Gay Marriage Upheld by USSC in Close Ruling

[MadBurgerMaker]

I was concerned it would be a long struggle that would especially make Texas look bad.

You say this like you don't think Abbott will find a way to make a complete ass out of himself regarding the whole thing.

[jimmy olsen]

The irony here is that my brother *did* marry a woman who inherited piles of money, truly wealthy - and they use none of it. They live as poor academics - they are both profs at the university of Iowa.   

I imagine you can live a decent upper middle class lifestyle on the salary of two professors.

[Monoriu]

I hope this puts an end to this ridiculous controversy 

[Drakken]

I hope this puts an end to this ridiculous controversy 

So when gay marriage in China/Hong Kong, Mono? 

[alfred russel]

The top story on cnn.com right now is about the 2 guys that escaped from prison.   

[Martinus]

There is now an emo song made out of lines from Scalia's dissenting opinions on both rulings

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/328728bb97/coheed-and-cambria-sing-antonin-scalia-s-dissenting-opinions?_cc=__d___&_ccid=z2eg3x.n2d1xo

[Syt]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/how-will-the-us-supreme-courts-same-sex-marriage-decision-affect-religious-liberty/396986/?utm_source=SFFB

How Will the U.S. Supreme Court's Same-Sex-Marriage Decision Affect Religious Liberty?

For a long time, supporters of gay marriage in the U.S. were in the minority. As early as last year, that started changing, and now, a solid majority of Americans support same-sex unions. As of Friday, they can count the Supreme Court as their ally: In a 5-4 decision, the justices ruled that LGBT individuals have a Constitutionally protected right to wed.

What does this mean for the shrinking number—but still substantial portion—of Americans who oppose gay marriage, particularly on religious grounds? In their dissents to the Court's opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, Justices Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas worry other Americans' right to dissent to gay marriage, just as they have. They worry what will happen as those who oppose gay marriage become, for the first time in this country's history, a minority.

This is not a new fear. Especially over the last two years, as more and more states have legalized same-sex marriage, religious conservatives have expressed anxiety about attacks on religious freedom: the cake baker who doesn't want to work a same-sex wedding ceremony, the college that faces potential consequences for not supporting homosexuality. In a statement outside of the Supreme Court following the Obergefell decision, Russell Moore, the head of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said, "We need to be the people who know how to articulate a Christian vision of sexuality that will be increasingly counter-cultural from this point on."

Alito shares this anxiety. "Today's decision ... will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy," he writes. In particular, he objects to the comparison between bans on same-sex marriage and the bans on interracial marriage that were widespread before the Court overturned them in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia. "The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent," he argues.

On Friday, same-sex marriage supporters outside of the Supreme Court were giddy with delight—advocates have been working toward this moment for literally decades. There was also somewhat giddy dissent: Bobby Jindal, Louisiana's governor and a GOP presidential candidate, suggested that the Court should be abolished. Pike Couty, Alabama, has decided to stop issuing marriage licenses altogether. But as Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas point out, this decision will almost certainly kick off a series of legal challenges related to religious liberty. The justices focus on three issues in particular, some of which have already created legal and political tussles: gay adoption; the tax-exempt status of religious organizations that wish to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; and the obligation of private churches and individuals to recognize and perform same-sex marriages.

As The New York Times wrote earlier this month, this decision means that "gay couples [will] for the first time be able to widely adopt children regardless of which state they live in." Same-sex partners have long struggled to secure adoption rights, particularly in states that place limitations on the kinds of couples that can adopt. Mississippi, for example, has a law expressly forbidding adoption by couples of the same gender; Nebraska restricts same-sex couples from being foster parents. These laws may face challenges in light of the Court's decision, but another kind of law may become more common: Earlier in June, Michigan passed a law allowing adoption agencies—even those that are publicly funded—to refuse to place children with same-sex couples if they have religious objections to doing so. It's unclear how this religious-liberty claim might be interpreted in light of Obergefell; this is one of the "hard questions" that will be raised by the Court's decision, Roberts writes, and "there is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court."

The other example Roberts specifically calls out is the tax status of religious organizations that wish to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. This was a question that came up during oral arguments for Obergefell: Alito raised a 1983 case involving the evangelical Christian Bob Jones University, which had refused to allow interracial dating on its campus. The Court ruled that the school could not be tax exempt if it maintained its ban; the university accepted the consequences, not changing its policy until 2000. The question, now, is what will happen to the many, many religious organizations that don't support homosexuality, let alone gay marriage. This involve everything from stated policies—"for example, [when] a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples," Roberts writes—to issues of employment and benefits for employees in gay unions.

Examples of this have already come up. The most prominent example is that of Gordon College, which faced the possibility of losing its accreditation after the New England Associations of Schools and Colleges asked it to review how its policies affect gay students. The school has decided to maintain its position on sexuality, which prohibits student or faculty sex outside of heterosexual marriage. It could be a signal of similar cases to come—last summer, for example, a broad coalition of faith leaders asked President Obama to provide a exemption for religious groups in an executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating against gays and lesbians. Those same groups that asked for the exemption will likely face new questions in the days to come on how the Obergefell decision should affect their policies.

Finally, individual church leaders—and judges—will face decisions about whether to perform and recognize gay marriages. In June, North Carolina passed a law allowing judges to refuse to issue marriage licenses altogether if they object to same-sex unions on religious grounds. This law may only be the beginning. "In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well," Thomas writes. "It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples."

The future of gay marriage has long been a question in the United States, and on Friday, the country got an answer. The questions and conversations surrounding gay marriage now will be of a different kind: what it means to oppose, rather than support, same-sex marriage.

[Syt]

I was concerned it would be a long struggle that would especially make Texas look bad.

You say this like you don't think Abbott will find a way to make a complete ass out of himself regarding the whole thing.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/greg-abbott-directive-religious-liberties

Texas Guv Issues Religious Liberties Directive After Gay Marriage Ruling

The Supreme Court ruling that same-sex couples across the U.S. have the right to marry left officials in Texas reeling.

Following the ruling, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) issued a directive on Friday ordering state agencies to "prioritize compliance" with the First Amendment and Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The directive states that agencies should make sure that nobody "takes any adverse action against" people "substantially motivated by sincere religious belief."

"The law protects religious liberty not only in houses of worship—but also in schools, in businesses, in the military, in public forums, and in the town square. These protections are afforded to all people, of all faiths," Abbott wrote in the directive. "Yet in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision, the law's promise of religious liberty will be tested by some who seek to silence and marginalize those whose conscience will not allow them to participate in or endorse marriages that are incompatible with their religious beliefs."

In a statement blasting the Supreme Court's decision earlier on Friday, Abbott said that he would take direct action to protect the religious liberties of Texas residents.

"As I have done in the past, I will continue to defend the religious liberties of all Texans—including those whose conscience dictates that marriage is only the union of one man and one woman. Later today, I will be issuing a directive to state agencies instructing them to prioritize the protection of Texans' religious liberties," he said in a statement.

Abbott wrote that the Supreme Court has become "an unelected nine-member legislature."

"Five Justices on the Supreme Court have imposed on the entire country their personal views on an issue that the Constitution and the Court's previous decisions reserve to the people of the States," he said. "Despite the Supreme Court's rulings, Texans' fundamental right to religious liberty remains protected. No Texan is required by the Supreme Court's decision to act contrary to his or her religious beliefs regarding marriage."

The state's attorney general also expressed concern that the ruling could lead to intolerance of certain religious beliefs.

"The truth is that the debate over the issue of marriage has increasingly devolved into personal and economic aggression against people of faith who have sought to live their lives consistent with their sincerely-held religious beliefs about marriage," Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a Friday statement. "This ruling will likely only embolden those who seek to punish people who take personal, moral stands based upon their conscience and the teachings of their religion."

"It is not acceptable that people of faith be exposed to such abuse," he continued. "Displays of hate and intolerance against people of faith should be denounced by all people of good will and spark concern among anyone who believes in religious liberty and freedom for all."

Though he disapproved of the ruling, Paxton said that Texas would be following the Supreme Court ruling, and county clerks in Texas began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples on Friday.

Meanwhile in Louisiana:

"Current state law is still in effect until the courts order us otherwise," said Mike Reed, Jindal's spokesman in the governor's office.

"There is not yet a legal requirement for officials to issue marriage licenses or perform marriages for same-sex couples in Louisiana," [Attorney General Buddy Caldwell] said in a written statement.

[Martinus]

I hope Obama sends in the National Guard.

[Monoriu]

I hope this puts an end to this ridiculous controversy 

So when gay marriage in China/Hong Kong, Mono? 

It isn't a mainstream issue here.  As in, not that many people care.  Yet 

[Martinus]

The Onion from 2004

Massachusetts Supreme Court Orders All Citizens To Gay Marry

BOSTON—Justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled 5-2 Monday in favor of full, equal, and mandatory gay marriages for all citizens. The order nullifies all pre-existing heterosexual marriages and lays the groundwork for the 2.4 million compulsory same-sex marriages that will take place in the state by May 15.

"As we are all aware, it's simply not possible for gay marriage and heterosexual marriage to co-exist," Massachusetts Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall said. "Our ruling in November was just the first step toward creating an all-gay Massachusetts."

Marshall added: "Since the allowance of gay marriage undermines heterosexual unions, we decided to work a few steps ahead and strike down opposite-sex unions altogether."

Marshall said the court's action will put a swift end to the mounting debate.

"Instead of spending months or even years volleying this thing back and forth, we thought we might as well just cut to the eventual outcome of our decision to allow gay marriages," Marshall said. "Clearly, this is where this all was headed anyway."

The justices then congratulated the state's 4.8 million marriage-age residents on their legally mandated engagements.

The court issued the surprise order in response to a query from the Massachusetts Senate over whether Vermont-style civil unions, which convey the state-sanctioned benefits of marriage but not the title, are constitutional.

"If the history of our nation has demonstrated anything, it's that separate is never equal," Marshall said. "Therefore, any measure short of dismantling conventional matrimony and mandating the immediate homosexual marriage of all residents of Massachusetts would dishonor same-sex unions. I'm confident that this measure will be seen by all right-thinking people as the only solution to our state's, and indeed America's, ongoing marriage controversy."

Marshall then announced her engagement to Holyoke kindergarten teacher Betsy Peterson, a pairing that had been randomly generated by computers in the census office earlier that day.

Those who don't choose to marry in private will be married in concurrent mass ceremonies at Fenway Park, Gillette Stadium, and the Boston Convention and Exposition Center. Any citizen who is not gay-married or is still in an illegal heterosexual relationship after that date will be arrested and tried for non-support.

Hundreds of confused but vocal protesters lined the street outside the statehouse Monday night, waving both American and rainbow flags. Their chants, which broke out in pockets up and down the street, included, "Hey hey, ho ho, homophobia's got to go, but frankly, this is fucked up" and "Adam and Eve or Adam and Steve, but not Adam and Some Random Guy." Others held signs that read, "On Second Thought, Boston Christians Are Willing To Consider A Compromise."

According to police reports, demonstrators were vocal but orderly.

"The unholy union of people of the same gender destroys the only type of romantic love sanctioned by Our Lord in Heaven: the love between a man and a woman," 54-year-old protester Rose Shoults said. "Me and my new partner Helene are going to fry in hell."

The much-anticipated order sets the stage for Massachusetts' upcoming constitutional convention, where the state legislature will consider an amendment to legally define marriage as a union between two members of the same gender. Without the order, Rep. Michael Festa said the vote, and his personally dreaded wedding to House Speaker and longtime political opponent Thomas Finneran, would be delayed.

"This is a victory, not only for our state, but for America," Festa said. "Simply allowing consenting gay adults the same rights as heterosexuals was never the point. By forcing everyone in the state into a gay marriage, we're setting the stage for our more pressing hidden agendas: mandatory sodomy and, in due time, the legalization of bestiality and pedophilia."

Massachusetts has one of the highest concentrations of gay households in the country, at 1.3 percent, according to the 2000 census. Under the new laws, the figure is expected to increase by approximately 98.7 percentage points.

[The Brain]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/how-will-the-us-supreme-courts-same-sex-marriage-decision-affect-religious-liberty/396986/?utm_source=SFFB

How Will the U.S. Supreme Court's Same-Sex-Marriage Decision Affect Religious Liberty?

For a long time, supporters of gay marriage in the U.S. were in the minority. As early as last year, that started changing, and now, a solid majority of Americans support same-sex unions. As of Friday, they can count the Supreme Court as their ally: In a 5-4 decision, the justices ruled that LGBT individuals have a Constitutionally protected right to wed.

What does this mean for the shrinking number—but still substantial portion—of Americans who oppose gay marriage, particularly on religious grounds? In their dissents to the Court's opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, Justices Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas worry other Americans' right to dissent to gay marriage, just as they have. They worry what will happen as those who oppose gay marriage become, for the first time in this country's history, a minority.

This is not a new fear. Especially over the last two years, as more and more states have legalized same-sex marriage, religious conservatives have expressed anxiety about attacks on religious freedom: the cake baker who doesn't want to work a same-sex wedding ceremony, the college that faces potential consequences for not supporting homosexuality. In a statement outside of the Supreme Court following the Obergefell decision, Russell Moore, the head of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said, "We need to be the people who know how to articulate a Christian vision of sexuality that will be increasingly counter-cultural from this point on."

Alito shares this anxiety. "Today's decision ... will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy," he writes. In particular, he objects to the comparison between bans on same-sex marriage and the bans on interracial marriage that were widespread before the Court overturned them in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia. "The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent," he argues.

On Friday, same-sex marriage supporters outside of the Supreme Court were giddy with delight—advocates have been working toward this moment for literally decades. There was also somewhat giddy dissent: Bobby Jindal, Louisiana's governor and a GOP presidential candidate, suggested that the Court should be abolished. Pike Couty, Alabama, has decided to stop issuing marriage licenses altogether. But as Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas point out, this decision will almost certainly kick off a series of legal challenges related to religious liberty. The justices focus on three issues in particular, some of which have already created legal and political tussles: gay adoption; the tax-exempt status of religious organizations that wish to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; and the obligation of private churches and individuals to recognize and perform same-sex marriages.

As The New York Times wrote earlier this month, this decision means that "gay couples [will] for the first time be able to widely adopt children regardless of which state they live in." Same-sex partners have long struggled to secure adoption rights, particularly in states that place limitations on the kinds of couples that can adopt. Mississippi, for example, has a law expressly forbidding adoption by couples of the same gender; Nebraska restricts same-sex couples from being foster parents. These laws may face challenges in light of the Court's decision, but another kind of law may become more common: Earlier in June, Michigan passed a law allowing adoption agencies—even those that are publicly funded—to refuse to place children with same-sex couples if they have religious objections to doing so. It's unclear how this religious-liberty claim might be interpreted in light of Obergefell; this is one of the "hard questions" that will be raised by the Court's decision, Roberts writes, and "there is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court."

The other example Roberts specifically calls out is the tax status of religious organizations that wish to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. This was a question that came up during oral arguments for Obergefell: Alito raised a 1983 case involving the evangelical Christian Bob Jones University, which had refused to allow interracial dating on its campus. The Court ruled that the school could not be tax exempt if it maintained its ban; the university accepted the consequences, not changing its policy until 2000. The question, now, is what will happen to the many, many religious organizations that don't support homosexuality, let alone gay marriage. This involve everything from stated policies—"for example, [when] a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples," Roberts writes—to issues of employment and benefits for employees in gay unions.

Examples of this have already come up. The most prominent example is that of Gordon College, which faced the possibility of losing its accreditation after the New England Associations of Schools and Colleges asked it to review how its policies affect gay students. The school has decided to maintain its position on sexuality, which prohibits student or faculty sex outside of heterosexual marriage. It could be a signal of similar cases to come—last summer, for example, a broad coalition of faith leaders asked President Obama to provide a exemption for religious groups in an executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating against gays and lesbians. Those same groups that asked for the exemption will likely face new questions in the days to come on how the Obergefell decision should affect their policies.

Finally, individual church leaders—and judges—will face decisions about whether to perform and recognize gay marriages. In June, North Carolina passed a law allowing judges to refuse to issue marriage licenses altogether if they object to same-sex unions on religious grounds. This law may only be the beginning. "In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well," Thomas writes. "It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples."

The future of gay marriage has long been a question in the United States, and on Friday, the country got an answer. The questions and conversations surrounding gay marriage now will be of a different kind: what it means to oppose, rather than support, same-sex marriage.

I don't understand why religious views should be more protected than other views.

[Martinus]

Because Jesus.

[garbon]

I can't wait till that dreadful facebook filter goes away.

[celedhring]

I can't wait till that dreadful facebook filter goes away.

Agree. Everybody in my news feed is using it now. And most of them aren't even American.