can seem straight until he finds himself getting the attention of a female that every straight person thinks irresistible. 

Clarence Thomas can't hide that he is black even if he rejects the usual expectations of mainstream black politics.

[pbrower2a]

There is no one man more responsible for this than Karl Rove. If he hadn't used what was essentially a fringe issue to stoke fear ahead of the 2004 election, same sex marriage would never have advanced as rapidly in the US as it did. He focused the efforts of campaigners in favour of it, but moreso, he had people talking about the issue and engaging with it over their dinner tables a decade ago. And in that time, no argument against it has stood up. As less and less people accept "I just don't like it", full nation-wide legalisation became inevitable, and while it's a shame it took the courts to do it, it was always on it's way... and while he wasn't the main reason, Karl Rove deserves more credit than any other individual for it, I think.

He effectively forced homosexuals to make their case to straight people that same-sex marriage isn't about getting access to vulnerable children and then getting away with  abuse and brutalization of children. At that, gays and lesbians won. They established that homosexuality was not itself perversion.

Gays and lesbians can still appreciate children for all the right reasons. Gay men simply can't love men and lesbian women simply can't love men. If such is the only difference, then is that all bad?

When children become the targets of homophobia, homophobia is child abuse. As a straight male who has frequently known homophobia directed at me as a child because I was a 'sissy', I find that standing up for gay and lesbian rights is the best way to marginalize homophobia that hurt me.  

[pbrower2a]

OK. It's all but over. All that is necessary is for some Court to decide that in the last few places in which public officials still resist SSM that the legality of SSM is the law of the land.

...You may have been surprised that I was careful to avoid 'whiting out' states immediately after Obergfell v. Hodges  unless the states were mentioned in the ruling or that state officials conceded that the decisions applied to their states.  That officials of Arkansas, Georgia, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota recognized that the decision applied to them I white those states out. Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas officials resisted. Such established a retroactive defense of my caution, if not wisdom.

One definitive statement by the US Supreme Court will establish beyond any doubt that SSM is a legal right in America -- in all 50 states.

[pbrower2a]

PPP just released a poll on Michigan on acceptance of SSM.  It is safe to assume that an SSM ban was doomed in Michigan even without Obergfell v. Hodges.

After the fact in Michigan...

With gay marriage legal in Michigan now voters want to take the next step and ban discrimination against LGBT people in employment and housing. 68% support a law making it illegal to fire or deny housing in Michigan because someone is gay, lesbian, or transgender to only 25% who are opposed. 56% of voters say they would 'strongly' support such legislation.

....

Voters are also quite opposed to two anti-gay GOP legislative efforts going on right now. Only
34% think adoption agencies that receive money from the state should be allowed to deny
services to families they say violate their religious  beliefs, with 52% saying they should not be
allowed to do that. Independents are particularly opposed to that legislation at 29/55. 

....

There's even less support for the proposal to make  it so that only clergy can perform weddings in the state, making it harder for same sex couples to get married. Only 16% of voters support that to 69% who are opposed and the opposition on that is bipartisan...

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_MI_7115.pdf

The State legislature was far behind the People. A referendum on SSM might have passed in Michigan in 2014 had one been offered; by 2016 such would have been a certainty. 

[pbrower2a]

This is off topic but relevant in view of a message that I received. I got an explicit, pornographic  image that was the sole content of the message from personal someone identifying himself as Jim Roberts. This person had never posted anything on one of the Forms.

I deleted the image because it could be harmful to any minor who might see it. We need remember that there are minors using this site so that they can, among other things, get information for class reports and other assignments. 

A warning to "Jim Roberts": it is a violation of federal law to transmit a sexual image potentially harmful to children to any media in which children might be viewers. No, this was not plain and simple nudity as out of the centerfold of a men's magazine. This was far more troublesome.

...I have been concerned with the ethics and politics of same-sex marriage because of my desire for a better world even for people who have a significant difference from me. Now that the struggle for same-sex marriage has become an all-but-done deal, it is literal history. Whatever slight role I have had in my written support of same-sex marriage, I might have cause for pride even if it is to support something that I would never do myself.   

On the other side, transmission of pornographic images as an insult to me (or anyone else) for the side that I took in a debate is inexcusable. It would be similarly inexcusable to transmit such images as an insult to people on the other side as in-the-face insults.

Let's not gloat. Other issues will confront us soon enough. Many who opposed same-sex marriage thought that they did so for the best interests of America as a whole.

[pbrower2a]

Sock/Troll nothing against your position on SSM.

The creep sent me an unsolicited pornographic image, an extreme violation of Forum policy. I hope that nobody else got such a message. It's the unwelcome porn that is the problem -- and not whether the fellow despises me or my positions.  
 

[pbrower2a]

why is it so hard to understand that those people's views are objectively bad?

They're not. You are not the sole arbiter of morality. That honor belongs solely to God, who has declared that homosexuality is sinful (Leviticus 18:22, 1 Corinthians 6:9).

But if homosexuality is intractable, then God is responsible or culpable in its existence. Unlike such blatant sins as murder, rape, theft, arson, drug-dealing, or perversion of justice, homosexuality is not for us to judge.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

God somehow missed one of the most horrible crimes possible -- slavery. The Bible says nothing about slavery except that slaves are to serve their masters. So is it wrong to help a slave escape hereditary bondage?

Today most of us recognize the 'conductors' of the Underground Railroad as heroes. Today the only qualms that we can have with the hanging of Fritz Sauckel,  the most horrible procurer of slaves in the twentieth century is opposition to the death penalty.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sin? That ranges from minor indulgences (a sweet roll) to some of the most horrendous crimes possible (the Holocaust, slave trafficking). How is anyone in a position to tell a mobster to quit his destructive, exploitative activities?

[pbrower2a]

God somehow missed one of the most horrible crimes possible -- slavery. The Bible says nothing about slavery except that slaves are to serve their masters. So is it wrong to help a slave escape hereditary bondage?

Today most of us recognize the 'conductors' of the Underground Railroad as heroes. Today the only qualms that we can have with the hanging of Fritz Sauckel,  the most horrible procurer of slaves in the twentieth century is opposition to the death penalty.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html

There is a key difference between the slavery that was practiced in the Bible and the slavery that was practiced in the United States. The slavery practiced in the Bible was not based on race. People weren't enslaved just because they were of a certain skin color. In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemned ''man-stealing'', which is how most slaves were ultimately brought to the US:

''And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.'' - Exodus 21:16

''But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;'' - 1 Timothy 1:8-10

The buyers of slaves are as culpable as the sellers. This applies as much to those who deal in sexual slaves (the victims are typically women or girls) as to those who the slave-traffickers of Africans to the New World.