Gay Marriage Upheld by USSC in Close Ruling

[Martinus]

This was brought to my attention earlier today, and, upon looking up the ISIS flag, it's actually a fair mistake, since the buttplug flag is clearly patterned on it.  Fun stuff.

I think it was a deliberate parody. Still, according to the Occam's Razor principle, when looking at a gay pride flag, one should first seek a plausible explanation ("the flag features buttplugs") before formulating a less plausible one ("this is the ISIS flag").

[Ideologue]

OK, true.

At a glance, I'd have guessed protesters or something. :/

[The Minsky Moment]

Jimmy - I'll check again, but from what I recall the Economist is not getting the emphasis quite right.  My recollection was that Roberts denied Chevron deference because the IRS had no special expertise with respect to health care regulation.

[LaCroix]

i think it's unfortunate people have criticized the dissenters in this case. the dissenters make a good argument that would be praised if the subject were different (i.e., legalized pedophilia). because the subject is gay marriage, however, they're condemned.

[Martinus]

I would hope the jurisprudence is sophisticated enough to distinguish between homosexuality and pedophilia even if you are not. 

[LaCroix]

you misunderstood my post. i'm not comparing pedophilia and homosexuality. i was looking more at the legal aspect of the decision. i agree with the majority in this case, but i see why the dissenters dissented. it depends on how the justices view the law and their role. the four dissenters knew they lost. they weren't complaining about gay marriage being legal because they're republicans and republicans hate gay marriage. (as an aside, the argument that justices decide law solely due to their political affiliation is immature and incorrect. some law professors even argue this, and it's just sad.). the dissenters dissented because legalizing gay marriage through judicial activism went against their view of the law. as a judge, you don't decide cases to get positive outcomes for any party. you decide cases based on the law and nothing but the law.

[The Brain]

"Democracy is a cancer eating at the heart of our society. Any action we have to take to stamp it out - however regrettable - is justified." /Judge Dredd

[Admiral Yi]

i think it's unfortunate people have criticized the dissenters in this case. the dissenters make a good argument that would be praised if the subject were different (i.e., legalized pedophilia). because the subject is gay marriage, however, they're condemned.

This is not the first case in which people have villified justices who reached conclusions different from their own.

[LaCroix]

i know, but it's a convenient time for me to make my point. 

[MadImmortalMan]

Jimmy - I'll check again, but from what I recall the Economist is not getting the emphasis quite right.  My recollection was that Roberts denied Chevron deference because the IRS had no special expertise with respect to health care regulation.

I hope so. Putting it as wide open as they make it sound is a bit fishy.

[Martinus]

you misunderstood my post. i'm not comparing pedophilia and homosexuality. i was looking more at the legal aspect of the decision. i agree with the majority in this case, but i see why the dissenters dissented. it depends on how the justices view the law and their role. the four dissenters knew they lost. they weren't complaining about gay marriage being legal because they're republicans and republicans hate gay marriage. (as an aside, the argument that justices decide law solely due to their political affiliation is immature and incorrect. some law professors even argue this, and it's just sad.). the dissenters dissented because legalizing gay marriage through judicial activism went against their view of the law. as a judge, you don't decide cases to get positive outcomes for any party. you decide cases based on the law and nothing but the law.

But that's my point - I can clearly see how you can construct a legal principle that makes it unconstitutional to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, while allowing discrimination of pedophiles. That you say you think the same principle that was used to declare gay marriage bans unconstitutional could be used to also allow pedophilia in fact proves you compare the two. And as I said before, I'd rather have decisions like this made through "judicial activism" than through "democratic process" - because human rights cannot be subject to the whims of the demos.

Edit: Now, I can see this principle being used to legalise polygamy/polyandry or sibling incest (the legalisation of both I have supported for a very long time), but not pedophilia.

[Valmy]

I do not really understand the practical need for siblings. They are already next of kin what practical use is marriage for them?

[Martinus]

I do not really understand the practical need for siblings. They are already next of kin what practical use is marriage for them?

You have many siblings and want to play favorites?

Anyway, I'm more for legalising incest first, incestuous marriages can come in later.

[Admiral Yi]

But that's my point - I can clearly see how you can construct a legal principle that makes it unconstitutional to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, while allowing discrimination of pedophiles. That you say you think the same principle that was used to declare gay marriage bans unconstitutional could be used to also allow pedophilia in fact proves you compare the two. And as I said before, I'd rather have decisions like this made through "judicial activism" than through "democratic process" - because human rights cannot be subject to the whims of the demos.

Edit: Now, I can see this principle being used to legalise polygamy/polyandry or sibling incest (the legalisation of both I have supported for a very long time), but not pedophilia.

Marty doubles down on misunderstanding LaCroix's point.

He's not saying both positions are based on the same legal principle.  He's saying one is unpopular (at least among the chattering class) and the other would not be.

[Neil]

you misunderstood my post. i'm not comparing pedophilia and homosexuality.

But you should be, since they're the same.  People want to fuck what they want to fuck.  Honestly, if it wasn't for Martinus and garbon, this ruling would probably even be just.